BiblicalInsights.net

The Warren Christian Apologetics Center under the directorship of Charles Pugh III continues to promote and publish religious error.  I have published a review of Mac Deaver’s article, “Could God Create (ex nihilo) on the First Day?”  that appeared in Sufficient Evidence, Fall of 2020.  Sufficient Evidence is a publication of the Warren Christian Apologetics Center.  The basic affirmation of Mac Deaver is that it is not possible for anyone to know the age of the earth and so it is not a matter of faith or doctrine which could be a test of fellowship.  This position opens the door to cosmological evolution and geological evolution. This concept must be put to the test of truth.  Deaver argues that the creation of the heaven and the earth (Gen. 1:1) does not occur during the six days referenced by Moses in Exodus 20:11.  This brings up the question, “What is the relationship between Gen. 1:1 and Exodus 20:11?”   This is the question that I address in my reply to Deaver’s article.  You will find my reply under the page Biblical Articles.

Francis Collins, in The Language of God, states, “Despite twenty-five centuries of debate, it is fair to say that no human knows what the meaning of Genesis 1 and 2 was precisely intended to be” (p. 153).  Collins escapes into agnosticism regarding the meaning of Genesis 1 and 2 because his interpretations of scientific data conflicts with what God said He did and when He did it.  Collins elevates his own interpretations over the obvious import of God’s Word.  Exodus 20:11 states, “For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.”  This is divine commentary on Genesis 1 and 2.  Genesis and Exodus were written by Moses.  Jesus affirms that Moses gave the Law (John 7:19, “Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law? Why go ye about to kill me?” Jesus referenced Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy in His personal teaching.  He also references Gen. 1 and 2 in Matt. 19:4, “And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female.”  And, Mark 10:6, “But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.”  Collins denies this truth and affirms that man evolved from monkeys (The Language of God, 200, “Humans are part of this process, sharing a common ancestor with the great apes”).  The rejection of the plain teaching of Genesis 1 and 2 and Exodus 20:11, puts Collins in conflict with Jesus.  Jesus understands Moses perfectly!
The Meaning of the Clarity of Scripture
The doctrine of the clarity of Scripture (also known as the perspicuity of Scripture) means that the central message of the Bible is clear and understandable and that the Bible itself can be properly interpreted in a normal, literal sense.  The doctrine of the clarity of the Scriptures was a main belief of the Reformers such as Martin Luther who taught against the claim that the Bible was not clear and so it was too obscure for the common man to understand.  The Catholic Church opposed the interpretation of the Bible by the common man.
The Bible Proclaims Its Own Clarity
In Deut. 6:6-7, Moses instructs the Israelites to teach the law to their children.  If children can learn the law and the creation account was part of that law, then, adults can learn it too!  In II Tim. 3:13-15, Paul said that Timothy had known the holy Scriptures from a child.  Paul knew that a child could learn the Scriptures.  Both Paul and Jesus understood Genesis 1 and 2 in a literal sense.  Both identified the beginning of the creation of male and female by God.  Both believed Adam was the first man and that he was a real, literal, person (Matt. 19:4-5; Rom. 5:12-ff; I Cor. 15:45).  Redemption is the result of God’s saving work through Jesus Christ because of the fall of Adam and Eve as revealed in Genesis 3.  Genesis 3:15 is the first Messianic promise, “And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; It shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.”  These words were spoken to the serpent (Satan).  They reveal God’s plan to deal a crushing blow to the devil through the seed of the woman which was fulfilled in Jesus’ work of redemption (Heb. 2:14-15, “Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil”).
The Dangers of The Denial of the Doctrine of Clarity
The denial of the doctrine of the clarity of Scripture means that we must give up on personal accountability to God.  God expects us to know His Word and obey it (Heb. 5:8-9).  If the Bible is unclear about salvation, then, no one could be held accountable for not obeying it.
The denial of the doctrine of clarity means that God failed to adequately communicate His Will to man in such a way that man could know the truth.  How could we distinguish truth from error?  If we believe a lie, we will be damned (II Thess. 2:11-12).
