Online premiere of Dismantled: A Scientific Deconstruction of the Theory of Evolution
Watch for free here between 12 AM October 9th - 11:59 PM October 11th EDT!

Feedback archive → Feedback 2014

Why does CMI focus on creation?

iStockphoto Bible-Genesis
Published: 28 December 2014 (GMT+10)

ZL from the US writes:

I am a Christian who has a strong background in science. It seems to me that whenever a new scientific discovery is made which pokes holes in the 6 day creation idea, Creation.com struggles to find any rationale to support its interpretation of the Bible. However, they are very vocal and assertive toward both scientists and non-six day creationist Christians. Why is creation.com so active in promoting the six day creation worldview when it causes both separation in the Church and reduces the Christian reputation to actively anti-science? I definitely understand the importance of sticking to the Bible and not changing our beliefs due to agnostic and athiest pressure, but it seems to me that creation.com forces unbelievers to choose belief in the Bible or belief in science. Wouldn’t the effort involved in promoting 6 day creation be more in line with the Bible if it were to instead focus on bringing people to Christ rather than harboring bitter debates inside and outside the church?

, CMI-US, replies,

Your question is actually a good opportunity for us to explain why we do what we do, yet again, and I would encourage you to read the links contained in this article as they will provide a fuller picture. Simply put, we are so active in promoting biblical creation because we believe it is truly foundational to the Gospel. While it is not a salvation issue (i.e., people can be Christians without holding the biblical creation view), compromising on creation leaves one with an impoverished theology. Our ‘young earth’ view (we prefer the term ‘biblical creationist’), is not just some interpretation as some like to say. It is clearly the most straightforward view derived from Scripture that has been the major view throughout church history, and it only started to be questioned due to the advent of modern uniformitarian interpretations about the earth’s geology (see Did God create over billions of years?) Previous creation.com articles have established that the Old Testament authors drew heavily from Genesis, to the extent that their whole theology of Yahweh was built on creation. The New Testament uses creation to build important precedents for how salvation in Christ works, and to provide analogies for eschatological events. In other words, a serious reading of Scripture combined with our view of inerrancy demands that we defend creation in six ordinary-length days, around 6,000 years ago. This issue is really what is going to be your authority? Secular interpretations of science or biblical ones?

Now, you say this is a divisive issue, and we would agree. But we would argue that the divisive ones are the ones who are bringing unbiblical doctrines into the church and trying to convince Christians to reinterpret the Bible; see ‘But it’s divisive!’. We are simply defending the biblical understanding of creation.

Your next charge is that we are forcing unbelievers to choose either believing the Bible or science. You seem awfully sure that evolution has scientific evidence behind it. But in fact, you seem to be overestimating what science can actually tell us about the past: see ‘It’s not science!.’ But in fact, most atheists know that if you remove the history of Genesis, you have no foundation for understanding the Gospel. For instance, see this video where Richard Dawkins says theistic evolutionists are ‘deluded’.

You also ignore the other side of the equation: when believers are convinced that Genesis can’t mean what the plain meaning clearly says, they tend to be a lot less sure about what the Bible teaches about salvation—and they are being consistent. In contrast, we see over and over again that when people are convinced they can believe the Bible on origins, they become a lot more confident about the rest of what they believe, and a lot more excited about sharing their faith too. And that’s not really surprising when you think about it, because we are teaching people to be confident in Scripture’s teaching, all of it, from Genesis to Revelation. CMI’s CEO, Gary Bates, has been involved in the creation/evolution issue for 25 years now and in all that time he has never heard or been made aware of a single example where anyone came to Christ because they discovered they could add evolution to the Bible. Of course, why would they? You are asking them to believe the Bible but then point out that it doesn’t really mean what it says.

Bringing people to Christ is important, and we have shown how creation apologetics can be a critical tool in evangelism. But surely it is just as important to teach people after they come to Christ so our thinking can be more conformed to what Jesus means us to think.

You’ll notice I didn’t address the science part very much. First, I would contest your idea that evolution has tons of scientific evidence behind it; see our 15 Questions for Evolutionists, for one thing, and our Evolution’s Achilles Heels, for another. But more important than that, Christians should have Scripture as their authority, not a particular interpretation of scientific evidence. If Scripture isn’t your starting point for your thinking, then it really falls short of what Christians should be aiming for. I recommend reading the recommended articles below as we’ve dealt with these sorts of claims before.

