Other denominations are doing it and some Adventist evangelists are starting to take the approach too. This past Sabbath the wife of one of our members was telling me that her husband hopes to be a "Creation Science Evangelist". For a movement that is to call the dying world to "Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters." this seems somewhat overdue.



Night One: The Age of The Earth
Night Two: Rocks & Fossils
Night Three: Dinosaurs
Night Four: Evolution, Communism & Racism
Night Five: Noah's Flood

Night Six: Sin & The Garden
Night Seven: Sin's Remedy
Night Eight: Stars & The Universe

Night Nine: The Bible & The Dead Sea
Night Ten: A Call to Worship The Creator
Night Eleven: Beasts of Bible Prophecy
Night Twelve: God's Law & The Cross
Night Thirteen: God's Rest for Man
Night Fourteen: The Antichrist
Night Fifteen: God's Judgement on a Sinful World

Night Sixteen: Dead In Christ
Night Seventeen: The Devil & Hell
Night Nineteen: A Living Sacrifice
Night Twenty: Forgiveness & Repentence
Night Twentyone: Jesus Returns

Sigh

At exactly the time that the GC officials are continuing a very enlightening Science and Faith discussion, where they are conceding that the issues are very complex...

you get ignorant church members preparing to tell the general public about how certain the SDA church is that the evolutionists are wrong.

Regardless of whether you are an informed creationist or an informed evolutionist, one thing is VERY clear... the evidence against evolution is not-very-solid at best, and it is extremely misleading to pretend otherwise.

/Bevin

Now this is a good example of ignorance

The objective of creation science evangelism is not to prove evolution wrong. Evolution can no more be proven wrong than it can be proven to be correct. The objective of creation science evangelism is to cast doubt on evolution and show the Bible does not nesasarily controdict science. It is a form of evangelism that uses the complexities of nature to reveal who God is. While it doesn't prove evolution to be wrong, it shows the Bible is not opposed to science.

Ultimately faith is believing in what cannot be seen and trusting in what cannot be proven. Creation science evangelism doesn't seek to diminish that type of faith. It simply teaches that Biblical faith is not unreasonable or outdated. It shows that while modern science has cast doubt on the Biblical record, it is not conclusive or beyond criticism itself.

Evolution can no more be proven wrong than it can be proven to be correct. The objective of creation science evangelism is to cast doubt on evolution ... -Shane

Is it possible that such tactics will alienate those who see through them?

It simply teaches that Biblical faith is not unreasonable or outdated -Shane.

Faith itself is never outdated. Does it have to be reasonable? Isn't faith useful only for what we cannot know? Shouldn't we find out as much as we can factully acertain before we need to rely on faith? If the Bible is 'incorrect' shouldn't we find that out? Maybe our use of the word 'incorrect' is adopted because we might have a false conception of the meaning of or the intention of the Bible in that certian case and the Bible is not 'incorrect' at all in the light of science.

Why can't evangelists think on those questions and leave room for people to have their own opinons on scientific matters. It is hard enough to teach people to have a spiritual experience and to be kind, loving, caring, helpful persons. -Allan

I don't know what tactics are being referred to here. Casting doubt on evolution or trying to prove it wrong? Casting doubt is a good thing and trying to prove it wrong is not so wise.



This I have to take exception to. I once had faith in a car but as it grew old I lost faith in it. I could come up with numerous other examples. Creation science evangelism teaches people that the Bible isn't like my old car. The faith of our fathers is as trustworthy today as it was when they sailed on the Mayflower.

We live in a world today where people are taught there is no god or that god is something mythical like mermaids, unicorns and flying dragons. Creation science evangelists teach that the armor of science is not without flaws. Science is not bulletproof. If the people are going to have faith in the Bible, they must realize that there is a real possability that the Bible is right and evolution is wrong. Otherwise believing in the Bible becomes like believing in the tooth fairy or Santa Claus. If the Biblical story of creation cannot be trusted, nor can the prophets or the Son of Man that believed it be.

Was it your faith that grew old or your car? I was thinking of faith in God, and God doesn't grow old, and become worn out. I suppose our interpretations, conceptions or opinons could be shown not worthy of faith. The Bible isn't like an old car. But maybe your or my understanding of it is like an old car.

