Al Mohler, Jack Collins, Francis Collins & YES

In February of last year, Al Mohler and John “Jack”Collins (OT Prof @ Covenant Seminary) had a debate on "Genesis and the Age of the Earth."  The debate did not follow the traditional formal structure, but the interaction was very engaging.  Here's more info on the event.

Dr. Mohler on the question of whether Old Earth Fallacies (OEF's) constitute heresy (@ 20:00 mark).  He pointed out that some doctrines are more essential than others - "theological triage."  We do not need to separate from a brother because he denies the young earth view.

Church leaders throughout history have mostly held that we live in a youthful world (@ 46:30).  Mohler concluded that OEF's may have "potentially dangerous consequences" (@ 40:00).  He also admitted that much of the data argues for an ancient earth yet at the same time pointed out that the basis for many scientists view on the age-of-the-earth controversy is based on a Darwinian framework with its billions of years.  I hold that one can make a strong cases for a relatively new planet based on history, philosophy and science and have written a book on this, YES - Young Earth Science.

Is there a connection between Francis Collins and Jack Collins?  Francis Collins founded BioLogos, led the Human Genome Project and is director of the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda (where I was born).  As you see there is a connection, but the last man on the list is probably a different Jack Collins (☺).  We responded to Francis Collins' views on origins here. 

  

Andrew Kulikovsky has written an excellent review of Jack Collin's Science and Faith: Friends or Foes.  Jack should listen to the Duke.  John Wayne's character finally realized that Jesus was the Son of God indeed, but what did Jesus have to say on this issue?  He clearly supported the young earth view (Mk. 10:6, Mk. 13:19, Lk. 11:50,51).  Furthermore, God's sovereignty demonstrates consilience with the young earth position.  Collins seems to endorse some form of the gap theory which has serious flaws.

There was discussion of the scientific consensus, but is should not be forgotten that there have been frauds in science as well as undue political influence.

Ben Carson - Friend of Creation

In 1987, Dr. Benjamin Carson was the first surgeon to separate twins conjoined at the head.  At age 32, Benjamin Carson became Director of Pediatric Neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins.  In Beverly Hills in 2006 Dr. Carson was part of a panel discussion on evolution along with Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett and Francis Collins.  Dr. Carson opposed evolution.  Dr. Carson received the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2008.

 

Carson defends creation around the 22 minute mark in this video.  Dr. Carson had a very interesting confrontation with Donald Johanson of Lucy fame.  Let me allow the good doctor to speak for himself: 

 

By believing we are the products of random acts, we eliminate morality and the basis of ethical behavior. For if there is no such thing as moral authority, you can do anything you want. You make everything relative, and there’s no reason for any of our higher values.

Follow us in the TwitterDome!    @TWIT_Y6K 

Search for the Historical Adam

Was Adam real? Can we go to his tomb now? Our prior post dealt with survey results of Christian schools and the truth of Genesis. One pillar of Bible truth under attack is the existence of an historical Adam. Richard Ostling, former religion writer with Time, has written the cover article “The Search for the Historical Adam” for the June 2011 issue of Christianity Today.
Christianity Today has made a neat video on this topic. Thankfully, Wheaton College supports the statement "God directly created Adam and Eve, the historical parents of the entire human race."
In The Language of Science and Faith, Francis Collins (Human Genome Project) and Karl Giberson deny that Adam and Eve were the first couple in a historical sense. Giberson, Physics Professor at Eastern Nazarene College, claims that this is "a secondary or peripheral disagreement that shouldn't cause us to hurl accusations of infidelity at one another." We have responded to some of Collins’ errors here.

Collins claims that humanity came from a group of 10,000 ancestors around 100,000 to 150,000 years ago. That is, mankind came from a group and not Adam and Eve. Elizabeth Mitchell comments, “Search the Christianity Today article much as you will, it never explains how the conclusion that there had to be 10,000 original people was reached. Oddly enough, neither does the BioLogos website.”

According to A. Gibbons, writing in Science, “… researchers have calculated that ‘mitochondrial Eve’ - the woman whose mtDNA was ancestral to that in all living people—lived 100,000 to 200,000 years ago in Africa. Using the new clock, she would be a mere 6000 years old.”

