—because if there was a prize, Botten would have to award it to me. He recently wrote a surreal account of our exchange from the other day which he closed with the following offer: “There is a prize for anyone who can spot the ‘parting gratuitous invective’,”^[1] referring to my accusation. I am happy to claim that non-existent prize:

Ryft, I’m through with you as well. You’re just as bad as Alan for avoiding direct questions.^[2]

I suppose Botten could respond by saying that was not an insult but a compliment; however, given the record of his opinion of Rhology (who he calls Alan), I think he would find it rather difficult making that stick.

Now I called this recent post of his surreal but perhaps I can add ironic; it was surreal insofar as it spun what actually happened in complete reverse, yet it was also ironic in that his post was accusing me of spinning things around. Readers can draw their own conclusion, of course, but have a look at what he said.

Indeed I believe that the earth is very old and that Genesis is not wrong in its account of creation, and indeed this so mystified Botten that he asked me numerous times and in various ways how this could be—but at no time did I blitz him with requests to prove me wrong. That is an utter reversal of what happened, which can be easily verified by anyone particularly because I provided extensive citations. He said that the earth being old directly contradicts what Genesis says about creation, which he equated with the young-earth interpretation. What I hammered him with were requests to prove himself right; that is to say, I expected him to support his claim. The earth being old contradicts the Bible only if the young-earth interpretation is right, and I was not about to let him beg that question. (Moreover, how could I demand that he prove me wrong when I did not make any claims about what Genesis says?)

He says he did point out “the biblical reasons for thinking that [Genesis] preaches a young-earth creation.”^[3] The only problem is that he actually did not. All he did was assert the young-earth interpretation—that Genesis recounts God bringing the world into material existence, including Adam, and that calculating the genealogies tells us this was not more than 10,000 years ago—but stating a case is not the same thing as making a case. For some reason Botten seems to think that the exegetical burden of proof is met by simply asserting the interpretation.

The earth being old contradicts the Bible only if the young-earth interpretation is right. So if he wants to make that claim—that the earth being old contradicts the Bible (and therefore the Bible is wrong)—then he will need to support that claim without begging the very question.

Or hurl gratuitous invective from the comfort of Reverse World.

(Incidentally, I have no idea why he had trouble commenting on that post; certainly others had no difficulty commenting there.)

1. ^[1] Alex Botten, “Christian blogger Ryft gets spinning,” An Atheist Viewpoint (2011, October 14), para. 7. ↩
2. ^[2] Alex Botten, “A question for young earth creationists,” An Atheist Viewpoint (2011, October 11, comments section, 21:11; emphasis mine). ↩
3. ^[3] op. cit., “Christian blogger Ryft gets spinning,” para. 7. ↩

An email I received this morning from a source I do not have permission to reveal:

I received the following email this morning from Rhology:

12 October 2011

David,

Well, you made Alex look like a fool. Not hard, but still.  :-)

Grace and peace,

Rhology

Rhology,

Is it that I made Alex Botten look like a fool, or rather that Botten made himself look like a fool? I think if one reflects a moment on that exchange we had, one would have to admit that I actually did very little, and thus deserve very little credit for how he appeared. He simply made two very bold claims which, frankly, I was interested in seeing him support. I mean, is that not what atheists routinely demand of those who make claims? But atheists are fatally allergic to the burden of proof; the moment it becomes clear that they cannot escape shouldering it the conversation is over, and not without gratuitous invective—a pattern to which Botten was apparently only too willing to contribute.

Let us recapitulate what those two interesting claims of his were.

First, he claimed that if young-earth creationism is false, then one must concede that the world was not created at all. This claim was found in the question that he put to those who think the universe and Earth were created in a week 6,000 years ago (emphasis mine): “Why, when he knew it would cause people to believe that the universe was not created (so leading people away from him), would your God make things look older than they are?”^[1] In other words, if people discover that the world is far more than 6,000 years old, then that will cause them to believe that it was not created. And that of course is not only a brutal non-sequitur fallacy (i.e., the latter does not follow from the former) but also defies current and historical reality, wherein there are and were people who accept both creation and a very old earth. The fact of the matter is, Botten made a blind leap that was simply contrary to reason, which I wanted to expose by having him attempt supporting that claim.

