Young-Earth Creationism Disregards the Testimony of Psalm 19:1

  "The heavens [the physical order - nature] declare the glory of God"

           The Big Bang (BB) beginning of the universe is, on rational grounds, the unassailable[1] indicator of the existence of God for two reasons: Firstly, its observational scientific data[2] proves[3] without ambiguity that the cosmos came into existence out of absolutely nothing (Genesis 1:1).  Secondly, the fact of the ongoing expansion of the cosmos is echoed in 11 Bible verses,[4] even as biblical writers also reference God 62 times as Creator of the heavens and the earth to sharply distinguish Him from the false gods.  Yet despite the powerful case for the BB by such proponents as Hugh Ross, John Lennox, and William Lane Craig, our secular culture takes very little notice. This paper raises one major reason why that is so.               

      It is clear that young-earth creationism (YEC) draws upon certain scientific data to support two of its primary claims, including firstly that the creation of all things happened less than ten thousand years ago and secondly, that Noah’s Deluge flooded the globe to such depths that the highest mountain tops were submerged. The problem is, however, that in order for scientific tidbits to yield pragmatic impacts, they must be so-framed that they successfully account for the phenomena[5] in question.  Although one goal of scientific methodology (SM) is to discard errant ideas, its higher purpose is rather to effectively account for the phenomena that is being investigated.  Here then is the rub: YEC seeks to the contrary, to explain away that same body of facts.  Now should one ask, “Why does YEC’s appeal to certain data [albeit selectively] not count as proof that they do respect science?”  The answer should become clear by turning to the respected scientific research strategy known as “inference to the best explanation from a pool of competing hypotheses.”[6]  This tactic is the most foundational of all scientific methods for gaining insight into nature’s interactions and processes.[7]  Consider its four key points:

1.      The ultimate goal of science is to explain phenomena as opposed to merely refuting falsehoods.

2.      Since it is not possible to prove claims about phenomena, each scientific team is left to propose the hypothesis they hold most adequately accounts for the greatest range of evidence.

3.      Scientific insight into the phenomena under consideration is attained by means of contrasting and comparing the differing hypotheses as proposed by competing research teams.

4.      That hypothesis which prevails is deemed the best scientific insight on the matter investigated.          

Returning to YEC; the question of whether the facts they appeal to are correct is not relevant since their goal in rejecting “Bible-denying” facts is to discard threatening evidence as opposed to demonstrating any superiority for their own.  Since as I implied, the goal of SM is to referee both data and the hypo-theses they frame; YEC virtually never adds evidence.  In the event of exceptions, new data should of course be welcome.  Yet while YEC is entitled to re-interpret data;[8] it must never deny factual evidence. 

               Further, YEC (aka “Scientific Creationism”) disqualifies itself from being scientific by definition.  The reason is that science, by definition, gains insight about its object solely through direct analysis of nature’s relevant features as opposed to appealing to insights from the Bible.  This distinction[9] in no way

---

[1] Cosmologists who deny God’s existence ignore the testable evidence. See Hugh Ross. Creator and the Cosmos. (RTB, 2018), pp. 85f.

[2] See my papers, “God’s Prints are Everywhere,” **  “Was the Big Bang the Big Beginning?” at my website: www.christianityontheoffense.com

[3] Legal scholar Dr. J.W. Montgomery stated that since it isn’t possible to attain strict proof, lawyers persuade juries on the basis of “proof beyond reasonable doubt.” https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/john-warwick-montgomery-interview/id351907712?i=1000100484018

[4] Job 9:8, Psalm 104:2, Isaiah 40:22; 42:5; 44:24; 45:12; 48:13; 51:13, Jeremiah 10:12; 51:15, Zechariah 12:1. It is God alone (the higher author – 2 Timothy 3:16) who grasps Big Bang cosmology; not the biblical writers themselves.  

[5] By a “phenomenon” is meant a naturally occurring object or event that can be experienced by our senses. 

