Friday, December 20, 2019

Ham Must Never be Swallowed Whole, Part 3


Ham secondly asserts that geological evidence too affirms a global flood; a notion he supports by appealing to the presence of fossils on the top of Mt. Everest (which is indeed the case).[i]  Upon first consideration this point might seem to amount to a slam dunk argument in favor of a global flood.  Yet there are two factors which completely undermine the contention that the array of geological features across our world were caused by a single flood.  Firstly, the recently discovered phenomenon of plate tectonics fully explains not only the current configuration of our continents, but also the extensive world-wide presence of mountain ranges whose features suggest it was the colliding of landmasses which caused their folded and buckled features.  YECs will of course argue that a flood as massive as they allege Noah’s to have been, is likewise able to account for such features.  Yet that is impossible for two reasons.  Firstly, individual layers of rock and/or sand are often sandwiched between other layers which show no geological relationship with their “bed-fellows” above and below  Yet what is even more problematic for YECs is that each individual layer of fossils (as opposed to solely rock) must, in order to be preserved, become hardened prior to the formation of the layer of fossils above it.[ii]  The existence of multitudes of fossil formations thousands of feet high across the globe utterly refutes the possibility that the “whole show” was caused by a single flood within a single a year. 

YECs in reply occasionally postulate that God has the capacity to miraculously create a multi-faceted fossil record such as geologists have uncovered in their fieldwork.  My reply to that assertion is that yes, He can do such things.  But the all-relevant question is, did He?[iii]  Since, as I stated above, God employs the TN as a standard against which He will judge all of those who deny His existence, I find it ludicrous to suggest that He would resort to a deceptive ploy to achieve that purpose.  Finally, in spite of the respect for Ham’s piety and zeal that I earlier acknowledged, I judge that the error-ridden contents of his message undermine people’s receptivity to a Gospel which we proclaim is a matter of sober truth (2 Cor. 5:10).  How much better it is to commend the Gospel on the very grounds upon which it appeals: that it is through the witness of nature, as opposed to despite it, that “God’s invisible nature, namely His eternal power and deity is clearly perceived” (Rom. 1:20).



[i] http://mathisencorollary.blogspot.com/2012/03/crinoids-on-mount-everest.html
[ii] Access at Op.cit. (3).
[iii] See my paper, “Could God Do a Noahic Global Flood?” at Op.cit. (3).

Monday, December 16, 2019

Ham Must Never be Swallowed Whole, Part 2


According to the “correspondence view” of truth (which is the classical definition of the word) the only way truth can ever be established is by means of actual demonstration, irrespective of the context.[i]  When for example the biblical prophets uttered the phrase “thus says the Lord,” their goal wasn’t to evade scrutiny, but instead to distinguish the source of the words they declared; be it Yahweh, or instead the sinful hearts of the false prophets.  But substantiating their claims was a far different matter that was achieved by other means (Deuteronomy 18:15-22, Isaiah 41:21-24, and Jeremiah 28:9) which consisted of testing the words of the prophets against the actuality of the circumstances that they foretold.  This is one glaring illustration as to why it is that Ham’s means for determining truth utterly conflicts with the Bible.  In terms of verifying biblical truth-claims for the purpose of discerning whether or not they be true, they must be shown to reconcile with the reality they describe, in the same way that scientific hypotheses can only prevail insofar as they square with the data they address.  This means that scientific and legal claims are dealt with in exactly the same manner as biblical pronouncements.  I can think of no example in Scripture where it bypasses this very method of substantiating its own truth.

It so happens that with respect to Ken Ham’s views, both sides of the equation on the table are sources of contention which demand clarification.  The first of these concerns interpreting Genesis with respect to, for the purposes of this paper, the geographical extent of Noah’s flood.  I do not challenge the biblical claims about either the extinction of virtually all of the human race living in Noah’s time,[ii] or the size of his ark as replicated in Ham’s full-scale model which rests on dry ground near Williamstown, Kentucky.[iii]  What I instead contest are his views both that Noah’s flood completely covered the entire globe to such a depth that even the highest mountains were submerged, and that every mountainous feature today was caused by that one flood (with the exception of events observed in modern times). 

