Not a single response.

Let me clarify that: not a single response that actually answered the question Duane was asking. He received several responses but they mocked Young Earth creationists, defended many of the arguments listed as actually good, provided links to web pages that explain what biological evolution is and why it is true, or they gave completely retarded examples of arguments I’m quite sure nobody ever uses—like the gems that Nocterro provided, e.g., “Evolution is true because my cup is green.” (Given that he values philosophical discipline, he should have known better; moreover, he is the one person I expected relevant and intellectually honest answers from.) But when it came to the question Duane had actually asked, there was not a single response.

So I want to demonstrate something about intellectual honesty. I want to put forward the same question but this time directed toward creationists. That is, I would like the creationists out there to be self-critical and provide examples of arguments they would concede as ‘arguments creationists should not use’. Unlike evolutionists, I know that creationists are capable of reflecting on the merits and shortcomings of an argument and can provide creationist arguments they think are lacking and why. The complete silence from evolutionists regarding Duane’s question will be deafening in comparison to the intellectual honesty and self-criticism of creationists. The contrast of responses will say something important about dogmatism.

I’ll provide the first example, frequently encountered from creationists who argue that the Earth is only about 6,000 years old. It is based on James Ussher’s chronogenealogy method of calculation, and is an argument that should not be used because it relies on a broken and unreliable chain: from Solomon to the Babylonian captivity the lineage is no longer based on biblical records of ages of individuals, but rather on the duration of king’s reigns which suffers from overlaps and ambiguities; and from the fall of Babylon to the birth of Jesus there is no biblical information for calculating lineage at all. But perhaps most importantly, it is based on the presupposition that the creation account in Genesis regards the material origins of the cosmos, an anachronistic presupposition that is brought to the text rather than an exegetical conclusion derived from it. So if the Genesis creation account is actually not about the ex nihilo material origins of the cosmos in six days, but instead points to an understanding of the text consistent with an ancient Near East view of temple cosmology, for example, which apprehended the world in functional terms rather than material, then chronogenealogical calculation not only becomes irrelevant to the issue but there are no demands for a young Earth (i.e., the Bible reveals to us that the cosmos was materially created by God but it does not tell us when; John Walton, professor of Old Testament at Wheaton College, relates that receiving Genesis as a cosmic temple inauguration account “does not in any way suggest or imply that God was uninvolved in material origins—it only contends that Genesis 1 is not that story”). When we stack these biblical contentions on top a wealth of scientific data for the age of our planet and the cosmos (even the RATE project was forced to admit that scientific evidence from radioactive decay indicates the earth is much older than a few thousand years, forcing them to propose that decay rates were accelerated during the one-year flood), we find a considerable weight of evidence for creationists to avoid arguing that the cosmos was created about 6,000 years ago. As Augustine wrote in The Literal Meaning of Genesis,

It is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren, when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books.

So let’s demonstrate the difference between evolutionists and creationists. Not a single evolutionist had enough intellectual honesty or grasp of reality to provide an example of ‘arguments evolutionists should not use’. I know that creationists are more critical and honest, and I want creationists to prove it by providing examples of ‘arguments creationists should not use’, arguments they’ve seen used but shouldn’t be and why.

Other related Aristophrenium articles:

• Book Review: Creation, Fall, Restoration by Andrew Kulikovsky (6)
• Good evolutionary science (13)
• Synthetic Evolution: The Art of Equivocation (4)
• “Discussing” God, Science and Sanity (9)
• Separation of Creation and Science (13)
• Evolution isn’t… (1)

Other related Aristophrenium articles:

• Dearborn rally protests arrests (2)
• Acts 17 Apologetics exonerated (3)
• Update on Acts 17 Apologetics (1)
• And the hits just keep on coming (11)
• Video evidence vs. scathing rant (5)
• More on arrest at Arab Festival (4)
• More information on Dearborn arrests (0)

Similarly, I recently discovered that Answers in Genesis have a list of 12 Arguments they think evolutionists should avoid:

