Share
A- A A+
Free Email News
15 Reasons to Take Genesis as History
by Dr Don Batten, Dr Jonathan D Sarfati

US $3.50
View Item
Creation Without Compromise
by Donald D. Crowe

US $10.00
View Item

Feedback archiveFeedback 2010

Should CMI ignore the atheists? Plus human vs ape skin

Published: 12 June 2010(GMT+10)

atheist Richard Dawkins

If CMI were to stop critiquing Dawkins’ pronouncements, would he go quiet?

Two enquiries this week—the second correspondent asking about the differences between human skin and ape skin.  Dr Don Batten answers both. Firstly we have Australian correspondent Mary B., who wrote:

Why all this emphasis on your website to rebutting atheists? They are only really in the minority (admittedly vocal at present)—yet your website probably spurs the more rabid ones to speak out all the more. “Rebutting” atheists, as you put it, I think is not only unnecessary but also strategically unwise. Better to let them shout away into the wind; if we all ignore them they might soon tire of it. Meanwhile it’s people who are zealous for God but whose zeal is misdirected (Romans 10:2) that we should be helping.

Incidentally, from the articles I’ve perused on your website (not all, I admit) you’re making the mistake of viewing the Bible literally. An understandable error, but an error nonetheless, no matter how well-intended. Much Scripture is in fact written as metaphor. Hence it brings to the earnest believer (i.e. anyone who is prepared to accept its Divine origins) deep theological truths. It is not, nor was it intended to be, a science textbook.

The noble purpose of science is to understand the world around us. While I am not condoning the antics of some scientists who deny the existence of God, one cannot put one’s head in the sand, i.e. denying the scientific evidence, just because of facts that might seem to contradict the Bible. There is no justification for intellectual slothfulness! Rather, as science gives us new insights into how life developed we can marvel at the deep truths “sealed” up in the Bible, which are really only now becoming apparent to man with the benefit of modern knowledge. I would ask that you take the time to probe more deeply on these matters.

Dr Don Batten’s responses are interspersed below:

Why all this emphasis on your website to rebutting atheists? They are only really in the minority—yet your website probably spurs the more rabid ones to speak out all the more. “Rebutting” atheists, as you put it, I think is not only unnecessary but also strategically unwise. Better to let them shout away into the wind; if we all ignore them they’ll soon get sick of it. Meanwhile it’s people who are zealous for God but whose zeal is misdirected (Romans 10:2) that we should be helping.

Dawkins was given 20 minutes to strut his anti-Christian diatribe out of a 30 minute prime-time program!

We agree that we can give too much attention to the "new atheists", who are a very noisy small minority. We believe that New Age ideas / Eastern mysticism, etc., are arguably far more rampant and competitive with true Christian faith than atheism, at least in Australia. But the atheists have certainly increased their media profile in recent years—witness the Year of Darwin celebrations and the reporting of various atheist-supported events (e.g. the Global Atheist Congress in Melbourne in March)—I wonder if you have heard the heavy coverage given to the atheists by our taxpayer-funded Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC)? High-profile atheist Richard Dawkins seemed to be on every second program. And then they even played one of his more provocative anti-Christian statements repeatedly over several weeks—their excuse being their self-promotion of the ABC AM program (Dawkins was given 20 minutes to strut his anti-Christian diatribe out of this 30 minute prime-time program!). So I don’t think our efforts to counter Mr Dawkins give him any publicity that he is not already getting truckloads of via "our" ABC and other media.

While statistics would suggest that only maybe 15% of Australians say they are atheists, many more are functional atheists (live as if there is no God to whom they are or will be accountable). Furthermore, atheism is a growing proportion of the population and already comprises significant proportions of many western European countries. Census figures in France indicate that 33% of people consider themselves atheist and 14% agnostic. That is a very significant proportion of the population—47% in total. Surveys of teenagers in Australia suggest that atheism is certainly on the rise in younger people, which is not surprising considering the doctrinaire teaching of the materialistic worldview (via cosmological, geological and biological evolution).

While atheists are a minority, they tend to be an influential minority, with many of them influential in higher education and the media, so it would be foolish for Christians to ignore them and not to counter what they are saying and doing.

Probably the biggest threat to Christianity today in this country is apathy, as written about recently by Bill Muehlenberg: Our Own Worst Enemies.

Incidentally, from the articles I’ve perused on your website (not all, I admit) you’re making the mistake of viewing the Bible literally. An understandable error, but an error nonetheless, no matter how well-intended. Much Scripture is in fact written as metaphor. Hence it brings to the earnest believer (i.e. anyone who is prepared to accept its Divine origins) deep theological truths. It is not, nor was it intended to be, a science textbook.

