A few tips for creationist tract makers

Now I really hate to sound like I am putting down other Christians, I'm not and try hard not to; what I am doing is helping out my fellow Christians who happen to be creationists make tracts so they'll look more credible. And one way is to mend their gospel tracts. The gospel tracts I am referring to are the ones directed at mainly atheistic evolutionists. Often they have things in them which would probably cause the audience these Christians are trying to reach to dismiss them as ingorant bible-thumping bumpkins, and that is rarely a good thing. So this is to help out those evangelical tract-makers who want to send high quality tracts to their client churches.

The one I am reviewing is from A.C.T.S. ministries and interestingly enough it is actually much better written then most creation/evolution tracks put out by Way of the Master or Living Waters ministries (Ray Comfort and Kirk Camoren's ministries) but it still has a lot of the things which I find would not impress the average biology student.

Consider the introduction;

"Please don't put this down until you have read it thoroughly. We've taken
the time to share these truths with you and ask that you keep an open mind just
as you did when embracing darwinism

Please understand that all the scientific theories about the origin of
life, as taught in the public school system, have been proven by science,
history and the fossil record to be wrong. Evolution, Big Bang and others just
don't fit.

Please, read on and we believe you will conclude that Mr. Darwin was not a
bad man, but he was very wrong"

Now whats wrong with this introduction? Two things;
1. It calls evolution "darwinism," I know this is a minor point, but most evolutionary apologists do not like this term. Darwinism is a group of ideas and notions not necessarily connected to evolution so it should not be used when referring to evolution. When a creationist says "darwinism" most evolutionists other then myself take that to mean the creationist thinks evolution is some sort of cult which its not (some evolutionists even go as far to think creationists think that they worship Darwin as their deity which unfortionately some creationists do) and the creationist is dismissed as an idiot (yes as rediculous as it sounds many evolutionary apologists do make that big of a deal about it) and being seen as bigger idiots then they are already stereotyped is the last thing creationists need.
2. Never, ever say the Big Bang talks about the origin of life. It does not, it doesn't even talk about the origin of the universe only what happened afterwards (that the universe expanded and stars and galaxies were formed, etc.). Most creationists speak of evolution as an umbrella term referring to a veriaty of naturalistic explanations concerning origins whether cosmological, biological, or geological. Most educated creationists understand that they are studied in different fields and apply to different topics but they use the word "evolution" to refer collectively to naturalistic origins scenarios. However to the evolutionists' ears this sounds like you can't tell the difference between cosmology and biology. And just from the very first few sentences of your tracts you will be dismissed as a scientific ignoramus.

In then next section they talk about transitional forms between humans and apes. The problem with the next section is that the first part is a bit of an argument from personal incredulity (I can't imagine apes evolving into humans because they're to different) you want to watch out for that one. An argument from personal incredulity is basically stating you lack the of the ability to imagine something happens proves it did not happen; it is not a good argument and simply makes you look illogical and at best, unimaginative. If you want to make anymore then a comedic impression on an evolutionist leave those arguments out.

The next is to actually research your arguments before you use them. The second point of the tract consists of them talking about how radiometric dating is false. They simply give a few examples of radiocarbon dating giving off wild results. All the of the stated examples (a freshly killed seal being dated at 1300 years old, a living mollusk being dated at 2300 years old, and a shell on a living seal being dated at 27,000 years old) even if these count they only disprove radiocarbon dating, which only is used to date thins younger then 60,000 years. It does not disprove the accuracy of Potassium-Argon dating, Rubidium-Strontium dating or other methods used to date rocks that are actually millions of years old. Also all the examples can be explain by natural processes (because of more C14 in certain deep waters sea creatures can get more C 14 then usual thus making them look much older then they actually are). I should also add radiocarbon dating has been used to date the dead sea scrolls to have been written before Jesus' time, this means that we know from comparing the dead sea scrolls to modern day bibles that Christians didn't alter the text to make it appear more consistant with the New Testament.