Argument 1: Evolution is a fact

Argument 2: Only the uneducated reject evolution

Argument 3: Overwhelming evidence in all fields of science supports evolution

Argument 4: Doubting evolution is like doubting gravity

Argument 5: Doubting evolution is like believing the earth is flat

Argument 6: It’s here, so it must have evolved

Argument 7: Natural selection is evolution

Argument 8: Common design means common ancestry

Argument 9: Sedimentary layers show millions of years of geological activity

Argument 10: Mutations drive evolution

Argument 11: The Scopes trial

Argument 12: Science vs. religion

Something that struck me about this list though, is that it comprises many arguments that evolutionists do make on a regular basis. So I wondered how many on the list evolutionists themselves would concede are bad arguments that evolutionists should not use and whether there were other arguments that are not on the list that they’d advise proponents of evolution to steer clear of.

In other words, I’d like evolutionists to be self-critical and provide a list of arguments they would endorse as "arguments evolutionists should not use." It’s a serious request and I ask only to be better informed of the kinds of arguments that evolutionists themselves think are unjustified in attempting to make their evolutionary case. I invite anyone who considers themselves an informed evolutionist to contribute to this humble project.

On the other hand, if you’d like to explain why any of the arguments above should not be on that list [you know you want to], I’m happy to receive those objections. But in the interest of give and take, I’d also appreciate it if you could provide at least one argument that you think evolutionists should not use and why.

Other related Aristophrenium articles:

• Evolution isn’t… (1)

Behind him was a large sign that he had designed which read, “USA: Free Speech For Everyone!” Moughni is also a Muslim well-known for organizing a silent protest along with 150 other Muslims following the Christmas Day terrorist attack on Detroit-bound Northwest Flight 253 (for which he received a death threat).

Supporters for the protest rally at Dearborn City Hall had come from Monroe County, Taylor, Dearborn, Canton, Westland, Brownstown, Woodhaven, and even the state of Arizona, Moughni said. “Our biggest battle today is fighting for the freedoms of others in order to protect our freedoms. If we succeed, we all win!”

• “Rally in Dearborn backs arrested missionaries.” Niraj Warikoo. Detroit Free Press. 27 July 2010.
• “Muslim candidate leads rally in Dearborn for Christian evangelists arrested at Arab Fest.” Jonathan Oosting. Michigan Live. 27 July 2010.
• “Muslim attorney leads rally for Christian missionaries in Dearborn.” Edward Brayton. Michigan Messenger. 27 July 2010.
• Dearborn Area Community Members (Facebook.com).

Other related Aristophrenium articles:

• Welcome to Dearborn, Michigan (0)
• Acts 17 Apologetics exonerated (3)
• Update on Acts 17 Apologetics (1)
• And the hits just keep on coming (11)
• Video evidence vs. scathing rant (5)
• More on arrest at Arab Festival (4)
• More information on Dearborn arrests (0)

If you’ve read the Da Vinci Code or listened to Skeptics and Muslims giving objections to the Christian faith, one argument that you might hear is that doctrines such as the deity of Christ and the Holy Trinity were completely foreign to the New Testament Church and was an invention of Nicea. As an example of how this argument is frequently employed, a certain booklet published by the Islamic Circle of North America contains the following statement in one of its notes:

It was in the ancient city of Nicea (which was located in modern-day Turkey approximately 700 miles or 1100 km NNW of Jerusalem near the eastern Roman capitol) that the First Council of Nicea convened, 325 years after the birth of Jesus. It was at this council that Jesus was declared by the majority of the council members to be divine rather than God’s Prophet and Messenger. The concept of the trinity was established by declaring that Jesus was the same as and equal to God. This is in direct opposition to the Abrahamic principles of monotheism, which Jesus himself called people to and affirmed.[1]

In addition, one can find the following on one of the pamphlets that they often distribute:

With their teacher gone, the devoted followers of Jesus tried to maintain the purity and simplicity of his teachings. But they were soon besieged and overtaken by a flood of Roman and Greek influences, which eventually so buried and distorted the message of Jesus that only a little of its truth now remains. Strange doctrines of Jesus being a man-god, of God dying, of saint worship and of God being made up of different parts came into vogue and were accepted by many of those who took the name “Christians” centuries after Jesus. [2]