Second, he also claimed that “one cannot square biblical creationism with an old earth,” ^[2] wherein “biblical creationism” is equated with the young-earth view,^[3] such that positing an old earth view “directly contradicts the Bible.” ^[4] If I understood his point here correctly, then he was trying to support his original non-sequitur; that is, since the world being old directly contradicts what Scripture says about creation, given the young-earth interpretation, discovering its great age would cause people to believe that it was not created. That is still a brutal non-sequitur but the response I opted for was to have him support that claim, which I pursued by forcing him to provide the exegesis for the young-earth interpretation. In other words, I was not going to permit that as a given, because it would beg the very question. Obviously I disagree that the earth being old directly contradicts the Bible so I insisted that he shoulder his burden of proof.

Well, of course we cannot have that so with a parting gratuitous invective he disabled the commenting feature on the article.^[5] Thus we have Botten losing his cool—although not a Jim Gardner meltdown—because some Christian had the audacity to call him out on his claims and require that he support them, exhibiting that allergic reaction I mentioned and perhaps nowhere more clearly than by his transparent attempt at shifting the burden on to me.^[6]

So I cannot really take credit for what Botten did mostly by himself.

1. ^[1] Alex Botten, “A question for young earth creationists,” An Atheist Viewpoint (2011, October 11), para. 2. ↩
2. ^[2] Ibid., comments section, 11 Oct. 2011, 14:43. ↩
3. ^[3] Ibid., 18:12. ↩
4. ^[4] Ibid., 18:49. ↩
5. ^[5] Although I noticed this afternoon that he reenabled it at some point today. ↩
6. ^[6] “Do you claim that the Bible doesn’t give genealogies from Adam onwards, and that it doesn’t claim the Earth was created in a literal six day period, with Adam created on the sixth day?” (Ibid., 18:59); “Do you claim that the genealogies and the creation account are incorrect? If not, how can you claim the Earth to be old?” (Ibid., 19:15); “Please explain to me how the Bible can be inerrant yet simultaneously wrong. Tell me what other interpretation you would draw from the creation account and the genealogies” (Ibid., 19:52); [Describes the young-earth interpretation and then asks] “How would you interpret it differently?” (Ibid., 20:10); “Are you claiming the text of Genesis doesn’t say that the Earth and all that’s in it was created in six 24-hour days? If so, please support this claim with evidence from Genesis” (Ibid., 20:34). ↩

In the comments section of my article “Answering questions and objections,” [1] one of our regular visitors here at the Aristophrenium posed a question to me regarding how the universe and this world operate with respect to God (particularly with a view toward Walton’s exegesis of the Genesis creation account). And once again the depth that I wanted to invest my response with came up against the word-count restriction imposed on comments. Like I said previously, it takes few words to ask a controversial question but far more words to answer it appropriately.

His question itself smacked of deism, I thought, and he seemed to be wondering how it would play out under Walton’s view. Essentially what he wanted to know was whether or not interpreting Genesis under a function-oriented ontology would allow for God’s material creation “to ‘function’ according to the mechanics He devised for it.”

So my question, then: Wouldn’t this also allow for evolution? Life functions according to the mechanics that God has devised for it? That is why, as Adam [Morgan] pointed out, God created ‘kinds’ of animals in Genesis. Then it would be a simple matter to let them ‘expand’ in number based on how He made them. I have heard that Walton is a rather staunch anti-evolutionist, but how can this not fit? [2]

And he wanted an answer deeper than simply “God didn’t create life that way,” but rather an answer with some kind of support for it. So here then is my answer to our intrepid visitor, posted where I have a little more room to write.

Still looking at Genesis for material origins

So first things first: God certainly did bring “every individual species” into material existence (more on this in a moment); however, the point being made here is that the Genesis account is not a record of that. As Walton explained, there is a distinction between building a temple and creating a temple; the former regards the construction phase, but upon completion we do not yet have a “temple.” Without establishing its functions and functionaries and God coming to rest in it during the inauguration ceremony, it is nothing more than an ornate stone and wooden edifice; the “temple” does not exist yet. Your question regards the construction phase, the evolution of kinds and species over billions of years, but Genesis regards the inauguration phase so it is wrongheaded to mine the text for insight on that. The Genesis account presupposes the building phase in its disclosure of the inauguration phase, where God establishes the functions and functionaries and comes to rest in the newly created cosmic temple. Again, Genesis is an account of this seven-day inauguration ceremony, an account that begins with a non-existent temple, not non-existent material. With the building ready, the ceremony can now usher in the creation of the temple.