In their third point about the fossil record the conclude by saying most scientists have abandoned Darwin's theories. This is simply not true, and shouldn't be propogated; yes a small number of scientists do oppose Darwin but they make up less then 1% of the scientific community, thats hardly most of the scientific community. If you say this the evolutionist may think you are lying (creationists have a rather nasty stereotypical trate which is lying) and your tract will be ignored.

Final suggestion, at the end of a tract, don't immediately launch into a discussion on the ten commandments and how your going to hell and need to be saved. The evolutionist reader whether atheistic or not will take this as a scare tactic (which is especially bad if you have a really bad tract going along with it) and dismiss you as religiously motivated scaremongers. Instead I would suggest simply ending it with the suggestion of there being a God and that God possibly being the God of the bible, then directing them to a source for more information. It makes you sound less like a cult and more like an evangelist.

Now to A.C.T.S. ministries I'd like to say keep up the good work but try to do a better job with your creation/evolution tracts.

And to Way of the Master; shape up.

A debate between Old earth creationists and Young earth creationists

A few months ago there was a debate between young earth creationists creationists Ken Ham and Jason Lisle and old earth creationist Hugh Ross with professor of the Old Testament Walter Kaiser on the John Ankerberg show; I don't agree with everything Hugh Ross says but I am much closer theologically and scientifically to Hugh Ross' position then Ken Ham's. It is rather interesting, I do not have the time now but I will give my comments on parts of it in later articles. You can see the debate here (it has ten parts so don't expect it to be short).

Please watch and share your opinions.

Response to AiGbusted

After writing an article about creationism which may have been taken in as in favor of creationism. AiGbusted responded to it. He stated in his article;

Not sure if any of you know, but Created and Rational wrote up a blog post that
seemed to express strong disagreement with a
post I made about Creationists not being able to trust their own thoughts.

I assure you I did disagree but my disagreement was not strong, I apologize if it came across as a acrimonious disagreement. I was simply stating what creationist actually believed about logic. And it was not addressed directly at AiGbusted but at the argument that it meant a creationist could not trust his own thoughts.

I do not disagree that the young earth creationist approach to science has many flaws. And it is true that the pressupostionalist position is a way to conveniently ignore any evidence. I was simply clarifying that they were not anti-knowledge or anti-thinking. I hope I was able to clear that up.

An analysis of the site "Disprove Darwin in under five minutes"

Well, Yesterday I got an email from my aunt, we'll call her Dr. Beverly Crusher of the US.S. Enterprise to to protect her anonymity. Anyway she sent a site called Disprove Darwin and on that site there was a particular letter on the site concerning the Age of the Earth. Here is the letter in its entirety;

Dear Wallace , I discovered something you might enjoy…It’s from an article by
Stephen Robbins, Ph.D. He was working on an excavation site in Montana with a
crew from the Discovery Channel. They were uncovering the remains of a giant T
Rex, the largest and most fearsome of all the dinosaurs. But the leg bone was so
heavy; they had to cut it in two so the helicopter could pick it up and carry it
out. That’s when they made a remarkable discovery. Inside the leg bone were
traces of organic tissue! One of the scientists noted that the proteins in the
bone could only stay around for a maximum of 100,000 years.

