Evidence for God from Science

If you want to see Ken Ham's true colors, here's what he writes when he has time to hink very carefully about what he is saying and what he means. This is recent.

http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs ... ng-spread/

This is what he ends with.

This is one of the reasons the church is losing its effectiveness in the culture and why we are losing two thirds of our generations from the church. I encourage you to read the two books: Already Gone and Already Compromised. Both of these essential resources deal with the compromise with evolution and millions of years in the church (including Christian schools) and the terrible consequences of such compromise.

Over time, we will warn you about other organizations that are teaching compromise within the church and are undermining the authority of the Bible.

Ken Ham and AIG are becoming more narrow and more like other "heresy hunter" type organizations out there and is establishing his hermeneutic as equal to the Bible itself.

He continues to become more shrill and more exclusionary. The caveats he gives in other places are becoming less and less meaningful.

What IS consistently heard out of the YEC camp is that if one embraces OEC, then they are ALSO necessarily embracing some form of pure naturalism/evolution/Darwinism/neo-Darwinism, etc., and are thus regulating Genesis to being mere allegorical/metaphorical and/or that Adam and Eve were not real people who fell through temptation and sin, causing catastrophic repercussions for mankind.

Clearly, most Progressive Creationists (as I am) DO accept the accounts of Genesis, Adam and Eve as being about real people, real events, the Fall and all of its implications. And I would say that many of us PCs, if not most of us, believe that the wording of Scripture about the creation of Adam and Eve - most particularly their separate creations, both from each other and separate and independent of the book-ending accounts of the creation of all other species ("according to THEIR kinds"), and the fact that man was created "in OUR image, after OUR likeness," totally slams the door to evolutionary/pure naturalism explanations - both as supposedly utilized by God or independent of Him.

And so it would appear rather ridiculous to be arguing tooth and nail with our fellow Christian brothers over mere TIME. Or holding up some "Salvation Litmus Test" based upon this time business. How LONG God took to create and prepare the universe and earth BEFORE Adam's creation should be, in the scope of things, rather insignificant, as it is the fact that GOD is THE reason for all Creation that is far more important. We also know that a great number of conservative theologians and scholars say that the wording of the Creation accounts most certainly allows for an ancient universe (OEC) viewpoint. But even HOW God did it isn't as important as the fact that He DID IT. However, to NOT believe that the events, people and places in Genesis are real, is to misunderstand the nature of The Fall, its implications, and our need for a Savior. The fact that Jesus and the NT writers refer to the people and events of Genesis as being real also emphasizes the importance of understanding Genesis as an actual account of real actions, events and people.

So, people want to make a stand over the absolutes for salvation, that only Jesus can save us, that GOD created all that there is - GREAT. Want to argue over issues of TIME before man's creation, or how long ago that was - these are all truly irrelevant issues for an eternal Being, also known as "The Ancient of Days." Whether God created slowly and methodically over many billions of years, or whether He snapped His fingers in one event-packed week, doesn't change WHO God is or what He means to us. And He certainly could have chosen to make His Creation in ANY way or at ANY pace He so desired. Other than the time issue, I share most of the other beliefs of Christian YECs. Most of the hostility happens when either we misrepresent the position of each other or insist that OUR position is also the definitive test for what constitutes a "REAL" Christian.

I have to admit, the notion that millions/billions of years is automatically grouped with evolution is kind of off in my opinion. I mean, yes, evolution at its core must involve a 4.4 billion year old Earth, but if I recall, the scientific notion of an old Earth was already around before Darwin's time and evolution really did nothing to help that claim. If anything, it just seems like Ham is grouping the two together because, on the face, OEC doesn't seem all that wrong in the Bible, but as soon as you throw evolution in there, suddenly he can muster up more powerful negative emotions about the topic.

If you want to see Ken Ham's true colors, here's what he writes when he has time to hink very carefully about what he is saying and what he means. This is recent.

http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs ... ng-spread/

Same old crap from Ham. I wonder why we can't comment on that blog. So, according to Ham, belief in any kind of evolution is compromise. Cosmological evolution is compromise. A star going through its life cycle is compromise. This guy is full of himself. I wonder if Ham ever thought it was possible that people are leaving the church because of his dogmatic view of creation? He says one must believe in his interpretation of creation and the age of the earth, or one is a compromiser of the faith.

