Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Science vs. Scripture: An Open Response to Dr. John Ankerberg
ICR ^ | February 4, 2009 | Institute for Creation Research

Posted on 02/05/2009 8:10:48 AM PST by GodGunsGuts

In January 2009, ICR received a copy of a recent ministry letter published by television personality Dr. John Ankerberg. For many years, Dr. Ankerberg has skillfully tackled tough issues related to the church, society, the Middle East, and other topics of interest to believers. Christians everywhere need to be informed, challenged, and also taught sound doctrine—there is no substitute for the Bible.

However, the January letter from Dr. Ankerberg’s television ministry reveals a dangerous trend toward subjugating the accuracy, understandability, and authority of the Bible to the foolish musings of men—namely, scientists who deny that God’s revelation in the book of Genesis is actually true...

(Excerpt) Read more at icr.org ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; News/Current Events; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: ankerberg; apostasy; ark; bigbang; catholic; charlesdarwin; christianity; christopherhitchens; creation; drduanegish; drjohnmorris; evolution; hughross; inerrancy; intelligentdesign; jericho; johnankerberg; moralabsolutes; moses; mountsthelens; noah; postmodernism; rate; redsea; richarddawkins; virginbirth; williamprovine
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-60 next last

1 posted on 02/05/2009 8:10:49 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: metmom; DaveLoneRanger; editor-surveyor; MrB; GourmetDan; Fichori; Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus; ...

ping!


2 posted on 02/05/2009 8:15:47 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

This will be fun.


3 posted on 02/05/2009 8:23:40 AM PST by norge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Could this be hugh?

Right now it looks like marketing for a new series. Show me the evidence and we'll see if his creative interpretation holds water.

4 posted on 02/05/2009 8:34:11 AM PST by DrewsDad (Somebody set up us Obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
I was surprised to see Ankerberg was still around.

The checks from The Monthly Prayer Donors must be slow coming in.

He is looking for some cheap publicity?

5 posted on 02/05/2009 8:37:57 AM PST by TYVets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TYVets

I dont remember Ankerberg asking for monthly donors, only having very informative shows, often in debate form, most of which were very informative

To hear he is abandoning the literal 6 days is absurd

he is embracing a theology that is in direct contradiction to science and the Bible

1 indeterminate p[eriod of time with no sun or moon or stars, just a blob?

After all, if he holds to the indeterminite period of time argument, he also HAS to abandone the order of creation to do so


6 posted on 02/05/2009 8:47:23 AM PST by RaceBannon (We have sown the wind, but we will reap the whirlwind. NObama. Not my president.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

Lots of deathbed conversions to Darwinism. Hubert Yockey, Dembski and Behe, and so forth.
:)


7 posted on 02/05/2009 9:08:33 AM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Thanks for the ping. That Ankerberg is a real creep; exactly what the Holy Spirit through Jude was describing.


8 posted on 02/05/2009 9:11:55 AM PST by demshateGod (The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RaceBannon

The worst part of the zillions of years doctrine is what it says about sin and death. The God of evolution is not a loving, just, or holy God. That god is a tinkerer and sin and death are his tools for getting things right.

No brothers, you can’t have it both ways. You can’t believe God and believe the Marxist Humanists.


9 posted on 02/05/2009 9:16:02 AM PST by demshateGod (The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Which is easier for a scientist to believe:
* Moses parting the Red Sea, or recent creation?
* The walls of Jericho falling down due to marching and shouting, or recent creation?
* The virgin birth of Christ, or recent creation?
* Jesus feeding the 5,000 with just a few pieces of bread and fish, or recent creation?
* Jesus rising from the dead, or recent creation?

That’s a good question to ask the Freepers who try to say their Christians but don’t believe God’s word about creation. Are all of those things listed metaphors?


10 posted on 02/05/2009 9:25:09 AM PST by demshateGod (The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: demshateGod

“To say that the banana happened by accident is even more unintelligent than to say that no one designed the Coca Cola can.”
- Kirk Cameron -


11 posted on 02/05/2009 9:50:58 AM PST by donna (The United States Constitution and the Koran are mutually exclusive.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: demshateGod; All

I’m no fan of Ankerberg, however, if you read his letter, which ICR is complaining about, he explicitly denies evolution of any kind.

As a matter of fact, one of the proofs of an old Earth creation he posits, is that given the literal millions of species/kinds on the earth today, unless there was a hyper-evolution AFTER the great Flood, the number of pairs (30,000 ?) on the ark could not have differentiated to the many millions of species today. A horse pair, he says, for example, could not have evolved into zebras, donkeys, Llamas, etc.... and only several thousands of pairs of animals would have fit onto the Ark.

Ankerberg and other old earth creationists like Hugh Ross are NOT evolutionists.


12 posted on 02/05/2009 9:57:08 AM PST by AnalogReigns
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: demshateGod

all anyone has to do is go through the days of creation, what was created each day, and then demand that each ‘day’ was an indeterminate time period of possibly a billion years


13 posted on 02/05/2009 10:27:03 AM PST by RaceBannon (We have sown the wind, but we will reap the whirlwind. NObama. Not my president.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

CHAPTER 4

The Six Days of Creation

Were they days or ages???

  1. There are those who believe that the days in Genesis chapter 1 were normal 24 hour days (just as Sunday, Monday and Tuesday are normal 24 hour days).
  2. There are others who believe that the days in Genesis chapter 1 were not 24 hour days, but that each day represented an age (a long period of time). They believe that each "day-age" lasted thousands or perhaps even millions of years. This is called the "day-age" theory.

WHAT DOES GOD SAY?

EXODUS 20:11—"For in ______    ___________ the LORD _____________ heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is."

Why do some people say that these 6 days were really ages?

Evolutionary scientists BELIEVE that life in its present form (including men, monkeys, giraffes, kangaroos, birds, fish, plants and all life as we know it today) is the product of an evolutionary process that has lasted about 4 BILLION YEARS (more or less, depending on the latest theories)! That is a very long time!

For the evolutionists it would be appropriate like to RE-WRITE Exodus 20:11 as follows:

"For in 4,000,000,000 years there evolved the heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is."

How many DAYS is 4,000,000,000 years? How many days are there in one year? __________ DAYS

4,000,000,000 YEARS (the time needed for evolution)

X       365 DAYS (number of days in a year)

________________________________

1,460,000,000,000 DAYS

or

1 TRILLION, 460 BILLION DAYS!!!

 

God

God says in Exodus 20:11 that it took _____________  DAYS to create the world and all of its life forms.

EVOLUTIONISTS

Evolutionists say in their science books that it took ___________________________ DAYS for life to evolve to its present form.

WHAT A DIFFERENCE! It is amazing and wonderful what our GREAT GOD can do in just six days! It is sad and pitiful that the god of the evolutionists (the god of chance) needs so much time to get his work done! But the evolutionists believe that if you have enough TIME, anything is possible! They believe in this simple formula:

PLENTY OF TIME + PLENTY OF CHANCE (lots of luck!) = AMAZING RESULTS (plants, fish, birds, reptiles, mammals, people, etc.)