Very interesting…
How could tissue be in the bone of this T Rex if dinosaurs disappeared over 65
million years ago? It makes you wonder. Dr. Robbins came up with some very good
questions in response to the problem no one is talking about: The issue of
scientific dating and just how old the earth really is.Just in the last 75
years, the age of the earth has been changed several times. Back in 1934 they
were “certain” the world was 1.6 billion years old. Then in 1947 they were
“certain” the earth was 3.4 billion years old. Today the scientists say, “we’re
absolutely positive the earth is 4.6 billion years old.” You’re certain? Are you
really… How can you be certain when your estimates are constantly changing and
your techniques have flaws?While scientists rely on carbon and radiometric
dating, they never question the accuracy of their methods. But they should.
Sometimes mistakes are made. Unfortunately, they’re often ignored or dismissed.
Dr. Robbins points out that mistakes in radiometric dating are common. Here are
just a few:· A Hawaiian lava
flow from 1801 was dated as being 1.2 million years
old.· Volcanic rock from an
eruption of Mt. Etna in 1971 was dated as being 150,000 years
old.· The new lava dome formed
after Mount St. Helens erupted in 1980 was dated as being 350, 000 years
old.Amazing. How could these dates be so wrong? Dr. Robbins says radiometric
dating is based on assumptions that can sometimes turn out to be inaccurate. The
method involves looking at naturally occurring radioactive isotopes and how they
decay. But when the atoms around the nucleus are excited – like during a natural
cataclysm – decay is much faster, which makes things look much older when
they’re not. Dr. Robbins points out that these natural disasters are quite
common and can interfere with the accuracy of radiometric dating.

So did
dinosaurs really live millions and millions of years ago? Or did man walk
together with these great beasts side by side? Is the earth really 4.6 billion
years old? Or does the Bible have a better idea?

I’ll reveal more about this
fascinating – and often ignored – topic in future letters.

Stay tuned…

Yours in Faith,

Jeffrey Howard

Well, you can see it gives a lot of the same arguments for young earth that a lot of young earthers give. Let us now examine their "evidences;"

That’s when they made a remarkable discovery. Inside the leg bone were traces of
organic tissue! One of the scientists noted that the proteins in the bone could
only stay around for a maximum of 100,000 years. Very interesting… How could tissue be in the bone of this T Rex if dinosaurs disappeared over 65 million years ago? It makes you wonder

As many of you are aware this argument has been refuted by talk.origins I would not advise any creationist to use this argument As far as things being preserved it actually is possible for something extremely well preserved to last for a very long time. One thing you should realize however is that no DNA was found which would indicate a young age since DNA can't survive the ravages of time over 10,000 years. When creationists find DNA preserved in a dinosaur bone I will switch over to young earth creationism on the spot.

Just in the last 75 years, the age of the earth has been changed several times.
Back in 1934 they were “certain” the world was 1.6 billion years old. Then in
1947 they were “certain” the earth was 3.4 billion years old. Today the
scientists say, “we’re absolutely positive the earth is 4.6 billion years old.”

That is exactly how science works, if we invent a more accurate dating method and get a completely different date, younger or older, then we will change the age as well. There is nothing wrong with this. I'd suggest AiG add this to its list of arguments not to use.

You’re certain? Are you really… How can you be certain when your estimates are
constantly changing and your techniques have flaws?

I'd hardly call it constantly changing consensus on the age of the earth has been largely the same since the 1950s and the invention of the modern dating methods. True there are some problems with the dating methods but it is accurate enough.

While scientists rely on carbon and radiometric dating, they never question the
accuracy of their methods. But they should. Sometimes mistakes are made.
Unfortunately, they’re often ignored or dismissed.

It would seem awfully strange that a discipline built on self-doubt and questioning would commit such an uncritical act as not checking their more important dating measures. They do realize that radiocarbon dating has limits, and is only used to date objects 50,000 years old or younger because it is inaccurate beyond 50,000 years. Radiocarbon dating was used to verify that the Dead Sea Scrolls were made before Jesus' life time and therefore could be used to show that Christians didn't alter the Old Testament to make it agree with the New Testament. So I don't know why you're trying to disprove the accuracy of radiocarbon dating.

Dr. Robbins points out that mistakes in radiometric dating are common. Here
are just a few:
· A Hawaiian lava flow from 1801 was dated as being 1.2 million
years old.
· Volcanic rock from an eruption of Mt. Etna in 1971 was dated
as being 150,000 years old.
· The new lava dome formed after Mount St. Helens erupted in
1980 was dated as being 350, 000 years old.