The denial of the doctrine of the clarity of Scripture means that we could not know the true origin of mankind.  We could not know if we were the result of God’s creative power or that we were descended from mice and monkeys.  However, God tells us what He did, when He did it and how He did it (Psa. 33:8-9).  What He did:  created all things by His omnipotence.  When He did it: In the beginning.  How He did it: By divine fiat.  God spoke and it was done.
“For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ” (II Cor. 4:7).
Theistic Evolution is a Heresy
The word heresy comes from the Greek word, hairesis, and means, “to choose, a self-willed opinion, which is substituted for submission to the power of truth, and leads to division and the formation of sects” (W. E. Vine, Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, II, 217).  All heresies are works of the flesh (Gal. 5:20, II Pet. 2:1; I Cor. 11:19).  Paul affirms that those who commit the works of the flesh shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

The Warren Christian Apologetics Center under the direction of Charles Pugh III has been in existence for over a decade.  During this time, the Center (hereafter referred to as the WCAC) has proven through its publications and associations its true nature.  The WCAC is located at 850 Altman Ave., Parkersburg, WV 26104 and is currently housed in two trailers on a lot that once belonged to the owners of a Bob Evans restaurant which was subsequently sold and later donated by the new owner to the WCAC as a future location.  The director of the center, Charles Pugh III is largely responsible for the decisions made that give direction to the aim or purpose of the center.  The stated aim of the center is to “affirm and defend the Christian Worldview while challenging growing global influence of atheistic thought.”  The WCAC has been responsible for both publications and activities that do not uphold the Christian Worldview which can only be defined by God’s Word.  Consider the following seven glaring errors of the WCAC.
Error Number One:  Advancement of the False Theory of Theistic Evolution.  
The WCAC published a book by Nobie Stone, Genesis One And Lessons From Space (This book has been published twice by the WCAC. The first edition was published in 2014 and the second edition was published in 2017. I have written extensive reviews of each published edition and posted them under my Book Reviews page), in which the author affirms the Big Bang Theory and an old Earth view (both of which are tenets of theistic evolution).  Theistic evolutionists believe that God used evolution as His means of producing the various forms of physical life on this planet,including human life (Norman Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, p. 233).  In five previous blogs, I have exposed the false concepts involved in the concept of theistic evolution.  Please refer to them for a thorough discussion of this topic.  In one of those blogs, I revealed that the old earth view (the view that the universe is 14 billion years old and that the earth is 4 to 5 billion years old) contradicts biblical chronology.  The WCAC by publishing and distributing a book that affirms a false view of the age of the earth (which contradicts plain statements in the Bible) contradicts its mission by compromising truth.  The Big Bang Theory has been proven both scientifically and biblically to be false.  Why would the WCAC use funds contributed to it by members of the Lord’s church and others to publish material that is blatantly false?
Error Number Two:  Errors of Epistemology
In the book by Nobie Stone, Genesis One and Lessons From Space, Stone affirms that we cannot know anything with certainty (see the second edition, p. 19).  He affirms probablism.  Epistemology is concerned with the nature and scope of knowledge, its presuppositions and basis, and the general reliability of claims to knowledge (Paul Edwards, editor, The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, vol. 3 and 4, p. 9).  Thomas Warren, for whom the WCAC is named, believed that we can know with certainty that God exists, the Bible is the Word of God and that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.  It is interesting to note, that Charles Pugh III, director of the WCAC is on record as stating that the WCAC is not a cookie cutter of the apologetics of Thomas Warren (first edition, 157).  Why name the center after Thomas Warren and not represent the apologetics of Thomas Warren?  Nobie Stone denies that we can know anything with certainty.  How can the WCAC affirm the Christian Worldview and at the same time publish materials that deny we can know that God exists with absolute certainty?