Biblical faith does NOT require a belief in a literal interpretation of Genesis. There are millions of loving and lovable Christian's who have faith in the Bible as the Word of God, and yet who believe that Genesis is not scientifically accurate and was never intended to be.



How does getting a speaker - someone who don't understand the issues and who makes over-stated arguments that anyone can disprove with just a few minutes of internet research - constitute a sensible way of criticising science? It tells you a lot more about the psychology of the speaker and about the organisation they are promoting than it does about science.

/Bevin

I agree that there are millions of Christians today who have faith in God yet who believe in evolution.

While I personally am a creationist, I don't favor pressing people to make a hard and fast decision on these scientific questions. I also favor serious and public debate on the subject. I honestly don't trust either creationists or evolutionists to tell the whole truth about the strengths and weaknesses of each side of the question. Therefore, in my view, a dialectic is necessary and beneficial to all sincere seekers after truth.

I think it's entirely debatable whether Genesis is scientifically accurate or was intended to be. I don't think it is something we can take for granted that the Bible is wrong, which, however, is what many supporters of evolution teach. That is why I favor open, serious debate on the facts and issues. As a fomer member of a militantly anti-God, pro-evolutionary organization (the Socialist Workers Party), I can tell you that most of the evolutionists with whom I associated were atheistic and ignorant not only of the Bible but of creation theory and even of the weakness in the arguments supposedly favoring evolution. (They would make the most nonsensical statements about God and the Bible that you could imagine yet they would do it with the greatest self-confidence. They did the same in debates about abortion where they referred to the fetus as a mere "parasite". My side lost big in a debate at San Diego State U once when all the pro-life side did was show slides of babies in the trash can. My side didn't even bother to continue the debate.)

By the way, when you say "intended", do you mean intended by the author/s or by God?





It seems to me you are evidently assuming a "straw man" here. While I think you are right that such speakers do exist, I am convinced that not all speakers on the subject of creationism lack an understanding of the issues or make over-stated arguments. To the extent that such speakers exist, however, I believe your objection is well taken, but I am sure even you would admit that you've not described accurately nearly all who speak on the topic. If you honestly believe the speaker is deficient in the areas you referred to, I would suggest that you yourself go to such meetings and request to debate the speaker in an open forum. If that is not allowed, perhaps you could at least pose questions. I don't believe the Bible as God's truth has anything to fear from such an investigation and debate.

I have noticed that many debates on the existence of God usually don't even bring up the subject of evolution/creationism, either because both sides agree it is too complex and can lead to various conclusions or because they think it is irrelevent, since, as you yourself remark, the question of evolution vs. creationism is not necessarily a defining point when it comes to determining whether a person views himself as a Christian or not.

Finally, I think in general it is a great idea for people to study the issues with a view to becoming a creation/science evangelist. It will help to raise a lot of people's awareness of the questions involved and of what the Bible actually teaches, perhaps even about the Sabbath and God's law, and that increase in knowledge can only result in a positive outcome. Don't you agree?

If the Genesis account is not correct, the entire Bible starts to unravel. There are many Christians that believe in Jesus as their Savior but they do not believe in the Bible as the inspired Word of God which is beyond approach. In that world, there is nothing anyone can trust in. Nothing is sure. There is no rock for the wiseman to build his house upon.

John 1:1-3, 3:12; 5:46; 1 Colossian 1:16, 17; Luke 17:27; 11:50, 61; Mark 10:6; 13:19; Ephesians 3:19; Hebrews 1:1, Rev. 4:11; 10:6;



Indeed there are many evangelists that present a well-balanced presentation of the issues. There are also many goof-ball wackos that use arguments and theories that evolutionists can turn around and make them look like fools. The effective creation-scientist evangelist does not step into the areas where an evolutionist in his or her audience could discredit him or her.

I agree. Genesis, as an origins myth, has lots of stuff worth study. It is not inherently wrong just because it is not scientifically accurate.