Look up xenoliths, those mis-datings in particular involved the new formed lava being temporarily aged by fragments of older rock. This is not anomalous.

Amazing. How could these dates be so wrong? Dr. Robbins says radiometric dating
is based on assumptions that can sometimes turn out to be inaccurate.

That's often because its used to date objects which shouldn't really be dated with radiocarbon. Geologists accept there are limits to radiometric dating but that doesn't mean it can't be used.

The method involves looking at naturally occurring radioactive isotopes
and how they decay. But when the atoms around the nucleus are excited – like
during a natural cataclysm – decay is much faster, which makes things look much
older when they’re not.

Maybe, but you still need evidence, and your ability in that area leaves a lot to be desired, these arguments you have given have all been defeated one way or another, you need to find current up to date evidence and publish it in a peer-reviewed journal for all the world to see, not a dark corner of the Internet where you can preach to your fellow young earth creationists.

Stay tuned…

Yours in Faith,

Jeffrey Howard

In kind regards to Christ
Created Rationalist

P.S. the Creationist I was talking to was not my aunt but the creationist who wrote this article,

Rethinking Creationism: Is it possible our presuppostions do affect how we interpret the evidence?

Do not be alarmed by this question. This is NOT and argument for creationism, I am simply correcting a my mishandling of the AiG position that evolution is based on the philosophy of naturalism. I feel I have misunderstood their position and I have caused confusion among others such as AiGbusted And being that no creationist will defend himself I have put it on myself to respond to the criticism since I understand their true position, it still is somewhat flawed but it is not as nutty as they make it appear.

AiG creationist thinkers at least have adopted almost a form of Critical Realism in regards to the past. Nothing can be absolutely proven in relation to the distant past before human presence in the region. Therefore whatever theory you make about the past is not independent of your presuppositions. This is how I have basically explained it, and earlier I criticized it on the grounds that it was an attempt on the part of the creationists to avoid the obvious evidence for evolution. Either way their position appears to have been mishandled by several people such as AiGbusted. It has been interpreted as saying we cannot trust our own thoughts because thoughts. The misunderstanding probably stems from this quote form the AiG article, "Is nature the 67th book of the bible?":

"Many who trust in humans as the highest authority reject the Curse as true history and thus deny its effect on our observations. Some point to the effects of the Curse as proof of “bad design.” For Christians, however, it is foolish to ignore the Curse when considering what nature can “reveal” to us. After all, this would be like someone trusting a funhouse mirror to show them how they really looked. They look into the mirror and see a distorted view but assume that this mirror must be “right.”"

Now at first glance this does seem to say that we cannot trust our senses and this does seem to contradict what creationist have claimed about evolution being anti-science and anti-knowledge since it means our brain is just an assortment of chemicals which evolved over billions of years and can't be trusted. Is this a contradiction made by the author? No, creationists such as Ken Ham say that there is a distinction between what they call "operational" science and "historical" science. Operational science is everyday repeatable science which has been used to build technology and send humans to the moon. Historical Science on the other hand has to do with the distant past and origins which are affected by our presuppositions and is therefore not science in the same sense that operational science is. Furthermore in regards of repeatable, testable, and operational science the senses are very reliable and they believe that science requires "biblical presuppositions". loved and hated Creationist astrophysicist Dr. Jason Lisle explains:

"he biblical creationist expects there to be order in the universe because God made all things (John 1:3) and has imposed order on the universe. Since the Bible teaches that God upholds all things by His power (Hebrews 1:3), the creationist expects that the universe would function in a logical, orderly, law-like fashion. Furthermore, God is consistent and omnipresent. Thus, the creationist expects that all regions of the universe will obey the same laws, even in regions where the physical conditions are quite different. The entire field of astronomy requires this important biblical principle."