Error Number Three:  Elevation of Scientific Theory Over the Scriptures
In the book by Nobie Stone, Genesis One and Lessons From Space, the author affirms that the theories of science, the theory of evolution and the Big Bang theory take primacy over the Scriptures.  Stone wrests the scriputures in Genesis 1 to fit his bias toward these scientific theories.  The scientific theories have never been proven and, yet, they are elevated over the infallible Word of God.  This causes Stone to reinterpret the days of Genesis 1.  He affirms that each “day” was an indeterminate age and not a twenty-four hour period of time.  This is commonly referred to as the “Day-Age” theory.   Denis Lamoureux in Evolutionary Creation-A Christian Approach to Evolution, states, “The hermeneutical primacy of science certainly leads to a counterintuitive reading of the Bible” (p. 175).  In order to reinterpret the Scriptures to fit scientific theories such as evolution and the Big Bang, Stone must violate several hermeneutical principles including lexical meanings and grammatical forms of the Hebrew language in which the Old Testament was written.  I would like to affirm that the Scriptures are the final authority and not science.  God cannot lie!  (I Sam. 15:29, Titus 1:2, Heb. 6:18).  God expressly states, “For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it” (Exodus 20:11).  Any theory that contradicts a plain passage of Scripture is a false theory (Thomas Warren affirms this principle in Logic and the Bible, 75,76).  The WCAC has affirmed that it will uphold the Christian Worldview.  How can you have a Christian Worldview without affirming the integrity of the Scriptures?
Error Number Four:  Practicing Ecumenism
Ecumenism is the false practice of fellowshipping denominational persons and errors without rebuke.  The WCAC is a parachurch organization.  The WCAC has attempted to legitimize its practices and open fellowship of false religion by stating that they are not the church of Christ.  They have accepted and will accept monies from any source that is friendly toward their stated purpose.  A parachurch organization is an organization that functions outside of the church but claims to be doing a work of the church.  Apologetics is a work of the church (I Pet. 3:15).  The WCAC is not the church, but claims to be doing a work of the church and so claims to help the church.  However, when the WCAC became involved in publishing and promoting religious error, it ceased being helpful to the church and became an enemy of the church.  When the WCAC began to openly fellowship those in religious error, they stopped being a friend of the church of Christ.  The open fellowship of religious error is a violation of Ephesians 5:11.  “And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.”  And, “Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?” (II Cor. 6:14-15). The WCAC demonstrated its willingness to openly fellowship religious error by hosting Devin Brown in the recent spring lectures.  Brown is a scholar from Asbury University (a Methodist school-specifically Wesleyan-Arminian).  He is an expert on C.S. Lewis.  C.S. Lewis was a theistic evolutionists who affirmed common descent believing that human beings evolved from lower life forms (monkeys to man theory).  C. S. Lewis is referred to by Brown and by Charles Pugh III as a Christian theist.  C.S. Lewis was never a member of the church of Christ. C.S. Lewis was a member of the church of Ireland which was Episcopal.  Robert Beasley in his book, Set Me Free, offers a suggestion on how members of the churches of Christ could fellowship denominational people.  He mentions parachurch organizations.  Beasley states, “There are a number of parachurch organizations that are intended not to replace the church, but to focus on particular issues confronting Christians in our modern world. The focus of these groups will be on the essential truths of the Christian faith, without delving into issues that divide denominations” (188).  Beasley suggests Promise Keepers as an example of a parachurch organization that members of the churches of Christ could fellowship.  Charles Pugh III is using the WCAC in a similar fashion.  Is there any person involved in teaching or promoting religious error that the WCAC would not fellowship?  If so, on what basis?
Error Number Five:  Misuse of Funds
The WCAC directors solicit funds from anyone who is sympathetic toward the stated purpose of the center.  They solicit funds from Christians and from churches of Christ and from non-members who are unbelievers.  This of necessity involves the attempt to combine together individuals who are both believers and unbelievers in a common religious cause.  It is an attempt to bring together the kingdom of Satan and the kingdom of God in accomplishing one cause.  This is a fundamental error of the design of the WCAC.  Jesus stated that, “Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand” (Matt. 12:25).  Does this principle apply to the WCAC?  If the WCAC upholds the truth about God, Jesus Christ and the Bible, would not that very truth destroy the denominationalists who were supporting the WCAC with their money and their resources?  The WCAC uses funds contributed to it to publish religious error (Big Bang theory, old earth view, false views of epistemology–all noted earlier).  For instance, $15,000.00 has been spent to publish Nobie Stone’s book, Genesis One and Lessons from Space in the two editions printed.  How many members of the church of Christ know that the money they have contributed to the WCAC has gone to publish religious error and promote false religionists?