Genesis is not poetry, metaphor, myth, a polemic or whatever other slippery term that has been invented to avoid the clear import of what it says.

If the Bible is the inspired Word of God, which we take it to be, then it is incumbent upon us to interpret what we read according to how it is meant to be understood (exegesis), not to twist it to fit with what we would like it to say (which is eisegesis). Was Genesis (for example) written as metaphor or as literal history? Genesis was written as historical narrative—as testified for example by Oxford Hebraist James Barr: Genesis means what it says!. It is not poetry, metaphor, myth, a polemic or whatever other slippery term that has been invented to avoid the clear import of what it says. Please see articles at: Genesis questions and answers. See also: Statistical determination of genre in biblical Hebrew: Evidence for an historical reading of Genesis, where the author, Dr Stephen Boyd, shows using a statistical approach that the likelihood of Genesis being historical narrative is higher than 99.5%.

The noble purpose of Science is to understand the world around us. While I am not condoning the antics of some scientists who deny the existence of God, one cannot put one’s head in the sand, i.e. denying the scientific evidence, just because of facts that might seem to contradict the Bible. There is no justification for intellectual slothfulness! Rather, as science gives us new insights into life’s development we can marvel at the deep truths “sealed” up for our benefit in the Bible, which are only now becoming apparent to man with the benefit of modern knowledge. I would ask that you take the time to probe more deeply on these matters.

Clearly you have not looked at much of the content of our publications (or even our website, which has over 7,000 articles written at all levels, including by experts in Hebrew, history, theology and various fields of science). You say, "I would ask that you take time to probe more deeply on these matters." Considering that that these matters are what our ministry is about, your statement must be made in ignorance, so I will not be insulted. Please consider the following (I must restrain myself here as I cannot do justice to over 7,000 articles!):

None of us involved with Creation Ministries International have forfeited our abilities to think scientifically and rationally on these matters—quite the contrary. The only ‘science’ that contradicts the Bible is ‘historical science’, which involves imagining what happened in the past based on what is seen in the present. This is a very imprecise ‘science’ that is strongly driven by materialistic presuppositions, in contrast to experimental or operational science. See ‘It’s not science. Again I wonder how much of our material you have read.

Rather, it is those who say the Bible is about theology only and has nothing to say about history (e.g. no Flood of Noah; just a story) who park their scientific (geological) brains. The non-overlapping magisterial approach, whereby the Bible is seen as only about theological concepts, morality, etc., involves compartmentalizing knowledge in a very destructive manner. I have been there and it is very destructive of faith in God and confidence in His Word. See my story: Harvesting real fruit—Creation Magazine (Don Batten interview) Jesus said, “If they do not believe Moses and the Prophets, neither will they believe, even if someone comes back from the dead.” (Luke 16:31).

By the way, there is abundant scientific evidence that the earth is not billions of years old. See, for example: Age of the earth evidence (but note the introduction). For more, see: Young Age Evidence Q&A.

When you marry the Bible with the long ages claimed by secularist geology (see the origin of the long ages: The origin of old-Earth geology and its ramifications for life in the 21st century), then you destroy any consistent theodicy (an explanation of the goodness of God). See: Creation, Suffering and the Problem of Evil and Cosmic and universal death from Adam’s fall: an exegesis of Romans …

I trust this has helped a little in increasing your comprehension of what we are about and why we do what we do.

Kindest regards,

Don Batten


This next enquiry is from Christina C. (Australia), who wrote:

I subscribe to Creation mag, work at [a hospital], have the magazines in our waiting room, saw ‘Expelled‘ on the weekend, support you and have been to many talks, seminars, have supported you financially and want to continue to do so etc. I remember hearing at one of them someone saying monkey/ape skin is completely different to human skin and could not have evolved, it was very interesting and I have heaps of books but so far cannot find any reading matter to expand on this so I can share this with people. Can you tell me which book or reference I can find regarding the diff in human/ape skin?

Many thanks. Keep up the great work.

Christina C.

Don Batten replies:

Dear Christina,

It is true that human and ape skin is quite different.

Thanks so much for your support and encouragement, which we greatly appreciate.

It is true that human and ape skin is quite different. This was one of the evidences adduced by the "aquatic ape" proponents, who argue that humans were not descended from apes of the savannah, but from an aquatic stage. Elaine Morgan is the prime proponent of this theory. The main publication is a book published in 1999 (The Aquatic Ape). You can find a review of the idea in our Journal of Creation article The Aquatic Ape Theory: challenge to the orthodox theory of evolution.

The major differences in the skin are the presence of subcutaneous fat in humans (the only primate with it) and the type and distribution of sweat glands and sebaceous glands (oil glands). You can read about the differences in the above article.

