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.

In Ruth 2:3, the Bible says, “And she went, and came, and gleaned in the field after the reapers: and her hap was to light on a part of the field belonging unto Boaz, who was of the kindred of Elimelech.”  The word hap means “an accidental set of circumstances.”  For accidental causes to accomplish something that would normally require insight is a coincidence (Theistic Evolution, p. 97).  Ruth gleaned in the field of Boaz by coincidence.
Probability is the math of coincidence–  the math by which we rigorously rank coincidences.  For instance, you bump into an old classmate at a restaurant a thousand miles from your home and understand that it was a coincidence.  However, if your entire graduating class was at the restaurant, then, you know that it could not be by accident or coincidence, but would have to be by design.
Common Science
Whether or not we know how to calculate probabilities, we all seem to know from everyday experience–common science–that the number of opportunities cannot be large enough for anything but minor coincidences to occur.  Douglas Axe introduces us to the concept of common science in a chapter that he wrote for the book, Theistic Evolution.  Axe confidently affirms that inventions never occur by accident.  An invention is illustrated by a pizza, a power point presentation, or a paragraph in a book.  In invention (and we are all inventors) a large number of small things must be done sensibly (intelligently) in order for the big thing to come together.  Projects like making a pizza are easy to accomplish because we have mastered all of the elementary skills they require, but the fact that these skills had to be acquired assures us that accidents will never take the place of inventions.  If an invention such as a pizza will never be made by accident, then, for mind blowingly spectacular inventions like hummingbirds or dolphins to happen by accident is completely out of the question.  The rule then is: accidental invention is impossible.
Application of the Rule to Evolution
If accidental invention is impossible, then macroevolution is false.  The theory of evolution does not escape the rule of accidental invention.  Yet, evolutionists insist that, given enough time, the natural world and the universe that we live in including all life forms happened by accident!  They affirm this even though the probability is so high that it violates common science. 
Application of the Rule to Theistic Evolution
The concept of theistic evolution attempts to compromise the theory of evolution and the Biblical account of creation.  However, evolution and design are contradictory as noted above.  Theistic evolution is false because it attempts to assert that both evolution (chance development of all things) and design (intelligent design) are true.  This violates the law of non-contradiction.  The law of non-contradiction states that a proposition cannot both be true and not true at the same time.  Every precisely stated proposition is either true or false.  Evolutionists like Charles Darwin and his followers explicitly claim that chance variation (mutations) and the law of natural selection have produced all species of living organisms from a common ancestor including human beings. If true, then, design is ruled out.  In contrast, if design is the cause of creation of species as the Bible affirms, then chance and the law of natural selection are ruled out.  Theistic evolutionists attempt to have it both ways and violate the law of non-contradiction. This simply means that you have to be irrational in order to be either an evolutionist or a theistic evolutionist.
Evolution is a story without a mechanism.  It is not possible for chance to produce the design (invention) that we see every day in our universe.  This means that there is only one explanation for the design we observe all around us–an intelligent being–God–created it (Gen. 1:1)!  (reference:  Theistic Evolution, edited by J. P. Moreland, Stephen C. Meyer, Christopher Shaw, Ann K. Gauger, and Wayne Grudem).

In January, 2017, the Warren Christian Apologetics Center published a revised edition of Nobie Stone’s work, Genesis 1 and Lessons From Space.  A review of the first edition of this work was published on this blog under Book Reviews in 2014 when the first edition was published.  Now, a thorough review of the new revised edition has been published on this blog under Book Reviews.  Simply click on Genesis 1 and Lessons From Space Revised and you will have access to the ten page review.
Nobie Stone is a theistic evolutionist and a mitigated skeptic who misinterprets Genesis 1 in an attempt to harmonize it with evolutionary chronology.  He makes many mistakes in logic, science and theology.  Many of these same mistakes were made in the first edition.  Now, they are repeated in the revised edition and many more errors are added.  Please take the time to read this review and, then, distribute it to others who may be interested in examining the faulty apologetics the book affirms.