Error Number Six:  Hypocrisy
The WCAC fellowships the unfruitful works of darkness in order to do a work of the church!  The WCAC director pays lip service to the Bible while publishing materials that contradict plain passages of Scripture in the Bible.  The biblical definition of hypocrisy is stated by the Lord in Matthew 23:3, “All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.”  Hypocrisy involves saying one thing and doing another.  Hypocrisy is also manifested in the fundamental error of the WCAC in its attempt to bring together the kingdom of Satan and the Kingdom of God in order to accomplish a work of the church of Christ.
Error Number Seven:  Division
A sad state has developed in the churches of Christ due to the divisive nature of the WCAC.  Churches and brethren have been separated.  Lines of fellowship have been drawn.  Apologetics Centers have been pitted against each other.  For instance, Apologetics Press, in 2019 has printed five different articles upholding the young earth view which is a stated purpose of the apologetics center.  Most know that this center is closely associated with the churches of Christ.  The articles appeared in Reason and Revelation a publication of Apologetics Press.  The recent articles are:  21 Reasons To Believe The Earth is Young, Jeff Miller, Ph.D., Jan. 2019, vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 2-5, 8-10.  How Long Were Adam and Eve in the Garden Before Sinning?  Jeff Miller, Ph.D., February, 2019, vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 20-23.  Was the Flood Global?  Jeff Miller, Ph. D., April, 2019, vol. 39, no. 4, pp. 38-47.  Behemoth and Leviathan Part I, May, 2019, vol.  39, no. 5, Dave Miller Ph. D., pp. 50-57.  Behemoth and Leviathan Part II, Dave Miller, Ph. D., June, 2019, vol. 39, no. 6, pp. 62-69.  The WCAC does not uphold the young earth view as noted above as evidenced by their publication of Nobie Stone’s book, Genesis One and Lessons From Space.  Apologetics Press has also published numerous articles refuting the Big Bang Theory which was advanced by Nobie Stone in his work (I have referenced these in my reviews of both editions of Nobie Stone’s book).  This clearly pits one apologetics center against another apologetics center which is ironic since both claim to be upholding the Bible.  No parachurch organization is worth causing division in the body of Christ.

The attempt to marry the truth of creation with the lie of evolution produces the false theory of theistic evolution.  This attempt conflates the work of creation accomplished and revealed by God.  It produces some serious consequences.  In addition to the consequences already discussed in parts I and II, please consider the following thoughts.

6.  Theistic Evolution obliterates biblical chronology.  The Bible provides us with a time scale for human history.  The earth and all other astronomical bodies are of the same age, except for the three day difference reported in the creation week.  The earth was created on day one along with the heavens and light (Gen. 1:1-3; 2:1).  The sun, moon, and stars were created on day four (Gen. 1:14-19).   Fowls and aquatic life were created on day five and animals and man were created on day six (Gen. 1:20-27).  Moses writes, “For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it” (Exodus 20:11).  Most Theistic Evolutionists deny the historical reality of the Genesis account of creation and so upend the chronology of the Bible.  Genesis declares that all things had a beginning and that Adam and Eve were created in the beginning of creation and not billions of years later.  Francis Collins places the beginning of human beings at about 100,000 years ago while the universe began 14 billion years ago (The Language of God, 207)!  What a contrast to the words of Jesus Christ, “And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female” (Matthew 19:4).  Luke traces the genealogy of Jesus back to Adam (Luke 3:38).  Adam is called by the apostle Paul the first man (I Cor. 15:45; first formed, then Eve, I Tim. 2:13).  If this is true, then, the heaven and the earth are only a few days older than Adam, not billions of years older.  We can estimate the age of the universe in terms of the genealogies of Christ recorded in Matt. 1 and Luke 3.  We must conclude, based upon the biblical evidence, that the universe is thousands not millions or billions of years old.  The chronology is interwoven with the genealogy of Christ.  If you alter the chronology, you alter the genealogy and dramatically impact Christology.  Two doctrines are affected:  the doctrine of creation and the doctrine of Christ.  John declares, “Whosoever transgresses and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God.  He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son” (II John 9).  Theistic Evolutionists do not abide in the doctrine of Christ.  Jesus Christ was the creator and He tells us how and whenHe did it (Col. 1:16; John 1:1-3).  Who are you going to believe– the Creator or Theistic Evolutionists?  Theistic Evolutionists not only reinterpret Gen. 1 and 2, but they also have to reinterpret most of the Bible!  They ascribe to a faulty hermeneutic that undermines faith in God’s Word by denying plain statements in the Bible including statements by Jesus and the apostles. Any doctrine that denies a plain statement in God’s Word is a false doctrine.