Ostling rightly points out what is at stake, “… Christian doctrine on original sin and the Fall, the genealogy of Jesus in the Gospel of Luke, and, perhaps most significantly, Paul's teaching that links the historical Adam with redemption through Christ (Rom. 5:12-19; 1 Cor. 15:20-23, 42-49; and his speech in Acts 17).” Orthodox Protestants who take Genesis as Historical Narrative (OPGHN, “opgane”) present “one option” according to Ostling. It is not one option, but is actually the Bible option:

And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being (Ge 2:7).
All flesh would perish together, And man would return to dust (Job 34:15).
The first man [Adam] was of the earth, made of dust; the second Man is the Lord from heaven. As was the man of dust, so also are those who are made of dust; and as is the heavenly Man, so also are those who are heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly Man (1 Cor. 15:47-49).
Genuine humanity was from made from dust, not a prior hominid (Lucy, Lucky or anyone else). Rather than refer to specific scholars who work with Answers In Genesis, many with Ph.D.’s, Ostling uses the nebulous term “writers with Answers in Genesis.”
Ostling tries to put James Montgomery Boice (d. 2000) into the anti-Genesis camp – this is a mistake. Boice, though not holding to all the tenets of Flood Geology, held that much geologic data “must be explained by a flood of worldwide dimensions.” He also said that, “a flood of that duration [377 days] is not a local flood!” Boice wrote a whole chapter on Flood Traditions and concluded that, “Hundreds of flood stories abound throughout the world in various cultures and are therefore evidence not merely of the historicity of the flood but of its universal extent.”

Ostling points out that Genesis doubters assume that starting with two people, “… would have required God's miraculous intervention to increase the genetic diversity to what is observable today.” Maybe Ostling does not know about Marc Kirschner’s and John Gerhart’s book The Plausibility of Life: Resolving Darwin's Dilemma (2005) who proposed the theory of Facilitated Variation. [1] Modular regulatory mechanisms (switches) allow quick changes to occur.

C. John Collins (not related to Francis) has written Did Adam and Eve Really Exist? and takes a more conservative view. He points out that human language poses a serious problem for Darwiniacs. Evolutionary linguist Mark Seidenberg freely admits, “Humans acquire and use natural languages, and lower primates do not.” [2] Fred Field (Ph.D. Linguistics) points out a further problem with assuming that true humanity started many thousands of years ago: “… it is curious how writing could have suddenly emerged after 30 to 100 millennia of speech. And , if writing had been in existence prior to that of the Sumerians, where is the evidence?” [3]
Consider these powerful words from Lita Cosner, who is working on her M.A. (New Testament) at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School and who was awarded the Carl F.H. Henry Scholarship (their highest award):

Scripture itself does not allow Adam to be taken non-literally; many passages in Scripture require Adam to be a historical individual. Among them is Romans 5:12 -21, where a historical Adam is contrasted with the historical Jesus. … Paul’s argument [in Rom. 5:12-21] depends completely on a historical individual man called Adam, who committed a real sin bringing real death. Otherwise, why believe in a real historical Jesus who brought justification from sin? No, it is clear from this passage, and many others in both the Old and New Testament, that Scripture itself takes Adam to be a historical person, and the Fall to be a historical event.19 Without these historical facts, the Gospel itself has no foundation (cf. Psalm 11:3).

Tim Keller, who spoke at a BioLogos workshop, provided counterpoint, “[Paul] most definitely wanted to teach us that Adam and Eve were real historical figures. … If Adam doesn't exist, Paul's whole argument … falls apart. … If you don't believe what he believes about Adam, you are denying the core of Paul's teaching."
The Ica Stones, made famous by Peruvian physician Javier Cabrera, provide a strong indication that man and dinos co-existed. The Travel Channel made a great video on this. Surely, the Darwinist timescale is wrong. Adam may have had dino pets. Doubt Darwin! Don’t Deny Divine Revelation!

If Adam was an actual figure from real history, what conversations did he have with the Intelligent Designer and what did he think about the age of the Earth?

Notes:
1) summarized in “Facilitated Variation: A New Paradigm Emerges in Biology” by Alex Williams, Journal of Creation, Vol. 22, No. 1, 2008, pp. 85-92.
2) quoted in “The Language Faculty: Following the Evidence” by Fred Field, Journal of Creation, Vol. 22, No. 1, 2008, p. 75.
3) Ibid., p. 74.