In support of Ham’s views, he appeals to such biblical texts as “the waters prevailed above the mountains, covering them fifteen cubits deep” (Gen. 7:20 – RSV), which, together with other verses, I fully concede, appears to imply that the flood was global.  The problem with Ham’s tactic, however, is two-fold.  Firstly, the Hebrew vocabulary yields a moderating view of the heights of the so-called “moun-tains” that are referenced in this account.  Secondly, when we take note of the context of the similar biblical phrases such as “all the world,” there are good reasons to downscale the geographical extent of Noah’s flood[iv] from a global event to instead a region which was populated with humans (Gen. 11:1-5) somewhere in what is known today as the Middle East.  This view which I am taking, by the way, does not contest God’s ability to cover the globe completely in water if He had so wished.  After all, what problem is this small matter for “a God” who created the entire universe by His word? (Heb. 11:3).                                    To be continued...



[i] Whether truth is sought in the arenas of science, law, or with respect to biblical claims, each context abides by this dictum.
[ii] Op.cit. (4).
[iii] Op.cit. (7).
[iv]These insights are spelled out in greater detail in my paper referenced in note 4, above.  I full acknowledge my indebtedness to the insights of Hugh Ross referenced in note 7, above.

Monday, December 9, 2019

Ham Must Never be Swallowed Whole, Part 1


They received the Word with all eagerness examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things are so.” – Acts 17:11

               I first of all wish to acknowledge my agreement with Ken Ham[i] on five core matters: 1) the Bible is the inspired Word of God, 2) the degree that people grasp matters of origins has a bearing on their receptivity to the Gospel, 3) it is not legitimate to compromise on the core[ii] meaning of biblical texts including, for the purposes of this paper, matters of creation, Adam’s fall, and Noah’s flood,[iii] and consequently 4) that Noah’s flood occurred in accordance with the relevant texts of Scripture.[iv] 5) It is for these reasons that I cannot fault Mr. Ham for the spirit of urgency which clearly drives his message.  Nevertheless, I must now illustrate that his zeal fails to be tempered with a necessary degree of caution.  Visitors to his website will surely notice his assertion that any deviation from his young-earth creationist[v] (YEC) and global-flood[vi] (GF) views amount to both biblical unfaithfulness and an idolatrous loyalty to science; both of which he alleges contribute to growing apathy toward the Gospel of Christ in our day.  Indeed, implications from his views effectively overthrow our trust in knowledge from core scientific fields. Consequently, the stakes behind the takeaway from his message are far more massive than is the size of his Ark in Kentucky.[vii]  For this reason his agenda demands thorough scrutiny.  Indeed it is my judgment that Mr. Ham commits serious error on several fundamental fronts; the ramifications of which not only undermine the veracity of the very Scriptures that we both embrace; it also thwarts the spread of the Gospel in our society which seeks to expose as folly, every rational fallacy that he commits. 

Obviously, this means that my challenge to Ham should likewise receive scrutiny.  And indeed, I do encourage readers to undertake that investigation by first of all asking the question of how the Bible delineates its own authority specifically in the face of what we today call scientific[viii] knowledge.  YECs for example insist that whenever scientific data conflicts with a biblical pronouncement, the former must always yield to the judgment of the latter.  In other words, the body of scientific clues which indicate that creation is billions of years old must defer to the text of Genesis 1 on the age of creation.  Yet despite a propensity for either camp to claim triumph in the apparent clash between science and religion over the course of time,[ix] the Bible quells this very tension, and it does so in two distinct ways.  Firstly, in contradiction to YEC, Romans 1:18-20 says that the testimony of nature (TN), aka “scientific data,” is NOT a deceptive conveyor of the cause of nature’s origin.  Indeed this very witness is deemed by Scripture to be so trustworthy, the Bible employs it as one standard (among others) against which those who reject God will be judged.  Woe then to anyone who seeks to undermine the testimony of nature!  Secondly, the Bible actually exhibits (through employing) this principle by appealing to evidence from science, history, and rationality as external[x] indicators that God’s Word is truth (John 17:17).[xi]

                                                                                                              To be continued...