As far as I know, the SDA church still teaches that the books of the Bible were written by Holy men moved by the Spirit, and does not claim a 'cover-all' infallibility for them or a verbal inspiration for them. It is widely acknowledged that there is irrelevant-to-salvation discrepancies between the books - and it is very clear that the both the OT&NT books were written by their authors with deliberate goals in mind. Just read the opening of Luke to see that, or any of Paul's writings.



I have yet to hear a scientifically solid pro-creationist speaker. Every time I have been pointed at one, it has taken me less than 5 minutes to determine that they are either woefully ignorant or dishonest.

Sometimes you will find a speaker who is neutral, who is prepared to admit that he prefers the creationist model but that the scientific evidence is solidly on the side of the evolutionists. I do not regard such speakers as pro-creationism.



Absolutely - unfortunately the SDA church has publically sided with suppressing this debate, and (contrary to the recommendations of their own Science and Faith series) continues to publically require their official spokespeople to act like creationism is the only valid answer. Just look at the last 2 Qtrs SS lessons for this foolishness in action.

/Bevin

I always find it humorous when evolutionists criticise their intellectual and academic superiors that hold PhDs and work in the field of science but are somehow not qualified to talk about science because they are creationists. Ahhhh yes, "they are either woefully ignorant or dishonest." Why? Well they don't believe in evolution. There is simply no other explanation.

Was Moses woefully ignorant or dishonest? What about Paul when he wrote, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction"? Well, they lived so long ago they had to be ignorant, right? The effects of thousands of years of sin has made us smarter,,, or has it?

"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools" Romans 1:20-22

Sounds like a good approach, Shane. The world needs more truth, especially the good news of how we got here.

Ken Ham shares this:

Having looked up all the verses you referred to, I actually agree with you about this, and that is why I am a creationist. I've seen how what you say works out in practice, particularly in my studies with Jehovah's Witnesses, who give as their reason for not accepting the Sabbath the misinterpretation they have of Genesis 2:1-3; which is, that the days in Genesis 1 and 2 were ten thousand years long. Their New World "Translation" of Genesis 2: 2,3 is the only one I know of, out of my 50+ translations, that says God "is resting" rather than that "He rested" on the seventh day. They use this as a reason not to believe in the seventh-day Sabbath, even though their own books readily admit that Sunday came into Christianity by way of paganism.

I don't think most people have thought the issues through as thoroughly as you have, and therefore they can't see the necessity of accepting the whole Bible, including the Genesis account of creation, the same as they do the Gospels. In my own mind, I could hold the truth of Christ and of salvation and eternal life at the same time that I could disbelieve the literalness of the Biblical creation account. I am not saying I disbelieve it now or anticipate a time when I would ever hold such a view. I am merely saying that because of my training in literature, I could hold that view and at the same time accept Jesus as a real Savior who really and truly died and rose for my salvation. But the danger is that I think if a lot of people were forced to make that choice, they might reject the gospel, because their hold on the gospel is not a profound one. That's the chief reason I don't think it's a good thing to compel people in that direction. I would like to see it discussed thoroughly but not be presented as if Christians can't have faith in Christ and at the same time hold various views on science and evolution. For me personally the most important thing is freedom and persuasion, not the feeling of being pushed or compelled into one view. Where the Spirit of the Lord is there is freedom, and, as Saint Paul said, "Let every man be persuaded in his own mind."





I think, rather, that the most effective creation-scientist evangelist (i.e., the one who would have my trust) is the one who will admit when he does not know something or when creationism fails to explain something or even when evolution seems to be somewhat supported by the data. No one looks worse than someone who is too stubborn to admit he might not be right 100% of the time. That is what would make me wonder, What else is this fellow manipulating or hiding in order to win the argument? If creationism is true (and I believe it is), then it has nothing to fear from being generous and admitting when it is wrong or doesn't yet have answers. If it is not true, then I would be the first to want to know, because I am only after the truth, whatever that is and wherever it leads.

First, let me half apologize for this long and convoluted post. I will set what I consider my most pertenent remarks in bold letters so that people who are on the run may nevertheless read.