Francis Collins, William Dembski and ID the Future

              *** UPDATE ***

Be sure to catch our latest video.  We tackle a potpourri of topics:  Thunder & C-14, Tree Rings & Ammonites,  Norman Macbeth (Darwin Retried), OMNI magazine & censorship ... #Rubio #NormanMacbeth #Darwin #AltMed #TreeRings

Hotep = B @ ☮

Opponents of creationism often ignore its vast literature rather than strive to truly understand the other side. Francis Collins, founder of BioLogos and Director of the Human Genome Project, quotes Henry Morris with regard to the cultural impact of evolution, but fails to fully interact with his more recent scientific work defying Darwinism. [1] He should have dealt with The Modern Creation Trilogy by Henry Morris and John Morris (1996). In The Language of God, Collins has one reference for his chapter on Creationism (not even a creationist reference), but there are eight references for his chapter on Intelligent Design (ID).

Francis Collins (on the right) thinks that creationists hold that species are static. [2] The kinds God made during Creation Week display only limited variation – this may in general be at the family level (elephants, armadillos, anteaters etc.). Collins exhibits another point of confusion regarding the creationist stance, “… the geologic strata and the fossils within the various layers were created in a few weeks by the worldwide flood.” [3] There are Pre-Flood, Deluge and Post-Flood deposits and the Global Flood lasted about a year. Collins denies the possibility of accelerated nuclear decay, but ignores the results of the RATE team. [4] Even mainstream scientists admit that some isotope decay rates vary. [5] Francis Schaeffer accepted that the radioactive decay rates may not be constant. [6]

Collins runs to Saint Augustine to support his old-earth views. [7] Actually, Augustine held that the earth was about six thousand years old. Collins is also under the impression that creationists insist, “… that every word of the Bible must be taken literally…” which is quite false. [8] He leans toward taking Genesis 2 as poetry and allegory, but the statistical analysis of preterite verbs has shown that Genesis 1:1-2:3 is historical narrative, not poetry. Collins quotes C. S. Lewis in defense of his views, but Lewis showed creationist leanings in his latter years. C. S. Lewis said in 1951, “The point that the whole economy of nature demands simultaneity of at least a v[ery] great many species is a v[ery] sticky one.” That is all basic types of life existed at the beginning, such as insects and the flowers they pollinate. Accepted dating claims that certain insects appeared millions of years before the flowers they pollinate. Collins even denies that Job and Jonah are historical. [9] He is also completely oblivious to the creationist responses to the distant starlight problem. [10] According to Collins, “Young Earth Creationism has reached a point of intellectual bankruptcy” and that biblical creationists are “… effectively committing intellectual suicide.” [11] Collins is a member of the American Scientific Affiliation (open to theistic evolution) and I would refer him to an article in their Journal defending Global Catastrophe by Loren Steinhauer of MIT.
Francis Collins calls William Dembski “the leading mathematical modeler of the ID movement.” [12] Dembski claims that Scripture contains examples of Intelligent Design, “Predictive prophecies in Scripture are instances of specified complexity…” which is the criteria to determine ID. [13] Scripture teaches that God created the world in six regular days (24 hours) about six thousand years ago and the planet was destroyed by a global cataclysm during Noah’s day (kataklusmon, 2 Peter 2:5). Dembski now admits that the Flood was global:

…not only Genesis 6–9 but also Jesus in Matthew 24 and Peter in Second Peter seem clearly to teach that the Flood was universal. As a biblical inerrantist, I believe that what the Bible teaches is true and bow to the text, including its teaching about the Flood and its universality.

When will Dembski accept the young earth view? Soon, I hope and pray. Dembski spoke at this years meeting of the International Society of Christian Apologetics in Fort Worth (see pic above) where a number of creation scientists spoke (S. Austin, J. Morris and N. Jeanson). [14] Dembski did not treat the young earth defenders as “intellectually bankrupt” and attended lectures supporting the Global Flood. If only Francis Collins had such a generous attitude.

William Dembski seems to favor the fixity of kinds, “Actual scientific evidence, both experimental and paleontological, supports only limited variation within fixed boundaries…” [15] He also references The Natural Limits to Biological Change by Lane Lester and Raymond Bohlin. Art Battson may be the most ardent advocate of the conservation and stability of kinds (limited common ancestry [16]) within the ID community. Even ID super-star Michael Behe concedes that the data favors limited variation:

… data available in just the past decade from studies of microbes which occur in nature in truly astronomical numbers, such as the malarial parasite and HIV, demonstrate random mutation to be incoherent, and Darwinian processes capable of only trivial changes to pre-existing systems. … Extrapolating from such data allows relatively precise, firm limits to be placed on what is reasonable to expect of unintelligent processes…