[6] The word, “hypothesis” stands for a tentative proposal that is offered up for scrutiny in light of the available evidence.

[7] Stephen Meyer.  Return of the God Hypothesis. (Harper One, 2021), pp. 223-229.

[8] One example entails examining the very same fossil record as their opponents, and raising the question, “Where are the transitional fossils?”

[9] See “Disarming the Alleged Conflict between Scientific Fact and the Text of Genesis 1 Without Compromising Either One.” Op.cit. (2).

To read my entire article visit my website: www.christianityontheoffense.com

               

2.     

Sins, Sin, And the Only Way to Redemption, Part 2

Getting the Real Point of Ash Wednesday and Lent              

                There is a sense in which God’s ultimate goal is not to deprive us, but rather to replace our current state with something far greater.  Yet in order to experience His superior life, we must let go of our old, sinful, one; not piecemeal, but by renouncing it altogether (Mark 8:33-35, John 12:24).  You may notice that these verses specify our need to indeed “die” (a reality I will further address).  Since how-ever, these words were spoken before His death, Jesus was using a metaphor that was yet to be fully unveiled.  Yet beginning soon after with three successive events: 1) His resurrection from the dead at Easter, 2) His Ascension into heaven forty days after that, and 3) on the Day of Pentecost ten days later still; now that He returned to earth in a transformed manner, Jesus comes NOW to dwell spiritually in the lives of all who receive Him (Revelation 3:20, John 1:12).  Put another way, in the Four Gospels, Jesus “in the days of His flesh” (Hebrews 5:7) related to everyone in a localized manner, while the New Testament (NT) Epistles by contrast speaks of Jesus – in terms of His relationship with us – in a spiritual manner.  Notice that the uniting point of the Gospel’s is God’s giving-ness in Jesus Christ!  Consider also that God will not do His work along side us, but (Praise the LORD!) only by Himself in and through us.  So Jesus’ prior calling disciples to “come after” Him (Mark 8:34) is now replaced with the new concept of our yielding the throne of our hearts in surrender to Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord.  The single best place in the New Testament to encounter this teaching is in St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans chapter 6, where he lays out our relationship with the living Christ in light of our baptism into Him.  In addition to the word “into” (eis Gk – 6:3) in service of this reality, Paul also employs the words, “crucified with” (6:6), and “united with (6:5),” which, I add, are words in the passive form, with God as subject.  So these truths share the common theme that Holy Baptism is a work of God upon our lives in a sacramental sense. 

On the other hand, this is not to say that we have no choices to make in this matter.  Notice that several of St. Paul’s summary statements are both in the imperative mood: “So you must also consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus” (6:11), and “Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body to make you obey its passions” (6:12).  Since God created us with free-will, He has conse-quently restrained His capacity to force us to obey His will.  At the same time, however, ask yourself who ch. 6 identifies as the saving agent.  Although the text is not explicit, the answer is “God the Father” through the death and resurrection of “Christ Jesus,” His Son (6:3-6).  In summary this means our singular choice pertains to whether or not we receive Jesus Christ (Colossians 2:6) as both our Savior from Sin and as the Lord of our life.  Anything short of this measure  (temporarily renouncing certain pet pleasures for a season, going to church, claiming to be less-sinful than our neighbors, etc.) misses out entirely on God’s purposes for our lives (Romans 3:23a).  The word translated “repent” in the NT (metanoia GK) means having your mind changed.  The word translated “confess” (homo-legoumena Gk) likewise literally means to agree with God both that we are sinners and that He is the rightful Lord of our lives.  To “repent” does not mean, as popularly imagined, that we force our lives to be moral (we can’t!); neither does it demand tear-filled groveling.  What it does entail is the total surrender of our lives to Christ by agreeing that we need His salvation.  Failing to do so conveys a denial both of His claims and the cost that He paid to redeem us back to Himself in salvation.  Finally, since it was out of His love (John 3:16) and good-will (Romans 8:31-32) that He saved us,, we can be assured that surrendering our life to Him is no losing proposition at all; but rather unspeakable gain!  Why then settle for renouncing a single pleasure as our chief goal in the Season of Lent?  Of course confronting our personal vises is has some importance.  Yet it fades in importance when contrasted with “the surpassing worth of knowing Jesus Christ [our] Lord” (Philippians 3:8), who not only saves us but will also make us new (2 Corinthians 5:17).                     