Of course, all of this is a misrepresentation of what Christians actually believe, not to mention of the history of the faith. The New Testament provides a wealth of evidence that the followers of Jesus believed He was God from very early on, as can be seen in John 1:1-18, John 20:27-29, Romans 9:5, Colossians 2:9, Titus 2:13, 2 Peter 1:1, Hebrews 1:6-12 and 1 John 5:20. These scripture passages are well-attested not only in the earliest and best manuscripts of the New Testament that we have today, but also in the citations of them by th early church fathers. Now, undoubtedly there are those who will try to skirt around the obvious by attempting to explain away these passages. Their explanations cannot stand without twisting the scriptures, but that will be for another time.

There is also the testimony of the Apostolic and Ante-Nicene fathers, who lived during the first two centuries after Christ walked upon this earth. The Trinitarian formula is clearly present in the writings of Saint Clement of Rome. Ignatius of Antioch frequently refers to Jesus as God in his epistles. The anonymous second century epistle known as 2nd Clement states that “we ought so to think of our Lord Jesus Christ as of God, [and] as of the judge of quick and dead…”[3]. But I believe that the clearest testimony comes from Melito of Sardis, who identifies Christ as God who made the heavens and the earth. This is clear from his Paschal homily, where he writes:

The one who hung the earth in space, is himself hanged; the one who fixed the heavens in place, is himself impaled; the one who firmly fixed all things, is himself firmly fixed to the tree. The Lord is insulted, God has been murdered, the King of Israel has been destroyed by the right hand of Israel.

This is the one who made the heavens and the earth, and who in the beginning created man, who was proclaimed through the law and prophets, who became human via the virgin, who was hanged upon a tree, who was buried in the earth, who was resurrected from the dead, and who ascended to the heights of heaven, who sits at the right hand of the Father, who has authority to judge and to save everything, through whom the Father created everything from the beginning of the world to the end of the age.

This is the alpha and the omega. This is the beginning and the end–an indescribable beginning and an incomprehensible end. This is the Christ. This is the king. This is Jesus. This is the general. This is the Lord. This is the one who rose up from the dead. This is the one who sits at the right hand of the Father. He bears the Father and is borne by the Father, to whom be the glory and the power forever. Amen.[4]

All of the early church fathers I have mentioned lived during the first two centuries of Christianity, so it is clear that the beliefs that they have espoused are not the fabrication of a later age.

Also, the claim that Roman and Greek influences corrupted the doctrines of Christianity, though popular, has little historical credibility, and is dismissed by most serious-minded scholars. Often, the ones making the claim have to find “parallels” in Graeco-Roman myths that have only the faintest similarity to Christian beliefs. In fact, these beliefs can easily be traced from Jewish ideas that were prevalent back in the first and second centuries. In his book Early Christian Doctrines, scholar and historian J.N.D. Kelly writes:

Until the middle of the of the second century, when Hellenistic ideas began to come into the fore, Christian theology was taking shape in predominantly Judaistic moulds, and the categories of thought used by almost all Christian writers before the Apologists were largely Jewish. This explains why the teaching of the Apostolic Father, for example, while not strictly unorthodox, often strikes a strange note when judged by later standards. And it is certain that this ‘Judaeo-Christian’ theology continued to exercise a powerful influence well beyond the second century.

The two features of later Palestinian Judaism which call for mention here are its attitude to divine ‘hypostases’ and its heightened interest in angels. It is certain that the former, and by no means unlikely the latter, helped to create an atmosphere of thought propitious to the development of the Christian conception of God as three-personal. Students of the Old Testament are familiar with the growing tendency there visible to personify Wisdom and to assign it creative functions; and the readiness of New Testament writers like St. Paul to avail themselves of the idea in order to explain the status of Christ is also a commonplace.[5]

There are also Professors Richard Burridge and Graham Gould, who write in Jesus, Now and Then that,

Along this goes the idea of the risen Jesus as an object of worship. It would have been natural for a Jesus who was regarded in the way just described to be actively worshipped by Christians from a Greek or Roman background. But even without Greco-Roman influence, there were pressures at work on Christians to worship the risen Jesus.