7.  Theistic Evolutionists misinterpret reality.  The theory of evolution which affirms that all of life has evolved from a single organism distorts reality.  All life comes from life and there is no evidence that life spontaneously generated from non-living substances.  The fossil record does not contain evidence of transitional forms indicating that one species could evolve into another species.  There is no evidence that shows how organisms that reproduced asexually could evolve by gradation into organisms that reproduce sexually (see F. LaGard Smith, Darwin’s Secret Sex Problem). Smith states, “Lacking any sexual DNA, mitosis could not have provided either the information or mechanism required for the radically different process of meiosis” (88).  Graham Bell, James McGill Professor at McGill University in Montreal, and author of the Masterpiece of Nature: the Evolution of Genetics and Sexuality, provides the headline, “Queen of evolutionary problems.”  He states, “Sex is the queen of problems in evolutionary biology.  Perhaps no other natural phenomenon has aroused so much interest; certainly none has sowed as much confusion.  The insights of Darwin and Mendel, which have illuminated so many mysteries have so far failed to shed more than a dim and wavering light on the central mystery of sexuality” (Smith, 160). Smith utilizes McGill’s description of sexual reproduction as the queen of evolution’s problems.  He states, “Evolution theory teaches that the first organisms simply copied themselves. So, normative gendered sex as seen throughout Nature could not have begun without the appearance of the first-ever male and female organisms, mating in a never-before-seen way, and reproducing by revolutionary method of reducing their chromosomes precisely by half then blending those halves together to produce one-of-a-kind offspring. How those first-ever sexually reproducing organisms possibly could have evolved before sexual reproduction existed” is the queen of evolutionary problems (Smith, Darwins’ Secret Sex Problem, xxi). This is a strong argument against common descent.  Yet, Francis Collins affirms in The Language of God that, “the conclusion of a common ancestor for humans and mice is virtually inescapable”   ( 136-137). Dennis Venema, a biologist at Trinity Western University, argues that “numerous independent lines of genomics evidence strongly support the hypothesis that our species shares a common ancestor with other primates” (J. P. Moreland, Theistic Evolution, 366-367).  According to these scientists, human beings descended from mice and monkeys.  Creationists believe that human beings are the result of special creation by God who formed man of the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and man became a living soul (Gen. 2:7).  Also, creationists believe that human beings were created in the image of God (Gen. 1:27).  Human beings are distinct from animals and possess an immortal soul.  When you compare Theistic Evolution with special creation you get two different views of reality.  Which view do you believe?

The Christian Chronicle published an article titled, “What is a ‘salvation issue?'” written by Benny Tabalujan.  (The Christian Chronicle, August, 2018, p. 30). The question, “what is a salvation issue?” arises when individuals like Nobie Stone declare that the “age of the earth” is not a salvation issue.  Stone states, “We have a similar conflict today between “young Earthers” and “old Earthers.”  Again, the issue is not a matter of salvation” (Genesis 1 and Lessons From Space: Faith, Reason, and Nature, p. x, Author’s Preface to the Second Edition). In addition to this comment by Stone, I have personally heard that the following doctrines are not salvation issues:  marriage, divorce, remarriage; the authenticity of Mark 16:9-20; premillennialism; moderate use of alcohol; and that nothing is a salvation issue because we are not saved by getting our doctrine right.  The use of the phrase, “salvation issue” begs the question, “who decides the list?”  Tabalujan affirms that there is no biblical checklist.  He states, “humans tend to make up their own based on cultural norms, denominational distinctives and personal preferences.”  This exposes the concept as a man-made doctrine.  There simply is no Scriptural authority for setting aside any of the doctrines or commands of Christ.  The Scriptures affirm, “Whosoever transgresses, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.  If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that bidest him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds” (II John 9-11).  The doctrine of Christ is the teaching from Christ.  All of the doctrine of Christ is a salvation issue.  When we transgress the law of Christ, we sin, because sin is a transgression of the law (I John 3:4).  The persons who affirm that certain doctrines taught by Christ are not salvation issues are affirming that you can transgress the doctrine of Christ without sin in contradiction of John’s plain statement.  Any doctrine that contradicts a plain passage of Scripture is a false doctrine.           John harmonizes quite well with Matthew’s statement regarding the Great Commission, “And Jesus spake unto them, saying, “All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.  Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.” (Matthew 28:18-20).  Labeling some of the doctrines of Christ as “not salvation issues” creates a man-made doctrine that sets at naught the commandments of the Lord.  This usurps the authority of Jesus Christ and elevates man’s authority over God’s authority.  Jesus plainly teaches that all men are amenable to all of the law of Christ.  This includes marriage, divorce, and remarriage, Jesus’ teaching about creation, His teaching about end-time events, His teaching about faith and baptism in Mark 16:9-20 and His teaching about righteousness and morality.