Scriptures are clear that God brings everything into material existence, but Genesis is not that story. It is an account of the beginning of redemptive history, which is an anthropocentric story rooted in the sovereign purposes of God who tabernacles with his image-bearers, set in motion during the creation of this cosmic temple which God prepared over a seven-day inauguration ceremony and came to rest in, and from which he providentially ordains redemptive history according to his purposes. The beginning of redemptive history is found in God preparing and entering this cosmic temple, with Adam and Eve established as his image-bearers and stewards. And we know how the story plays out thereafter. This temple motif saturates Scriptures; even our own bodies are described in temple terms. No less is the cosmic order itself a temple, from which God tabernacles with his image-bearers through redemptive history, beginning with Adam and Eve as detailed in Genesis.

Deism: winding up the clock and letting it go

The construction phase of this temple is not accounted for in Genesis; it presupposes the material elements (i.e., the building is already erected). But by no means was God uninvolved in the material phase of construction. The notion that you presented, that God created the universe and then left it to operate according to the laws of nature that he designed, is not only foreign to Walton’s exegesis but also to Scriptures as a whole. Such a notion presupposes an interventionist dichotomy between ‘natural’ and ‘supernatural’ which cannot be found in Scriptures, a notion the origin of which is found in the deistic views of the Enlightenment. Scriptures (and Walton) strongly oppose that sort of view, rejecting that God is ever ‘hands-off’ with creation, only intervening here and there ‘supernaturally’, nor does such a view even find any correspondence in the cultures of the ancient Near East. (And I would note that this would be the sense in which Walton is a “rather staunch anti-evolutionist;” namely, Walton is steadfast against both atheistic and deistic notions of evolution since, contrary to atheism, God exists and, contrary to deism, he is never unplugged from creation that way. Moreover, because I understand his view on theistic evolution I am able to articulate it, although I do not myself subscribe to it.)

Consider for example the conception and fetal development of a human. It is obvious that we understand embryology scientifically; the ovum, the sperm, fertilization, genetics, cell signaling and so on, from zygote to blastocyst to embryo to fetus and so forth. It is a broad and well attested scientific field. We understand fairly well how all this works ‘naturally’. And yet what does the Bible say? “For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb” (Psa. 139:13); “The word of the LORD came to me, saying, ‘Before I formed you in the womb I knew you” (Jer. 1:4-5). An interventionist dichotomy between ‘natural’ and ‘supernatural’ does not exist in Scriptures; that is, God is not hands-off with respect to nature, intervening here and there. Identifying and understanding the material means by which something happens does not preclude the agency of God in those means. This applies to your question about evolution: we may understand, to one degree or another, how evolution works, the material means by which evolution occurs (like with embryology) but this does not allow us to preclude the agency of God in those means, to think he is hands-off and letting nature work on its own (again, like with embryology). God is definitively and providentially hands-on in the universe. “For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together” (Col. 1:16-17; notice that last clause in particular).

This is yet another problem inherent with young-earth creationism, which tends to assume the same sort of dichotomy: they say that God resting on the seventh-day indicates that henceforth he ceased his work of material creation. But such Scriptures as Psalm 139:13-15 for example defies such a view! See especially verse 15, where the psalmist characterizes his development in his mother’s womb in terms that harken the mind to Genesis. For them to think that God specially created Adam and Eve but not Cain or Abel or anyone or anything else because he ceased specially creating on day seven, letting the laws of nature take it from there, simply defies the biblical witness. From one issue to the next their interpretation of Genesis (under its own terms), shoulders noteworthy problems—which by contrast underscores the strength, coherence, and consistency of Walton’s exegesis of Genesis (under its own terms.)

Not only is God the one who brings all things into material existence but he is also the one who continually sustains all of creation. The idea that God got everything running and then stood back to let nature do its thing “would have been laughable in the ancient world because it was not even conceivable,” Walton notes. “The ancients would never dream of addressing how things might have come into being without God or what ‘natural’ processes he might have used.” If God were to unplug himself from creation the way deists think, Walton observed, everything would immediately cease to exist. [3] Quite frankly, God’s agency is manifest in the formation of every creature of every species of every kind in every age. There is no such thing as God-of-the-gaps; in other words, science does not push God out of creation, but rather discovers the means of his creative agency—like with embryology.

References:

1. Smart, D. (2011, May 10). “Answering questions and objections.” Aristophrenium. [Blog]. http://aristophrenium.com, 17/May/2011.
2. Joe (2011, May 16). Comment to Smart (2011), para. 2.
3. Walton, J. (2009). The Lost World of Genesis One. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press; pp. 20-21.