Canuckster1127 wrote:If you want to see Ken Ham's true colors, here's what he writes when he has time to hink very carefully about what he is saying and what he means. This is recent.

http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs ... ng-spread/

This is what he ends with.

This is one of the reasons the church is losing its effectiveness in the culture and why we are losing two thirds of our generations from the church. I encourage you to read the two books: Already Gone and Already Compromised. Both of these essential resources deal with the compromise with evolution and millions of years in the church (including Christian schools) and the terrible consequences of such compromise.

Over time, we will warn you about other organizations that are teaching compromise within the church and are undermining the authority of the Bible.

Ken Ham and AIG are becoming more narrow and more like other "heresy hunter" type organizations out there and is establishing his hermeneutic as equal to the Bible itself.

He continues to become more shrill and more exclusionary. The caveats he gives in other places are becoming less and less meaningful.

Oh my gosh. I can't believe it!!! (Sarcasm.) Seriously? So what? If someone believes the Bible teaches a literal 6 day creation, then it only logically follows that teaching otherwise is undermining the church. What you quote here isn't anywhere as bad as the personal attacks on Ham, and other insults directed at YECers. In fact, what Ham says is perfectly consistent with his views on Genesis

Philip wrote:What IS consistently heard out of the YEC camp is that if one embraces OEC, then they are ALSO necessarily embracing some form of pure naturalism/evolution/Darwinism/neo-Darwinism, etc., and are thus regulating Genesis to being mere allegorical/metaphorical and/or that Adam and Eve were not real people who fell through temptation and sin, causing catastrophic repercussions for mankind.

.
Consistently?
Philip. There is a reality that OEC has to deal with. OEC in most of its forms is more concerned (than YEC) with marrying a secular, naturalist worldview with the Bible. I'm not saying it is wrong for that reason, but it is a reality. And some of those OEC views do incorporate Darwinism. (TE) And some also embrace metaphorical Adam and Eve, temptation, fall, etc. YEC do not. Those are just facts.

Whether God created slowly and methodically over many billions of years, or whether He snapped His fingers in one event-packed week, doesn't change WHO God is or what He means to us.

Wrong. That is your OPINION. One that Ham does not seem to share. Could he not quote you, just as Bart quoted him?
Ham is quoted in various AIG materials as saying YEC is not a condition of salvation, yet it seems some here are more interested in rumor and innuendo. That doesn't mean he doesn't see OEC as creating problems that might eventually affect issues around salvation.
From my perspective, I see it another way. For example, if we are religiously committed to a 6-day creation, then obviuosly this will conflict with what the world says. For me, I'm not sure the reality of who Christ is should be pitted against an old universe and a, "choose one or the other." This isn't what AIG is doing, but I think it is a consequence of strongly promoting a YEC position.

Most people accept, on faith, that the universe is old. None of us can go back in time. And I'd say less than 1% of people actually examine or handle evidence that would support an old earth. They are trusting the 'experts.' So, if all the experts say it's old, and the church, or AIG, or whoever, says it's young, then the conflict arrises. This puts them in a position that science and faith are at odds. That said, I'm here to tell you, one of the battles for souls today begins in the mind. And whether we want to admit it or not, an old universe that accomodates evolution is a foundational block of the new atheism. Of course that doesn't mean the universe isn't old. And an old universe doesn't negate a creator. Sure, I understand that, but that's not the issue.

The folks at AIG genuinely, sincerely, and truly believe the earth is young. They really, really, really, really, believe this. And they really, really, really, really, believe that the Genesis tells the story of a young earth. And so, they see this same conflict from another position. That being that accomodating what the world says compromises Genesis, and therefore compomises the bible, which ultimately compromises Christ. Now, if you guys can't figure this out, then so be it.

did you guys just conveniently glance over the quotes by Koukl, who says (because of starlight) that if you hold to a YEC view then, "The Bible deceives us,". I suggest you guys look in the mirror. The reason you can't comment on his blog Rick is because you'd come in there with an ad-hominem (crap) because you agree with koukl and not him. I guess you think its OK to attack him, personally, on this forum for arguing his position on his forum. That sounds like hypocrisy.

. I guess you think its OK to attack him, personally, on this forum for arguing his position on his forum. That sounds like hypocrisy.

Where have I ever said it's ok to personally attack Ken Ham?

YOu just said, "Same old crap from Ham."

bottom line, compare Bart's quote of Ham to Koukl's statement. In fact, I'd say Koukl's is far worse. Yet, I don't see any hand wringing. Of course not, you guys agree with Koukl. It's a double standard, and one I'm more than a little tired of.