I cannot agree with you that Genesis is "an origins myth," although I can read it that way and still, like you, see much in it that is worth while. The question is, however, whether we can read the Genesis creation account as NO MORE THAN origins myth and still come to firm faith in God. I will never forget my teacher in one class that I took in The Bible As Literature at a public college. He told of how many times he had read the Bible as literature, yet he ridiculed it as theology and made fun of it as anything inspired by a god (small g no mistake). He read it entirely as an origins myth, and his seeing it merely as myth was directly connected to his attitude towards it as something altogether false and unworthy of his trust. (I still shudder to think of the blasphemies he uttered as we went through the Proverbs and the Psalms.)

I would be interested--if you care to share it--in knowing some examples of what you believe is right or worth while about the Genesis account but which you understand to disagree with modern science.





I think you are generally correct in what you say here. Unlike most conservative Christian denominations, we don't believe that the Bible was verbally inspired. It's also true that the SDA church doesn't believe the Bible contains no errors whatsoever. For one thing we don't have the original text of the Bible, and therefore it's impossible to know whether the original manuscripts were inerrant.

There are thousands of varients among the hundreds of Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, but most of those are insigificant in terms of doctrine. In fact, most of them are of such a nature as to not even affect the translation because they have to do with spelling and word order (which is not nearly as important in determining sentence structure as it is in English). Therefore, even if we accept all the significant varients as being what the critics say they are, the Bible is not fundamentally affected. No book in the world has been picked apart and attacked as has the Bible, and yet after all that, the Bible still stands head and shoulders above every other ancient book for trustworthiness and for accuracy of transcription.





I have no doubt that what you say might be true. Few good speakers are great thinkers. As a matter of fact, the greatest and most profound thinkers have usually made poor speakers. Rarely do both talents meet in a single man, it seems. (Lincoln, Kennedy (?), and M. L. King are three that I can think of at the moment that come closest to qualifying.) Perhaps the greatest speaker of all time--if the amazing way he swayed the masses is any true measure of his talent-- was a very poor thinker indeed, one by the name of Adolf Hitler. On the other hand, Nietszche, though a brilliant thinker and writer, was, however, to put it kindly, a rather dull lecturer, if we are to trust his student's recollections. Other brilliant thinkers, such as Ralph Waldo Emerson and Saint Paul, might also be added to the list of bad-to-downright-poor speakers.

Consider who the really good speakers are. They are almost always actors, who are not exactly known as wise and intelligent or even informed people.

Well, the reason I bring all this up, if you are still reading, is that the best minds who've dealt with the subject are probably not going to be the ones you will hear talking about it in public. Rather, you will most likely find what they think by reading their books or essays.



I can't blame you at all for your opinion about those sorts of speakers. I don't understand, though, why anyone would prefer the creationist model if he's convinced that the scientific evidence is solidly on the side of the evolutionists.

What I've found is that most evolutionists are not even very well informed of the creationist model. When I took biology at public high school and then at a public college, I remember the teachers told me they had never read a book by a creationist. I gave my college teacher a small book about it and he told me frankly that he had never considered its views before. (I doubt he ever did after that, either.) Why is this the case? I believe it is simply because they are not exposed to them during their education and because it is not to their professional benefit to do so later, even though they might be introduced to them on a superficial level.

One problem I have experienced in dialoguing with people on this subject is that every time I bring up the name of a scientist who is a creationist, the pro-evolutionist almost always claims, for one reason or another, that the scientist is incompetent to judge the issues fairly, objectively, or intelligently. That has even been the case when the scientist was considered quite competent as an evolutionist, but when the scientist changed his viewpoint to that of a creationist, suddenly the scientist turned nincompoop in the eyes of those who earlier admired him and considered him highly intelligent and well informed on all the issues.





But I think you can well understand the situation. It wouldn't do to have church spokespeople getting paid by tithes to take a position at odds with the official positions of the church, which we can assume are the beliefs of the majority of people in the worldwide church.

I'm not really expecting you to give an answer to this because you may consider it rather a personal question, but I am wondering how many books from the creationist viewpoint you have in your library, and of those, how many you have actually read with an open mind-- that is, with a mind ready to try and understand what the writer is saying before you judge him to be crazy or stupid or ill-informed or dishonest, etc. I must say I enjoy reading Charles Darwin and some other evolutionists, if for no other reasons than to appreciate a wonderful style of writing and be amazed at Darwin's powers of observation. I would encourage you to do the same with books by creationists. There are some mighty fine ones out there.

