Feedback archiveFeedback 2019

Is biblical creation anti-science?

Published: 31 August 2019 (GMT+10)
Bible-Genesis

The article reporting on the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod’s resolution reaffirming 6-day creation received several comments from both Christians and skeptics with objections to biblical creation. We print them below, with responses from CMI-US’s Lita Cosner.

Charles H., Australia, writes:

Are you the anti-Christ. where did Jesus teach that the earth was 6000 years old? Your interpretation of the timeline is warped. Organized religion has a lot to answer to for confusing people. You draw a long bow between ‘Gay’ and people not accepting the truths in the Bible. You are mistaken in your timeline 4000 years first written record. 2000 years prior to this your start of the universe. Christ message was about different things. Your message comes from the old testament what the Jews believed in. (including a flat earth, sun around the earth ,many unanswered questions re universe ,etc. Are the scientist that wrong re Carbon dating 6000 years against 60 billion years?

Jesus taught that the earth was 6,000 years old in Genesis 5 and 11, along with other chronological markers in the rest of the Old Testament. Surely you weren’t going to try the old trick of implying that Jesus only spoke the red letters? Jesus said that Scripture cannot be broken (John 10:35) and that not even the smallest mark of it would pass away (Matthew 5:18). He had every chance to correct people if they understood Genesis wrongly, yet Jesus affirmed the recent creation of man and the global Flood of Noah’s day. Also, note that He was speaking to Jews who certainly believed Genesis was historical!

In short, we believe exactly what Jesus taught about Genesis. And the Old Testament authors most certainly did not believe in a flat earth nor geocentrism. And I would suggest that makes us the exact opposite of an ‘anti-Christ’. But if you claim to be a Christian you would have done well to research these very topics that have been extensively covered on our site, before claiming that we were ignorant of such things and unable to answer them.


Fred P, UK, writes:

Please explain how since 4000 BC we had the Stone Age, the Iron Age, the Bronze Age and maybe 10 ice ages, continental shift—as evidenced by coal and fossils being found in Antarctica—plus such readily dateable events as the building of the Pyramids. Sure was a busy time for all concerned. Don’t you begin to think—just a teeny bit—that your hypothesis of an Earth just 6000 years old is riddled with flaws?

Lita Cosner, US, replies,

Nice setup there! By assuming evolutionary history and demanding I cram that into the biblical timeframe, it’s clearly giving me an impossible task. But let’s look at those assumptions. Most people realize that Stone, Iron, and Bronze ages are a bit of a fallacy. Today we can find groups of people that fit into those categories, living side-by-side. 10 ice ages? 1 is plenty and fits the evidence we have, and would be predicted from the global Flood. See What caused the ice age? And interesting thing about those pyramids—the stones are often limestone and sandstone which are sedimentary rocks (formed under water). They have marine fossils in them which indicates they came about because of a global Flood (see Egyptian Chronology and the Bible, and particularly the reply to David B in the comments of that article).

You have your own time problem—chimpanzees and humans supposedly shared an ancestor as recently as 6 million years ago. However, generation times and mutation rates make it impossible for the differences to arise that quickly. And it’s once again amazing how advocates for an old-earth (an unbiblical idea if we take the Genesis chronogenealogies and the words of Jesus at face value), actually have no idea where the secular age of the earth comes from. See See Did God create over billions of years? And why is it important?


David M., UK, writes:

There is no scientific evidence for the existence of God, and therefore it must follow that the act of irresponsibly teaching gullible people that ‘God created the Earth’ must constitute a deliberate lie, which is itself a shameful act. Further, we know that the Universe continues to expand and cool, and from this information we can deduce its age as 13.75 billion years. Equally, the scientific method tells us that the Earth is 4.6 billion years old, and that humans are animals evolved from earlier forms and—together with all other plants and animals—will have shared Common Ancestors throughout evolutionary history. The chemicals that we see on the Periodic Table, displayed in most schools, are the direct result of the deaths of stars caused by their failing battle with the forces of gravity, as their hydrogen fuel begins to run out. Therefore, it is both poetically beautiful and scientifically accurate to say that we are all made of stardust!