He was the Lord (cf. Luke 24.3; John 20.28, 21.7; Acts 7.59) who was the centre of their religious life and belief, active in the lives of Christians, performing miracles, supporting them in their troubles, and offering them both present and future salvation, which could be obtained by no other means than through him (cf. Acts 4.12-13). Even among Jewish Christians, belief in Jesus’ divine status, during his earthly life as well as after the resurrection, would not have been long delayed. The worship of Jesus and belief in his divinity, however, would have posed real problems for Christians who were brought up in the monotheistic religious environment of Judaism. How could someone who had lived a human life be treated as divine, as the object of worship?

It was this tension between their inherited beliefs (which were also, of course, accepted by Greek and Roman Christians when they were converted) and the experiential demands of their faith in Jesus which forced Christians to begin to think more conceptually about who Jesus was , and thus led to the development of the doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation over the early centuries of the Church.[6]

I think all of these scholarly quotes are sufficient to make the point clear that the doctrines of Christianity developed very early on (during the first two centuries of the Christian church), and are not the result of wholesale borrowing from Paganism, as one is perfectly capable of explaining Trinitarian theology without having to appeal to Hellenistic influence.

For more information, I have produced a more comprehensive treatment of this subject matter in a series of blog articles in Epagonizesthai entitled, Jesus, the Gospels, Gnosticism and Historical Revisionism. I would recommend readers take a look at these articles to get more information on what the early church fathers really believed regarding Jesus’ divinity.

Other related Aristophrenium articles:

• Another problem of evil examined (7)
• Another atheist faceplant (2)
• An Open Letter to the Apologetics Community (0)
• While you were sleeping… (1)
• The Prime Directive, anyone? (2)
• Burqas, bathrooms and the public concern (3)

For over a year, I’ve been writing articles for a little theology blog that I run called Epagonizesthai. The blog name is based on the Greek word επαγωνιζεσθαι that appears in the epistle of Jude which is translated as “[to] contend earnestly” (Jude 1:3, NASB). This relates to the primary purpose that I have for blogging, which is to apply my theological studies in that most honourable of endeavours known as Christian Apologetics. I have written many articles on various apologetic topics, plus I have also recorded many of the various dialogues and debates that I have had over the past year. I have had encounters people from all sorts of religious groups, including Ahmadis, Atheists, Eastern Orthodox, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Latter Day Saints, Roman Catholics, Sunni Muslims, and various other such groups. My motivation for entering into this kind of discussion stems from the doubts that I previously held before I became a Christian, not to mention the various challenges that I have been faced with from various opposing groups after I came to Christ. It is my firm conviction that God is calling me and many other budding young Christians who are of a similar background as I have, in order to build us up into preachers, missionaries, evangelists and apologists.

Now, I have in the past month become good friends with my fellow Canadian David Smart (whom you all know as Ryft) via #ProsApologian, the IRC chat channel of Alpha and Omega Ministries. It is he who had invited me to join the Aristophrenium as a part of its staff. So I accepted the invitation, and that is why I am now here as a contributing writer to the Aristophrenium. It is truly an honour to be able to work along with my brothers in Christ in the defense and confirmation of the gospel (Philippians 1:7, NASB). am very much looking forward to contributing to this blog. Most of my articles will be concerning matters of church history, systematic theology and apologetics, especially towards Muslims and various religious cults such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Latter Day Saints. I have done extensive research on these religions, and have conversed with many who belong to them in order that I may be able to better understand their beliefs and provide a response to the challenges that they pose to Biblical Christianity. Hopefully, this will be an excellent opportunity to bring glory to our sovereign Lord, edify the saints and be a witness to the lost world that we all live in.

“Grace and peace to you from God our Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ.”