Sins, Sin, and the Only Way of Redemption, Part One

                                          Getting the Real Point of Ash Wednesday and Lent

               It is the morning of the Day of Carnival as I begin writing this article.  The term “Carnival,” which is a prominent name of the  Christian festival held on the Tuesday immediately before Ash Wednesday,” literally means “farewell to meat (carne).”  Carnival is intended to mark, in the name of Christ, the final “happy” celebration prior to the Lenten season of renunciation of a long list of pleasures that includes eating red meat.  For this reason it is traditional for many Christians to pick their own pet pleasure and personally deny it until Easter Sunday (as the day of Christ’s resurrection it ends the Season of Lent).  Now I for one am of two minds in regard to the season of Lent.  On the one hand, in-so-far-as it points ahead in our Church calendar to Jesus’ death on the cross on Good Friday, then this season about that focus is extremely powerful in directing our personal priorities.  There is a very real sense in which Lent is a penitential season.  On the other hand, I consider this matter of renunciation a complicated issue.  Why, for example, do our liturgies remove all celebratory aspects of worship for both Lent and Advent (L&A), including the “Glory to God in the Highest”?  For three reasons I judge these omissions to be  wrong-headed!  Firstly, since Christ is risen from the dead, in the context of our worship (including L&A) we today have every confidence that Jesus lives and reigns and rules today!  Secondly, in light of Easter we hold that, despite the awful historical reality of the crucifixion, the symbol of the cross now looms as the very power of God for our salvation even in the past but also in the present (Romans 6:3,4).  Thirdly, the traditional ploy of renouncing generally a single one of our vices, utterly misses the point of what the Gospel of Jesus Christ calls every single person to do.  Further it also understates the necessity of Jesus’ death on the cross as the only means our receiving forgiveness and redemption (John 14:6).

               As the title of this essay implies, the word “sin” in one vital context is expressed in two forms: in the plural “sins,” and in the singular, “sin.”  On the one hand both forms share the same meaning which is literally falling “short of the glory [purposes] of God” (Romans 3:23a).  Now for the three distinctions:

1.      “Sins” (in the plural) represent specific ways in which we “fall short of the glory of God.”  In Lutheran liturgies in particular we confess that we “have sinned in thoughts, words, and deeds, by the things we have done and the things we have not done” and “we have not loved you [God] with our whole heart and we have not loved our neighbors as ourselves.”  The list of specific verbal moral obligations include the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20), but also include our inner thoughts (Matthew 5).  The same pattern includes the example of our Lord Jesus Christ (1 Peter 2:21).  As if this is not hard enough, St. Paul’s Letter to the Romans further highlights convicting standards that are knowable even to people who never open a Bible.  Examples include firstly 1:18-32 which indicates that evading truth places one under God’s judgment.  Secondly, 2:1-5 warns that people who judge others by a standard of their own making will render themselves liable to God’s judgment under that same standard (also “Matthew 7:2).  In conclusion, none of us have any grounds to prevail before God’s holy standard with our record of sins (Isaiah 64:6).

2.      The word “sin” (in the singular) denotes the fundamental objectionable feature of sin which is our self-centeredness as opposed to God’s will that we be God-centered.  The is, “sIn” has been described as the “great I disease” in which we reframe our demands to center around the “me, myself, and I.”  This posture is effectively an act of rebellion against the rightful authority of God by which He is rightfully the Master of all creation.  This isn’t an arbitrary demand by a tyrannical despot, but a rational expectation in an orderly and harmonious creation in the same way that beautiful orchestral music can only happen when every player follows the lead of the conductor.