However they say science in relation to the distant past before the existence of humans or at least before written records and such cannot be proven and if any theory is not based of biblical presuppositions it is flawed because it does not take the bible (what they believe to be the foundation of science) into account. Also the fall is used to explain things like mutations, disease, and some instances of bad design so if you follow their logic nature gives a distorted portrayal of God and thus while it is useful (they believe that historical science can work if interpreted through biblical assumptions) it should not be put at the same level as the bible. That is all they are saying, they are not saying thoughts are unreliable.

If one is to respond to creationist claims he must do it with an accurate portrayal of creationist beliefs not a distorted view and that is the purpose of this article, it is not to endorse young earth creationism in any way. It is to correct flawed arguments in the same way AiGers have done already.

Is Nature's record unreliable because we live in a fallen world?

The young earth creationist ministry Answers In Genesis has a track record of deriding modern science and the theology which concures with modern science. Now there are many Christians who say that I am overly harsh with AiGers and other creationists, of course that only goes to show that they do not know what "harsh" means; you think I'm harsh? Check out this (theistic evolutionist) guy I rest my case.

Anyway one of their most recent articles Are we missing something? in which they attempt to say nature's record is unreliable since Man is fallen.

When people look to nature to reveal truth, they are falling into the same
speculation trap as in describing the house in the field. No matter how
imaginative or intelligent they are, they can never know exactly what happened
in history without trustworthy eyewitness accounts.
Those who promote nature
as a missing aspect of God’s revelation (the so-called “67th book of the Bible”)
need to understand two crucial fallacies with this idea: first, nature is
cursed; second, our observations of nature are not independent from our
presuppositions. When we examine these problems, we see that nature should never
be put on the same level as the Bible.

Essentially this is one of the most major misconceptions floating around the young earth community that we can not know the past. I have already pointed out the problems with this view. Now to the proposition that our trust in nature's account are fallacious; first of all the bible does not say nature is cursed, the only creature positively under the influence of the curse is Man himself. Secondly the scientific method works around this problem, I'll get to this in a moment.

Many who trust in humans as the highest authority reject the Curse as true
history and thus deny its effect on our observations. Some point to the effects
of the
Curse as proof of “bad design.” For Christians, however, it is foolish to
ignore the Curse when considering what nature can “reveal” to us. After all,
this would be like someone trusting a funhouse mirror to show them how they
really looked. They look into the mirror and see a distorted view but assume
that this mirror must be “right.”
Likewise, while nature does reflect some of
God’s qualities (Romans 1:20), if we trusted the nature we see now to show who
God is, we would see the death, violence, and plant and animal defense and
predatory structures and imagine God as reveling in death and destruction.

I for one do not deny the curse, however I take it as being less universal then AiGers take it to be. I did affect Man's reasoning powers and there is no doubt we humans live in a fallen world and that there definitely is something wrong with creation.,however this does not mean that nature is therefore unreliable. Science can evade the difficulties of the fallen human intellect because;

1. Science is not determined by human opinion but by the facts

2. science is self-correcting and any error will be eventually mended because of the scientific process.

3. Being that God wrote the record of nature it can never truly contradict God's word therefore nature should be reliable since it is inspired by God and God is incapable of lying.

This isn’t to say that we shouldn’t study nature. After all, “nature” is
everything around us, and God gave it to humanity so that we could look into the
universe around us and see His glory. However, nature is only as impartial as
the viewer. Although nature itself does not lead to false conclusions about the
past, people who look at nature can be misled by their own mistaken
presuppositions. Those who look to nature as an objective source of God’s
revelation (or an objective source of scientific truth) are ultimately looking,
instead, at their own preconceptions—even if they don’t realize they have them.

This is how science works and another reason why we as Christians have nothing to fear from science; if the current take on the physical record contradicts the bible it will eventually shift back because truth cannot contradict truth.
For the last part I will give comments on in a slightly more choppy fashion.