(Romans 1:7)

Most Commented Posts

• How to Respond to Empty Pro-Choice Rhetoric (39)
• Pro-Life: Stripping Women of their Rights? (26)
• Exist or real? (22)
• Moral actions Christians can perform that atheists can’t (18)
• Arguments Evolutionists Should Not Use (18)
• God is Love. (17)
• Creation or Evolution – Why We Must Choose (16)

• Peter Jacob with the Daily Times looks at the UN and its Defamation of Religion resolution.
• Brian Riedl, writing an opinion article for the Wall Street Journal, says that runaway government spending, not declining tax revenues (e.g., Bush tax cuts), is the reason the U.S. faces dramatic budget shortfalls for years to come.
• The "religion of peace" threatens a woman into terrified seclusion for the sake of her life.
• Washington Post staff writers Greg Miller and Thomas Erdbrink tell of how the U.S. paid Iranian nuclear scientist $5 million for aid to CIA.
• Phil Johnson at Pyromaniacs compares the stories of Crying Wind and Ergun Caner and evangelicalism’s history of celebrity frauds.
• Mark Lamprecht explores why it was so deeply incongruent for Liberty University to invite Glenn Beck to give the Commencement speech.
• H. David Schuringa, with the Crossroad Bible Institute, writes a brief but poignant article asking, "Can Atheism Create a Virtuous Society?" (PDF)
• If getting a tattoo is forbidden in the Bible, then so are bowl-cuts. And no, this is not comedy.

And on the lighter side:

• The world’s most awesomest tree house evar. It’s called the Minister’s House, built by Horace Burgess in Crossville, TN.
• The Galactic Empire must be really strapped for cash!

Other related Aristophrenium articles:

• Ryft’s Linkables (10 July 2010) (0)
• Ryft’s Linkables (2 July 2010) (2)

Originally Bethrick tried to save Justin’s argument by using Isaiah 45:7 to prove that evil is indeed something God creates. Justin was rather enlivened by this passage and brought it to my attention in the comments area of my first article. And I proceeded to show him why he should probably not get too excited about arguments that Bethrick uses by showing him what the passage is actually talking about. And as to be expected, Bethrick responded (at Justin’s site). I was going to send Justin a private email about this and tell him that he would score critical thinking points if he could identify what was wrong with Bethrick’s response. But it seems I didn’t get off work soon enough, for by the time I got home Justin had uncritically regurgitated the train wreck in a new blog post, so now this gets to be done in public instead. Readers of the Aristophrenium know that I don’t mind dismantling logically bankrupt arguments from atheists who pretend to esteem reason—to put it kindly—but I was really hoping to save Justin the embarrassment because I like him. “Before you invest yourself in Bethrick’s response,” I was going to write him, “evaluate it critically for logical flaws.” Anybody can teach people what to think, but I want to teach people how to think, and few things achieve that goal quite like learning how to critically evaluate an argument.

But if he wishes to do this publically, I’m willing to oblige him. Let’s have a look.

Justin begins by restating what his Problem of Evil argument is, and then indicates (somewhat inaccurately) the nature of my rebuttal against it. But the remainder of his post amounts to paraphrasing Bethrick’s response, that although Isaiah 45:7 does not describe God creating evil per se, it can still be inferred since calamities are evil. Therefore, his argument still stands. But does it?

No, because it is probably invalid.

Before I get into how it is invalid, let me answer one of his initial questions (which isn’t actually his question, but rather Bethrick’s). He does not understand what relevant difference there is between ‘calamity’ and ‘evil’. Although Justin does not consider himself a philosopher, he does study philosophy as a hobby. But he readily admits that there are topics he may not even be aware of so I don’t think anyone can fault him for not recognizing the clear and obvious difference; this may fall into one of those areas about which he is not aware.

What is the difference between ‘calamity’ and ‘evil’? This question invokes important philosophical categories; i.e., it’s the difference between descriptive and normative. On the one hand, ‘calamity’ is descriptive, involving matters of fact which describe the world of ‘is’. For instance, the proposition “An earthquake hit San Diego” is a factual statement which does not assert whether it is good or bad. On the other hand, ‘evil’ is normative, involving matters of ideals or values which prescribe the world of ‘ought’. The proposition “Rape is wrong” is a moral statement which does not assert whether a rape has occurred or not.