Please consider the following quote from John Clayton. “Help your child realize that religious issues surrounding evolution are not generally salvation issues.  I have had the opportunity to work with Dr. Ralph Gilmore who is a professor at Freed-Hardeman College (sic) in Henderson, Tennessee.  Both he and I have had a long history with the school.  We disagree on questions about the age of the earth, and both of us are animated about this issue.  At the same time, we agree that the age of the earth is not a salvation issue.  We can support each other and work together without our opinions causing division or diluting our message” (Does God Exist? vol. 44, no. 1, First Quarter, 2017, pp. 12-13).
I would like to make the following observations concerning this quotation.  First, macro-evolution –the notion that human beings evolved from  lower life forms –is a false theory because it contradicts plain biblical teaching that human beings are the result of the creative power and work of God.  “And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them” (Gen. 1:26-27).  Any theory that contradicts a plain passage of scripture is false!  Truth saves, but lies damn.  Paul states, “And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.  And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness” (II Thess. 2:10-12).  Liars will not be in heaven! (Rev. 21:8)
Second, the theory of evolution including the false notion that the universe and the earth are billions of years old is a contradiction of the doctrine of Christ.  Jesus said, “But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female” (Mark 10:6).  The creation of man occurs “at the beginning of the creation.”  According to Genesis one, Adam and Eve were created on the sixth day after God created the heaven and the earth.  “Whosoever transgresseth, 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 biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds” (II John 9-11).  Jesus was present at the time of the creation (Col. 1:16).  He tells us exactly what He did.  Why can’t we believe the Lord Jesus Christ regarding what He did to create all things?  This rejection of Jesus’ words amounts to unbelief.  Unbelief will cause one to be lost (Heb. 3:12; John 3:18).
Third, God’s word is truth (John 17:17).  We can know the truth about the beginning of the universe, the earth, biological life and human life by studying God’s Word (John 8:32).  To say that one cannot know with certainty the truth about these things is the equivalent of being an agnostic.  There is no neutral position regarding the false theory of macro-evolution.  Consider this plain statement from God’s Word, “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).  The evolutionists and the Bible cannot both be right because each affirms what the other denies.  There is no middle ground.  Every precisely stated proposition is either true or false!  God’s truth is not man’s opinion!
The statement made by John Clayton, that evolution is not a salvation issue is a man-made doctrine that sets aside the Word of God and makes it of no effect (see Mark 7:9-13).  Who will you believe–God or John Clayton?

There are several points of similarity between Nobie Stone’s book, Genesis One and Lessons From Space (c. 2014) and John Lennox’s book, Seven Days That Divide The World (c. 2011).  Stone does not mention Lennox or reference his book in his own work.  However, many of the concepts and even vocabulary words that Stone uses come from Lennox.
1.  Both men argue for a new look at Genesis 1.
2.  Both men speak of creation as a sequence involving a process.
3.  Both believe that the Big Bang Theory is an explanation of Gen. 1:1.
4.  Both accept the Gap Theory.
5.  Both accept the Cosmic Microwave Background theory.
6.  Both believe that the days of Genesis may be 24 hour periods separated by long periods of time.
7.  Both call for humility on the part of Christians that most certainly would disagree with their interpretations.
8.  Both argue that it doesn’t make any difference if you interpret Gen. 1 as 24-hour periods or long periods of time.
9.  Both argue that the geocentric view was a false view and that the mistake was made by theologians.
10.  Both argue that the interpretation of Genesis 1 is sophisticated.
I have uploaded a pdf under the page Biblical Articles for readers to explore the comparisons in detail with quotes.  Please read my book reviews of each of these authors.  You will find the reviews under the Book Review page on this website.