These days? None.

The ones I had I threw out because I realised they were taking up more shelf space than they were worth.

Whenever anyone points me at one, I go to the book store or look at the online info, within about 5 minutes I find that the author is making one of the usual fundamental mistakes, and give up on them because they have clearly not done their homework.

For instance, the whole "irreducible complexity" argument falls apart as soon as you realize that it is possible to randomly evolve such systems by reduction from a more complex system.

And this is what is going to happen with these Creationist Evangelists. My friends and associates at work are intelligent and educated people. They are going to go and listen to one of these speakers, recognize within 20 minutes that the guy is wrong, and conclude that all of Christianity is stupid or dishonest because this representative obviously is.

/Bevin

However that is not what is happening at all. Creation-science evangelists are experiencing significant success which is why the movement is growing.



And there have been several evolutionists that switched to being creationists.



That is correct. Most are not well informed at all which is why schools should offer a philosophy of science class which teaches alternative world views of orgins.

There are many growing "movements" - success as measured by growth simply means that they are managing to persuade a significant size target market - it does NOT measure the number that they are turning off.

I could have even better success by handing out million dollars to everyone who would "convert".



Who did you have in mind?

Remember that science, unlike religion, is about WHAT THE EVIDENCE FOR XXX IS, not WHO SAID XXX. This is particularly important here because evolutionists are going by what they see in the earth, and creationists are going by what they see in the Bible.

I am still looking for a Creationist who can give a plausible explanation for the White Cliff's of Dover.

I am still looking for a Christian who can give a plausible reason for why the Earth looks like it has had life on it for millions of years.

Everyone ignores these big issues, and refers me to yet another book where the author shows in a few minutes that they simply don't understand the science.

So, what is this hypothetical creationist evangelist going to say?


I don't have an explanation for why the world looks like life has been on it for millions of years, I don't know why Antarctica appears to have been showered with meteorites for millions of years, I don't know why the Continental Drift model is correct, I don't know why the DNA of so many animals is similar, I don't know why it appears that species have evolved, I don't know why there is no strong evidence of a world wide flood, I don't know why the evidence is that human occupation in the Middle East goes back at least 10,000 years, I don't know why it appears that there were many ice ages, I don't know why it appears there have been huge meteor impacts millions of years ago, I don't know why the ice cores look hundreds of thousands of years old, I don't know why carnivores exist, I don't know how so many species survived a recent world wide flood, I don't know why we can track the migration of humans out of Africa by examining their DNA, I don't know why we get the magnetic fields imprinted on the rocks, I don't know why the White Cliffs exist, I don't know why New Zealand didn't have mammals, but I know that the evolutionists don't have a solid case because...


/Bevin

The "Creation Evangelism" Solution



LA Times: Their Own Version of a Big Bang

I choose to believe the Bible, regardless whether science seems to uphold it or not. I don't have to understand everything in order to believe it, nor do I have to have all my questions answered. God knows infinitely more than I do and his knowledge is so much greater that I don't need proof in order to trust him. However, there are SO many evidences of God's creative power that whether he created the world in 7 literal days (which I happen to believe he could have done it 7 literal seconds should he have chosen to do so) or whether those 7 days are profetic and represent 7 years, or whether there was an earth here as a mass to begin with doesn't bother me. Where my faith is unshakable is that there is nothing God can't do, that he can create anything out of nothing, that the most powerful evidence of God's creative power is his recreative power in the human heart. Our God is an awsome God. Just the way our bodies heal, how all the systems work together tells me in no uncertain terms that we aren't here by accident. We were created by a loving God who thought ahead so far that the best scientist are still discovering new truths and new ways that just our bodies function. Not to mention all of the rest of the creation on this earth. To think the we simply evolved...without a purpose in this life.....would be seriously depressing. None of us are accidents. We were created by God. That not only gives me a reason for living....it makes me care deeply about other people whether they are lovable or not. I know God has plans for their lives...as Jeremiah 29:11 says...plans to give them a hope and a future. THAT is worth telling the world about.

Just my 2 cents.