That is the relevant difference between ‘calamity’ (factual statement) and ‘evil’ (moral statement). But Justin implies that calamities are regarded as evil, invoking examples such as a terrorist bombing. And I doubt anyone would disagree with him. But what he does not seem to realize is that this assumes a particular moral view because a calamity in and of itself is not evil, for ‘evil’ is a moral term that is meaningless without a moral theory to fill it with meaning. So on what basis is Justin claiming that such calamities are moral evils? This question directly affects the integrity of his argument because he is raising a Problem of Evil argument! His argument must contend with the Christian view under its own terms; if he imports a definition of ‘evil’ that is foreign to Christian theology (which I provided in my first response), then he ends up addressing a view that is either different from or weaker than what Christianity actually affirms, which renders his argument an invalid straw man, leaving Christianity unchallenged (as I had already pointed out to him once before).

To review his argument for atheism, it can be seen that he is trying to set up either a contradiction or an internal inconsistency in the Christian view in order to conclude with the reasonable non-existence of God. But to do this he must confront Christianity under its own terms, which includes the Christian moral theory (that moral order is grounded in the nature of God and expressed prescriptively in his commands). So if he wants to show that God creates evil using this sort of reasoning—

(P1) God creates calamities. (From Isaiah 45:7)

(P2) Calamities are evil. (From where?)

(C1) Therefore, God creates evil. (From P1 and P2)

—then he must prove (P2) under the Christian moral theory, i.e., that calamities are contrary to the nature or will of God. Again, if he proves (P2) under a moral theory that is foreign to Christian theology, then his argument would be rendered invalid by the straw man fallacy, for it would address a view different from or weaker than what Christianity itself affirms.

I would encourage Justin to interact with me in a critical evaluation before deciding that Bethrick (or anyone else) has raised an excellent point; through applying critical thinking skills to real world examples, which I would be happy to join him on, he could go far in learning and cultivating how to think like a rational skeptic. We can do this publically, of course, but my email address is on the Contact Us page too.

Other related Aristophrenium articles:

• Another problem of evil examined (7)
• Another atheist faceplant (2)
• “Is God good?” (3)
• FASDT: Burden of proof (0)
• Arrogance of Atheism: Dawson Bethrick (5)
• Cutting to the chase (1)
• The (Ongoing) Arrogance of Atheism (1)

I was able to find an electronic version of the article at the centre for public christianity for context: 

“…people of faith don’t think that you should believe things when the evidence is to the contrary. There might be a few misguided types who think that it is a ‘test of faith’ to believe things when the evidence suggests it isn’t reality, but that is not the position of orthodox Christianity. 

“It is for this reason that many Christians in the sciences do not believe in a literal seven-day creation, or in a variety of views about dinosaurs and fossils. They think the evidence is to the contrary. Christians are realists, not head-in-the-sand, plug-the-ears idiots. At least, they shouldn’t be. There is no need to be afraid of evidence and knowledge—of course, we will need to interpret it well. It is very fair to reserve judgement about evidence until such investigation has been done, but then we must let the evidence sit and deal with it as best we see it.” 

Apart from the implication by Clarke that people who believe in a literal six-day creation are ignorant, misguided or afraid of supposed evidence against their view (I have to say, it is quite the opposite), I rather appreciate the interesting tactical approach by John in resolving confusion over this issue: 

Greg Clarke is an idiot.
Greg Clarke is an idiot.
Greg Clarke is an idiot.
Greg Clarke is an idiot.
Greg Clarke is an idiot.
Greg Clarke is an idiot.
Greg Clarke is an idiot. 

The question that we have before us today is, Is Greg Clarke really an idiot? 

In order to answer this we must set aside, for the moment, our limiting pre-postmodernal preconceptions that would entail taking these words at face value and concluding that the author is literally claiming that Greg Clarke is actually an idiot. What we must do is to examine the evidence, not on a literal level, but a literalistic one. Hence, let us deconstruct the message by taking the priority of form over content. In other words, to garner support from Marshall McLuhan’s famous maxim we can claim that the medium is truly the message. 

First, note the repetition. The writer, by claiming seven times that Greg is an idiot, is underscoring a claim of perfection, not Greg’s perfection, of course, but perfection of the message. 