I have just posted a new book review of John Lennox’s work titled, Seven Days That Divide The World. Lennox may be referred to as a progressive creationist.  He believes in an ancient universe and ancient earth.  He reinterprets Genesis 1 to fit this viewpoint.  In doing so, he has to deal rather creatively with the grammatical and lexical features of the creation account in Genesis.  I have reviewed and in many instances challenged his conclusions.
This book, in my opinion, was used by Nobie Stone to produce his own work, Genesis 1 and Lessons From Space that was published by the Warren Christian Apologetics Center.  The Warren Christian Apologetics Center just published Nobie Stone’s mostly favorable review of Lennox’s work in Sufficient Evidence, vol. 6 (Fall, 2016).  Reader’s may want to consult a review of Lennox’s work that was printed in Answers Research Journal 5 (2012): 89-97.  That review was written by Simon Turpin and titled, Review of John Lennox’s Book Seven Days That Divide the World: The Beginning According to Genesis and Science.  Turpin shows that Answers in Genesis publications have answered most of Lennox’s arguments.

I recently visited the Ark Encounter exhibit in Williamstown, KY.  The exhibit is not quite finished at this time (July, 2016), but it is completed to the point that a visitor can enjoy the conceptualizations and renderings based upon the Biblical account of Noah’s ark and the universal flood of Genesis 6-9.  The exhibit is massive in size and requires a lot of walking to see.  Ken Ham is director of Answers in Genesis and is responsible for the construction of the ark exhibit.  He is a young earth creationist.  Opposition to the Ark Encounter exhibit has already surfaced.  Barbara King wrote an article attacking the basic concept of the exhibit as anti-science because it is anti-evolution.  The most important clash between science so-called and the Bible is focused on chronology.  The Biblical chronology beginning with Genesis 1 :1 and continuing to today allows for around 6,000 years of human history.  Evolutionists argue for a much longer period of time.  Evolutionists hold that the universe is around 14 billion years old.  The earth is about 4 to 5 billion years old.  They also teach that human lineage evolved 6 million years ago and our own species about 200,000 years ago.  King objected to the display of humans and dinosaurs on the ark (There’s No Controversy: Let’s Stop Failing Our Children on Evolution, July, 28, 2016).  She claims that dinosaurs went extinct 65 million years ago and that humans have only been on the earth for about 200,000 years.  The difference between the chronology of the Biblical account of the creation of man and the chronology of evolution cannot be reconciled without destroying the veracity of the Biblical account.  Keep in mind that most of Bible chronology is given within the context of the history of the men and women who were involved in bringing the Messiah into the world.  If you destroy the chronology that is imbedded in the genealogy accounts of Christ, you destroy faith in the accounts themselves and they under gird our faith in Jesus of Nazareth as the one who is the Messiah (both creator and redeemer of mankind).  Those who want to hold to the Bible and evolutionary chronology must compromise.  These individuals are known as theistic evolutionists.  Theistic evolutionists generally believe that the Biblical accounts of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden and the flood of Noah’s day are myths.  They deny the historical and literal aspects of these accounts.  But, when they do so, they also impact the genealogies of our Lord Jesus Christ.  Why do they do this?  They desire to harmonize, in some way, what the Bible says with evolutionary chronology.  By making these accounts myths, they actually agree with the evolutionist who holds that Noah’s ark is fiction.  King quotes from the Patheos blog with which she agrees, “…and there wasn’t even a mention of how the whole Noah’s Ark story is fiction.”
King’s article focused on an NBC Nightly News broadcast by Kevin Tibbles from the site of the Ark Encounter in which Tibbles failed to affirm evolution.  King interpreted this as a failure to teach our children science (evolution).  She said, “The NBC segment was a prime example of a missed opportunity in mass-media science literacy education–education that’s sorely needed.”
This expressed opinion is precisely the reason there is a clash between the Bible and science (macro-evolution).
The chronology of the Bible cannot be reconciled with the chronology of evolution.