[i] The founder and president of the young-earth creationist think-tank, “Answers in Genesis.”
[ii] In this context I am urging focus on the broad picture as distinct from minute details.
[iii] I do not resort to compromising Scripture, but instead seek to harmonize Scripture and science with legitimate hermeneutical methods. See my essay, “Defusing the Alleged Conflict Between Scientific Fact and the Text of Genesis 1 Without Compromising Either One,” which together with all my papers can be found at my website: www.christianityontheoffense.com.
[iv] See my paper, “The Biblical Extent of Noah’s Flood, Revisited,” at Ibid.
[v] Young-earth creationists hold that the entire creation is approximately 8,000 years old.  I argue, by contrast, that the text of Genesis 1 allows for the view that creation is perhaps billions of years old. ** See my two papers, 16 page “The Biblical Demand to Take Another Look: Ten ‘Compelling’ Exegetical Reasons the Creation Days are 24-Hour,” and my 1 page summary, “15 Clues in the Text of Genesis 1 Indicating that Creation is Ancient.”
[vi] By “global” is meant that the entire world was covered in water rather than a limited area sufficient to drown only its human population.
[vii] Localized flood proponent astrophysicist Dr. Hugh Ross, whom Mr. Ham relentlessly attacks, nevertheless states that Noah’s Ark could easily have been the same size as “Mr. Ham’s Ark.” Hugh Ross. Navigating Genesis: A Scientist’s Journey through Genesis 1-11. (RTB, 2014), pp.174-5). 
[viii] Although the term “science” (previously known as natural philosophy) wasn’t coined until 1833 by William Whewell, I choose to employ the cognates, “science” and “scientific” in the loose sense of an intentional careful study of the natural order.
[ix] Concerning the Copernican revolution for example, Gary Ferngren writes, “A principle point of tension in the religious community centered on various scriptural proof texts that seemed to demand a fixed earth or a moving sun.” Science & Religion. (John Hopkins, 2002), p. 99.
[x] In other words, evidence that is found outside of the pages of the Bible.
[xi] I reference over forty examples in Scripture. See my paper, “The Pervasive Employment of Apologetics in the Bible.” Access at Op.cit. (3).
[xii] Whether truth is sought in the arenas of science, law, or with respect to biblical claims, each context abides by this dictum.

Tuesday, November 5, 2019

The Intellectual Death Toward which Secularism is Taking our Society, part 3

             Take notice also of the wholesale failure of secularism to, by rational means, achieve the very autonomous freedom it is seeking on its own terms.  Indeed no potential grounds exist for expecting its ultimate success for the reason that the challenge which lies in its way doesn’t consists of a few missing pieces to a puzzle that will surely soon be discovered.  The problem is rather of a systemic nature which forces the choice between either embracing rationality wholesale and consequently following the facts where they lead,[1] or settling for increasing disintegration of the foundations which societies have de-pended on for their security.  My worldview (based on Scripture) is that nature is not a chaos but very demonstrably[2] a cosmos (the Greek word meaning “orderly arrangement”).  That the created order is, as the term suggest, a cosmos means logically that the current secularist posture of playing loose with rationality cannot endlessly continue, for the reason that our rational[3] Creator (John 1:1-3) has infused into his handiwork inviolable laws extending from physics all the way to morality.  Consequently, in today’s contention between theo-centerism and autonomy, one of these viewpoints cannot prevail!

               In Isaiah 59:14, the prophet spoke during one bleak period in Israel’s history of rebellion against the authority of God in terms in terms of violating the concept of truth by mourning, “Truth is fallen in the public square.”  Although the Bible doesn’t define truth, it everywhere employs that concept in a manner consistent with Aristotle’s views that:  1) truth is an assertion of fact which in fact harmonizes with the state of affairs that it describes, and 2) truth is a concept which one is obligated to obey. 
         