Helpful Resources

Refuting Compromise, updated & expanded
by Dr Jonathan Sarfati
US $17.00
Soft Cover

Readers’ comments

Bill I.
I also noticed that there was no mention of what the 'new' scientific facts are that could poke a hole in the scriptural account.
Terry F.
The fact that the questioner poses the issue as a choice between the Bible and science demonstrates why there is a need to address the issue assertively. It indicates how effective evolutionists have been in convincing people that they represent science and reality. In fact, there is little evidence to support the claims of evolution when real science is applied to their claims. I think the ground chosen by CMI is vitally important ground that should be reflected upon by anyone who espouses to be a Christian. Evolution is nothing more than a direct attack on the God of the Bible and Christian beliefs. Ultimately, it is a path to doubt in the God of the Bible and a direct route to Godless atheism. I would encourage anyone who calls themselves Christian to take a clear objective look at the actual evidence to support the claims of evolutionists and demand empirical proof to support their theory. I think they would find that their so-called science would vanish like the fog that arises in the morning but disappears in the light and heat of the day. A sincere appraisal with an open mind of the publications of Creation.com or other reputable creationist sites would be an important first step for gathering the information one needs to make up their mind. Certainly, relying on the claims of atheist oriented evolutionists without such an examination is foolish IMHO. I think Romans 1:20-23 says it most clearly which ends with the cogent words: "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. And changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man."
Peter H.
I fell that ZL’s biggest problem is in his second-last sentence where he posits a choice between “the Bible or belief in science.” It would be more correct if it read “the Bible or science _as it is taught_.” The trouble with science as it is taught is that much of it is full of 10 mm. holes, as is discussed in the resources that you mention at the bottom of your article. (Could I add to that list _The Creation Answers Book_, especially chapter 3?) I don’t even blame the teachers at the High School level, since they are only parroting what they have been taught themselves. The problem, it seems to me, lies with those teaching at the university level who seem to put more interest into maintaining the evolutionary paradigm rather than looking critically at the flaws in the scientific evidence. In my case, I was a ‘gap theory believer’ for many years, including teaching High School Geography, complete with Geologic Time Scale, etc. Then I switched to being a language teacher, and after a friend lent me a number of CMI DVDs I was struck by the truth when I realised that, grammatically, it is impossible to separate Genesis 1:1 from Genesis 1:2. Once I crossed that hurdle, the rest of the pattern, using science, but in line with the teachings of the Bible, fell into place. I only wish I could go back and apologise to all those students to whom I taught the Geologic Time Scale years ago as fact.
Cynthia Lauren T.
Thanks, Lita.

That delineation is important for us to understand. 'Creation' is foundational. When it is dismissed by man's intellect alone, we will call God a liar. By an act of human will, the whole of His Message may be rejected. Satan knows this. Salvation is integral. And, what accompanies it, feeding it, is integral. We believe that God's Word is True. How else can one stand after Salvation? We can't. Satan knows that, too. When we don't take Him at His Word, we transfer that free Gift so that we may serve other 'gods'. (Satan & ourselves). That 'origin' is found in the lie fed to Eve in Eden. And, while no one deliberately wants to 'internalize' lies, we have the propensity to, by our will. Lies flow when our Foundation is swapped for the other. Then, we become 'starved' and our bodies become 'Lifeless'. (That's what you are combating today, in fact, with Facts.) We need Bread that provides for our Salvation and continued healthy growth. 'Truth seekers' as well, we enjoy research to feed our intellects. But, man-made traditions that adulterate God's Holy Word, kill by starvation. Creation.com is a venue for the health of the Body of Christ while providing Good food for others, who are looking for Truth, too. :-) Yea! Therefore, without it's 'function', the other parts can be starved by the 'malnutrition of lies'. You read what God says, and then show us how it is, in fact, Truth, while satisfying our insatiable need and our curiosity. Amazing Grace, indeed & in action. Yours is a monumental task, that displays God's Glory, while edifying His Body, as you stand on the Rock of The Word of God. Laying aside that which so easily besets us, you prove God (He invites us to) rather than choosing rebellion. Thanks for that.