Due to the word-count restriction in the comments area, I have chosen to address in a blog post many of the questions and objections being submitted in response to my posts on the Genesis creation account, since it takes more words to answer a controversial question than it does to ask it—and there are several being asked. I will not identify to whom each question or objection belongs; I am confident that people will recognize the substance of their question or objection in what follows. (I have also chosen to reframe each question or objection in my own words.)

Read the rest of this entry

In a recently published article [1] Duane Proud, a dear friend and colleague of ours here at the Aristophrenium and one of its founding contributors, published what he understands to be Statham’s misgivings [2] about Walton’s central thesis on how the Genesis creation account might be properly understood exegetically. [3] While this is quite appropriate for Proud, given that the origins debate is his primary interest here at the Aristophrenium (i.e., creation versus evolution), I do find myself wishing that he had reached out to me prior to publication because, quite frankly, it does appear that Statham was rather confused about the book he was reviewing. That, in addition to the fact that Proud has not read Walton’s book, is why I say that he published what he understands “to be Statham’s misgivings,” putting the onus on Statham. There is not a lot I can say about Statham’s review because I am still waiting for a copy of his article, as I have been since Proud brought it to my attention November 28 last year in a personal email. [4] But if Proud had have reached out to me I could have cleared some of this fog up, injecting these concepts with the coherence needed for him to digest the ideas, allowing him to publish an article that hits closer to its mark. Instead, I shall have to provide that further clarification here.

Read the rest of this entry

My  esteemed blogging colleague, David Smart (aka ‘Ryft’), has written on two recent occasions now^[1], about a novel approach to the reading of the creation account in Genesis 1. It is a view promoted by John Walton in his book, The Lost World of Genesis One (2009).

I must be clear from the outset that this is not a book review. I have not read the book and must therefore rely on secondary citations and explanations of his thesis from people like David, and others. Yet, my attempts at digesting the idea have thus far been only moderately successful and the concepts presented still lack coherence in my own mind. To be as gracious as possible, I must at this point attribute this apparent incoherence to my own limitations. But I certainly look forward to further clarification.

On the surface, I can relate to objections from those who want to reject Walton’s arguments on the basis of historical theology. That is, if the early church fathers never thought Genesis 1 means what Walton thinks it means, how is it that we should now trust Walton’s interpretation? Well, we should trust it on the basis of a demonstrably sound hermeneutic I guess. This approach must necessarily presume nothing of what people like Augustine, Basil, Aquinas, Origen, etc., thought about Genesis, but focus on the Scripture itself. However, Walton’s conclusion then tends to require us to consider that the people who lived in the first few centuries after Christ lacked the recently recovered knowledge that Walton claims now makes it possible to receive this revelation in a new light. That at least, should give us pause. But just how long this ancient knowledge has been lost to us I do not know. Perhaps The Lost World of Genesis One has those answers.

Many of the online reviews of Walton’s book that I skimmed were quite positive on balance. But one review that has helped me get a foothold on this topic and  clear away some of the smog, is a critical piece by Dominic Statham, who wrote in the December 2010 edition of the Journal of Creation (JoC).^[2,3] (Note: All quoted material in this article comes from Statham’s review, unless stated otherwise. Any errors are most likely my own.) And of course, if Statham has misrepresented Walton in any way, my apparent moment of clarity may again be overcome by the smog. But let’s press on in hope.

Read the rest of this entry

This evening I had my attention directed back to the article that Joshua Whipps had written at his web site, “On old-earth presuppositions.” [1] Since I had already read his article previously (and responded to it), [2] I decided to scroll down to the comments area to see what sort of discussion had taken place. While reading Whipps’ response to one of his visitors I found a couple of comments of his that I wanted to reply to.

In his an explanation of the presupposition which all “secularist evolutionists, theistic evolutionists, and old-earth creationists” share in common in one particular area (that is to say, “that which governs their theory of fact”), he asked the following question of his visitor: Where did the old-earth creationist “get the idea that he was supposed to be driving this direction?” In other words, where did he get the idea that facts should ever be governed “by naturalistic principle” at any point? [3] (Since he said that all three groups share the same presupposition, and the only presupposition he identifies is the “naturalistic principle,” I understand him to be saying that this is the metaphorical car they are all driving in.) Did the old-earth creationist get this idea from his own interpretation of the facts or from God’s via Scripture?