Nevertheless, the absence of truth that Isaiah bemoaned was (and is) limited in scope.  Truth has in actual fact NOT fallen in either heaven or God’s creation.  In addition to the truthful character of His own Being, He has also instilled order into his creation both morally and ontologically.[4]  Nevertheless, whatever we do in defiance of his will results in chaos in our every interaction with it.  It is out of God’s love that He designed us to live in harmony with His will.  Just as symphonic orchestra players must follow their conductor to produce beautiful music together, so we are called to be reconciled to our Maker and Redeemer through His Son Jesus Christ.  God invites each and every person to turn away from our independence from Him, and take the step of receiving His salvation and forgiveness (2 Cor. 5:17-6:2).  It by this course alone the He can set us into both a harmonious relationship with Himself and restore us into a functional relationship with His created order.  Yet this is also the only means to know harmony with God’s creation and redemption, both individually and across society.  I fully acknowledge that my forthcoming conclusion may broadly be received with ridicule.  Yet in fact, the present course of our culture yields no indication that it is progressing toward the better.  Nothing less then is called for than turning from our present course and participating together in Christian salvation and reformation.



[1] Former atheist Antony Flew employs Plato’s words to describe his journey into deism in his book, There is a God. (Harper 2007), p. 56 .
[2] See my pamphlet, “His Prints are Everywhere!” Op.cit. (19).
[3] The Greek word designating the creator in this passage is logos, from which our word “logic” (and rationality) is employed.
[4] Ontology is a branch of knowledge which considers the very nature of existence in all its material aspects.

Friday, November 1, 2019

The Intellectual Death toward which Secularism is Taking Society, part 2

                Furthermore, secularists commit the double-standard fallacy by imposing alternative absolutes onto others with a level of conviction that resembles moral authority, while they at the same time deny moral absolutes on their allegation that they are not a rationally-valid category of argumentation.
  
               Equally bewildering is the propensity of secularists to subordinate scientific data to a merely pragmatic[1] (as opposed to absolute) role, thereby betraying their true indifference toward the authoritative role science ought to play before us all.  It is after all because of its long-acclaimed deference to science as the ultimate arbiter in scientific truth matters, that secularism derides “religious” people for elevating creeds above scientific facts.  I actually affirm the privilege of scientists to identify as scientific[2] truth what is discovered by following where evidence leads, independent of religious dogma.[3]  So it is galling for secularists to then deride Christians for opposing scientific evidence[4] when the former ignore it too when (because?) it conflicts with, to give but one example, the transgenderism (TG) movement.[5]  TG persons insist not only on the right to use whichever showers they desire; they also demand that society as a whole identify TG people by the gender they each prefer, irrespective of their anatomical and genetic constitution.  Furthermore, bureaucrats have recently legally obligated citizens to ignore these facts under the threat of debilitating lawsuits.  At bottom, biological facts concerning genetic and anatomical realities are officially being suppressed [6] to the end that ideology is now trumping science.

Furthermore, it isn’t only members of TG, but public educators too, who although mandated to instill critical-thinking skills in the light of reality, instead propagandize students away from the facts of life (in the larger sense).  This ploy undermines the very consciences of the latter.  In addition sadly, the scientific community, despite the guidance our society expects it to provide; by its failure to rebuke these falsehood instead encourages the intellectual travesties to continue unchallenged.  None of these errors are complex to such a degree as to require formal training in philosophy in order for lay people to discern their flaws, provided they aren’t badgered into silence.  Both errors violate the golden rule of “doing unto others what you would wish to be done unto you” (Rom. 2:1-3), while the second error also entails “cherry-picking” which facts to embrace and which to ignore based purely on their own private wishes.  Notice that St. Paul’s very first reference to sin in his Letter to the Romans entails suppressing evidence that, in his context, pertains to confronting and thereby convicting sinners that there must be a Creator of all things (Rom. 1:18-20).  In addition, the rest of that chapter prophetically narrates the path toward self-destruction which logically follows from denying God’s rightful lordship in the first place.             To be continued...



[1] Pragmatism considers whether a given proposition seems beneficial as opposed to whether it is actually true.
[2] That is, scientific conclusions only. Theological conclusions are based on revelation which is manifest through the Bible.
[3] See my essay, “Defusing the Alleged Conflict Between Scientific Fact and the Text of Genesis 1,” which can be accessed, together with all of my essays, at my website: www.christianityontheoffense.com.
[4] I do concede that Christians partly contribute to the secularist’ impression I just described by their misinterpreting Scripture. See my essay,   “Does the Bible Permit Denigrating Science in order to Maintain our Faith?” Op.cit. (19).
[5]I am NOT passing on persons experiencing sexual identity confusion, but on the irrational ways this matter is treated by societal leaders.  
[6] See my letter to the editor of the Everett Herald, “Self-Contradictory Policies of ‘Liberal’ Transgenderism Public Policy.” Op.cit. (19).