I hope this helps.

Every blessing,

Don Batten


Related Articles

Further Reading


Anthony P said “Thanks for your … website, it’s really easy to navigate and it is a massive bonus to be able to read back-issues of your magazines … without your ministry I probably wouldn’t be a Christian today. Thank you so much and keep up the good work.” So help us do just that! Support this site

Comments closed
Article closed for commenting.
Only available for 14 days from appearance on front page.
Readers’ comments
Fiona S., Australia, 12 June 2010

It’s by keeping quiet (and ignoring athesists) that our country now teaches evolution in its schools as though it’s proven science.

Paul H., United States, 10 June 2010

What I have discovered is that everyone needs help, especially Christians who do not think that Bible chronology is important and who do not recognize that it is the framework on which Bible history hangs which contains the Gospel narrative which is given in the history that is certified and documented by the chronology without which the history may be erroneously considered as myth and the Gospel erroneously considered as indefensible.

Terence T., South Africa, 12 June 2010

Atheists may be a minority, but the amount of Christians who don’t truly believe the accuracy of much of the bible is frightening! It is your response to the vocal atheists that also guide the faithful who are not so vocal. Rather they remain silent and unsure while still loving and accepting Jesus! Knowing all the Bible is accurate and especially scientifically valid enhances faith in our Saviour Jesus the Christ! So answer all those who question for even the faithful benefit! Let them be vocal and please let them be answered, for Jesus who is the truth needs fear no truth! You do a service to Him by answering every question no matter from whence it comes. Thank you my brothers and sisters in Christ! Both the faithful and unsaved need you and your ministry!

Mark E., Australia, 12 June 2010

It only takes a few enlightened, highly qualified, intelligent, Creation scientists to remain quiet to lose the souls of thousands of antichristian, atheistic, unenlightened individuals.

It only takes a few highly public atheists to tickle the ears of a willing public to spread their unchallenged venom and gather thousands of hapless souls into their kingdom.

The harvest is ready but few are the labourers. May God continue to richly bless all who toil for the harvest through CMI.

Arla M., Canada, 14 June 2010

I have a friend who is considers himself to be an atheist. I really appreciate that CMI gives plenty of information on refuting atheists. Are atheists not created men and women who have been deceived by the evil one? They too are loved by God. As a Christian, I feel it is our duty and privilege to join in the task, with the power of the Holy Spirit, of reconciling the world to God, through our Mediator and Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ. May God continue to bless this ministry, and provide Christians with the tools they need to show the lost world a most excellent way!

Ben M., New Zealand, 14 June 2010

I really appreciate the work CMI does keep up the good work (Proverbs 18:17 The first one to plead his cause seems right, Until his neighbor comes and examines him.)

Can you please, either provide a link to articles or write an article specifically highlighting and expanding on this statement you made “The only ‘science’ that contradicts the Bible is ‘historical science’”

I think it is a good point to argue against evolution and the atheistic world view, and I would like to understand it better. So could you please present facts that show it is a true statement. i.e If I were to argue this point I would want to be able to back it up factually.

Don Batten comments: See “It’s not science” for the distinction between historical/forensic science and operational/experimental science.

Judie S., Australia, 14 June 2010

Mary seems to be ignorant of, not only your 7000 articles, but also the old adage, “All that is necessary for evil to triumph is that good men keep silent”.

Actually, when I’d finished reading her letter, my first thought was, “This isn’t even a real letter, it’s an atheist fake!” Obviously you have more Grace than I do.

Matthew W., United States, 14 June 2010

Ignoring atheists isn’t going to make them go away, it just makes you look like a complete immature twat who sticks their fingers in their ears going “lalalala I can’t hear you lalalala”

Ignore the ones who answer your questions about science, that is suuuuuuuch a great idea ya know. Oh and yes, that was sarcasm.

Daniel L., South Africa, 15 June 2010

I must also agree with Fiona S. If we stay quiet, people might believe that there are not any arguments against atheists. The world should know that Christians can defend their faith and that we do not only blindly believe (see “Loving God with all your mind: logic and creation”).

Alexander I., United States, 14 June 2010

I think you should continue because you can refute atheists. It was obvious that when they had the atheist convention in Australia awhile back they new they would lose and that is why they would not debate. The Holy Spirit can change anyones heart including Richard Dawkins’s.

Comments closed
Article closed for commenting.
Only available for 14 days from appearance on front page.
Copied to clipboard
7318
Product added to cart.
Click store to checkout.
In your shopping cart

Remove All Products in Cart
Go to store and Checkout
Go to store
Total price does not include shipping costs. Prices subject to change in accordance with your country’s store.