Tabalujan also states that we must not be dismissive about a doctrine that we may consider to be less important than another doctrine.  Jesus spoke of the first and great commandment and the second commandment in Matt. 22:36-39.  He was not teaching that we must obey the first commandment (to love God with all of our heart, soul and mind) and could dismiss the second (to love your neighbor as yourself) because it is somehow inferior to the first commandment.  Jesus spoke of weightier matters of the law and expressly enjoined that these weightier matters (judgment, mercy, faith)must be kept, but the lesser (tithing herbs) must not be neglected (Matt. 23:23).  Jesus said, “….these ought ye to have done and not to leave the other undone.”  Clearly, all of the commandments of God are to be respected and kept.  If men teach a doctrine that undermines respect and obedience to any of God’s commands or doctrines, he transgresses the law and so sins against God.
Failure to abide in the doctrine of Christ causes a breach in fellowship with God and this is a salvation issue.  The false doctrine, “this is not a salvation issue” is itself divisive because it is not found in Scripture.  It is divisive because it usurps God’s authority.  It is divisive because no two people could ever agree on the list of doctrines excluded from salvation.  It should be rejected immediately for what it is–false doctrine.

Jonathan Sarfati, in Refuting Compromise, makes an important observation and distinction.  He states, “It sounds very nice to say that God’s revelation in Scripture must agree with His revelation in nature.  But this overlooks a key difference between nature and the books of the Bible, that is, what constitutes the data in both domains.  Ross (Hugh Ross-DS) and CMI would agree that the propositions contained in the 66 canonical books of the Bible are facts of special revelation, but what are the facts of nature?  Nature is not propositional revelation, so it is not subject to objective hermeneutical principles.  Rather, in a study of nature (that is, science) propositions must be formulated from observations by interpreting them in a framework or paradigm.  This framework depends largely on the axioms, or starting assumptions of the scientist” (p. 41).
The Big Bang theory is not scientific truth.  In fact, within science itself there is a debate about origins.  “In his 1950 BBC radio series, The Nature of the Universe, Sir Fred Hoyle (1915-2001), mockingly called this idea the big bang (in doing so, he coined the phrase-DS), considering it preposterous.  Hoyle never wavered from this opinion.  In 1994, he wrote, “Big Bang cosmology refers to an epoch that cannot be reached by any form of astronomy and, in more than two decades, it has not produced a single successful prediction” (Sarfati, Refuting Compromise, pp. 150-151). Hoyle affirmed the steady state theory in contrast to the Big Bang theory.  We can confidently affirm that “science” itself is conflicted about the origins of the universe.  We affirm again, the Big Bang theory is not scientific truth.  Consequently, it is an egregious error to use the Big Bang theory in a superior way to the Scriptural account of creation given in Genesis 1.  When individuals attempt to change the interpretation of God’s Word (truth) to conform to “science” (the Big Bang theory), they fall into error.
Prof. Evelleen Richards, a non-creationist, states, “Science…is not so much concerned with truth as it is with consensus.  What counts as “truth” is what scientists can agree to count as truth at any particular moment in time..” (Ibid, p. 42).  For this very reason, “science” must never take precedence over Scripture.
