Am I a Fundamentalist Christian? - Part IIb (Young Earth)
As promised in my earlier post, here with the last set of answers related to Young Earth Creation vs Old Earth and Evolution. This post will attempt to answer the last piece of Jaco's comment.
Jaco asks:"If there is so much evidence for the truth of “Young-Earth Creationism” why is it not accepted by most members of the international scientific community?". My question is who is "the international scientific community?" Who decides if a scientist is a member of "the international scientific community?" How is it decided if a scientist is a member of "the international scientific community?".
A recent documentary by Ben Stein, Expelled - No Intelligence Allowed, shows how "the international scientific community" today does not tolerate any scientist who dares to question Darwinism, Big Bang Theories and Long Ages.
A good summary regarding the topic is also available at CMI. I'll only list a few observations and answers to Jaco's questions, but this web-site has quite a comprehensive discussion around the topic. If you have the time available, feel free to inform yourself.
For my answer to Jaco's question and the others on the same page. Many well known scientists till a few decades ago were Young Earth Creationists, in fact most of the significant scientific breakthroughs of the last few centuries were made by scientists that believed in a Young Earth, created by God about 4000 BC. In the last few years, there has been more and more pressure to allow only naturalistic explanations for what we see today. This caused more and more scientists to look through different set of pre-beliefs at current evidence.
There are however an increasing number of scientists (some are even atheists and other non-Christians) that questions various aspects of Long Age theories. It is however unfortunate that the moment a scientist openly questions Long Ages (Big Bang / Molecules-to-man evolution) he / she is denied access to scientific journals and magazines like Science, Nature, National Geographic, etc. His/her career then usually also ends at whichever university or scientific institution.
A good summary of the bias for naturalistic explanations alone can be found in Professor Richard Lewontin's words here. Is Science not supposed to explore all possible answers and explanations?
In my opinion most Evolutionists are more fundamentalisticly religious than any Christian or Muslim can ever hope to be. Plus their religion is funded by most governments of this world.
So what about many Churches, Christians and even Christian Scientists, accepting the Molecules-to-Man Evolution Theory and the Theory of the Big Bang? Many Christian leaders decided to compromise the simple reading of the Bible with very creative Theology. Even today, many Church leaders are still afraid of being branded as someone opposing Science. They use all sorts of verses from the Bible out of context to try to fit the Bible into their perceived "evidence" of an Old Earth and Universe.
Richard Dawkins' book, based on opinions and No Scientific evidence, can be found under "Science" in almost any book store. All Creation Science books (mostly based on Scientific evidence and lost of cross references to scientific articles) will be found under "Religion".
In fact, the media and evolutionists continues to re-brand all Creation vs. Evolution debates as "Religion vs. Science" debates. This way, they slowly but surely makes sure that any scientists, deep down knows, that he does not dare include Young Earth possibilities in interpreting evidence or experimental results.
Most Church leaders (The Pope, traditional "fundamentalist" Afrikaans Church leaders, etc.) is still not aware of the scientific (as well as theological) problems with long ages and molecules to man evolution. This is however changing surprisingly fast.
If you like reading there are tons of books and online articles available at http://creation.info. If you'll rather watch videos, you can either order some from the same web-site or have a look at http://www.answersingenesis.org/media/video/ondemand.
Jaco asks:"If there is so much evidence for the truth of “Young-Earth Creationism” why is it not accepted by most members of the international scientific community?". My question is who is "the international scientific community?" Who decides if a scientist is a member of "the international scientific community?" How is it decided if a scientist is a member of "the international scientific community?".
A recent documentary by Ben Stein, Expelled - No Intelligence Allowed, shows how "the international scientific community" today does not tolerate any scientist who dares to question Darwinism, Big Bang Theories and Long Ages.
A good summary regarding the topic is also available at CMI. I'll only list a few observations and answers to Jaco's questions, but this web-site has quite a comprehensive discussion around the topic. If you have the time available, feel free to inform yourself.
For my answer to Jaco's question and the others on the same page. Many well known scientists till a few decades ago were Young Earth Creationists, in fact most of the significant scientific breakthroughs of the last few centuries were made by scientists that believed in a Young Earth, created by God about 4000 BC. In the last few years, there has been more and more pressure to allow only naturalistic explanations for what we see today. This caused more and more scientists to look through different set of pre-beliefs at current evidence.
There are however an increasing number of scientists (some are even atheists and other non-Christians) that questions various aspects of Long Age theories. It is however unfortunate that the moment a scientist openly questions Long Ages (Big Bang / Molecules-to-man evolution) he / she is denied access to scientific journals and magazines like Science, Nature, National Geographic, etc. His/her career then usually also ends at whichever university or scientific institution.
A good summary of the bias for naturalistic explanations alone can be found in Professor Richard Lewontin's words here. Is Science not supposed to explore all possible answers and explanations?
In my opinion most Evolutionists are more fundamentalisticly religious than any Christian or Muslim can ever hope to be. Plus their religion is funded by most governments of this world.
So what about many Churches, Christians and even Christian Scientists, accepting the Molecules-to-Man Evolution Theory and the Theory of the Big Bang? Many Christian leaders decided to compromise the simple reading of the Bible with very creative Theology. Even today, many Church leaders are still afraid of being branded as someone opposing Science. They use all sorts of verses from the Bible out of context to try to fit the Bible into their perceived "evidence" of an Old Earth and Universe.
Richard Dawkins' book, based on opinions and No Scientific evidence, can be found under "Science" in almost any book store. All Creation Science books (mostly based on Scientific evidence and lost of cross references to scientific articles) will be found under "Religion".
In fact, the media and evolutionists continues to re-brand all Creation vs. Evolution debates as "Religion vs. Science" debates. This way, they slowly but surely makes sure that any scientists, deep down knows, that he does not dare include Young Earth possibilities in interpreting evidence or experimental results.
Most Church leaders (The Pope, traditional "fundamentalist" Afrikaans Church leaders, etc.) is still not aware of the scientific (as well as theological) problems with long ages and molecules to man evolution. This is however changing surprisingly fast.
If you like reading there are tons of books and online articles available at http://creation.info. If you'll rather watch videos, you can either order some from the same web-site or have a look at http://www.answersingenesis.org/media/video/ondemand.
posted by Danie Loots | 12:33
2 Comments:
My biggest problem with so-called Creation Science is that I wonder why most mainstream astronomers, archeologists and biologists refuse to accept evidence for a young earth. If there is sufficient evidence for a young earth, why would most scientists not have a serious look at the evidence? Are most of them "militant" atheists or are they all members of some secret anti-christian conspiracy?
Sometimes I also wonder exactly why so-called scientists refuses to even ponder possibilities outside long ages. Especially the Christian scientists. I have some idea, but I guess its not my opinion that is important.
Post a Comment
<< Home