Countering blockers and knockers

15 bad reasons for rejecting creation ministry

by , Managing Director, CMI-Australia

Published: 25 June 2019 (GMT+10)
Auditorium-Panarama

When approached to have CMI’s speaking ministry in a church, sometimes an excuse is given for rejecting the offer. Here are some of these ‘reasons’ for refusing ministry, and why none of them ‘stack up’:

  1. It’s a side issue/not important; you can be a Christian while not agreeing with CMI on Genesis.
    RESPONSE: It is possible to do this, but only if you don't think much about the consequences of deep time and evolution for the Gospel. See: Did God create over billions of years? It is certainly not a side-issue for evangelism, because the perception that you ‘can’t believe the Bible because of science’ is a huge stumbling block for many people; see: Being ready to answer. It is also a big factor in apostasy, with many testifying to how theistic evolution shipwrecked their faith (Charles Templeton, for example: Death of an apostate). The idea of death before the fall of Adam is most definitely not a side issue.
  2. It’s divisive.
    RESPONSE: The truth about Jesus is divisive (Luke 12:51–53), but according to the Bible, it is those in the church who don't believe the Bible's teaching who cause division, not those who believe it and defend it, such as a CMI speaker; see 'But it's divisive!'. Getting church members ‘on the page’ with their attitude towards the Bible as authoritative is foundational to genuine church unity and growth.
  3. wikipedia.orga-mohler2
    Dr Albert Mohler, President of the Southern Baptist Seminary, Kentucky, supports the historicity of Genesis that CMI teaches.
  4. Some (big name) 'evangelical' scholar disagrees with CMI’s position.
    RESPONSE: Top evangelical scholars and church leaders agree with CMI’s teaching. Now the positions contradict one another, so they can’t both be correct! So, which one is the correct view? Please compare CMI's position and show how it is incorrect. CMI draws upon some of the top Bible scholars in the world, especially Hebrew scholars, who have publicly affirmed CMI's theological position. CMI's stand is consistent with that throughout church history, from the earliest days of the church—no church father or Reformer believed in long ages of death and suffering before Adam sinned.
  5. Christian faith is not about evidence (“faith is the evidence of things not seen”).
    RESPONSE: The Apostle Paul provided an example for us in providing evidence for the Resurrection, for example. He provided reasons and evidence for believing. 1 Peter 3:15 exhorts us to be ready with answers for those who ask us to provide reasons for our believing. Faith in Christ does not come from a vacuum, but by hearing the Word of God faithfully presented (Romans 10:13–17). Faith goes beyond the evidence to trusting Jesus to save us, but it begins with evidence. See: The importance of evidence and Apologetics Q&A.
  6. There are two books of revelation: The Bible and Nature. We look to theologians to understand the Bible and to scientists to tell us how to understand nature (combining theology and ‘science’ only creates confusion).
    RESPONSE: This distinction is not found in the Bible; see: Argument: evolution is compatible with Christian faith. Furthermore, cosmic evolution is really a claim about the history of the universe, a history that flatly contradicts the Bible’s history, upon which salvation (theology) depends. The Bible’s theology cannot be divorced from its history. Would Jesus’ resurrection have any theological significance if it did not actually happen in time and space (real history)?
  7. CMI does not understand science.
    RESPONSE: CMI employs scientists with degrees from secular universities, who cover a range of disciplines, and we also call upon other scientists in many disciplines for peer review, so just where is our science faulty? As has been demonstrated in interactions with evolutionary scientists, CMI’s scientists have demonstrated repeatedly that they understand evolution better than the evolutionists. By the way, over 1,000 scientists have signed a public petition as sceptics of Darwinism: www.dissentfromdarwin.org/
  8. Creationists are arrogant/rude/condemnatory.
    RESPONSE: Some might be at times (we are all fallen, sinful creatures), but check out the videos available of the proposed CMI speaker; does he fit this condemnatory description? CMI takes seriously 1 Peter 3:15, which says that we are to present our case “with gentleness and respect”.