Let’s see if this is really true:

  1. Suppose you had a monkey pounding away at a typewriter at a record speed of 12 keys each second. The monkey strikes the keys in a random fashion. How long would it take the monkey to type the entire book of Genesis (all 50 chapters)? Even if the monkey typed 24 hours each day without stopping and did this for hundreds of years, do you think the monkey would ever get "lucky" and actually type all those words? Could he do it if he had 50 million years of constant typing?
  2. Suppose you were to line up a series of alphabetical blocks so that they spelled your name:

R

I

C

H

A

R

D

 

W

I

L

L

I

A

M

S

If you were to carefully drop the blocks out of an airplane, do you think they would fall on the ground in just the right way to spell your name? If you repeated this experiment 50 times each day, do you think the blocks would ever fall in the right way and in the right order? If we depend on luck and chance, do things normally fall into order or into disorder? ____________________

  1. If you were to take apart a watch and put all of its parts into a box and then shake the box for 10 billion years, do you think the parts would ever "accidentally" shake back into their proper place so that the watch would work? Are animals and plants more complex and complicated than a watch? ________

***************************************

The evolutionists admit that evolution seems impossible and that the chances against it ever happening are great, but they claim that if you have enough TIME, anything is possible:

"The odds against the right molecules being in the right place at the right time (to form the first living cell) are staggering. Yet, as science measures it, so is the TIME SCALE on which nature works. Indeed, what seems an impossible occurrence at any one moment would, given untold eons (ages), become a certainty." (National Geographic Magazine, September 1976, page 390)

With time all things are possible! And the evolutionists believe that 4,000,000,00 years is enough time for all life on this planet to reach its present form, and all by chance!

GOD SAYS:
"It took six days!"

EVOLUTIONISTS SAY:
"It took 1,460,000,000,000 days!"

?     ë Whom will you believe?  ì   ?

  1. A few people listen to God and believe that creation took place in 6 literal 24 hour days.
  2. Most people listen to the evolutionists and believe that 4 BILLION years were needed for all life to evolve into its present form.
  3. Some people think that they can listen to God and also listen to the evolutionists. They believe both are true. They believe that the days of Genesis 1 were not really days but long ages ("day-ages"). They believe that God made all things in 6 ages (6 long periods of time).

Let’s think about this. If each of these "AGES" were of equal length, then how long would each "day-age" be?

4,000,000,000 years
divided by 6 days
= 666,666,666 years (in each "day-age")


Each "DAY-AGE" would be more than 666 MILLION YEARS! That is a very long day!

Were the days of creation really long periods of time? Were these days really AGES?

Before we answer this, we must first realize that the word "DAY" is sometimes used to describe a long period of time. Here are some examples:

  1. We are now living in the day of grace (the day of God’s longsuffering; see 2 Peter 3:8-9). Certainly the day of God’s grace and longsuffering lasts much more than 24 hours!
  2. The "day of the LORD" refers to an extended time when God will directly intervene in the affairs of men (2 Peter 3:10).
  3. The day of Jacob’s trouble (Jeremiah 30:7) is a period of time when the nation Israel will go through a time of severe difficulty and trouble. This same period of time is described in Revelation chapter 12. How many days will this "day" be (verse 6)? ___________ How many years (see verse 14)?

(TIME  =  1 YEAR)   +   (TIMES  =  2 YEARS)   +   (½TIME  =  ½YEAR)

which makes a total of ___________ years

  1. We might use the word "day" in this way: "We are living in a day when men love themselves, love money and love pleasures, rather than loving God" (compare 2 Timothy 3:1-4). Has this kind of day lasted for more than 24 hours?
  2. "George Washington lived in a day when there were no cars and no telephones and no airplanes!" Did Abraham and Moses and Paul also live in this same day?

From these examples we see that it is possible to use the word "day" to describe a long period of time. The word "day" can also be used to describe a 12 hour period of time: "The sky was clear and the sun was shining all day!" Most of the time, however, we use the word "day" to describe a 24 hour period (scientifically defined as the time that the earth spins once on its axis). We might say, "There are seven days in every week." Here we are obviously referring to normal 24 hour days. The important question for us to ask is this: How is the word "day" used in Genesis Chapter 1?

 

10 Reasons Why the Six Days of Creation Were Literal 24 Hour Days

1. "EVENING AND MORNING"

God has carefully defined the word "day" by the expression "evening and morning." "And the _______________________ and the ________________________ were the first ________" (Genesis 1:5 and see verses 8,13,19,23,31).

There is something that every day contains: AN EVENING AND A MORNING!! How many days are represented below?

E-M-E-M-E-M-E-M-E-M-E-M

_________ DAYS

Daniel 8:14 (according to the Hebrew text) says "Unto 2,300 evenings and mornings; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed." How many days is this? _________ DAYS. See also Daniel 8:26.

Every 24 hour day has an evening and a morning. Does an AGE have an evening and a morning? _______ (a long period of time would have many, many evenings and mornings!) An age may have a beginning and an ending, but it does not have just one evening and morning!!

2. Numerical Adjustive

God also defines the word "day" by putting a NUMBER before it: "And the evening and the morning were the ______________ day" (Genesis 1:5). God tells us exactly what day it was. It was the FIRST DAY. See also Genesis 1:8,13,19,23,31 and Exodus 20:11 ("SIX days").

When a number comes before the word "day," it almost always refers to a literal 24 hour day. Compare Numbers 7:12,18,24,30,36,42,48, etc. Let us consider these examples:

  1. a) We are living in the day of manned space flight. (Is this a 24 hour day?)
    b) Have you learned in history class about the first day of manned space flight in1961 when a Russian cosmonaut became the first man to leave our earth’s atmosphere?
        (Was this a 24 hour day?)
  2. a) "I can remember the day when I was in the first grade." (Was this a 24 hour day?)
    b) "I can still remember the third day of first grade when the teacher told me to stand in the corner of my classroom because I was not behaving." (Was this a 24 hour day?)
  3. a) GENESIS 2:4—"in the day the LORD God made the earth and the heavens (How long was this "day"? – See Exodus 20:11)
    b) GENESIS 1:31—"And the evening and the morning were the sixth day"    (Was this a 24 hour day?)
3. Day and Night

In Genesis 1:5 God has told us what happened on "the ___________   _______." What kind of a day was this first day? Was it an age? In verse 5 God has said that this first day was made up of a period of light called ________ and a period of darkness called ______________. So we know that this first day was a day-night period. DAY 1 of the CREATION WEEK was a period of 12 HOURS OF LIGHT and 12 HOURS OF DARKNESS.

DAY

(LIGHT)

NIGHT

(DARKNESS)

12 Hours

12 Hours

24 TOTAL HOURS = THE FIRST DAY!

 

 

                     

How many days are represented above? ________

Every 24 hour day has a DAY (period of light) and a NIGHT (period of darkness). Does an AGE have a DAY and a NIGHT? _________ (An age has many, many days and nights!)