And that's a personal attack?

If I said, regarding one of your post, "Same ole crap from Rick," your telling me you wouldn't take it personally?

Jlay,

I quoted directly from Ham, I linked to his blog and I quoted him directly.

He does equate Old Earth Creationists with evolutionists. He does equate his hermeneutic with the Bible itself and shows little grace (and it's growing shriller) toward those who disagree with him.

He's targeted specific organizations and he's stated that he's going to continue and ramp it up going forward.

Sorry if it offends you. I've complemented you in the past on your approach and methods in supporting YEC. I've spoken respectfully with you on issues even where we disagreed and I've complemented you to others.

If you wish to take offense on behalf on Ken Ham as a fellow YEC supporter, that's your perogative.

I'd suggest that you're better than him in this regard and not defend him when he suggested that people who disagree with Him are diminishing Scripture. I fully believe in the inspiration of Scripture and I believe that a YEC hermeneutic (just as an OEC) hermeneutic on this issue is not the same thing as Scripture itself. Ken Ham makes it clear that he can't grant people that grace to disagree on this issue without then moving on to any number of accusations that are polarizing him and causing him to draw further and further away from the Christian COmmunity at large. He's been cast out of conferences of Homeschoolers who agree wtih his position but can no longer tolerate his belligerence and personal attacks on those who disagree with him.

Ken Ham is not the YEC movement nor does he speak for all of it. That should make many YEC proponents happy I would think.

In any event, I make no apologies for my assessment and opinion of Ken Ham. It is my own. He's a public figure and teacher and I'm free to give my opinion and will continue to do so.

blessings,

bart

This is the "same old crap" from Ham, I'm talking about:

Hugh Ross believes in an old earth and promotes the day-age and progressive theories of creation. He says God created over millions of years in the same basic order as the secularists claim life evolved (in reality, this is a form of theistic evolution).

Progressive creationism is NOT a form of theistic evolution.

So this organization certainly believes in cosmological and geological evolution, but they claim they reject theistic evolution. But do they really? What they seem to mean is that some ideas of evolution are okay, as long as God remains necessary to the process. Penner explains, “If God intervenes at all then it’s not evolution; it’s some form of intelligent design.”

I'm guessing that stand to reason also believes in progressive creationism? Jlay, don't you believe in micro evolution? Well, according to Ham, you might just be a compromiser too. Cosmological evolution is not equal to naturalistic evolution.

I’ve had many people say to me over the years that it doesn’t matter if God created over millions of years—just as long as God did it. My answer is always the same: “It is not what God said He did!”

The bible says God created in 6 "yoms". It doesn't say "6 24 hour days".

Even though this organization doesn’t believe in Darwinian evolution per se, its leaders do believe God created (in much the same order as evolutionists discuss the evolution of life) over millions of years. They can try to modify things all they want, but what they are doing is compromising man’s ideas of millions of years with the Bible and reinterpreting the clear text of Scripture, thus undermining the authority of the Word of God.

The "clear text of scripture"? Again, ham is equating his interpretation of a young earth and six 24 hour days with scripture itself. Isn't a 6000 year old universe a man's idea? Wasn't Ussher a man?

Over time, we will warn you about other organizations that are teaching compromise within the church and are undermining the authority of the Bible.

How does OEC undermine the authority of the Bible? OECers interpret the bible literally. OECers believe in the authority if the Bible.
Again, Ham's interpretation IS NOT equal to scripture itself.

jlay wrote:
did you guys just conveniently glance over the quotes by Koukl, who says (because of starlight) that if you hold to a YEC view then, "The Bible deceives us,".

Here is the article from Koukl.http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=News ... friendly=1 Notice, it was written in 1997. If my horrible memory serves me correctly, 15 years ago, God creating light in transit was a common yec belief. Just like the water canopy theory was a common yec belief decades ago.

So, I have no problem overall, with that Stand to Reason article. It was referring to the prevailing yec belief at the time it was written.

Canuckster1127 wrote:I quoted directly from Ham, I linked to his blog and I quoted him directly.