Ultimately, God’s Word reveals the reason that we should never consider nature
as our sole source of knowledge or as an extra book of the Bible:
The grass
withers and the flowers fall, but the Word of our God stands forever. (Isaiah 40:8; 1 Peter 1:24–25)

True, but he also says "Speak to the rocks and they shall teach you" (Job 12:7-8). The aforementioned passage is most likely referring to God's eternality, not necessarily nature's record.

When the Bible mentions nature and the Word together, we find that only one
of them is permanent and foundational for knowing and fulfilling His will.
Nature—this universe—will pass away and be rolled up like a scroll (Isaiah 34:4), but God’s Word will endure.

Of course I agree, it is the bible (special revelation) which give us what is important in an eternal sense, everything else only matters in a finite and limited scope.

If we depend on nature to reveal the truth, and especially if we reinterpret
God’s Words based on our stories and interpretations of nature, we will be
building our house on a foundation of sand. By contrasting the transience of
nature with the constancy of His Word, God shows us that His Word alone is
sufficient revelation—and in fact, the only
logical framework—from which we can understand and appreciate the universe
around us.

I agree the bible is a logical framework for science but there is no reason to restrict ourselves to an outdated interpretation of the bible. In science the facts speak for themselves, and the facts say; earth is 4.55 billion years old, man shares common ancestry with great apes, and that the universe is 13.7 billion years old. And biblical theology says; there is no reason for the curse to be extended beyond Mankind or for the days of creation to be interpreted as ordinary days.
Young Earth Creationism is unnecessary from both a scientific and theological perspective so why are we still supporting it in the year 2008?

Now if you object to this I am not closed to discussion, if it turns out that I am horribly wrong then I will gladly change my position on Genesis but for now I remain unconvinced.

By the way I must apologize for my lull in the number of posts I make. I have been really busy and I have been putting of updating this blog for a while, I'll try to be more persistant next time, sorry.

33-48,000 year old tree stump found in Permian rock?

I was just reading an article on the AiG website where a 33,000 year old tree stump was found in Permian rock. The tree stump was dated with Radiocarbon (although obviously one shouldn't be using radiocarbon dating to test a 250 million year old rock). The notes after the creationist article claims that it most certainly was not due to contamination as well as in the article itself. The author seems pretty confident that it is genuine.

As many of you know the amount of C-14 in an atom becomes unnoticeable after 50,000 years, so the rationale is why is this C-14 has not become untraceable being that the rock it was found in is supposed to be 250 million years old? Being that it was written in 1998 Talk Origins probably already has a response to it. Otherwise could this be the "Cambrian bunny rabbit" that we have been asking creationists for? Young Earth Creationists don't get too excited but this could be something that genuinely contradicts the geological record as seen by modern science.

And to my fellow old earthers who may or may not also be creationists; it is your duty to debunk this.

Why Young Earth Creationism isn't science

I have been asked why I don't consider young earth creationism science. It is true young earth creationism is having an unanswerable problem with evidence to support itself, but that does not mean it couldn't otherwise be a scientific theory.

The reason its not science is because young earth creationism does not even follow the same methodology as science, so even if it were legitimate it wouldn't be considered science. You see science starts with no presuppositions of how the world is supposed to be, then looks at the evidence and forms a conclusion; presuppositions may exist but they are ignored. Science draws the conclusion after gathering the evidence. Young Earth Creationism starts out with the conclusion that earth is 6,000 years old and was reshaped by flood 4400 years ago and then find evidence to support the conclusion they have already come to, then they have to force-fit all science into this conclusion. They even freely preach this position; here is a quote from the leading creationist Ken Ham;

When someone tells me they want ‘proof’ or ‘evidence’, not the Bible, my
response is as follows:
‘You might not believe the Bible but I do. And I
believe it gives me the right basis to understand this universe and correctly
interpret the facts around me. I’m going to give you some examples of how
building my thinking on the Bible explains the world and is not contradicted by
science. For instance, the Bible states that God made distinct kinds of animals
and plants. Let me show you what happens when I build my thinking on this
presupposition. I will illustrate how processes such as natural selection,
genetic drift, etc. can be explained and interpreted. You will see how the
science of genetics makes sense based upon the Bible.’