  9. CMI’s teaching is an impediment to faith for unbelievers / an embarrassment.
    RESPONSE: It is hard to see how anyone actively involved in evangelism could say such a thing, because one of the major excuses for unbelief today is evolution/billions of years and how it contradicts the Bible. Many people are being converted to the Christian faith using creation evangelism. See: Street preacher says creation is 'the issue' and creation evangelism testimonies.
  10. There are various views of Genesis; we need to respect all views.
    RESPONSE: Views other than that which has been the prevailing view in the church since apostolic times, which CMI teaches, contradict one another, but more importantly, they put death, suffering, and disease under the feet of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, undermining the need, purpose, and meaning of Jesus’ death and resurrection as the “Last Adam” (1 Corinthians 15:21,22). And the goodness of God and much else. We can respect the right of people to have their views, but for the sake of the Gospel we need to stand for the truth of the Bible's history from the beginning; anything else undermines the Bible's salvation message. See: Did God create over billions of years?
  11. We are into helping the poor (biblical justice) and so CMI’s ministry is not that relevant to us.
    RESPONSE: If church members don't believe the Bible in Genesis, why should they believe the parts that say we should help widows and orphans? See: 'You should be feeding the hungry!' and Atheists credit Christianity with social uplift for the poor. If you want to maximize practical help for the needy via your church and have your congregation equipped to explain why bad things happen then get people to accept the Bible's accuracy and authority beginning in Genesis (that is, have CMI involved). See Teaching Genesis helps the poor!
  12. We are into praying for revival.
    RESPONSE: There will be no revival while people in the church lack enough confidence in the Bible as the Word of God to conform to what it teaches, and thus repent of sin. CMI can help herein enormously. See: Revival: what's missing?
  13. We have people in our church who can cover these matters.
    RESPONSE: Who? When will we hear from them? Is their position on these matters peer reviewed and consistent with the whole Bible, upholding the goodness of God in His creation, the reality of the Fall and therefore the need of salvation, and the need for a restoration with a new heavens and earth in the future? Are they able to help people with their ‘scientific’ objections to believing the Bible’s history? CMI has over 40 years of experience in dealing with these issues, and our accredited speakers are accustomed to dealing with the questions that people will have. We also have highly appropriate resources for people to consolidate the teaching and share the Gospel foundations with others.
  14. We are not ready for creation ministry yet.
    RESPONSE: Sometimes this can be genuine, such as when a pastor takes a new position in a church and he needs to establish himself before inviting ministry from CMI. However, this is disingenuous if it is just a fob-off, if it is said year after year. If you are reading this and have not had a CMI event at your church, we encourage you to speak with your church leaders about hosting a CMI event at your church.
  15. We don’t want CMI coming in to ‘fleece our sheep’.
    RESPONSE: CMI charges no set speaker fee. There is no obligation to provide an honorarium. However, CMI is an information/equipping ministry and when people get equipped with Creation magazine and other resources, the positive effects of the ministry event continue after the speaker leaves, as people share with their family and their friends. Such resources are part and parcel of the ongoing outreach that CMI events stimulate, without which it would be far less effective for the ongoing witness of the church; see: Linking and feeding. Our margins on the books and videos is slim to nothing to make them affordable and so they can be shared far and wide.
  16. We have our programs booked up for the foreseeable future.
    RESPONSE: A CMI speaker can be booked well ahead on an available date—we really do exist to serve the church!