Never said you didn't. Where did I imply you didn't quote him directly?
My issue is that the quote you sight is simply not a big deal. It doesn't state anything except what you'd expect someone of his position to state. I mean come on Bart, Ham directly quoted Koukl and Penner. So apply that same reasoning? He quotes them directly, so what? It is not as if Ham is just name calling. He is addressing specific points made by OEC proponents. Are you saying he isn't entitled to do so, yet, you are? That is what I call a double standard.

He does equate Old Earth Creationists with evolutionists. He does equate his hermeneutic with the Bible itself and shows little grace (and it's growing shriller) toward those who disagree with him.

Of course he does. He really, really believes in a young earth. An OE accomodates evolution, as in Darwinian.
-Everyone thinks their hermeneutic is right. Ham's criticisms derive out of the fact that he really, really, beleives in a literal 6 day creation and young earth.

I'd suggest that you're better than him in this regard and not defend him when he suggested that people who disagree with Him are diminishing Scripture.

Bart, That is exactly what Koukl does. Plus, what other conclusions do you expect him to arrive at, considering his beliefs? If you go through AIGs material, you will understand how foundational they view Genesis regarding the rest of scripture. You may not agree, but it is how they see it.

If you wish to take offense on behalf on Ken Ham as a fellow YEC supporter, that's your perogative.

Just pointing out that no matter how flat you pat a pancake, it always has two sides. You demand grace from Ham, but I see little offered. The issue as I see it is that it's OK to accuse people of diminishing scripture (Koukl) as long as they agree with you. If not, then they lack grace.

Sorry if it offends you. I've complemented you in the past on your approach and methods in supporting YEC. I've spoken respectfully with you on issues even where we disagreed and I've complemented you to others.

Bart, where did I say I was offended? Because I disagree with you doesn't mean I'm offended on his behalf or even my own. Your past complements (thanks btw) are irrelevant to the issue at hand, and I beleive you know that. Let's not try to put me in a position, or stroke me. This is not about me defending Ham or AIG, but about pointing out the issues I have with your and Rick's criticism toward Ham.

I agree, you are welcome to have any opinion of Ham you like, and you owe me no apology. And when I think I see a double standard I am welcome to point it out. Of course, I could be wrong, but I sincerely do believe it, and think I've articulated it well.

The bible says God created in 6 "yoms". It doesn't say "6 24 hour days".

Rick, red herring. I'm not here to debate the meaning of yom. I said, If I said, regarding one of your post, "Same ole crap from Rick," your telling me you wouldn't take it personally?Yes or no?

How does OEC undermine the authority of the Bible? OECers interpret the bible literally. OECers believe in the authority if the Bible.
Again, Ham's interpretation IS NOT equal to scripture itself.

Let's just assume for a minute that Ham is right. Not saying he is, only let's assume. Let's be graceful enough to see it from his position, because he genuinely thinks he is right. If he is right, then does OEC undermine the authority of the Bible in any form or fashion? We could ask the same, "If OEC is right, then does YEC undermine the scripture in any form or fashion?" So, if Ham really, really believes what he teaches, and if he sees the creation account as the essential foundation for the rest of the Bible (which he does) then why wouldn't you expect such criticisms of OEC positions? In fact, if he is right, then he would be correct in his actions. And like it or not, your position would be a compromise. For me, I'm not nearly as confident in the age of the earth, nor as confident that the creation account, YEC or otherwise is foundational in the revelation that follows. Therefore, I wouldn't say that OEC is a compromise. I would however say that TE is a compromise. Apologies to the TE that post here, but it is only the logical conslusion of rejecting Darwinian evolution. And I wouldn't be intellectually honest with myself if I stated otherwise. And no, it doesn't mean I don't believe in microevolution.

Jlay, don't you believe in micro evolution?

I don't recall Ham saying this. But, it's a moot point. I'm not here to argue what Yom means, or any such issues. The issue is people getting in a tiff because Ham says that their position (OEC) is a compromise.
BTW, I think you are reading into this, (micro evolution) and drawing that conclusion. He is using the term "evolution" in the sense of Darwinism. Where does he say he rejects what we call microevolution?

Canuckster1127 wrote:I quoted directly from Ham, I linked to his blog and I quoted him directly.

Never said you didn't. Where did I imply you didn't quote him directly?
My issue is that the quote you sight is simply not a big deal. It doesn't state anything except what you'd expect someone of his position to state. I mean come on Bart, Ham directly quoted Koukl and Penner. So apply that same reasoning? He quotes them directly, so what? It is not as if Ham is just name calling. He is addressing specific points made by OEC proponents. Are you saying he isn't entitled to do so, yet, you are? That is what I call a double standard.