4. The Fourth Day

Genesis 1:15-19 describes the fourth day of creation. In these verses the word "day" or "days" is used 5 times. Please match the following:

  1. _____ Verse 14–"to divide the day from the night"
  2. _____ Verse 14–"for days, and years"
  3. _____ Verse 16–"to rule the day"
  4. _____ Verse 18–"rule over the day"
  5. _____ Verse 19–"the fourth day"
  1. A literal 12 hour day
     
  2. A literal 24 hour day
     
  3. An AGE (a long period of time)
5. The Seventh Day

The seventh day was a 24 hour day also (Genesis 2:1-3). On what day were Adam and Eve created (Genesis 1:26-31)? ____________________ Did God curse the earth on the seventh day, the day which He blessed (see Genesis 3:17-19 and Genesis 2:3)? ____ Did Adam and Eve live beyond the seventh day? _______ How old was Adam when he died (Genesis 5:4-5)? __________________ The seventh day was not a long age lasting thousands or millions of years. It was a 24 hour day just like the first six days.

CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS

6. The Fourth Commandment

The fourth commandment is found in Exodus 20:8-11 and in these verses the word "day" or "days" is used 6 times. To see how the word "day(s)" is used in these verses, please do the matching problem found at the top of page 35:

EXODUS 20

  1. _____ Verse 8—"sabbath day"
  2. _____ Verse 9—"six days"
  3. _____ Verse 10—"seventh day"
  4. _____ Verse 11—"six days"
  5. _____ Verse 11—"seventh day"
  6. _____ Verse 11—"sabbath day"
  1. Literal 12 hour day(s)
  2. Literal 24 hour day(s)
  3. An age (a long period of time)

Notice in Exodus 20:11 that the number _______ is placed before the word "days" (see pages 32-33). Your friend might say to you, "I worked on a paper for school and it took me six days to finish!" Do you think your friend meant days or ages? ______ (When you are doing schoolwork, it may seem like ages but it is really only days!) How long did it take God to finish His work of creation (Exodus 20:11)? _____________________ Do you think these were 24 hour days? ________

In these verses we learn that God’s WORKING AND RESTING was to serve as a pattern for Israel’s WORKING AND RESTING. God told the children of Israel that He wanted them to work six days (Sunday through Friday) and rest on the seventh day (Saturday) because this was exactly what God did when He created the heavens and earth (Exodus 20:11).

If the days of creation were ages, then the WORK DAYS for the children of Israel must also be ages (if we are to be consistent). Can you imagine a hard working Israeli man coming home after a day’s work and collapsing in his wife’s arms, saying, "My dear wife, what a long and hard day of work I had! Today I worked 500 million years and I am really tired!! I can’t wait for the Sabbath to come so that I can rest!"

Of course, this would be ridiculous! This is what happens when a person tries to make DAYS mean AGES. It becomes silly. On the following page we will learn that DAYS (PLURAL) can never be ages.

7. Days (plural)

In Exodus 20:11 we are told that the LORD made everything in six days. The word "DAYS" is plural. When the word "day" is used in the plural (DAYS), it almost always refers to literal 24 hour days. The word "day" (singular) can be used of a period of time that is longer than 24 hours: "the day of the LORD" "The day of grace" "the day of trouble" "the day of modern science" etc. (see pages 31-32), but the moment a person speaks about DAYS (plural), he is talking about 24 hour days. Consider these examples:

  1. How many days are there until your birthday?
  2. It took the children of Israel 7 days to capture the city of Jericho (read Joshua chapter 6).
  3. Mark 14:1–"two days."
  4. Revelation 12:6 (the last half or the final 3½ years of the tribulation period).
  5. Exodus 20:11—SIX DAYS.
8. The Basic Meaning of the Word "DAY"

We have already seen that the word "day" can be used to describe a 12 hour period of light (Genesis 1:5,14,16,18). The word "day" can also be used of a longer period of time (2 Peter 3:8-10; Jeremiah 30:7). But most of the time when we use the word "day" we are speaking of a 24 hour day. This is the normal and basic meaning of the word "day."

When we study the Bible we always should understand a word in its literal, normal, natural and basic meaning unless this meaning does not make sense. Here is our rule—If the basic sense makes good sense, then seek no other sense, lest it result in nonsense.

Here are some examples:

  1. The basic meaning of "LAMB"—a four footed animal, a young sheep.
    1. Does Isaiah 11:6 use the word according to its basic meaning? _____
    2. Does John 1:29 use the word according to its basic meaning? ______
  2. The basic meaning of "DOG"—a four-legged animal often used as a pet.
    1. Does Luke 16:21 use the word according to its basic meaning? _______
    2. In Philippians 3:2 and Revelation 22:15 is this word used according to its basic meaning? _______
  3. The basic meaning of "BLOOD"—the red liquid in the veins and the arteries.
    1. Does John 19:34 use the word according to its basic meaning?_______
    2. Does Matthew 26:28 use the word according to its basic meaning? _______

Note: Roman Catholics have misunderstood this verse because they wrongly understand "blood" according to its basic meaning, and thus when they take the MASS they believe that the juice of the grape becomes the actual blood of Christ. Compare John 6:54 with John 6:40 where we see that eating His flesh and drinking His blood is equivalent to believing on Him.

Should we understand the days of creation to be literal 24 hour days (this is the basic meaning of the word)? Does this make good sense or does this make nonsense? Consider these questions:

  1. Can an Almighty God complete His work of creation in 6 literal days? Is anything too hard for the Lord (Genesis 18:14)?
  2. Could God have done this in one literal day? In one second?
  3. Why did God do it in 6 days (Exodus 20:11)?
  4. Did God need millions of years to make our world the way it is?
  5. Does it make good sense to say that the days of creation were ages?

The only reason some people think they need to make the six days of creation long periods of time (ages) is because they feel they need to give the "god" of the evolutionists enough time to do his work. The god of chance needs plenty of time (see page 30)! He could never have done it in six days! In fact it is doubtful that he could have done it even if he had 6 quadrillion days (6,000,000,000,000,000)!

9. What did Moses Think?

Moses was the man God used to write the book of Genesis (Luke 24:27,44). Whenever you study the Bible you must ask yourself this important question: How did the original writer (in this case Moses) and the original listeners (the children of Israel) understand what was written?

Do you think Moses understood the days of creation to be long ages of time? Would the people who lived in the time of Moses have thought of these days as normal 24 hour days? Did they have any reason to think of these days as ages?

Moses and the people of his day believed that God began His work of creation on Sunday, created man on Friday and rested on Saturday. Do you believe what Moses believed?

10. Make Your Choice: Genesis or Evolution?

Some people believe that if you make the days of creation ages (long periods of time), then Genesis chapter 1 teaches the same as evolution. They believe that the order of events in Genesis 1 is the same order of events as given by the evolutionists. Let us see if this is really true:

  1. Evolutionists say that the SUN came before the EARTH.

But God says the sun was made on DAY ______ and the earth was made on DAY _____. Therefore the earth is _______ days older than the sun! Was there LIGHT even before the sun was made? _______ On what day was this LIGHT created? DAY _____

  1. Evolutionists say that life must first begin in the sea (in the ocean). They teach that after millions of years some life forms eventually moved onto the land.

But God says life in the ocean appeared on DAY _______ and life on land first appeared on DAY ______ (plant life). Thus, life on land appeared _____ DAYS before life appeared in the oceans (marine life).