But Bevin there are just as many such questions of the "I don't know why" that evolution doesn't have answers for. Personally for me it takes WAY more faith to believe evolution than to believe that for all those "I don't know whys" that every scientist has.....God is the answere. No matter how much science we ever study, we will NEVER have the answeres for some things. Yes some things will be discovered...for instance we no longer teach that the planets revolve around the earth, or that the earth is flat, but at one time very respected scientists did teach these things. They were proven wrong of course....and I suspect that some things that creationist believe could be proven wrong as well as things that evolutionist believe. We simply don't have all the answeres. That is why, to me, it is so comforting to have a God to trust when there are no answers.

Someone is "either woefully ignorant or dishonest." And we're not talking about creation scientists either.

Yes. They LIE TO CHILDREN. Now there is a truely reputable Christian thing to do. How do you think those children feel about Christianity when they get to be 15-25 years old and discover that their ministers and churches have actively lied to them?

Noahs's flood - there is a LOT of geological science, and it all reaches the same conclusion - and it is NOT a world-wide all-life-destroying flood in 2000BC.

Evolution Stumpers - any fool can ask an evolution question that a 2nd-grader can't answer. Unfortunately these "stumpers" always turn out to be a mixture of lies and misunderstandings.

Lying to children - the future of Christianity - heaven help us.

/Bevin

Science, as practised today (hypothesis, experiment, iterate), basically goes as far back as Newton / Galileo / Copernicus ...

Throughout that period it has been well known that the Earth was a sphere - that knowledge goes back to 400BC. Of course a bunch of theologians thought that contradicted the Bible - with its four corners of the earth.

It was well understood that the planets did NOT "revolve around the earth". That knowledge goes back to thousands of years BC. The reason that they are called PLANETS is because they do NOT go around the earth in the same orderly circles that the stars do.

It was theologians, not astronomers, that insisted the earth be the center of motion. The astronomers put a lot of hard work into trying to make that fit with what they saw - the "music of the spheres" is related to the idea that planets were on the surface of little spheres revolving inside big spheres that were revolving around the earth.

Don't blame the scientists for the theologians mistakes.

/Bevin

Thank you, John 317, for your response. To push people in either direction is to push them away from the gospel, i feel. Romans 14 is appropriate here.

RO 14:1 Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters. 2 One man's faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. 3 The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him. 4 Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

RO 14:5 One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. 6 He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. 7 For none of us lives to himself alone and none of us dies to himself alone. 8 If we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord.

RO 14:9 For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living. 10 You, then, why do you judge your brother? Or why do you look down on your brother? For we will all stand before God's judgment seat.

Is this everyone's attitude? If everyone on the forum had this attitude the "tone" would be much improved. :) I am only after the truth, whatever that is and wherever it leads. Wonderful.

What the Bible says about creation is not a disputable matter. The Bible says what it says. The only disputable part is if the Bible is correct or not.

Many evolutionists are "either woefully ignorant or dishonest" when they start to talk about what creationists believe, teach and their motives for such. Most creationists are honorable. They do not lie to children. They take into consideration the supernatural which science doesn't allow scienctists to do. Both creationists and evolutionists have the same set of evidence, the same set of facts. The difference is that creationists do not approach these facts without considering the supernatural. Evolutionists approach these facts assuming there is no supernatural. Some evolutionists have become creationists because the facts convinced them of intelligent design.

Creation evangelism starts off by establishing why we are here. That is the very basis of worshipping God. God is worthy of our worship because He created us. While many denominations and evangelical groups are now doing this, I would think the Adventist church would find it most attractive as it goes so well with the Three Angels' Message to worship the Creator and honor the Sabbath as a memorial of creation.

Have you read Robert V. Gentry's book, Creation's Tiny Mystery, about his work on radiohalos? Or books by Duane T. Gish?

Are you very well familiar with the material put out by the Geoscience Research Institute? How would you rate the work that they do?



Have you, then, never found a single book supporting creationism that you believe was written by a writer who did his homework or that is not full of fundamental mistakes?



There are many, more profound problems that I find with evolutionary theory than simply the irreducible complexity argument.

But if I may, I would like to ask you a personal question about your views regarding the existence of the universe. Which of the following explanations for the universe's existence do you believe?