James J.
"creation.com forces unbelievers to choose belief in the Bible or belief in science." Creation Ministries forces unbelievers to choose between the Bible and belief in science or atheism and futile thinking. According to Romans 1:21 anyway.
Philip R.
ZL asks why creation.com "reduces the Christian reputation to actively anti-science?" and claims that it "forces unbelievers to choose belief in the Bible or belief in science." I would ask him in return where he gets the idea that CMI's position is anti-science? Even granting that his worldview is scientific (it's not, because it's a story about the unobservable, unrepeatable, unmeasurable past), the best he can claim is that CMI has a different scientific view, not that it's anti-science. Not all mainstream scientists agree all the time. Halton Arp disagreed with the standard Big Bang cosmology, but as far as I know, nobody accused him of being anti-science. He simply had a different scientific view of things. Evolutionists Alan Feduccia and Storrs Olsen dispute the claimed dinosaur-bird transition, but I've never heard of them being accused of being anti-science. CMI employs scientists, and have made it abundantly clear that they embrace science, but simply have a different view about one particular area (events in the distant past) that mainstream scientists make claims about. Disagreeing in one area does not mean that they are anti-science, and anybody who claims such is simply perpetuating an anti-creationist myth.
Alfred F.
Your case against biological evolution and flaws in the fossil record are very strong. However, the biggest stumbling block for acceptance of a 6000 year age of the earth is the issue of starlight and time. Has a reasonable explanation been put forward to explain what appears to be a discrepancy in what instrumentation tells us about the great distances in the universe versus what scripture implies (using genealogies) about the age of the universe?
Gary Bates
Respectfully, your comment reveals that have not bothered to search our site for answers on this (as the feedback rules you agreed to before submitting your comment said you should do). There are numerous articles on our site that discuss various creation models, including a whole chapter on the topic in our Creation Answers Book. Here is the relevant chapter for you How can we see distant stars in a young universe? In addition, in the 'Topics' section of our site there is a whole category that deals with this. See the section How can we see light from stars millions of light years away? (scroll down the page). And there are also numerous books and DVDs in our store that you can avail yourself of for answers. Best wishes.
Joseph M.
Unless a scientist has invented a time-machine then all the poking of holes in a six day creation will be theoretical holes. The Bible is a historical record. If a Christian can't trust the Bible concerning fundamental historical revelation, how can they trust the Bible that reveals Christ's existence or that the teaching within the New Testament came directly from Christ? The resurrection is at the foundation of a Christian’s belief, so why does the same Christian believe a scientist and disbelieve a six day week yet believe the resurrection but not a scientist? The disbelief can only come from those who don't understand the difference between historical scientism and empirical science and between science and a fallible scientist and what science is capable of and not capable of.
Don S.
Thank you Lita for your response. I think it is also important for biblical creationists to show naive Christians that there is also no reconciliation with "science" regarding a man resurrecting from the dead, or rising into the clouds without assistance, or any other miracle that Jesus or the apostles performed. "Science" rejects all of these claims! Why is it that people are so willing to give up six ordinary day creation for scientific reasons, yet they inconsistently want people to follow a man who scientifically would be described as a pathological liar!
My Saviour, Jesus Christ of Nazareth, the one that CMI is leading people to follow, never lied. I wonder if scientists ever lie?!?! (Rom 3:4). If compromising Christians would just consider how logically inconsistent their arguments are? Especially the ones with "a strong scientific background".
Brian G.
It gets really frustrating how professing Christians keeping using the word "science" in place of the phrase " naturalism based interpretation of evidence". People really have been duped into believing that the single interpretation of evidence that they are taught in school is the actual evidence instead of just an interpretation of the evidence. Every time a person professing Christian or not makes the statement " There is no evidence of the global flood" it is as if they are saying "There is no Grand Canyon". We all have the same exact evidence to interpret and people only get taught the naturalism based interpretation of the evidence then end up in a fallacy of equivocation by referring to that interpretation as "science". The professing Christians who are not Biblical creationists do so because the "Gospel" they are "sharing" is a foundationless "add Jesus to your life" "Jesus died for your sins" type of gospel that makes no sense. Without Genesis being literal Jesus dying for our sins makes no sense at all and makes Christianity pointless. Old Earth Creationism makes as much sense as Islam.

James T.
I think CMI does a fair amount of focus on all of the Bible.I will be honest and say while i love Christians like ZL who do a good job of showing the proof for Christ's life and resurrection. Which we do have good grounds for believing. I'm saddened by how they still think there is no problem between evolution and the Bible. Even when i was lost, I always did wonder why people like ZL think that when atheists dogmatically promote evolution on websites like youtube?
Phil M.
Two considerations for ZL:
1. What do you mean by “belief in science”?
2. Saying that unbelievers are being forced to choose between the Bible and science is tantamount to saying that unbelievers are being forced to choose between history and science. Since history is of superior rank to science (since you cannot have science without history; however you can have history without science – the resurrection of Christ and Genesis 1&2 being examples of the latter), accepting history (especially divinely-revealed history) must take precedence over science, and particularly so as science can get it wrong (as history amply demonstrates) whereas divinely-revealed history cannot be wrong. And in point of fact, you will find that true science never conflicts with history.

Comments are automatically closed 14 days after publication.