This statement by the Lutheran Church seems to me to be a desperate and ill-informed response to the overwhelming scientific evidence, which itself provides us with modern medical and veterinarian services, as well as keeping many of us alive when Natural Selection would simply have us die much younger. Such obstinacy in the face of knowledge is not to be praised, but rather ridiculed for its stubborn and foolish rejection of Science. Books? A Universe from Nothing by Lawrence Krauss; Why Evolution Is True by Jerry Coyne; The Greatest Show On Earth by Richard Dawkins.

David,

Asking for scientific evidence for the existence of God is a category error. It’s like asking for geometrical proof for the existence of Abraham Lincoln. God is by definition outside of science. If we could put Him in a test-tube, He wouldn’t be God! The evidence we put forward is historical and philosophical. First and foremost, Jesus Christ claimed to be the Messiah and to fulfill the Jewish Scriptures. He was raised from the dead, in history.

You assume that people who believe the earth is 6,000 years old are gullible. But just among our staff we have scientists and other specialists who have earned advanced degrees from secular universities. Many started out as evolutionists, but the science itself drove them to biblical creation.

When you say, “The scientific method tells us that the earth is 4.6 billion years old” you demonstrate you don’t even know what the scientific method is and fail to provide any scientific evidence for your assertion anyway (we call that ‘elephant hurling’). You can use the scientific method to get facts like, “Water boils at 100 degrees Celsius at sea level” or “Rubber is a good insulator”. You know what you can’t test with the scientific method? Historical events that only happen once. You might as well say, “The scientific method tells us that Queen Elizabeth’s reign began in 1952”.

The scientific method gives us facts like the ratio between isotopes. We have to make assumptions to get from those facts to the interpretation that the earth is billions of years old. Biblical creationists have different interpretations of those same facts. The scientific method actually rules out evolution from microbes to man, because it gives us facts like DNA is a tremendously complex code, and mutations to that code are almost always bad, and often catastrophic, so it can’t be the engine of evolution.

The scientific method tells us that the laws of science don’t lead to the formation of stars, so you can’t appeal to their death as the furnace for the elements. Why is it beautiful to say that we are stardust? What basis does your worldview have for the concept of beauty?

You praise medical science which keeps humans alive when ‘natural selection’ would dictate otherwise. But in an evolutionary worldview, why would that be a good thing? Mercy to the ‘unfit’ individual would be cruelty to the human race, which would suffer when worse genes are allowed to persist in the population. In fact, until the world was horrified by the Holocaust, eugenics, the application of evolutionary theory to the human race, was widely practiced in America and parts of Europe, and many people were sterilized because they were seen as ‘unfit’.

You equate skepticism about evolution with a ‘stubborn and foolish rejection of science’. But the Ph.D. scientists on our creation scientists list would not say they are rejecting science. Rather, they are following the science which excludes the big bang, billions of years, and evolution.

Krauss, Coyne, and Dawkins have something besides their evolutionism in common—they are all three vocal atheists. And just as creationists ultimately have a religious foundation which serves as the lens through which we interpret the science, so do evolutionists. And creationists have interacted with the books you cite. In fact, we’ve published an entire book in response to Dawkins’s book: see The Greatest Hoax on Earth? Refuting Dawkins on Evolution. I encourage you to acquaint yourself with creationist thinking, starting with all the links I’ve provided in this response.

Helpful Resources

Christianity for Skeptics
by Drs Steve Kumar, Jonathan D Sarfati
From
US $17.00
The Creation Answers Book
by Various
From
US $15.00