  1. Evolutionists say that reptiles came before birds (because they believe that birds evolved from reptiles).

But God says that birds were made on DAY ______ and land animals (which would included land reptiles) were not made until DAY ______. Birds are _____ DAY older than reptiles! Could birds have evolved from reptiles? ______ Certainly reptiles did not evolve from birds! (Not even the evolutionists would say this!). The Bible says God made the birds and God made the reptiles. Reptiles did not precede birds by hundreds of thousands of years.

"Every thinking person knows that birds were created before reptiles, because that is what God has told us in His Word." 

 

 

  1. Evolutionists say that land mammals came before whales (because they believe that whales evolved from land mammals).

But God says that whales and other great monsters of the sea were created on DAY _____ and land mammals were not made until DAY _____. Which came first, the whale or the pig? _________________ Do you think the whale has evolved from pig-like animals? ________ Therefore whales are ______ DAY older than land mammals! For a land mammal to become a whale he would need to return to the water, lose his hair and grow about 50 times as big! Do you think this really happened? ______ A large elephant (the largest land mammal) weighs about 7 tons! A blue whale (the largest kind of whale) weighs about 150 tons! The whale did not evolve by chance; it was created by God!

  1. Evolutionists say that plant life is impossible without insects because the pollination process (the way plants reproduce) requires insects such as bees.

But God says that insects (creeping things) were not created until DAY _____ and plant life appeared on DAY ______. This means that plant life appeared _______ DAYS before insects. Do you think plants and flowers could survive for 3 ages without insects? ______ Do you think plants and flowers could survive for 3 days without insects? _____

"I was on time! The all-wise Creator created me at just the right time–on the sixth day of the creation week! That’s when I started making honey!!"

 

  1. Evolutionists say that ape-like creatures came along thousands of years before man (because they believe that man evolved from ape-like creatures).

But God says that men and apes were both created on DAY _______.

  1. Evolutionists say that the sun must have been here before life could begin (because they believe life began as the sun’s rays beat down upon the primitive oceans).

But God says that life (vegetation) appeared on DAY _____ and the sun was not made until DAY ______. It is possible for life to begin without the sun but can life begin without the CREATOR? ______ Who is the source of life, the sun or the CREATOR (see Acts 17:28)? _______ Life owes its existence not to the SUN but to the SON OF GOD (see John 1:3 and Colossians 1:16).

Please indicate on which DAY of creation the following were made:

  1. _______ Whales
  2. _______ God rested on this day
  3. _______ Fish
  4. _______ The earth
  5. _______ The stars
  6. _______ Insects (bees)
  7. _______ Land Reptiles
  8. _______ Trees
  9. _______ Flowers
  10. _______ Monkeys
  11. _______ The Sun
  12. _______ Birds
  13. _______ Elephants

  1. _______ Man
  2. _______ Sharks
  3. _______ Light
  4. _______ Dry Land
  5. _______ Turtles
  6. _______ Firmament
                   (an expanse of space)
  7. _______ Eagles

You cannot listen to both God and the evolutionists! They do not teach the same thing! If Genesis chapter 1 is true (and it is!), then evolution is false. If evolution is true, then Genesis chapter 1 is false, and the Bible is filled with errors. But the Lord Jesus said that the Word of God is ___________ (John 17:17) and we know that God’s Word is __________ from the ___________________ (Psalm 119:160). Who should you believe — the CREATOR or the evolutionists? Will you put your faith in the false god of the evolutionists who needs billions of years to do his work, or will you put your faith in an Almighty Creator who can create all things in 6 DAYS?

As you observe and study the world around you, you will discover that all the true facts of science and all the true laws of science agree perfectly with the Bible and with the book of Genesis! Do you think it is possible for BOOK 1 (God’s revelation in nature) to contradict BOOK 2 (God’s revelation in His Word)? _______ (see pages 14-21). Who wrote Book 1? __________ Who wrote Book 2? _____________ God is the Author of both! This is why both books say the same thing. And both books point to the greatness of the C________________, who is blessed forever, Amen (see Romans 1:25). Sad to say, the books that the evolutionists write often do not agree with the true facts of science and they certainly do not agree with God’s Word the Bible! CHOOSE you this day! (See Joshua 24:15.) Choose the true God of creation or the false God of the evolutionists (the God of chance)!


The Middletown Bible Church
349 East Street
Middletown, CT 06457
(860) 346-0907

Back to SCIENCE, THE SCRIPTURES AND THE SAVIOUR

More Sunday School Lessons
  More articles under Doctrinal Studies

 

 

14 posted on 02/05/2009 10:35:38 AM PST by RaceBannon (We have sown the wind, but we will reap the whirlwind. NObama. Not my president.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AnalogReigns

Ankerberg ignores the variations we already know about in DNA.

NO ONE knows how many variations original DNA had, it is entirely possible that two white people can have a Negro child, and not have cheated on each other.

It is only recently that we had genetic isolation, where dominant genes tend to dictate blond hair in Scandanavians, black skin in Africans, and different eyes in Asia

NONE of that is macro evolution, it is just variation in dna and also genetic isolation of donors

Different animals coming from an original pair is quite possible, look at the different number of housecats, dogs, cows, elephants, fish, birds: each is distinct in their look, but many of those species can trace back to a single pair if there was genetic differences in the first place in the original DNA

No one looks alike, do they? No dogs look alike, do they?

DNA variation.


15 posted on 02/05/2009 10:40:25 AM PST by RaceBannon (We have sown the wind, but we will reap the whirlwind. NObama. Not my president.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: AnalogReigns

He may not be an evolutionist, but he certainly is abandoning parts of God’s word that don’t fit his current ideology. The geneology records IF the world were billions of years old certainly don’t reflect man being aroudn a billion or so years, nor do the fossil records nor genetic mutations records in hte Mitochondrial EVE project.

As well, yo will find that the time since the flood certain does give neough time for variation within species to account for all that we know today- infact, you find it is plenty of time, and certainly follows the fossil records quite well- Ackenburg can beleive whatever he likes, but adopting hte position he is now adopting juts shows he willing to sell his soul, ignore the evidnece, and beleive man’s word over God’s- But who can blame him? There’s so much ridicule and petty chi;ldishness from the macro camp that weakkneed people just can’t be asked to hold true to God and the actual facts. Much better to just beleive someone’s assumptions about time past, and put your faith in dating methods that aren’t accurate past 6000 or so years than to actually trust hte Creator and beleive hte objective science. After all, man is hte one we’ll be held accoutnable to on judgement day- not God [Sarcasm]


16 posted on 02/05/2009 10:43:32 AM PST by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: demshateGod

1. _____ DAY 1 (Genesis 1:1-5) A. The creation of plant life (vegetation)—LIFE BEGINS!
2. _____ DAY 2 (Genesis 1:6-8) B. The creation of land mammals and creeping things (insects & reptiles)—THE CREATION OF MAN!.
3. _____ DAY 3 (Genesis 1:9-13) C. The creation of the sun, moon and stars
4. _____ DAY 4 (Genesis 1:14-19) D. The creation of the heavens and the earth—the creation of light.
5. _____ DAY 5 (Genesis 1:20-23) E. The creation of the firmament (heavenly expanse)
6. _____ DAY 6 (Genesis 1:24-31) F. The creation of sea life (including sea mammals) and fowl (birds)
.
.
Now ask someone who believes in old earth and day age theories to explain how the order of creation happened with long ages.