At first glance Ken Ham's view does seem reasonable after all we do interpret everything according to our own biases don't we? Also This perspective allows a person intelligent or not to comfortably except any view and feel perfectly comfortable with it, even though to an outside observer it may obvious that the person is mistaken. Ken Ham has successfully crafted a way that you can believe whatever you want and not have to deal with what the facts have to actually say at all. If I didn't have such high scruples and respect for rational inquiry I would accept this view; it is very, very comfortable, but is it rational? Is this view really how we find truth, is this really how science worked all along? In any area? Why if this idea were true archaeology would be impossible since we would not know anything about this civilization except what they left behind, "we weren't there." The past before human experience can be known.
Suppose I were out hiking in the mountains and I came across the body of a deer which had fallen in my path, also suppose after examining it I found that it was torn apart and showed teeth marks, I would say it must have been eaten by wolves. At this point the only evidence for a wolf attack is the fact that it has teeth marks on its body (as well as the fact that its body was in several pieces). Well what else can I do? Suppose I were to look for wolf foot prints, the deer looks like it was killed relatively recently so there should still be foot prints in the area; so I look around and lo' and behold, there are wolf foot prints all around the place. Also lets say I have to spend the night around that spot, and while I am uneasily trying to sleep I hear wolves howling. This is not a perfect analogy but it shows you can indeed tell what happened in the past without having to here it from an eye witness. Now I may not have the entire picture but I have the basic idea; the deer was attacked by wolves, large parts of its body were eaten. So I can get some idea of the past, unlike how Ken Ham seems to think that we have no way of knowing.

Also there are several problems just with his last few sentences.
--Science does not make sense under his interpretation of the bible
--The bible was never meant to be a science textbook, the bible itself makes this obvious, if it were meant to be a scientific text, the parts of the bible discussing scientific topics (the origin of the universe for one) would be no doubt more detailed.

What do we have here in this view that young earth creationists embrace? Well if this is true and our presuppositions determine reality, then there is no objective truth. You can go ahead and claim the bible is the truth in this view but that is just you assertion, there actually is no substance to it, a Muslim could just as easily claim that what the koran says is absolute truth and his position would be just as valid as your own. Unknowingly and unintentionally Ken Ham and his followers have bought into postmodernism, a view which is both anti-science and anti-Christian, both science and the Christian faith demand that there is a truly objective truth to which all truth can be tested against, otherwise both are in trouble. No matter how tempting an idea may be, we cannot accept postmodern ideas to justify its acceptance.

It must also be mentioned that this view has a general intolerance about it, Answers in Genesis will accept no other interpretations then their own, if you question it based on scientific evidence which contradicted it, you are now a heretic. If we are to make this view the normal view of the scientific community then we have just sentenced science and the scientists to prison, this isn't reconciling science and faith, it is placing science under the thumb of an unnecessary dogma. This isn't science being reconciled with faith, its more like science being oppressed by faith. What could happen if this view is accepted as the mainstream philosophical view on science? Scientists may be forced to rewrite all science into a particular interpretation of the bible, any evidence that truly contradicts their philosophical presuppositions will have to be rationalized or ignored, if they dare try to bring it up as a challenge to the particular view of the scientific community, it would be like a rerun of the Spanish inquisition.

Answers in Genesis says so itself that no theory if it contradicts their view of scripture can be legitimate, if it conflicts with there position it is wrong and that's that, no other examination required. And anyone who dares oppose there position will be fired from their job, lose their reputation and ultimately neither science nor Christianity will be helped by this theocratic control over the scientific community; both will be held back, perhaps for centuries.

Now I am not saying people don't have presuppostions, of course they dom its just they must be discussed in their proper place, in the realm of metaphysics, not in physical science.