Readers’ comments

Col M.
Thank you Lita and all the CMI scientists and specialists who give us ammunition like this to turn attacks on Creation back on the attackers. I love this ministry.
S H.
The truth is that the evolutionary way of thinking demands more 'faith' than the truth about God. As for there being 'no scientific evidence' for God, have you considered there is no scientific evidence to the contrary? So by your own logic your views are questionable.. But yes there is scientific evidence for God - the complexity of the universe, the complexity of life, the perfect balance needed (and perfectly maintained) which alone sustains life, quantum physics, the mechanics of DNA etc... Then there is the Bible (which clearly teaches the earth isn't flat!), the prophecies of the Bible, the fulfilment of 'prophetic' Biblical verses through history, in the nation of Israel and in the life of Jesus. Then we have the reality of hundreds of millions of changed lives - in this country alone there's the lives of many who have gone from violence or gangs or crime or horrific lives through to totally transformed lives. Then there is the witness of the church who provide more disaster relief than anyone in the US, who provide more youth work services than the secular agencies in the UK, who work in the darkest places where no others go, who we can trace change in medicine, prisons, housing, social reform, slavery reform, at the forefront of fighting sex trafficking, in cutting edge science through time. Only the Christian worldview adequately answers all the questions of life perfectly - no other worldview can or does. The commenters are both too late to say God doesn't exist - he proved he does 6000 odd years ago when he created the world - and then formed both of you in your mother's wombs. It is scientific and logical madness to assume we developed from nothing by chance for no purpose.
Tan E.
For the 3 UK sceptics For Charles 1) Jesus and the apostles were Jews and they attested to what was written in the Old Testament 2) carbon dating cannot be used to test for anything older than 100k years, so please get your scientific knowledge informed
For Fred 1) how were fossils formed? Plenty of water, plenty of sediment, like the Flood. And we have found carbon 14 in coal , which if you read up on scientific matter, cannot be d0etected if anything was more than 100k years . Plus carbon dating not foolproof as there are variables to account for.
For David 1) your same accusations can be lodged against proponents of the evolutionary idea 2) you keep talking about the scientific method but this can only applied to experimental matters. Scientists operate on experimental principles that are not dependent on evolutionary ideas. 3) where are all the missing links? Even Darwin expected many but till now, there is no undisputed one, even among evolutionists 4) you waxed almost poetic about the elements and stardust but where is the evidence? How did stardust come together to form a protein, not to say DNA, even more a replicating cell....whole organism, or biological systems? 5) how did all things begin? All the universe in a singularity, but what kept it so? What caused it, to change it, that accord with laws to f physics?
John S.
It's the same old story. You can give solid evidence against the billions of years, against a natural creation, against the goo-to-you evolution, against the laws of nature just happened to be there, and we all know the list goes on, and when that happens, then it seems like they all have The Book Of Lame Excuses to 'counter' with. They are exactly like little children denying they believe a lie. When it is clearly shown what we KNOW, they resort to science is always looking as they tell you that you're wrong because of things they claim to know but were just proven wrong. Kraus, Dawkins, Susskind, Harris, and more still living and some not, ALL follow that pattern. They say we're wrong by what is known, and when they are shown to be wrong on what they presented by known science they never revealed, then they go with science is ever-learning so what we gave does not really count.