17 posted on 02/05/2009 10:46:25 AM PST by RaceBannon (We have sown the wind, but we will reap the whirlwind. NObama. Not my president.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: RaceBannon

[[Ankerberg ignores the variations we already know about in DNA.]]

And he also ignores that htese variations happen very very quickly and can account for species rapidly diverging/devolving to result in species within their own kinds that look dramatically different- but alas- Ackenburg apparently prefers not to upset the proverbial macroevolutionary apple cart- too many confrontaitons for him to stand up to apparently


18 posted on 02/05/2009 10:47:45 AM PST by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: RaceBannon; metmom; DaveLoneRanger; editor-surveyor; betty boop; Alamo-Girl; MrB; GourmetDan; ...

Excellent, excellent reply, brother! Hope you don’t mind if I ping some additional FReepers to read it :o)


19 posted on 02/05/2009 11:18:34 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: demshateGod
Is Satan a literal snake in the grass? If not then why did God tell Satan (the serpent)that he was more cursed than all the animals and that he would slither on the ground and eat dust? Either this is literal or allegorical representing a heavenly concept in earthly terms.

Another thought... How is it that a God who is eternally existent and only just started creating 6 or 10K years ago?

It is my conclusion that finite minds will never come to fully understand until we see Him... and that is the real nut in the shell... Him. God is ever so clear as to the condition of man's soul and the need for redemption and only tangentially concerned that we understand all of history.

Yes, God could have created the earth 6 to 10k years ago and have created it to appear as though it had been here billions of years... but what's the point?

20 posted on 02/05/2009 11:23:13 AM PST by opaque soul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: AnalogReigns
As a matter of fact, one of the proofs of an old Earth creation he posits, is that given the literal millions of species/kinds on the earth today, unless there was a hyper-evolution AFTER the great Flood, the number of pairs (30,000 ?) on the ark could not have differentiated to the many millions of species today. A horse pair, he says, for example, could not have evolved into zebras, donkeys, Llamas, etc.... and only several thousands of pairs of animals would have fit onto the Ark.

I would say that this is exactly what happened, however. The conditions the Bible describes after the landing of the Ark - extremely small "starter" populations, huge amounts of empty space into which they could expand - are tailor made for the massive genetic drift that would lead to a "Founder Principle" type of rapid speciation, followed by stabilisation once the populations got large enough. This could have occurred, based on the generational lengths of most animals, within a few hundred years.

21 posted on 02/05/2009 11:26:41 AM PST by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus (Nihil utile nisi quod honestum - Marcus Tullius Cicero)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: opaque soul
Another thought... How is it that a God who is eternally existent and only just started creating 6 or 10K years ago?

The concept of the passage of time is really only relevant when we speak about being "within" creation. Time is as much a part of the existence of the material universe as space and matter are. In a sense, we can't even say that there WAS an "eternity past" with respect to creation - since God is not dependent upon nor is He existent in time, so we can't challenge the idea of a young universe solely on this piece of philosophical speculation.

Yes, God could have created the earth 6 to 10k years ago and have created it to appear as though it had been here billions of years... but what's the point?

I would question the assumption that the earth, the universe, etc. "appear" to be billions of years old. That assumption rests on the circular reasoning inherent in evolutionary theory, but is NOT independently or empirically verified fact.

22 posted on 02/05/2009 11:30:42 AM PST by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus (Nihil utile nisi quod honestum - Marcus Tullius Cicero)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Truth will out. These guys know they have been spouting mythology as truth and now they are being forced to face their deceits.

There is a God and he chose Charles Darwin to reveal the truth about evolution and Creation.
23 posted on 02/05/2009 11:41:59 AM PST by Sudetenland (Those diplomats serve best, who serve as cannon fodder to protect our troops!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: js1138
Lots of deathbed conversions to Darwinism.

I imagine that goes both ways, probably lop sided against Darwinism. JMHO.

24 posted on 02/05/2009 11:42:45 AM PST by itsahoot (We will have world government. Whether by conquest or consent. Looks like that question is answered)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: RaceBannon
"Most people listen to the evolutionists and believe that 4 BILLION years were needed for all life to evolve into its present form."

Your post was excellent, but that statement is far from the truth. Only a small number of people believe evolution. Survey after survey have shown that at least 2/3 of the people believe that creation is the correct answer across the board. Belief in evolution is a form of mental illness.

25 posted on 02/05/2009 11:50:51 AM PST by editor-surveyor (The beginning of the O'Bummer administration looks a lot like the end of the Nixon administration)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: RaceBannon

[[As you observe and study the world around you, you will discover that all the true facts of science and all the true laws of science agree perfectly with the Bible and with the book of Genesis!]]

Let me just add that these true facts of science and true laws of science and nature do NOT need to be artificially ‘fitted to’ the bible- they do so quite naturally- as opposed to macroevolutionists ALWAYS having to adjust, manipulate, and change the evidences, as well include copious amounts of assumptions about connectivities between dissimilar kinds that have no scientific support. When evidences show young age, macroevolutionsits are quick to come up with elaborate assumption driven ‘explanations’ to dismiss the evidences, and when evidneces, statistics, and natural laws dictate that macroevolution is impossible, again, these are simply ingored, or ‘explained’ away with more elaborate hypothesisizing that ingores the evidneces agaisnt the hypothesis

Creationists and ID’ists are often accused of practicing apologetics, but everythign about macroevolution is nothing BUT apologies ‘explaining’ away the evidneces agaisnt it.

However, having said this, I think it is problematic to use static materials to analogize with macroevolution, as macroevolution is a dynamic living system of information at a much higher level than static object information. It might be better to argue that nature is incapable of creating ihgh level metainformaiton (information ABOUT information that controls the whole lower level systems workings)

i’d also like to add what another poster posted abotu 7 days- specifically that this was a full week of determi9ned age, as the Lord said basically “s I worked for 6 days, and rested on the 7’th, so shal you by observing the sabbath’ He didn’t say in essence “As I too worked an indeterminante number of years numbering perhaps in the billions, and then rested on the seventh day, so too shall you rest and observe an indeterminant number of days/years for hte sabbath”

The rest of your your post about ‘days’ is excellent- Thank you for the time and effort you’ve put into making these facts known :)


26 posted on 02/05/2009 11:57:59 AM PST by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

I think he was generalizing about ‘most people’ who ‘beleive in evolution’, not inferring that most peopel beleive in evolution


27 posted on 02/05/2009 11:59:03 AM PST by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: opaque soul

[[Is Satan a literal snake in the grass? If not then why did God tell Satan (the serpent)that he was more cursed than all the animals and that he would slither on the ground and eat dust?]]

No- Satan possessed the snake- the snake was thus culpable, and it was the literal snake that God cursed for beign the vehicle through which God’s most prized creation, man, was condemned- From the bible commentator Gill:

“Gen_3:14-15
Here begins the judgment. Sentence is pronounced upon the serpent in the presence, no doubt, of the man and woman. The serpent is not examined, first, because it is a mute, unreasoning animal in itself, and therefore incapable of judicial examination, and it was the serpent only that was palpable to the senses of our first parents in the temptation; and, secondly, because the true tempter was not a new, but an old offender.