He does equate Old Earth Creationists with evolutionists. He does equate his hermeneutic with the Bible itself and shows little grace (and it's growing shriller) toward those who disagree with him.

Of course he does. He really, really believes in a young earth. An OE accomodates evolution, as in Darwinian.
-Everyone thinks their hermeneutic is right. Ham's criticisms derive out of the fact that he really, really, beleives in a literal 6 day creation and young earth.

I'd suggest that you're better than him in this regard and not defend him when he suggested that people who disagree with Him are diminishing Scripture.

Bart, That is exactly what Koukl does. Plus, what other conclusions do you expect him to arrive at, considering his beliefs? If you go through AIGs material, you will understand how foundational they view Genesis regarding the rest of scripture. You may not agree, but it is how they see it.

If you wish to take offense on behalf on Ken Ham as a fellow YEC supporter, that's your perogative.

Just pointing out that no matter how flat you pat a pancake, it always has two sides. You demand grace from Ham, but I see little offered. The issue as I see it is that it's OK to accuse people of diminishing scripture (Koukl) as long as they agree with you. If not, then they lack grace.

Sorry if it offends you. I've complemented you in the past on your approach and methods in supporting YEC. I've spoken respectfully with you on issues even where we disagreed and I've complemented you to others.

Bart, where did I say I was offended? Because I disagree with you doesn't mean I'm offended on his behalf or even my own. Your past complements (thanks btw) are irrelevant to the issue at hand, and I beleive you know that. Let's not try to put me in a position, or stroke me. This is not about me defending Ham or AIG, but about pointing out the issues I have with your and Rick's criticism toward Ham.

I agree, you are welcome to have any opinion of Ham you like, and you owe me no apology. And when I think I see a double standard I am welcome to point it out. Of course, I could be wrong, but I sincerely do believe it, and think I've articulated it well.

The bible says God created in 6 "yoms". It doesn't say "6 24 hour days".

Rick, red herring. I'm not here to debate the meaning of yom. I said, If I said, regarding one of your post, "Same ole crap from Rick," your telling me you wouldn't take it personally?Yes or no?

How does OEC undermine the authority of the Bible? OECers interpret the bible literally. OECers believe in the authority if the Bible.
Again, Ham's interpretation IS NOT equal to scripture itself.

Let's just assume for a minute that Ham is right. Not saying he is, only let's assume. Let's be graceful enough to see it from his position, because he genuinely thinks he is right. If he is right, then does OEC undermine the authority of the Bible in any form or fashion? We could ask the same, "If OEC is right, then does YEC undermine the scripture in any form or fashion?" So, if Ham really, really believes what he teaches, and if he sees the creation account as the essential foundation for the rest of the Bible (which he does) then why wouldn't you expect such criticisms of OEC positions? In fact, if he is right, then he would be correct in his actions. And like it or not, your position would be a compromise. For me, I'm not nearly as confident in the age of the earth, nor as confident that the creation account, YEC or otherwise is foundational in the revelation that follows, in the sense that AIG holds. Therefore, I wouldn't say that OEC is a compromise. I would however say that TE is a compromise. Apologies to the TE that post here, but it is only the logical conslusion of rejecting Darwinian evolution. And I wouldn't be intellectually honest with myself if I stated otherwise. And no, it doesn't mean I don't believe in microevolution.
So, let me ask you Rick. Do you think TE compromises the Bible in any form or fashion? Seem to recall a post today on the very issue.

Jlay, don't you believe in micro evolution?

I don't recall Ham saying this. But, it's a moot point. I'm not here to argue what Yom means, or any such issues. The issue is people getting in a tiff because Ham says that their position (OEC) is a compromise.
BTW, I think you are reading into this, (micro evolution) and drawing that conclusion. He is using the term "evolution" in the sense of Darwinism. Where does he say he rejects what we call microevolution?

Sorry, the sincerity of Ken Ham's belief and those who follow him doesn't justify the irrationality of their assessment of their hermeneutic as insperable from the Scripture itself.

I'm not really, really, really impressed by how many reallys preceed it nor does it change my assessment of Ken Ham and the continued descent I see in him down the road to being a self-appointed assessor of whose Christian beliefs are genuine or not.

As an OEC progressive creationist I find his characterizations demeaning, inaccurate and a sad representation of the value of what he pruports to believe.