A CMI event can be booked here. You won’t be disappointed!


Helpful Resources

The Genesis Account
by Jonathan Sarfati
From
US $24.00
As It Is Written
by Kenneth L Gentry, Jr.
US $14.00
Soft cover
Is Genesis History?
From
US $20.00
DVD

Readers’ comments

Pieter V.
Well argued. I have become more and more convinced over time, that creation theology is a fundamental issue. Indeed, anyone who has engaged in sharing their faith would have been challenged over the age of the earth, universe and evolution. Sadly, many in the Church operate on the basis of, "I know what the bible says, but I don't care. I believe....(insert own beliefs here)."
Norman P.
I heartily agree. I believe that God understands those who have genuine difficulties - hence ministries such as CMI. But when Pastors fail their flocks with such lame excuses, it shows they already have problems.They'll eventually see the wolves come in and scatter the sheep, because their biblical foundations are shallow.
The excuses listed are based on error, worldliness and fear of man, all of which are destructive. I have personally witnessed such outcomes firsthand. But to discover there's no real scientific impediment to believing the word of God in its entirety is most wonderfully liberating, as witnessed by the peace and joy of it's Author within.
Bud B.
I am a frequent follower of your message, an avid reader of books like Evolution’s Achilles Heels and Starlight Time. I also subscribe to your news letter and Creation Magazine so please understand that I am not suggesting you have any views on doctrine that conflict with mine or my church’s (Lutheran Church Canada)
I notice that many of the church bodies that sponsor a CMI presentation are Baptist, Pentecostal and Evangelical. I know Lutheran Church Canada Pastors who are concerned that by bringing in a bipartisan ministry we are in danger of moving away from the fundamental Lutheran Doctrines.
I realize that the Lutheran Church in Australia has been going through it’s own issues in the recent past and that may obscure what the concern of these pastors is but I would like to be able to allay their concerns. Can you help?
Don Batten
CMI is expressly non-denominational. That is, we don't enter into any denominational distinctives that would offend a particular church. Our mandate is such that we really don't have time to do anything like that anyway. There is much to cover in a short time during a typical church service. I have spoken at quite a few Lutheran churches and I have never had any complaints about the message being inconsistent with traditional Lutheran distinctives. Indeed, I will use quotes from Luther, who was thoroughly on the page of biblical authority and a literal Genesis. Of couse our message will cut across modernist perspectives creeping into various Lutheran churches (which you allude to) that would say that Luther was wrong.
Kris B.
I have tried time and time again to get a creation speaker invited to come to my church. To be honest, the church staff seems disinterested in the topic. We will pay instrumentalists to come play in our church but not invite a creation speaker for free.

The "it could be divisive" argument is one that I have heard from the church staff. I will keep the pressure on though.
Kathy K.
I agree with this article. We have a wonderful preacher, but I heard him say it doesn’t matter about the age of the earth. I couldn’t say anything then but I’ve made it a point to answer this on a couple other occasions, plus many times made reference to other points of the Genesis account. They know my stand. I’ve realized how important this is in the last 7-8 years. I have quite a lot of material. Our church is quite small and older folks know the Bible. But kids are bombarded with fantasy stories about their beginnings and have lost any kind of truths about a wonderful Creator and Redeemer and Sustainer of all this creation. They don’t realize how special we are to be in God’s image. Thanks for all your hard work and research, CMI.
David S.
There is no example in the New Testament of the position of Senior Pastor (Lead Pastor). The closest thing we see is Jesus, who is the Chief Shepherd. I’m not sure how wise it is for anyone else to appropriate that title. Not super relevant to the article except whenever I see reference to such a position (as opposed to a multitude of elders leading through the teaching of the word of God), especially from a ministry that is committed to accurately presenting the Scriptural view of things, it grates on me a bit. I love what you all stand for, I just wish we could overcome this blind spot in the church and become less man-centric. God bless you all...
Donald J Batten
In our experience it is often not the senior pastor who is the blocker. The larger the church, the larger the pastoral team and the more likely it will be that someone on that team will make one or more of the 15 objections as an excuse for shunning our help. The person will not say outright that he does not believe Genesis records real events, but rather put one of the bogus objections to stop our ministry. To keep the peace, the rest of the team will cave in, and the church will be deprived of God-honouring, faith-affirming, evangelism-equipping teaching.
Jason U.
Sometimes CMI isn't brought in because they or who they would send is not in their denomination. I can't say I entirely see their point, but it may mean a local needs to get up to speed with the wealth of material that CMI and other similar organizations have to offer and share their learning. Your response to Objection 12 sounds like you don't think this is good enough, unless said person publishes something or registers with CMI. But if that's how confidence in the Word is shared, then I would support that person, published or registered or not.
Don Batten
As I said to our Lutheran supporter earlier: "CMI is expressly non-denominational. That is, we don't enter into any denominational distinctives that would offend a particular church. Our mandate is such that we really don't have time to do anything like that anyway; there is much to cover in a short time during a typical church service."
We are delighted when churches 'run' with the creation message. It's great when this does not depend on us. I saw this in a church in Okinawa. However, our input 11 years before 'kick-started' this. I was not suggesting that anyone who speaks on this topic needs CMI's approval.
Note what I said: "Who? When will we hear from them?" In other words, this is referring to the response that is really a fob off, and the church is not really dealing with the issue much at all.
I know of a church that had one of their pastors who thought he could deal with the issue, but he did a pretty woeful job of it. It's a specialized topic and there are not many pastors who are sufficiently up to speed to do a good job of this area of the Bible. It's the overlap between theology and 'science' that poses the problems. Thus many pastors just avoid the issues.
I do know of one pastor who could have done a good job of teaching on this subject, but he still asked CMI to come. He told me that he did this because he knew that some people in his church were against the plain reading of Genesis. Having us come to speak on the subject meant that if someone was out of sorts over it, he could still be a pastor to the person, whereas if he had given the teaching, there would be angst towards him and his ability to pastor the person could be impeded. This is yet another reason to get 'an outsider' (such as from CMI) to carry out this ministry.
Jeffrey C.
"Church unity" is valueless and, in the end, utterly futile if we not be "united with Christ" ... the living Word of God is our Teacher and Judge.