Further, each instantiation of ‘Greg Clarke is an idiot’ contains seven syllables, making 7 x 7 or 49 interconnected modules. We can recall from the Old Testament that 49 was traditionally the number used when one wanted to signify divine completion over an extended period of time. Thus, the author of this message is clearly emphasising divine sanction of Greg Clarke being an idiot.

One could go on and on about this pithy declaration, its internal structure and whether or not Greg Clarke is a literal or literalistic idiot. Possibly some background detail may assist our endeavour.

This month in the Christian newspaper Eternity Greg Clarke claimed that young earth creationists, apropos science and the Bible, are not realists but are “head-in-the-sand, plug-the-ears-idiots”. Now, try as I might, I found it impossible to uncover any literary devices in his statement so I was forced to take it straightforwardly and conclude that Greg Clarke really meant that I and others were genuine, unadulterated 100% idiots because we hold that God created everything in 6 days.

Other related Aristophrenium articles:

• Defusing the f-bomb (2)
• Creationism 101: An Introduction for the Misinformed (Part 2) (0)
• Creationism 101: An Introduction for the Misinformed (Part 1) (5)
• Compromise at the Highest Level in the Sydney Anglican Diocese (2)

I originally became interested in CFR because of the promise it offered as a commentary on the relationship between science and scripture, and as a survey of the historical interpretation of the early chapters of Genesis. And with chapters such as Scripture, Science, and Interpretation, Creation and Genesis: A Historical Survey and two chapters covering different aspects on The Days of Creation, I was not at all disappointed. Andrew Kulikovsky demonstrates his depth of knowledge in these areas, bringing all of the relevant pieces together into one volume that is relatively easy to read.

Similarly, Bob McCabe in a recent review of CFR, says that Kulikovsky “provides a readable text that is a basic exegetical and theological explanation and defense of the biblical text, as well as refuting common evangelical interpretative schemes that undermine the traditional reading of Genesis.”

That is not to say that the material itself is easily understood. In fact, I spent quite a bit of time re-reading some sections of the book and I think that is simply due to the nature of the topics being covered, together with my lack of prior knowledge on the subject matter.

In the first chapter, Kulikovsky acknowledges the concept (originating with Francis Bacon) that “God has revealed Himself in two ‘books’ – general revelation and special revelation” (p.18) but spends the first two chapters distinguishing one from the other, recognizing the unfortunately all too common habit for Christians to, either explicitly or implicitly, give general revelation an equal or higher position than that of special revelation.^[1] He rightly points out that whenever the two books seemingly conflict, “Such conflicts are nearly always resolved by simply reinterpreting the special revelation in Scripture … implying … that the two are not equal.” (p. 18-19). Similarly, “The truth claims of science always seem to trump exegesis, regardless of how thorough it is and how well done.” (p.41)

When discussing general revelation, Kulikovsky observes that “It is quite common for theologians and scientists to view science and general revelation as one and the same thing.” In attempting to address this mistaken view he cites Robert Thomas, who describes general revelation as “information that is common knowledge to all … and impossible for mankind to avoid” and that the “subject of general revelation is God Himself … [and] not the physical world” (p.22)^[2] Kulikovsky subsequently argues that “the physical world is not a second book of revelation from God, but a signpost pointing to God the almighty Creator.” (p.25)

The book also highlights a major problem in associating general revelation with scientific knowledge about creation; “if general revelation [i.e. our scientific knowledge about nature] … has been wrong many times, then how can it be viewed as authoritative, let alone infallible?” (p.22)

The appropriate relationship between special revelation and general revelation is addressed in one of the longest and challenging chapters in the book, Scripture, Science and Interpretation. The ideas presented in this chapter were extremely helpful in providing a platform for clear thinking about the “two books” concept and the arguments of those who promote the view.

For example, one of the arguments made by those who oppose the “two books” approach is that like mankind, the object of scientific study – the natural world – is also fallen, and therefore general revelation will always be marred by fallible men with biases and agendas living in a cursed world. However, Kulikovsky says that supporters of the “two books” scheme (such as Roger Forster and Paul Marston) claim “that both books (the Bible and nature) are true and infallible, but their human interpretations are not. In other words, interpretation occurs in both theology and science, which means there is also a possibility of making interpretive errors in both fields.” (p.29).

