BiblicalInsights.net

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.

I have uploaded a response to Matthew Sokoloski’s review of Nobie Stone’s book, Genesis 1 and Lessons From Space.  Sokoloski teaches in the Humanities department of Faulkner University.  He wrote a book review of Nobie Stone’s book for Sufficient Evidence, a journal published by the Warren Christian Apologetics Center.  The review appeared in the Fall, 2017 issue.  Sokoloski’s review exposes one of the major weaknesses of Nobie Stone’s book (also published by the Warren Christian Apologetics Center) which is its skepticism (agnosticism).  However, Sokoloski fails to point out some of the other errors contained in the book.  You will find my response to Sokoloski’s review under my Book Reviews page on this blog.  Please take the time to read it.  Then, for more background information, please read my book reviews of both the first edition and revised edition of Nobie Stone’s book.  The publishing of Stone’s book utterly destroys the integrity of the Warren Christian Apologetics Center and brings shame and reproach on the name of Thomas B. Warren.

Inflation theory is dead!  Calla Cofield, on Space.com wrote an article titled, “Cosmic Inflation Theory Bites the (Space) Dust.”  The article was posted January 30, 2015, 03:46 ET.  She writes, “It is the announcement no one wanted to hear:  The most exciting astronomical discovery of 2014 has vanished.  Two groups of scientists announced today (Jan. 30) that a tantalizing signal–which some scientists claimed was “smoking gun” evidence of dramatic cosmic expansion just after the birth of the universe–was actually caused by something much more mundane: interstellar dust.”
She continues, “In the cosmic inflation announcement, which was unveiled in March, 2014, scientists with the BICEP 2 experiment, claimed to have found patterns in light left over from the Big Bang that indicated that space had rapidly inflated at the beginning of the universe, about 13.8 billion years ago.  The discovery also supposedly confirmed the existence of gravitational waves, theoretical ripples in space-time. But in a statement today, scientists with the European Space Agency said that data from the agency’s Planck Space Observatory has revealed that interstellar dust caused more than half of the signal detected by the Antarctica based BICEP 2 experiment.  The Planck spacecraft observations were not yet available last March when the BICEP 2 science team made its announcement.  ‘Unfortunately, we have not been able to confirm that the signal is an imprint of cosmic inflation,’ Jean-Loup Puget, principle investigator of the HFI instrument on Planck at the Institut d’ Astrophysique Spatiale in Orsay, France, said in a statement.  The conclusion is the result of a collaborative analysis by scientists with both BICEP 2 and Planck, using data from both telescopes as well as the Keck array at the South Pole.” (Evidence For Cosmic Inflation Theory Bites the (Space) Dust by Calla Cofield, Space.com).
In light of the above statement and evidence, it seems strange that Nobie Stone, in his book, Genesis 1 and Lessons From Space Revised Edition (pp. 67-68) published by the Warren Christian Apologetics Center, would continue to affirm the inflation theory in support of the Big Bang theory and deny the historical and literal interpretation of Genesis 1.  Is the Warren Christian Apologetics Center accountable for false science as well as a false interpretation of God’s Word due to the fact that it published this book and is distributing it worldwide without refutation?  You be the judge!
Please read my complete review of Nobie Stone’s book under the Book Reviews page on this blog.