This is one of the fundamental mistakes Nobie Stone makes in Genesis 1 and Lessons From Space (published by the Warren Christian Apologetics Center).  Stone attempts to use the Big Bang theory to compromise the Genesis account of creation and force interpretations on the text that cannot be supported by the lexical and grammatical features of the text.  Stone desires to compromise the biblical text with a scientific theory which is based on inferential science and not observational science.  He simply does not compare truth with truth and his efforts at compromise fail for this reason.

The analogy drawn between Galileo (geokineticism or heliocentricism) and young earth creationists (YEC’s) is a false analogy.  This fallacy of analogy is made by John Lennox in Seven Days That Divide the World and Nobie Stone in Genesis 1 and Lessons From Space (published by the Warren Christian Apologetics Center).
The following information is taken from Answers in Genesis (answersingenesis.org, 7/17/18).  Under the title, The Galileo Canard, we find, “In the Middle Ages and well into the Renaissance, the Roman Catholic Church did teach geocentrism, but was that based upon the Bible?  The Church’s response to Galileo (1564-1642) was primarily from the works of Aristotle (384-322 BC) and other Ancient Greek philosophers.  It was Augustine (AD 354-430), Thomas Aquinas (124-1274), and others who ‘baptized’ the work of these pagans and termed them ‘pre-Christian Christians.’ This mingling of pagan science and the Bible was a fundamental error for which the Church eventually paid a tremendous price.  Confusion persists today in that nearly every textbook that discusses the Galileo affair claims that it was a matter of religion vs. science, when it actually was a matter of science vs. science.  Unfortunately, Church leaders interpreted certain Biblical passages as geocentric to bolster the argument for what science of the day was claiming.  This mistake is identical to those today who interpret the Bible to support things such as the Big Bang, billions of years, or biological evolution.”
Jonathan Sarfati states, “Galileo has become the poster child for the alleged battle between religion and science, and the favorite example of those who believe that religion should be subservient to science” (Refuting Compromise, pp. 53-54). He continues, “The first to oppose Galileo was the scientific establishment. The prevailing “scientific” wisdom of his day was the Aristotelian Ptolemaic theory.  This was an unwieldy geocentric system, with the earth at the center of the universe and other heavenly bodies in highly complex orbits around the earth. And it had its origins in a pagan philosophical system. Conversely, the four leading pioneers of geokineticism–Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, and Newton,–were all young-earth creationists (p. 52).  Sarfati continues, “The church affirmed geocentrism because it was the prevailing science of the day and re-interpreted biblical passages accordingly.  Ironically, many people castigate YEC’s for supposedly making the same mistake as the church in Galieo’s day.  Yet the opposite is true–it’s the long-age’ compromisers and theistic evolutionists who are the true heirs of Galileo’s opponents, because both are making the same mistake of using current scientific ideas magisterially over Scripture” (pp. 53-54).
The false analogy involves this:  The Catholic Church interpreted Scriptures to prove a geocentric view and was wrong for doing so.  Young earth creationists are committing the same sin by interpreting the Scriptures to prove a young earth when in fact science shows that the earth is billions of years old.  The Catholic Church interpreted the Scriptures to harmonize with the science of the day (geocentrism).  Young earth creationists are not interpreting Scriptures to harmonize with the science of the day (Big Bang theory, evolution).  The analogy between the two is false!
Perhaps some clarification needs to be made since it is easy to equivocate on the word “science.”  Geocentrism can be falsified by observational science.  The Big Bang and evolution are based on origin science which is inferential science.  There are two different types of science involved.  Geocentricism gave way to heliocentrism due to observational science.  The Big Bang theory is based on inferential science and has never been observed (it is not subject to the scientific method).  Those who attempt to use the Galileo affair against young earth creationists are committing the fallacy of analogy (a logical fallacy).
Since this is true, then both works by Lennox and Stone are falsified.  The Warren Christian Apologetics Center whose director is Charles Pugh III, continues to distribute Stone’s book worldwide through the internet.  This book teaches theistic evolution, agnosticism, violates sound logic and is permeated with self-contradictions.  We have now been informed that Nobie Stone is a staff writer for Sufficient Evidence, the journal published by the Warren Christian Apologetics Center.  How can any faithful Christian support the WCAC when they continue to use false teachers?  Please read my review of Nobie Stone’s book posted under the Book Reviews page on this blog.