First, if a presupposition by definition is not a conclusion, then it cannot be something that an old-earth creationist derived from his own interpretation of the facts; not to put too fine a point on it but a “theory of fact” is precisely what governs the interpretation in the first place. So wherever he got it from, it was something that he brought to the interpretation, not something he got from the interpretation. Thus, the idea that he should be driving in this direction, that a naturalistic principle should be presupposed at any point in his world view, is something he got from God’s word as authoritative or from somewhere else which he autonomously deemed authoritative.

Second, and more importantly, I submit that Whipps committed the question-begging Loaded Question rhetorical device. Namely, just as the question, “Have you stopped beating your spouse?” assumes that you actually have beaten your spouse, in the very same way his question assumes that the old-earth creationist actually shares the same idea in common with those evolutionists. Consequently, just as someone who has never beaten their spouse would take issue with the assumption lurking within the question about spousal abuse, so an old-earth creationist such as myself would take issue with the assumption lurking within Whipps’ question about old-earth presuppositions. The table could be turned with a sharp question for Whipps himself: “If you are assuming that all old-earth creationists possess this naturalistic presupposition at some point in their view with respect to creation, then what is your justification for doing so?” This assumption of his, after all, is either with or without warrant. And it certainly doesn’t follow that a naturalistic presupposition necessarily operates to some degree at bottom of all old-earth creationists, since I maintain an old-earth view of creation with biblical presuppositions grounding all inquiry including that one. I firmly stand on the very same ground that Whipps himself does; namely, all of Scripture, as well as its Author, is my presupposition. Are there old-earth creationists whose theory of fact and view of creation are in some way grounded in a naturalistic presupposition? Perhaps. We may grant that Whipps has encountered any number of such persons. However, that does not have any bearing on the fact that an old-earth view of creation may arise from the presupposition of Scripture and its Author and studying the texts exegetically. With respect to such old-earth creationists, his Loaded Question is deeply problematic. Just as his visitor pointed out, autonomous reasoning is not driving their conclusions.

~ * ~

Whipps claims that he doesn’t bring any ideas to the text in Genesis that are foreign to it, that the text not only states that the days of creation are six consecutive 24-hour periods but also demands that we believe it. To teach contrary to this, he says, is to deny the teaching of Scripture and impose autonomous man’s assertion of authority over the text. [4] I take no issue with this. I fully agree with him on this point. But he actually does bring an idea to the text that is not derived from it, that is foreign to it; namely, the idea that in the Genesis creation account God is bringing the world into material existence. He is assuming that creation in this text is a material activity, and I say that he is assuming it because nowhere does he perform any exegesis of the text to establish that concept. It is something he brought to the text (eisegesis), not something he derived from it (exegesis). If we receive the text as authoritative, then surely it is a grave error to claim of the text something it never intended to say. He needs to show using sound exegesis of the text that the creation in Genesis is a material activity, not simply assert it. And his appeal to “the history of the church” and “the confessions we adhere to” should be secondary, coming after he has made his case on an exegesis of the text grounded in the presupposition of Scripture and its Author.

1. Whipps, J. (2010, September 17). "On old earth presuppositions." RazorsKiss [blog]. http://razorskiss.net (19 April 2011).
2. Smart, D. (2010, September 19). “On old earth vs. young earth debate.” Aristophrenium [blog]. http://aristophrenium.com (19 April 2011).
3. Whipps, comment 24 September 2010, para. 1.
4. Ibid, para. 2 and 3.

The other night I was watching a show on tv called Richard Hammonds Invisible Worlds (BBC). One of the topics he covered was gecko feet which was quite facinating. The following article goes into some detail of this amazing creature and his feet.

Great Gecko Glue

The best explanation seems to be that the geckos’ feet can exploit the weak short-range bonds between molecules. That is, they stick via van der Waals forces. But for such weak forces to work, there must be an enormous intimate contact area between foot and surface, so that enough individual weak forces can add up to a very strong force.

Under an electron microscope, researchers have found that the feet have very fine hairs (setae), about 1/10th of a millimetre long and packed 5,000 per square mm (three million per square inch). In turn, the end of each seta has about 400–1,000 branches ending in a spatula-like structure about 0.2–0.5 µm (microns—less than 1/50,000th inch) long. These spatulae can provide the necessary contact area.

This website has some good images of geckos’ feet.