He is Reality!

An authentic understanding or genuine grasp of reality is not a side issue!

The only peace that is true peace -- lasting peace -- is peace with God!
John C.
CMI does great work. I love what you guys put out.

The more church’s you talk to, the more people get to hear evidence which ‘greases the skids’ and opens the door to the best news of their lives.
Philip U.
I have raised this with an LCA pastor. There is concern that a church service is not an appropriate venue for CMI. For various reasons I tend to agree. There is also a very genuine concern that the CMI collection plate will displace desperately needed funds from the church itself. These are important issues that CMI has not addressed. I get the impression that CMI has a tin ear to these issues from the orthodox churches. It is not necessarily about disagreeing with the ministry per se.
Don Batten
Hi Philip,
CMI collection plate? Please see point 14. It has been our policy for many years not to ask for any honorarium. There is certainly no requirement to send around a collection plate for CMI. So I don't know where this objection has come from.
"I get the impression that CMI has a tin ear to these issues in Orthodox churches". Perhaps what you have heard is based on false memories or confusing CMI with someone else, such as with the collection plate? We are always ready to work with church leadership to tailor what we do to fit the local church situation. We ask for feedback from every church that we visit, and we get consistently high marks for the communication process leading up to a ministry event. We also ask for feedback on each presentation, which we take on board to refine what we do. So I find the "tin ear" impression hard to fathom.
We are always open to speaking at meetings other than the main worship service (we do it often). However, the reality is that the only people who will come to such an extra meeting will be those who already understand the foundational importance of Genesis as history. It is important to have some input into the normal worship service to give everyone a heads up as to why they need to come and get equipped, for the sake of their children and grandchildren, etc.
Fred P.
Why are you surprised that the established church does not welcome your weird views? The Old Testament is a collection of wonderful stories that have spread round the world, BUT they are stories, fairy stories. Just because they're written down doesn't establish any veracity, certainly not now that science has proven thousands of times over that the earth is around four billion years old, not a trifling 10,000 as you claim. Pick any branch of science from palaentology and geology to genetics and cosmology and every piece of evidence points to an ancient world. Darwin's evolution may have been a theory in 1850 but now, today,in 2019 it is a fact. How else can you explain that we all have 98% or so the same DNA as apes and chimpanzees; and 50% the same as a banana? We all have common ancestors given enough time and mutations to develop into different species. Your hilarious depiction of the ark that according to you encompassed lions and penguins, polar bears and the 114,000 types of beetle to pick one at random. When are you going to stop this farce - or is it such a money spinner that it would be financially embarrassing to admit the Emperor's Clothes?
Don Batten
The ‘established church’ as you call it is rapidly dying, whereas the churches that believe and teach the Old Testament history from the beginning are growing. That is a statistical fact.
Furthermore, discovery after discovery in archaeology is showing that the ‘stories’ of the Old Testament were historical events. See some examples at Archaeology Q&A.
“science has proven thousands of times over that the earth is around four billion years old”. Um no, not even once, let alone a thousand times over. Please see Long-age isotope dating short on credibility . The original value was set, based on shonky methodology, and canonical phase locking has kept it close to that original value since. The following articles show how radiometric dating is not objective science but sophisticated-sounding story-telling, The dating game and The pigs took it all. Geologist Dr Tas Walker explains simply why there is no proof of deep time ages from radiometric dating: The fatal flaw with radioactive dating.