1) That it is an illustion?

2) That the world of matter and energy spontaneously arose out of nothing?

3) That the universe had no origin but has existed eternally?

4) That the universe was created?



If they are such intelligent and educated people as you say, why in the world would they conclude that all of Christianity is stupid and dishonest because of what one or two speakers say? It seems that would be rather like my basing my opinion of evolution on what I heard one or two evolutionists say. How many dishonest and stupid evolutionists are there? Probably quite a few, I should imagine. Would I be warranted in concluding that evolutionary theory is wrong simply because I find a lot of stupid evolutionists who have not done their homework? I think you'll agree I wouldn't be.

It seems to me you might be confusing difference of interpretation of the facts with being stupid or dishonest. Perhaps they are ignorant but most people dealing in this subject, particularly as a scientist or professional, would not really qualify as being stupid. As for being dishonest, that would mean you have reason to believe that the person is deliberately trying to deceive others, and while that does happen, I find that it is usually best to try and find some other explanation for why scientific and professional people say what they say about the creation/evolution issues. I start with the premise that most people spending their time on these questions are sincerely trying to learn the truth about things and I give them more than 20 minutes to make their case. Sometimes I find that I come to understand them better and even come to agree with them if I read their whole essay or listen to their entire presentation.

You can miss a lot if you cut people off prematurely. I know about this personally because in my work I spend most of my time listening to people with severe problems trying to explain themselves. They lie all the time, too, in their explanations, but I still go on listening.

A you aware that the SDA GRI does not support his work?

http://www.grisda.org/resources/GRI_vid-rev.htm

Weaknesses:

An alternative possible explanation for the radiohalos has been suggested, despite Gentry's assertions otherwise. Fluids under high pressure may have moved through the rocks, carrying uranium atoms or various decay products between the layers of mica-like minerals. Atoms of a particular element might accumulate where chemical conditions favored their precipitation, forming a polonium center.
The precursor of Po-218 is the gas, radon-222. Gas molecules could move through the rocks under pressure. In this case, Po-218 would be the first radiohalo produced at that site, followed later by Po-214 and Po-210.
The last two precursors of Po-214 are beta-particle emitters, which leave no radiohalos. If lead-214 were to precipitate out of solution and accumulate, it would first decay to bismuth-214, then to polonium-214. The only halos formed in this situation would be Po-214, followed later by Po-210.
In similar fashion, the last two precursors of Po-210 are lead-210 and bismuth-210. Po-210 could produce isolated halos.
A second alternative explanation for the polonium radiohalos may be that the halos did form rapidly, in dikes which were emplaced in a few hours or days. The exact geological context of most of the halos seems not to have been published, but at least some of the halos are believed to have come from dikes, and dikes are thought to have formed very rapidly.
Gentry does not discuss the amount of time required for a uranium halo to be produced. It seems unlikely that uranium, with a half-life of hundreds of millions of years, would decay fast enough in 6,000 years to produce a visible halo. This is one reason Gentry must propose a supernatural increase in the rate of decay.
Even if Gentry's argument for rapid granite creation is accepted, this tells nothing about whether it was formed recently or billions of years ago.
The arguments presented and the evidence necessary to understand the issues are too complex for most non-scientists to adequately grasp.
Recommendations: I felt the Gentrys did a good job of presenting their argument on video. They do not give adequate recognition to alternative explanations, and tend to dismiss, or even deny, contrary arguments. This makes the film less useful than it could be. The video could provide a very interesting topic for classes studying the philosophy of science, if the teacher is thoroughly acquainted with the topics presented. Any use of the material should avoid endorsing the conclusions presented, but simply offer them as one way of interpreting the evidence, and explore the possibility of other interpretations. Probably not suitable for secondary or elementary levels, but could be used at college level.





Have you read "Telling Lies For God" by the Australian geologist Professor Plimer. Gish is absolutely one of the liars I was refering to above.



Correct. I have NEVER found a book supporting creationism that is not full of fundamental mistakes. I have been looking for 30 years for one such book, ever since I realized as a disillusioned 18 year old that the creation science speakers were almost invariably charlatans.