Saturday, October 26, 2019

The Intellectual Death toward which Secularism is Taking Society, part 1


                Scientifically-minded people may appreciate science fiction as a means to retreat from the pressures of everyday life, or as a catalyst to assist their imaginations in thinking outside the box; but they won’t ordinarily[1] seek from it the details for solving concrete problems concerning the actual world (e.g. getting to the moon and back or building a bridge from both ends).  Human beings cannot create our own reality.  Neither can we even manipulate it in violation of the laws of physics and nature in general.  For example, despite our perception of light at the quantum-level in physics that implied to renowned physicist Dr. Niels Bohr that we by our very observation of light actually makes it behave differently than it would if we weren’t watching it, further scientific analysis has concluded otherwise.[2]


               The 41 story, 514 foot Rainier Tower in Seattle, Washington rests on a base that is far narrower than are the building’s horizontal dimensions.  On first sight it seems to be very vulnerable to toppling, especially in the midst of the earthquake-prone Puget Sound region.  Yet despite its apparent defiance of the laws of gravity when observed at ground level,[4] the extensive cement base that extends downward 87 feet below grade and is surrounded by the appropriate rock and gravel fill, has ensured that it would stand secure, just as it indeed has for over 40 years.  It is certain that no contractor would ever seek to construct a structure (as opposed to compose a fiction) that ignored the facts of nature. Yet our increasingly autonomy-driven[5] culture imagines that it can ignore time-tested rational principles in its determination to create a new utopian society.

From the initial rupture of public sexual boundaries in the 1960s, all the way to the denial in certain cases[6] of even a semblance[7] of boundaries, including both personal[8] and society-wide ones[9] in a span of just six decades, we are witnessing the disintegration of both the glue and the discriminative[10] tools that are absolutely vital for holding civilizations together.[11]  Our culture is currently entangled in two fundamental self-contradictory errors; the first of which commits internal logical inconsistencies, while the second seeks to create “new realities” on the basis of conceptually-impossible incongruities.

               As for the first error, it is ironic that at the same time that secularists are casting off so-described “hindrances” derived from moral statutes grounded on traditional religious authority; with the same fury as the “religious fanatics” that they decry, they are imposing a very different set of imperatives onto society.  These strictures can only consist of rules naively grounded on auto[12]-inspiration[13] which carries no metaphysical weight.[14]  Also they can be upheld only by threats from unaccountable leaders clinging to absolute authority who, as Mao Zedong conceded, maintain their power by “the power of a gun.”[15]  The notion that autonomous humans can evade this dilemma out of a belief that we are objective thinkers and morally sound, is entirely untenable in view of the bleak track-record of the human race.[16]  In sum, those who would cast aside morality in order to achieve an idealized freedom seem to be utterly oblivious to the reality that they are merely replacing a moral code with a self-derived one for which they force their power and agenda onto the rest of society by means of unnamed and un-elected people.        To be continued...