The wonderful thing is we speak up and be BOLD! When they are presented with truth and decide to ignore it, THEY are held accountable for that. It's our job to present it. If they want to act like a spoiled child with it, then that's their decision and they will be judged by God about it. If they never changed before their death, then an extremely unpleasant judgment awaits them.
Mark G.
Nice article, Lita. Much has been assumed scientific fact that is still just theory. Theory only morphs into what appears to be scientific fact when one does not do proper homework. The scientists at Creation have done a lot of homework. I give Lita an A and the skeptics an F.
Douglas V.
Well written responses! I'm certaily glad you're on our side, please continue in your defense of the truth. Thank you Lita!
John C.
For David M, who wrote 'teaching gullible people that ‘God created the Earth’ must constitute a deliberate lie, which is itself a shameful act.'
But David, if there is no God, then there is no Absolute Moral Center for the universe, and humans in particular. On what basis do you make the judgment that this would constitute a 'shameful act?'
Dale S.
People (atheists, evolutionists) who are against the six day creation account cannot believe God by faith. They believe in man's doctrine over God's infallible Word (Holy Bible). God who cannot lie (Titus 1:2) tells us who are Bible-believers that the universe and earth were created in six (24 hour) days (Exodus 20:11), (Genesis 1:1-31). Jesus (God manifest in flesh) said that Adam (male) and Eve (female) were created in the beginning of Creation (Mark 10:6) on day sixth of Creation (Genesis 1:26-28). Apes are not our ancestors. We were created in the image of God (Genesis 1;26-27) and when Jesus came to the Earth He came as a man, the God man Christ Jesus (1 Timothy 2:5-6),( Philippians 2:4-11). The earth is about 6,000 years old not 4.6 billion years old like secular scientists believe. They cannot believe what Genesis 1:1 says, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." They believe in their chronological timeline of billions of years after the Big Bang. This faulty reasoning is what fuels the evolution theory into making people believe that the universe and earth are very old and that everything has evolved from a lower level to a higher level. That the evolution of plants and animals came from a common ancestor. That man evolved from an ape-like creature. The Word of God (Holy Bible) refutes all this. God's Word is the truth and I believe it 100%. Amen!
John R M.
If evolutionary science is so sure of it's processes and conclusions why has it not been able to prove there is no Creator God? Is it because they cannot prove anything they declare about evolution or about God.? I intend to put my faith in God.
Lou Z.
Well put answers to inflammatory and ignorant questions. I would ask David M. by what standard he considers lies to be shameful. If we are just highly evolved molecules and there is no God, then by what possible basis could he judge anything? By his own standards, no doubt, which differ from person to person. I, who follow God's standards, would consider it shameful to write such an email without investigating the articles on this site or being open to the truth or even the simple facts. And then to be so naive as to believe the hypocritical narratives of the three misotheists he references and pass these opinions off as fact is very shameful. The search for Truth in this world is dying quickly, drowning in the rhetoric of the loud and angry.
Neil O.
Excellent responses, Lita Costner. One is repeatedly astounded at the level of ignorance displayed by individuals who, rushing to attack the Creationist position, show not only how little understanding they have of it, but also how little they know of the numerous fatal flaws in the solely Naturalistic explanations they so fervently believe in.
A worthwhile article.
Gert V.
Better to keep your mouth closed and thought to be a fool than opening it and proving it. The fool said in his heart "There is no God". Well done CMI, but there is a looooong way to go!
Mark S.
Your responses in articles like this help reinforce what I need to remember when dealing with non-Christian friends and acquaintances (and, unfortunately, when dealing with not-a-small-number of Christians, too :-( ) - thanks for them all. I believe you are called to this ministry. Truly I feel blessed at times like this.

I am continuously pleasantly-impressed with the grace and professionalism exhibited by CMI staffs' responses in articles such as this. I have seen a few instances of well-placed sarcasm (which is ok to use: Jesus was a great model for that, my favourite example being John 10:31–32 when the Jews were about to stone Him) when chiding/correcting some responders' comments, mostly the tone - like this article - is patient and gracious, usually including references to support your assertions.