This sentence has a literal application to the serpent. The curse (Gen_9:25, see the note) of the serpent lies in a more groveling nature than that of the other land animals. This appears in its going on its belly and eating the dust. Other animals have at least feet to elevate them above the dust; the serpent tribe does not have even feet. Other animals elevate the head in their natural position above the soil: the serpent lays its head naturally on the sod, and therefore may be said to eat the dust, as the wounded warrior bites the dust in death. The earthworm is probably included in the description here given of the serpent group. It goes upon its belly, and actually does eat the dust. Eating the dust, like feeding upon ashes, is an expression for signal defeat in every aim. The enmity, the mode of its display, and the issue are also singularly characteristic of the literal serpent.

It is the custom of Scripture jurisprudence to visit brute animals with certain judicial consequences of injuries they have been instrumental in doing to man, especially if this has arisen through the design or neglect of the owner, or other responsible agent Gen_9:5; Exo_21:28-36. In the present case the injury done was of a moral, not a physical nature. Hence, the penalty consists in a curse; that is, a state of greater degradation below man than the other land animals. The serpent in the extraordinary event here recorded exercised the powers of human speech and reasoning. And it is natural to suppose that these exhibitions of intelligence were accompanied with an attitude and a gesture above its natural rank in the scale of creation. The effect of the judicial sentence would be to remand it to its original groveling condition, and give rise to that enmity which was to end in its destruction by man.

However, since an evil spirit must have employed the serpent, since the animal whose organs and instincts were most adapted to its purpose, and has accordingly derived its name from it as presenting the animal type most analogous to its own spiritual nature, so the whole of this sentence has its higher application to the real tempter. “Upon thy belly shalt thou go.” This is expressive of the lowest stage of degradation to which a spiritual creature can be sunk. “Dust shalt thou eat.” This is indicative of disappointment in all the aims of being. “I will put enmity.” This is still more strictly applicable to the spiritual enemy of mankind. It intimates a hereditary feud between their respective races, which is to terminate, after some temporary suffering on the part of the woman’s seed, in the destruction of the serpent’s power against man. The spiritual agent in the temptation of man cannot have literally any seed. But the seed of the serpent is that portion of the human family that continues to be his moral offspring, and follows the first transgression without repentance or refuge in the mercy of God. The seed of the woman, on the other hand, must denote the remnant who are born from above, and hence, turn from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God.

Let us now mark the lessons conveyed in the sentence of the serpent to our first parents, who were listening and looking on. First. The serpent is styled a mere brute animal. All, then, that seemed to indicate reason as inherent in its nature or acquired by some strange event in its history is thus at once contradicted. Second. It is declared to be lower than any of the other land animals; as being destitute of any members corresponding to feet or hands. Third. It is not interrogated as a rational and accountable being, but treated as a mere dumb brute.

Fourth. It is degraded from the airs and attitudes which may have been assumed, when it was possessed by a serpent-like evil spirit, and falls back without a struggle to that place of debasement in the animal kingdom for which it was designed. Fifth. It is fated to be disappointed in its aims at usurpation. It shall bite the dust. Sixth. it is doomed to ultimate and utter defeat in its hostile assaults upon the seed of the woman.

All this must have made a deep impression on our first parents. But two things must have struck them with special force. First, it was now evident how vain and hollow were its pretensions to superior wisdom, and how miserably deluded they had been when they listened to its false insinuations. If, indeed, they had possessed maturity of reflection, and taken time to apply it, they would have been strangely bewildered with the whole scene, now that it was past. How the serpent, from the brute instinct it displayed to Adam when he named the animals, suddenly rose to the temporary exercise of reason and speech, and as suddenly relapsed into its former bestiality, is, to the mere observer of nature, an inexplicable phenomenon. But to Adam, who had as yet too limited an experience to distinguish between natural and preternatural events, and too little development of the reflective power to detect the inconsistency in the appearance of things, the sole object of attention was the shameless presumption of the serpent, and the overwhelming retribution which had fallen upon it; and, consequently, the deplorable folly and wickedness of having been misguided by its suggestions.
A second thing, however, was still more striking to the mind of man in the sentence of the serpent; namely, the enmity that was to be put between the serpent and the woman. Up to a certain point there had been concord and alliance between these two parties. But, on the very opening of the heavenly court, we learn that the friendly connection had been broken. For the woman said, “The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.” This expression indicates that the woman was no longer at one with the serpent. She was now sensible that its part had been that, not of friendship, but of guile, and therefore of the deepest and darkest hostility.

When God, therefore, said, “I will put enmity between thee and the woman,” this revulsion of feeling on her part, in which Adam no doubt joined, was acknowledged and approved. Enmity with the enemy of God indicated a return to friendship with God, and presupposed incipient feelings of repentance toward him, and reviving confidence in his word. The perpetuation of this enmity is here affirmed, in regard not only to the woman, but to her seed. This prospect of seed, and of a godly seed, at enmity with evil, became a fountain of hope to our first parents, and confirmed every feeling of returning reverence for God which was beginning to spring up in their breast. The word heard from the mouth of God begat faith in their hearts, and we shall find that this faith was not slow to manifest itself in acts.

We cannot pass over this part of the sentence without noticing the expression, “the seed of the woman.” Does it not mean, in the first instance, the whole human race? Was not this race at enmity with the serpent? And though that part only of the seed of the woman which eventually shared in her present feelings could be said to be at enmity with the serpent spirit, yet, if all had gone well in Adam’s family, might not the whole race have been at enmity with the spirit of disobedience? Was not the avenue to mercy here hinted at as wide as the offer of any other time? And was not this universality of invitation at some time to have a response in the human family? Does not the language of the passage constrain us to look forward to the time when the great mass, or the whole of the human race then alive on the earth, will have actually turned from the power of Satan unto God? This could not be seen by Adam. But was it not the plain import of the language, that, unless there was some new revolt after the present reconciliation, the whole race would, even from this new beginning, be at enmity with the spirit of evil? Such was the dread lesson of experience with which Adam now entered upon the career of life, that it was to be expected he would warn his children against departing from the living God, with a clearness and earnestness which would be both understood and felt.

Still further, do we not pass from the general to the particular in the sentence, “He shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel?” Is not the seed of the woman here individualized and matched in deadly conflict with the individual tempter? Does not this phraseology point to some pre-eminent descendant of the woman, who is, with the bruising of his lower nature in the encounter, to gain a signal and final victory over the adversary of man? There is some reason to believe from the expression, “I have gotten a man from the Lord” Gen_4:1, that Eve herself had caught a glimpse of this meaning, though she applied it to the wrong party. The Vulgate also, in what was probably the genuine reading, “ipse” (he himself) points to the same meaning. The reading “ipsa” (she herself) is inconsistent with the gender of the Hebrew verb, and with that of the corresponding pronoun in the second clause (his), and is therefore clearly an error of the transcriber.