I am not saying the AiG proponents all think this way or that somewhere along the line the next generation which holds this veiw might become the oppressors

Restated statement of faith

For some reason I thought my beliefs were well understood. I am an evangelical Christian who believes in the inerrancy of the bible and still accepts the current scientific theories on the origin of the universe ans the diversity of life. I thought it was well understood that I was a Christian Apologist. Well after reviewing this comment on my last post I realize that I was gravely mistaken; the parts which are sadly misconstrued I will put in bold.

The problem with Christians is the same problem with any other group of people,
it is made up of people and people will always make mistakes. People posting on
youtube should take extra care that they are presenting the truth. Obviously
there is a lot of ignorance out there but not all Christians or all YE
Creationists are ignorant. Many of are trying to understand the points of common
agreement and the points of disagreement.Created Rationalist could you create a
post stating what you do believe? I am curious to see how much we agree on. I
believe we will have more in common than in opposition.

Sigh....I don't know How this person thinks that I think all Christians are ignorant,

this is what I said;

You may remember my statement about Ben Stein being unknowledgeable about
evolution and the nature of science what I said here has been replaced with these bold letters to tell you I should not have said that, here are some
unfortunate examples;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NiNGK3y5Ypghttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3X8aifay678The
first video Ben Stein butchers the term evolution (or Darwinism). Now although
Darwinism is an actual
concept, it is not the theory of evolution itself, merely the underlying
philosophical concept which Natural Selection is associated with. He like many
creationists seems to confuse evolution with abiogenesis, this is not true
considering that there are evolutionists who do not believe in abiogenesis (such
as advocates of Panspermia
and some theistic evolutionists). And since he calls evolution "lightning
striking a mud puddle he obviously doesn't know what evolution or abiogenesis
are."In the second video Ben Stein seems to be mistaking evolution (or
"Darwinism" as he calls it) for the secular theory on the origin of every
concept known to science (life, gravitation, etc.) and thus stretches across
every field of science (biology, astronomy, physics). In actuality evolution is
only an attempt to explain the diversity of life and how organisms change over
time, and how genes drift through populations. I don't think Christians or anyone
associated with the Intelligent Design movement should support Stein, he
unfortunately is also rather dishonest in his tactics.

Where did I even use the word Christian except at the end where I said I didn't think Christians or Intelligent Design advocates should support the movie expelled? I said many creationists misunderstand it, this does not mean most are ignorant, only some. Also I definitely do not think all Christians are ignorant, I have no idea how this person got that. I definitely don't think that my coreligionists are all ignorant yokels. Unless this person equates belief in young earth creationism with Christianity and evolution with Atheism.


Really I don't care what a Christian decides to believe about creation. If you decide you want to believe that the earth was created in 6 days 6,000 years ago and you are secure in your faith then go ahead. But there are also many Christians myself including who are not satisfied with young earth creationism and would rather believe God used mainly natural processes to get us here. Now both sides have a tendency to attack each other on this subject. But when my position is attacked I will defend it. There are a lot of people who believe in God and the bible because they know secular science and the bible are reconcilable. Saying it can't be can hurt their faith in God and the bible. And I will fight against anyone who is a potential threat to my brothers and sisters of faith. I believe you should review what Jesus said about those who led others astray with their teachings. Also if a young earth creationist, atheistic evolutionist, theistic evolutionist or anyone says something I know to be wrong about the natural world or the bible I will correct them, as Jesus said, the truth will set you free.

I will end this by telling you exactly what I believe;
--That Jesus Christ lived, literally died on the cross for all mankind and literally rose again on the third day.
--That Jesus is God incarnate, and the creator of the universe
--That the universe and all life was ultimately created by God
--and that Christians rather then indulging themselves in petty conflicts should work to make a better place according to the Creation Mandate (Genesis 1:28) and spread the gospel as well and clearly as possible according to the Great Commission (Mark 16:15).

I hope no one will misinterpret that...