Finally, an observation/comment regarding David M.'s opening salvo :-) Since data/information/evidence is essentially agnostic and is interpreted by one's world view, then simply adding the 3 words I did below, in his first sentence, illustrates it really is more of a non sequitur: "There is no scientific evidence for the *non* existence of God, and therefore it must follow that the act of irresponsibly teaching gullible people that ‘God *has not* created the Earth’ must constitute a deliberate lie, which is itself a shameful act." Which, by the way, I whole-heartedly agree with (after the addition of the 3 words, of course!)
Linda W.
Thank you for this article, and the replies to Charles, Fred and David. It has been about 55 years since God was removed from the classroom in BC, Canada. (No more Bible reading or Lord's prayer, even if you want it, unless you want, and can afford to send your child to a private, religious school.) Grade 7 was the last classroom I was in that read the Bible and prayed daily. There were 41 of us packed into a class designed to hold about 30 students. I don't remember any kind of behaviour issues, and we had no aids in the classroom. My 20 something teacher was respected by even the boldest of the boys. Fast forward 55 years and a visit to the same classroom had 3 aids alongside the teacher, and all 4 were stressing to manage 24 mouthy, disrespectful youngsters. You can't tell me that taking God out of our education made us any brighter, nicer, or more secure. These children need the purpose, hope, love, and joy that knowing God brings to a life. I will pray for Charles, Fred and David, that they can get past the secular brainwashing they have endured, asking God to personally reveal His attributes to them. I hope we hear from them someday soon. Time is flying by gentlemen, and no, you don't just disappear in a puff of smoke when your time on earth is done. Be bold, investigate!
Pratha S.
Once again,we have people{some who say they are Christians}saying that you can't go by or trust the Bible{God's Word}.Man STILL thinks{and has always thought}that he knows more or better than God -- very foolish thinking! God was there when He created the world and indeed the whole universe.He witnessed His own creation -- so He would know! At the time,where was man? Nowhere! This was before man was ever created! So man would certainly not know! It is amazing how people{and even some Christians}think they know more or better than God.GOD HAS ALWAYS EXISTED -- man has not.THAT says it all! And that's all anyone needs to know! I would not want to have stand before God and say{or even imply}that man knows more than God! THAT is a position you do NOT want to be in!
Roland B.
This article is very good, straight forward, and hard-hitting. I do not mean hard-hitting in a bad way, because the skeptics misuse the alleged "facts" by not understanding the difference between fact and interpretation. Further, they fail to understand the ways that a world view (like naturalism) strongly affects both assumptions and interpretation of "facts". I receive the same types of questions in an educational training environment in Christian schools where we are training teachers to see facts and assumptions correctly--especially when they are heavily affected by a naturalistic world view.
Steve B.
It's amazing to see grown people cry when they have holes punched in their world view of long ages, shows the lack of maturity their world view gives them. Great responses to their claims and as you said that's all they have are claims, no scientific proof. They want proof from creationist yet they believe they are exempt from the very same.
William M.
What a sad collection of strawmen and misinformation. You'd think critics would at least do a tiny bit of research, before they made public fools of themselves. I pray God opens their eyes.
John M.
David M assumes scientific always existed but in a moment outside of time why should any physical laws exist at all. Where did these laws come from? Did the laws suddenly appear at the time of the alleged Big Bang? God created the laws of physics in the first place so that when God created the heavens & the earth matter began to obey his laws. God is and always has been and forever will be Omniscient, the creator of science. So it is ridiculous to say ‘how can God be proven scientifically’? It like saying, how can you prove scientifically the designers and builders of the great pyramids existed.
Willem D.
I couldn't agree more! Except maybe for one thing; I think only Christ Himself is the exact opposite of an anti-Christ.
Cowboy Bob S.
The feedback and responses are examples of some of the nonsense that my associates and I deal with in our ministry. Since we are primarily on social media, it is easy for anti-creationists to assume false identities and then presume to tell us what we believe. As seen here, we do not need to let them put us on the defensive. Instead, question them back and point out their reasoning errors.

"There is no scientific evidence for the existence of God..." Can you support your claim? I was glad to see the category error identified. (Someone asked one time, "What color litmus paper would you use to test for God's existence?") We do have evidence, but people like that have already decided that there is nothing they would accept, even though it is all around them (Rom. 1:18-23). Materialists refuse to admit (despite scientific searches for the soul and for consciousness) that there is a spiritual dimension that they miss.
Grahame G.
Part of me is astounded that people can be so arrogantly ignorant and rude, but then I remember we are sinners. It's still deeply saddens me though. I think I understand part of how Jesus felt in: "Mat 23:37  “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem [or for our day "Christendom, Christendom"], the city [people] that kills [vilifies] the prophets and [intellectually and socially] stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing!  38  See, your house is left to you desolate.  [Ichabod] 39  For I tell you, you will not see me again, until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.’” " Thank you for continuing to show amazing grace in answering these questions from people who appear to me to be fools.
Dennis A.
Great job Lita, you have done a wonderful job stating your position to someone who is obviously very antagonistic and shows an uniformed bias towards things of the Spirit. In your gracious and comprehensive response you have certainly acted on and demonstrated Paul’s exhortation in 2 Timothy 2:23-26. Blessings and continued wisdom and protection from our Awesome God and Savior. YDA, BEND, OREGON

Comments are automatically closed 14 days after publication.