Kulikovsky answers this challenge in a number of ways, drawing on a range of arguments throughout the first two chapters, some of which include:

1. General Revelation ≠ Scientific Knowledge (ch.1). Any misgivings we have about the inability of science (i.e. human interpretation) to provide infallible knowledge has no consequence for general revelation, properly understood.
2. Nature is not propositional; it does not interpret or speak for itself. Terms such as “true” or “infallible” do not apply to nature because it makes no propositions. Instead, propositions are made by fallen men and women dedicated to the study of the natural world.
3. The propositional nature of special revelation makes it readily communicable. God chose to communicate specific truths to mankind and employed common human language to do so. “The biblical account of creation does not discuss the question of whether God can meaningfully speak to mankind or whether mankind can understand God. It is simply assumed as ‘self-evident’ that God and mankind could engage in meaningful linguistic communication.” (p.30). The same cannot be said of nature.
4. Article IX and XII of The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, which recognizes and elevates God’s written revelation above all else. (p.28-29)

Surprisingly, the chapter that I found most interesting was Creation, Preservation, and Dominion,^[3] which looks at the relationship between God, man, and his environment, and the ways in which environmentalists have distorted God’s intentions for us as stewards over His creation. The key point for me in this chapter was that although caring for the environment (including the plants and animals) that God has provided is very important, a biblical view of creation means that ultimately, “…the needs of human beings surpass the needs of any other creature or plant.” (p.259).

Kulikovsky frames the debate this way: “…is it acceptable to set aside vast tracts of land for agriculture and/or housing in order to provide food and shelter for hundreds of thousands of people, in exchange for the loss of a particular species of parrot or lizard?” The answer, he says, “depends on the relative value one places on human beings compared to other creatures.” Is it right that human beings fulfil their own needs in these situations, or should they sacrifice these needs for the sake of some plant or animal? “For many environmentalists and conservationists, it is human beings who should submit.” (p.258-259)

This chapter also includes a very interesting section on the history of DDT. Andrew writes, “One of the greatest … environmental frauds of all time is the banning of, or restriction of, the use of … (DDT)” (p.262). I was always taught at school DDT=BAD. But Andrew says, “The truth is that DDT has been comprehensively tested and demonstrated to be a safe and effective chemical pesticide.” (p.262).

The book has a thorough bibliography and scripture index, but it lacks a topical index. Perhaps I just have an unnatural fetish for topical indexes, but I cannot count the number of times I went flicking despairingly through the back pages only to be reminded of its absence. I suggest a topical index would be a valuable addition to subsequent editions, but others may find the extremely detailed table of contents sufficient for their topical searches also.

While there are many good books available by creationists on a range of topics, CFR is one of the few books available that provide a thorough summary and defence of biblical creationism. I recommend it to anyone wanting to avoid the straw man caricatures of creationism that I have discovered in a range of other publications.^[4]

Notes:

1. Kulikovsky: “Hugh Ross considers nature to be just as inspired as Scripture – a sixty-seventh book of the Bible – and he appeals to Psalms 19 and 50 for scriptural support.” (p.18)
2. Kulikovsky also cites what he believes to be a classical definition of general revelation by Bruce Demarest and Gordon Lewis: “[T]he disclosure of God in nature, in providential history, and in the moral law within the heart, whereby all persons at all times and places gain a rudimentary understanding of the Creator and his moral demands.” (p.19-20)
3. My intentions for purchasing the book had little to do with a Christian perspective on environment and stewardship, but I thoroughly enjoyed reading it. It is a great complement to the book.
4. For example, see my two-part survey of SALVO Magazine’s Issue on Intelligent design: Part 1, Part 2.

Other related Aristophrenium articles:

• The meaning of ‘day’ in Genesis 1 (10)
• Creationists are more critical and honest (0)
• The Gospel According to Josephine (0)
• Get your theological priorities straight (1)
• “Discussing” God, Science and Sanity (9)
• Separation of Creation and Science (13)