[1] There are exceptions. See https://www.brainpickings.org/2013/02/08/jules-verne-prophet-of-science-fiction
[2] Hugh Ross. The Creator and the Cosmos: How Latest Scientific Discoveries Reveal God, 3rd ed. (RTB, 2018), pp. 153f.
[5] A self-guided conscience and will that is independent from either from God or His moral standards.
[6] With respect to certain perspectives on sexual identity and “identity politics.”
[7] As of February 13, 2014, ABC News writer Russell Goldman identified 58 gender options for Facebook users (https://abcnews.com).
[8] In the 60s the societal plea was for acceptance of homosexuals (HS). In the 70s the demand was shifted to affirming HS as a valid lifestyle. In the 80s it was demanded that HS couples be treated as married couples if they so desired, which then led to the insistence that HS marriage be declared the equivalent in both status and privilege to heterosexual marriage.
[9] Vocal advocates of the Democrat political party, with virtual unanimity, decry the concept of controlled borders between the U.S. and Mexico.
[10] The very fact that popular culture decries the notion of discrimination is in itself an indication that our society is in the process of intellectual disintegration. Although popular culture takes the term to stand for employing a double-standard as to how separate parties of people can treated unequally, the term actually stands for employing both a fair and thoughtful standard for picking between options on the basis of the best available evidence that is independent of personal preferences.  In the absence of such reflection, mistakes are sure to follow.
[11] Social critic C.P. Snow once stated, “Civilization is hideously fragile and there’s not much between us and the horrors beneath, just about a coat of varnish.” Cited in the American Family Journal, (November, December, 1991), p. 19.
[12] The term, “auto” appears frequently as a preposition in this paper.  It basically means “self,” just as automobile means “self-mobilized.”
[13] That is to say that, at the same time that they may be idealistic, they evade the notion of being accountable to a higher judge.
[14] A chief tenet of secularism is that humans are solely physical entities who possess neither soul nor psyche that is separate from pure matter.
[15]Every Communist must grasp the truth that political power grows out of the barrel of a gun" and, “Our Principle is that the Party commands the gun, and the gun must never be allowed to command the Party,” are statements from Chairman Mao Zedong in his message, Problems on War and Strategy found at the website: Mao Zedong on War and Revolution. http://afe.easia.columbia.edu/special/china_1900_mao_war.htm.
[16] Reinhold Niebuhr. https://www.christiancentury.org/article/2014-06/unoriginal-sin. It is vital to clarify here that our society one need NOT take the term “gun” literally for the reason that threats of lawsuits are equally as threatening or constricting!

Friday, September 20, 2019

Inconvenient Climatic Facts Chronically Neglected part 3


Secondly, CC alarmists heap untenable burdens onto ecologically sound nations while poorer nations (including, ironically, rising super-power, China) are exempted from addressing their sorely deficient practices.  Yet if CCAs sincerely believe we have but a decade before reaching our ecological “point of no-return,” then common sense would urge redirecting our focus to cleaning up the practices of the latter now!  While it makes sense then for richer nations to financially assist poorer ones, it is absurd to post-pone redressing the latter’s ecological inadequacies by waiting fully a decade later.
   
Thirdly, global warming alarmists are purchasing beach front homes for themselves even as they persist in warning that such property will soon be buried under water.[1]

Fourthly, in the absence of outcry by either academics (who generally prefer left-leaning causes) or the media who encourage the same, my hometown of Seattle recently re-placed its viaduct with an underwater tunnel along its harbor that has an entrance at close to tidal level.  How does that make sense at all in the face of rising sea-levels?

These points indicate that the driving force of their agenda isn’t neglect, but outright hypocrisy.

I fully understand that no one (myself included) lives in a manner completely consistent with one’s convictions.  Yet this paper highlights a disconnect within the CC front that is far deeper than commonplace human fallibility.  It instead entails a willful neglect of vital evidence such as is in glaring violation of the scientific method. The true impetus of the charge CCAs herald rests on suppressing counter-evidence of a kind that is game-changing.[2]   This tactic is so intellectually dishonest; it should compel any competent judge to throw it out.  For despite posing to be scientific, their case is framed not by a scientific spirit, but on an ideology porten-ding to be science, so as to advance an unnamed agenda which cannot be justified by science.  For example, it is a matter of demonstrable fact that financial rewards are showered onto CCAs and “green” industrialists, but withheld from CC “deniers” who are instead censored and belittled.  It is on this pseudo-scientific basis that uninformed people are thereby needlessly alarmed.[3]  A far better motivation for properly caring for our ecological world has already been mandated in the Holy Bible (Genesis 1:28; 2:15), which is grounded not in fear, but in the context of reverent stewardship built upon an enthusiastic trust in our Maker and Redeemer. 

For this reason, it is imperative for principled scientists to rise up in protest over this deception in order that the integrity which ought to guide all scientific research be restored!  Furthermore, it is urgent for the rest of us to discipline ourselves to discern between truth and falsehood to the end that we govern ourselves in accordance with truth as opposed to hysteria.


[2] The scientific method insists that every hypothesis be submitted to the scrutiny of all relevant evidence in a welcoming spirit.
[3] Lay people groundlessly fear not only ultimate planetary death, but the depletion of forests, water, and other species. Op.cit (7).