Furthermore, there is abundant evidence (not proof) that the billions of years are fiction, and that Earth and the universe are much younger; please see Age of the earth. (note the introduction that explains why there is no dating system in the present that can ‘prove’ the age of something from the past).
“Pick any branch of science from palaentology and geology to genetics and cosmology and every piece of evidence points to an ancient world. Darwin's evolution may have been a theory in 1850 but now, today, in 2019 it is a fact.”
Nice bit of elephant hurling here! And you are clearly no scientist, because science does not deal with facts but probabilities. But then you do gives some specifics, so let’s look at them:
“How else can you explain that we all have 98% or so the same DNA as apes and chimpanzees; and 50% the same as a banana.”
Well no, that’s old science, the 98% figure (and the comparison was between humans and the common chimp). See:The one percent myth And note that even a 1% difference would be an impossibility for evolution by mutations and natural selection, even with all the best possible assumptions, to change a common ancestor with a chimp into a human in the supposed 6 million years that it took. Note also that the 50% banana figure came from a flippant throw-away line from Professor Steve Taylor; it was never a 'scientific' result!
“We all have common ancestors given enough time and mutations to develop into different species.” No common ancestors have been identified, because they never existed. And there has not been anywhere near enough time, even with your naïve acceptance of the deep time myth. See Haldane’s Dilemma.
“Your hilarious depiction of the ark that according to you encompassed lions and penguins, polar bears and the 114,000 types of beetle to pick one at random.”
This shows that you have not bothered to look at anything that we have written regarding evidence for Noah’s Flood, the variation within a created kind that has occurred, or the feasibility of the Ark. In other words, you lampoon something that you know next to nothing about. That is not a reasonable approach to knowing. See: Geology Q&A, Noah's Flood Q&A, Speciation Q&A, Review of Slaughter of the Dissidents.
Brad W.
Sometimes CMI isn't brought in because they or who they would send is not in their denomination.
You need to add this to the list of objections as I suspect it is a big one.
Don Batten
Yes, this is missing from my list. Two others have raised it; please see my responses to Bud. C. and Jason U.
Chris W.
it would seem most don't appreciate how interlinked the entire Bible is. Ok, set the Flood aside. Maybe we should discount Abraham as he lived to 175; we know that nowadays people don't live that long. Joseph is mentioned in Genesis the other books of Moses, and as far on a Joshua. Okay, so we can tear out the first 6 books of the OT, except of course Chronicles also needs to go also. Never mind, the clue is "Old" from Old Testament. Opps, two of the Gospels refer explicitly to Genesis when giving Jesus Genealogy. Jesus took Abraham as a real person as a "Given", so took Genesis as history. To make "evolution work" we now need to say that Jesus was just "accommodating" the erroneous beliefs of the Jews - thus making him "economical with the truth", or the other euphemism "adding a bit of colour". The outworking of TE and the God-Head is now on the line. The theology of "original Sin" depends on Genesis, so tear Paul's letters out of your bibles as well. (he must be wrong if he believed in Adam). Ditch Peter and Hebrews as they believed in Noah's flood. We don't have much left do we. Moving on, we are told that after Day6 God pronounced his creation to be good. I've always assumed the "new earth" would be similar to a greater or lessor extent - Allowing for the TE position that "death" in the GofE was only spiritual which the TE position demands, if physical death (of animals at least) occurred pre the fall, will death (of animals as a minimum) (if we have them there) also feature in Heaven?