Lastly, the retributive character of the divine administration is remarkably illustrated in the phrase. The serpent, in a wily but dastardly spirit, makes the weaker sex the object of his attack. It is the seed of the woman especially that is to bruise his head. It is singular to find that this simple phrase, coming in naturally and incidentally in a sentence uttered four thousand years, and penned at least fifteen hundred years, before the Christian era, describes exactly and literally Him who was made of woman without the intervention of man, that He might destroy the works of the devil. This clause in the sentence of the tempter is the first dawn of hope for the human family after the fall. We cannot tell whether to admire more the simplicity of its terms, the breadth and comprehensiveness of its meaning, or the minuteness of its application to the far-distant event which it mainly contemplates.

The doom here pronounced upon the tempter must be regarded as special and secondary. It refers to the malignant attack upon man, and foretells what will be the issue of this attempt to spread disaffection among the intelligent creation. And it is pronounced without any examination of the offender, or investigation of his motives. If this had been the first offence against the majesty of heaven, we humbly conceive a solemn precognition of the case would have taken place, and a penalty would have been adjudicated adequate to the magnitude of the crime and analagous to the punishment of death in the case of man. The primary act of defiance and apostasy from the Creator must have been perpetrated without a tempter, and was, therefore, incomparably more heinous than the secondary act of yielding to temptation. Whether the presence of the tempter on earth intimates that it was the place of his abode in a state of innocence, or that he visited it because he had heard of the creation of man, or that he was there from some altogether different reason, is a vain and unprofitable inquiry.”


28 posted on 02/05/2009 12:07:43 PM PST by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

>>>Surely God meant the phrase “evening and morning” in Genesis 1 to be read “millions or billions of years.”<<<

“morning and evening...were the first day”
“yom”
Understood to mean...”day”...not (Carl Sagan voice) “billlions and billlions of ‘ears.
And in the original Hebrew language meant...day.

The worn out “day-age” theory!
That’s so...last century.
and...so...ear-tickling.

It is sad to see men who claim to His prophet cave to the god of this age.

Have a nice...”yom”


29 posted on 02/05/2009 12:15:26 PM PST by woollyone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: woollyone

[[Have a nice...”yom”]]

Do you mean ‘age’ or ‘day’? :)


30 posted on 02/05/2009 12:24:58 PM PST by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: CottShop

...if you’re a dog, I meant “age”

=)


31 posted on 02/05/2009 12:30:29 PM PST by woollyone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: woollyone

Lol= Oh I’m a real dog alright- One ugly mug :)


32 posted on 02/05/2009 12:40:11 PM PST by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts; RaceBannon

Yeah, that was pretty good!


33 posted on 02/05/2009 7:49:08 PM PST by Fichori (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate <= Donate and show Obama how much you love him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Thanks for the ping!


34 posted on 02/05/2009 8:36:41 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
It would appear that not every member of the clergy sees this in quite the same way.

From here.

For too long, the misperception that science and religion are inevitably in conflict has created unnecessary division and confusion, especially concerning the teaching of evolution. I wanted to let the public know that numerous clergy from most denominations have tremendous respect for evolutionary theory and have embraced it as a core component of human knowledge, fully harmonious with religious faith.

[Bolding mine.]

In the fall of 2004, I worked with clergy throughout Wisconsin to prepare a statement in support of teaching evolution. We were called to action by a series of anti-evolution policies passed by the school board in Grantsburg, WI. The response was overwhelming. In a few weeks, nearly 200 clergy signed the statement, which we sent to the Grantsburg school board on December 16, 2004. Additionally, groups of educators and scientists sent letters to the Grantsburg School Board and to the Superintendent of Schools protesting these policies. In response to all of this attention, as well as the efforts of others, the Grantsburg School Board retracted their policies.

The outpouring of support from clergy around the country encouraged me to make this a nationwide project. If you want to read more about it or join us in sharing this important perspective, click here. Encourage your clergy to consider signing the statement and please feel free to link to these webpages. And, while the current focus is on Christian clergy, please let me know if you are willing to write and/or host a statement from other religions.

The Clergy Letter Project has also sponsored annual Evolution Sunday events. These events provide an opportunity for congregations around the world to come together, in the way each feels most comfortable, to discuss the compatibility of religion and science. By doing so, we are educating thousands and elevating the world-wide discussion of this important topic. If your congregation would like to participate in an Evolution Sunday event, please contact me.

Most recently, The Clergy Letter Project has created a data base of scientists interested in working with clergy members to answer questions about all aspects of evolution. To view this growing list, click here (If you are a scientist and would like to be added to our data base, please send me a note.)

Sincerely,

Michael Zimmerman
Dean
College of Liberal Arts and Sciences
Butler University

11,818 members of the Christian clergy have signed this letter. (Rabbis and Unitarian/Universalist clergy have signed a somewhat different letter). See site for details.

The Clergy Letter - from American Christian clergy

– An Open Letter Concerning Religion and Science

[Alternate language options omitted]

Within the community of Christian believers there are areas of dispute and disagreement, including the proper way to interpret Holy Scripture. While virtually all Christians take the Bible seriously and hold it to be authoritative in matters of faith and practice, the overwhelming majority do not read the Bible literally, as they would a science textbook. Many of the beloved stories found in the Bible – the Creation, Adam and Eve, Noah and the ark – convey timeless truths about God, human beings, and the proper relationship between Creator and creation expressed in the only form capable of transmitting these truths from generation to generation. Religious truth is of a different order from scientific truth. Its purpose is not to convey scientific information but to transform hearts.

We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as “one theory among others” is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children. We believe that among God’s good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator. To argue that God’s loving plan of salvation for humanity precludes the full employment of the God-given faculty of reason is to attempt to limit God, an act of hubris. We urge school board members to preserve the integrity of the science curriculum by affirming the teaching of the theory of evolution as a core component of human knowledge. We ask that science remain science and that religion remain religion, two very different, but complementary, forms of truth.

I invite particularly the lurkers to visit this site and see that I have in no way distorted or mis-represented anything. Religion and the Theory of Evolution are not mutually exclusive.

35 posted on 02/05/2009 8:42:44 PM PST by Gumlegs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: moder_ator

What are you afraid of?


36 posted on 02/05/2009 8:42:47 PM PST by Gumlegs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gumlegs

It’s called compromising God’s word in order to be accepted by the world.


37 posted on 02/05/2009 8:50:53 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Gumlegs
Everyone's wrong but you.

Got it.

38 posted on 02/05/2009 8:53:16 PM PST by Gumlegs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Please accept my apologies. My last post here was intended for you.


39 posted on 02/05/2009 8:56:27 PM PST by Gumlegs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

11,118 ‘clergy signed that letter- so it must be true dontcha know? (This despite hte overwhelming majority of 2.6 billion TRUE Christians have no problem interpreting God’s word the way HE intends it to be- bu5t alas, the minority voice claims it’s not so, so it must be so.


40 posted on 02/05/2009 9:06:52 PM PST by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

They also have no other recourse but to try to denigrade ID and Creationism by falsely accusing it of being an excersize in apologetics- funny how those claiming to be Go’ds own have to resort to lies and misrepresentations in order to stifle the truth. ‘Clergy’ after all have spoen (Apparently they too are afraid of the truth- As you say- selling hteir soul for the sake of popularity.