Nancy Pearcey, Senior Fellow with the Discovery Institute, provides similar sentiments, “Is change limited or unlimited? – that simple question is the heart of the creation and evolution controversy … For centuries both laymen and specialists have known that biological change is in fact limited.” [17] Even evolutionist Francis Hitching agrees, “Genes are a powerful stabilizing mechanism and they minimize the chances that new forms will evolve.” [18] Once the fixity of kinds is assumed the only sensible interpretation of the geologic record is via Noah’s Flood. Acceptance of the Global Flood leads to a young earth interpretation.
“ID the Future” is an excellent ID podcast, but what about the real future of ID and its stance on the young earth? Francis Collins predicts the “ultimate demise” of ID and that is has already been refuted and that it is headed “to the bottom of the ocean.” [19] In contrast, Phillip Johnson, the father of ID, has become sympathetic to creationism:

l have met many young-earth creationists and respect their position, whatever the world may think of it. They are dismissively called “Genesis literalists,” but this is a caricature. … Creationists read Genesis not with a wooden literalism but by an interpretive principle that was standard everywhere before the rise of postmodernist innovations such as deconstruction and reader response theory: a text should be read as the author meant it to be read. [20]

He is even willing to consider that certain “constants” may have changed:

All that is necessary to research the lifespans in Genesis 5 is to put aside the philosophical dogma of uniformitarianism and proceed instead on the assumptionthat the basic “constants” of physics may have changed over time. [21]

Is Phillip Johnson ready to accept accelerated nuclear decay and the evidence for a young earth provided by the RATE team? If William Dembski doubts the results of the RATE team he can go to a local coal mine in Texas where he lives and have a sample dated by radiocarbon. I predict that the sample will be dated in the 40K-60K range and not millions of years old; “come, Dembski, come – the game is afoot!” How does Dembski explain bivalves, supposedly millions of years old, with their original ligaments intact! Geologist Andrew Snelling, who’s young earth research was referenced in the July 2004 issue of Sedimentary Geology, has a perfectly reasonable explanation:

The pristine fossils disgorged by these mud springs, still with either their original external iridescence or their original organic ligaments, can’t be 165 million years old! Both the fossils and the strata that entombed them must only be recent. They are best explained as testimony to the global watery cataclysm in Noah’s day about 4,500 years ago.

Will ID evolve into Intelligent Design Creationism (IDC)? Time will tell.  Also, who actually is the Intelligent Designer?   Read the bold new book on Young Earth Science (YES).

“It is written” appears 78 times in Scripture – we must base our thinking in all areas, both academic and practical, on the Bible. Evolution only leads to despair, but God’s Word brings wisdom:

Those who sat in darkness and in the shadow of death, Bound in affliction and irons - Because they rebelled against the words of God, And despised the counsel of the Most High (Ps. 107:10, 11).

Surely I have taught you statutes and judgments, just as the LORD my God commanded me, that you should act according to them in the land which you go to possess. Therefore be careful to observe them; for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the peoples who will hear all these statutes, and say, “Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.” (Deut. 4:5, 6).


Notes:
1) The Language of God by Francis Collins, (Free Press, New York, NY, 2006), p. 5.
2) Ibid., p. 172.
3) Ibid.
4) Ibid., p. 173.
5) “Half-life (more or less)” by Davide Castelvecchi, Science News, November 22, 2008, Vol. 174, No. 11, pp. 21-23.
6) The Complete Works of Francis A. Schaeffer by Francis Schaeffer, (Crossway Books, Wheaton, IL, 1982), Vol. 2: p. 134.
7) Collins, pp. 174, 175, 199, 200.
8) Collins, p. 175.
9) Ibid., p. 209.
10) Ibid., pp. 176-177.
11) Ibid., p. 177, 178, emphasis added.
12) Collins, p. 194.
13) Intelligent Design by William Dembski, (InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, IL, 1999), p. 233.
14) “Taking God Seriously” by Lawrence Ford, Acts & Facts, June 2010, p. 3, we attended this conference.
15) Dembski, p. 250.
16) “Common Ancestry and the Bible – Discerning Where to Draw the Line” by Nathaniel Jeanson, Acts & Facts, June 2010, p. 6.
17) “Everybody Can Know: The Most Powerful Evidence Against Evolution” by Nancy Pearcey, Bible-Science Newsletter, June 1987, p. 7.
18) “Where Darwin Went Wrong” by Francis Hitching, Reader’s Digest, 1982, Vol. 121, No. 725, p. 14.

19) Collins, pp. 194, 195.
20) The Right Questions: Truth, Meaning & Public Debate by Phillip Johnson, (InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, IL, 2004), p. 57, emphasis added.
21) Ibid., p. 147.