With special instruments, a team of biologists and engineers from several American universities analysed a seta from the foot of a Tokay gecko (Gekko gecko). The foot pad has an area of about 100 mm2 (0.16 sq. inch) and can produce 10 newtons of adhesive force (enough to support two pounds). But they showed that an individual seta had an attractive force 10 times stronger than expected. In fact, one seta is strong enough to support an ant’s weight, while a million could support a small child—about 10 N/cm2, where 10 newtons is about the weight of 1 kg. So the gecko has plenty of attractive force to spare. This means it can handle the rough, irregular surfaces of its natural habitat.

Actually, the attractive force is far greater when the seta is gently pressed into the surface and then pulled along. The force also changes with the angle at which the hair is attached to the surface, so that the seta can detach at about 30°. These elaborate properties are exploited by the gecko’s ‘unusually complex behaviour’1 of uncurling its toes when attaching, and unpeeling while detaching. This all means that the gecko can not only stick properly with each step, but also avoid getting stuck, all without using much energy.

In his explanation of this marvelous feature of the gecko, Richard Hammond said that the gecko had to develop this toe curling ability in order to unstick its feet in order to be able to move. The use of the word develop makes it obvious that there are heavy evolutionary overtones that are assumed as the mechanism by which the gecko’s feet came to be.

Can anyone else see the disconnect here?

Evolutionary theory is a slow gradual process. Yet here we find three abilities associated with the geckos’ feet that have to present at the same time in order to work. If the hairs are present without the toe curling ability (which Richard is suggesting here), then the poor gecko will no be able to move and will quickly become a meal to the nearest predator. Without the self-cleaning ability, the geckos’ feet will quickly become non-functioning/useless. And why evolve toe curling as a precursor to hairy feet? To claim that this is the path taken, screams a designer at the helm realising that toe curling is needed to have occured before the hair. And when does the self-cleaning occur? These are not just singular variations in the DNA to change, say, regular toes to curling toes. According to evolutionary theory changes in anatomy like this would have to take many many mutations.

Even if it is reasonable to believe evolution started the ball rolling by giving the gecko a toe curling ability and the gecko was able to function/breed with this ability even though it serves no purpose, where are all the toe curling lizards that didn’t evolve further down the gecko path? There is no “Darwins tree” here whether alive or in the fossil record.

Rather than believe a complex unsubstantiated evolutionary story, a designer at the helm seems a much more simple and likely explanation for such an amazing creature.

In the opinion of fellow staff writer Luis Dizon, the objection of Young Earth creationists against the idea of death existing prior to the Fall is “one of the strongest arguments against the Old Earth position.” (See his comment on my recent article “On Old Earth vs. Young Earth debate.”) That is, if there was no death in the world prior to the Fall, then Young Earth creationism must be the only view left standing, since every other creationist view (to my knowledge) involves prelapsarian death.

(For those new to the Aristophrenium or unfamiliar with staff writer Ryft, it must be noted that he rejects both Young Earth and Old Earth creationism. Although the view he takes on Genesis 1 is uniquely different to both positions, he does believe the earth is very old, so he often defends that view with Young Earth creationists for the sake of argument. It should also be noted that Old Earth creationism interprets Genesis 1, while believing in an old earth does not. Ryft argues that the Bible is silent on the age of the earth.)

So where do Young Earth creationists get the idea that there was no death in the world prior to the Fall? I think most people know the answer: Romans 5:12-14, “Sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned … Death reigned from the time of Adam …”

Read the rest of this entry

In this article I will be stepping out of character a little bit by writing on a subject that will do two things I typically try to avoid: (1) opposing a long-time associate of mine and fellow member of the Alpha & Omega Ministries online community; (2) engaging the Old Earth vs. Young Earth creationism debate.

I have typically avoided confronting fellow members of the Alpha & Omega Ministries online community (those with whom I enjoy regular fellowship) because for the most part we are unified on the ‘essentials’ of biblical doctrine, so that the only real source for possible conflicting views are the ‘non-essentials’. It would be pointless controversy to get into blog scuttles over that.

And I usually avoid engaging the Old Earth vs. Young Earth creationism debates since that is not only an example of a ‘non-essential’ but it also involves two views I am not committed to; I am neither an Old Earth nor Young Earth creationist. That seems like two good reasons to stand outside the debate.

But I am making an exception in this case for two reasons. First, this fellow Christian brother has submitted a rebuttal so weak that it needs challenging, in the hopes that he might reconsider or strengthen it. Second, the angle he takes on the issue implicitly raises it to the level of an ‘essential’ by invoking the doctrine of God’s sovereignty and the primacy of Scripture in our fundamental axioms.

Read the rest of this entry