A side issue as they say ..

CMI would agree that the only way to salvation is through Jesus but we know that the gate is a narrow one. Many believing in a supernatural creation don't believe in Jesus as the son of God so its not definitive of salvation, but teaching TE ?
Natasha T.
Thank you Don Batten for your article and thank you CMI for your ministry, I really appreciate your defence of the harmony between the Bible and science and your heart for the Gospel. I do have a criticism along the lines of point seven of the article though--I don't recall hearing any arrogance from CMI speakers in person, but I have felt for quite some time that the tone of many articles on the CMI website are condescending, especially when they are written in response to people/media giving an opposing perspective. Here are a couple of examples from this article: "Here are some of these 'reasons' for refusing ministry"--this makes it sound as though there are no legitimate reasons for not desiring a CMI representative to come and speak at one's church. The response to point 12 gives the impression that no one outside of CMI can give a reliable presentation of biblical creationism, which is arrogant (and I'm sure that's not what CMI believes, but that's how it reads in my eyes). I always come to CMI articles hoping to find grace-filled truth spoken in love but am disappointed when I notice an air of superiority often creeping in, and I have talked with friends who have similar concerns about CMI. There is certainly God's grace for the sins of every Christian, but I think He would be honoured with a greater measure of empathy and humility from those of us who hold to biblical creationism toward those we disagree with. Again, thank you for your ministry. I have benefitted from your bold proclamation of the truth.
Don Batten
Thanks for your appreciation. We will have to take the criticism on the chin. We do endeavour always to give a defence of the truth “with gentleness and respect” (1 Peter 3:15) but it seems that we don’t always succeed in that, at least in the eyes of some of our supporters. The written word is much more subject to misunderstanding than the spoken word, because the heart of the writer is not as readily discernible as it is with someone in person. It is also super difficult to criticize anyone without sounding high-handed; and so we do this only when we think that it is really necessary.
With my article in question here, with point 12, which excuse was, “We have people in our church who can cover these matters.” My response was: “Who? When will we hear from them?...” In other words, this is the church where they say that they have someone who can teach this, but no-one ever does; it is not genuine. It’s not that they must have someone from CMI to do it. Please also see my response to Jason U., June 26th.
Also, on point 13 (the next point), which was “We are not ready for creation ministry yet.” I conceded that “Sometimes this can be genuine, such as when a pastor takes a new position in a church and he needs to establish himself before inviting ministry from CMI.” Thus, my article conceded that there can be a genuine reason for not wanting creation ministry. However, the article was about “15 bad reasons for rejecting creation ministry” (subtitle), so this would not include, necessarily, any genuine reasons for rejecting ministry. :-)
Linda F.
Note; for anyone in the church, this is a critical ministry!!! Our children are getting lost due to the so call science in our school and not hearing the other side. We enjoyed them coming to ours and many learned from it. This is the Bible-The Word of God getting questioned here. I see far to many churches comprising on this! What else will we comprise on if we do the beginning of of God's Word. How can anyone believe if they think the Beginning is not correct? I can't believe the lame excuses that I see. That maybe harsh, but think for a moment what you are comprising, the world or God? What's wrong seeing teaching on the other side? We don't see it anywhere else. They work hard to bring the facts and they study all areas. Not on what we want to hear. God's Word is the most important factor here, and it needs to be taught. This area, I feel they are the best to teach in! We need this teaching today!!
Stephen S.
Every week I am out on the street somewhere in the Waikato.
There are quite a large 'loose' group of us that witness to the public.

All I know would agree that the younger the person the more open they are to the gospel and a relationship with Yahweh.
The older the more closed they are.

A huge number of younger people refute the Bible being accurate because they 'believe' science.. ..
Teaching of evolution destroys the base of the Bible and later at university many leave this path using this reason to follow the world when they are tempted.

To teach evangelists to gently counter the evolution theory is critical as in gentle logical debate with solid facts their heart is very open; they are searching.
We need to be equipped, creation science is vital for our schools, universities yes and churches.
If a tree has no new leaves one way or another it is doomed or dying... a church with no youth is the same.

The Bible is more real than the world we live in.. it is totally fact not fairy tales..
It is the world that passes away.. the word remains.

The young people are hungry and searching.. many do not go out to witness because they are afraid and have never been encouraged...
But Creation Ministries provide a perfect tool that is relevant in our time... grasp the information and discuss it with people... even believers need this teaching.

To fail to teach creation.. or believe it.. is similar to abortion in that it destroys the Bible in the very first chapter... we weekly see the evidence of this on the street..
If you doubt this I challenge Christians anywhere to go to those you see witnessing on the street and ask them.

Well done Creation Ministries keep up the good work..
There are none so blind than those that will not see...
All churches should embrace you.
Don Batten
Thanks for sharing, Stephen. Appreciated.
Your experience is the same as every other street evangelist I have spoken to; that 'evolution' is the 'goto' excuse for unbelief or disinterest.
David G.
Under point 5, one of the hoary old excuses, you write: "cosmic evolution is really a claim about the history of the universe". Indeed iti is, but it is more. It is a claim about what the universe really is: it really is impersonal, material and any 'personal' within it is an accident of the material. There is no certainty; reality is basically a non-person thing, and fellowship, mind and spirt, like the persona, are other accidents of material. They are not basically real. Genesis tells us a whole different thing. It tells us what is really real: person, fellowship (God with his creature humans, and humans witheach other, spirit, communion, rationality, purpose, the power of word (God's word then ours, in a lesser way), causal certainty at our scale, that chance is limited and not creative, etc. All these a real in Genesis 1 and shown there at work; God creates in 6 days a place for fellowship with man by using the things of the creation to make that place (time, other creatures, direct causality, and so on). If this is set aside, then what is really real? We end up in surrender to the materialists' dark and lonely vision of blank matter and random collisions.

Comments are automatically closed 14 days after publication.