Another favorite tactic of those who wish to silence ID science is to attack not hte actual science itself, but those within the scientific practice by lamely attempting to use God’s own word agaisnt us.

As AlamoGirl once said- when they’ve got no real ammo- they throw spitwads. I see you’ve been visitted by another DC spitwad thrower-


41 posted on 02/05/2009 9:11:36 PM PST by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
It’s called compromising God’s word in order to be accepted by the world.

As opposed to compromising God's world, so that it fits your interpretation of His word.

42 posted on 02/06/2009 5:46:09 AM PST by onewhowatches
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

“Excellent, excellent reply, brother!”

Are you talking about post number 10? I can’t take credit for it, I copy and pasted it from the article you sent.

I do find it strange and frustrating that people would believe some parts of the Bible and God’s dealings with man but not believe the foundation for His dealings with us (the creation).

Everything hinges on whether or not the Bible can be trusted as accurate. But not only that, it all hinges on whether or not it can be understood: This being in response to those who’ll say, “It’s accurate, but your interpretation is wrong.” That’s essentially saying I have no ability to interpret scripture or must do so through the filter of worldly knowledge.

So it it’s not accurate or to be comprehended, it’s has no authority. Why should I believe coveting my neighbor’s stuff is a sin? Why should I consider it a good idea to pray without ceasing? What armour of God will help me stand against the Devil’s wiles? And worst yet, why should I believe my sin has separated me from a Holy God?


43 posted on 02/06/2009 6:50:59 AM PST by demshateGod (The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: onewhowatches

[[As opposed to compromising God’s world, so that it fits your interpretation of His word.]]

As mentioned before 2.6 billion TRUE Christians interprete God’s word just fine with only minor irrelevent differences- Again, it seems only hte minority of people calling htemselves ‘Christians’ who want the word to fit hteir liberal ideology have a problem with ‘interpretations’, and seem to want to justify their liberal interpretations by claiming God’s word is ‘open to interpretation’ in any manner one wishes


44 posted on 02/06/2009 8:46:29 AM PST by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: All
Let's see ... to support my point that religion need not oppose science, I linked to a website with an actual document actually signed by more than eleven thousand actual ministers. In another thread, to support the same point I linked to a written copy of a speech actually delivered by Pope John Paul II. I can link to it again in this thread if need be.

The response here is to dismiss everything out of hand, primarily, I suspect, because there is no other option. Popes are Catholic; they doesn't count because some posters are not Catholic. I explicitly stated that wasn't the point, but that didn't matter. (The point was that people who are serious about religion -- a Pope, for instance -- can accept the Theory of Evolution as science). The thousands of ministers in question don't count because they aren't real Christians.

Has anyone here ever heard of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy?

The response has been telling. Utterly without foundation, a number is cited. Is there a link to a source for this number? Why ... no. The number is entirely imaginary! It's cited as part of a claim that every Christian on the planet stands in opposition to the Theory of Evolution. There is no evidence for this, in fact, it is manifest nonsense.

This is why I addressed my post to the lurkers. I am unconcerned with those who post manifest nonsense.

45 posted on 02/06/2009 9:58:44 AM PST by Gumlegs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: CottShop
As mentioned before 2.6 billion TRUE Christians interprete God’s word just fine with only minor irrelevent differences-

So did God move, hover, or brood over the surface of the waters in Genesis 1:2?

BTW, good trick there being 2.6 billion TRUE Christians when there are less than 2 billion in the world... and according to you some of them only "call" themselves Christians.

46 posted on 02/06/2009 10:25:40 AM PST by onewhowatches
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Gumlegs
Popes are Catholic; they doesn't count

Doesn't they? Sheesh!

47 posted on 02/06/2009 10:57:06 AM PST by Gumlegs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: onewhowatches

Your claim is taken from old figures in 2005-2006, and yes, I made a mistake- there are around 700 million TRUE bible beleiving born again Christians as compared to the 11,000 ‘Christians’ that signed that petition posted previously, and contrary to the claim that ‘most Christians dissagree on interpretations of hte bible’ while some have dissagreements over MINOR theological issues, these are irrelevent to the major premisses of God’s word of which 2.1 billion plus (Perhaps evenm ore by now- that figure was taken from old consensus) agree on. So htose tryign to tear down the bible and TRUE Christians by claiming a minority few ‘can’t agree’. As well 700+ million TRUE CHristians are in majority agreement on God’s word with again, perhaps a few scant theological issues not being 100% agreed on- Big deal?

What you and others are decetfully tryign to do is intimate that since everyone doesn’t agree 100% on every single issue- regardless of how minor, then the whole book therefore can’t be trusted. Really? Since scholars can’t agree whether Lincoln meant one hting or another in some of his speeches, then all biographies about lincoln then can’t be trusted? or are open to any interpretations that peopel wish to claim? Shall I then think that since htere arem inor dissagreements about certain issues in bibliographies and biographies abotu lincoln, then I can say he was 4 feet tall, had 3 arms instead of two, and spoke spanish instead of english? Since htere isn’t perfect 100% agreement on how lincoln thouhgt on certain issues, and since we were not there to hear him explain every minor htought personally, then is the interpretation as open and free as you and others are claiming hte bible now is because Christians dissagre on minor points?

You quesiton has NO relevence to the infallibility and trustworthiness of God’s word- Whether God hovered, moved or brooded over hte waters makes no difference to the reliability of His word when conciderign His creation- IF you choose NOT to beleive God created- then fine- whatever- but let’s not pretend that pointing out minor irrelevent differences means the whole of His book can be interpreted any way we wish- That’s a silly argument to make- As silly as me now saying I think, because htere isn’t 100% agreement on minor issues concernign lincoln, that lincoln was not really a man, but a kangaroo with hte ability to speak.


48 posted on 02/06/2009 11:27:06 AM PST by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: All

It doesn’t matter what some ‘religious people’ who are willing to sell their soul for hte sake of combability with God deniers and others who don’t htink God created life, think- Citing such unscientific opinions that ignore the serious scientific and natural and biological and mathematical impossibiliets in no way invalidates the idea that belief in God hte creator, and macroevolutionary ‘science’ which has no scientific evidence to support unfortunately, and hwich must therefore rely on fallible man’s OPINIONS and ASSUMPTIONS, and thus equates with dogmatism and religious beleief itself- a man made religion at htat, are incompatible- But let’s sit back and watch those that think the two are compatible try to finagle their way in with nothign but science ignoring ‘evidnece’ and by citing those who have abandoned God and science and who think, for hte sake of man’s approval and praise, that hte two are compatible- Should be quite a show


49 posted on 02/06/2009 11:33:39 AM PST by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: CottShop

Woops- meant ‘Census’ not ‘consensus’ As We all know ‘consensus’ doesn’t automatically mean that the majority are correct, as proven out by those who bleive macroevolution despite a lack of evidence, nd htose who beleieve ;man-caused’ global warming despite hte now overwhelming evidence man is NOT to blame- yet hte claimed ‘consensus’ are still advocating man is to blame- so as we see- appealing to the ‘consensus’ and citing numbers means nothing if htose hwo make up that ‘consensus’ beleive in soemthign that is scientifically false.


50 posted on 02/06/2009 11:48:21 AM PST by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-60 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson