Good Thing He Didn’t Debate with an Obstetrician

debateDon’t go by this post because I don’t know how or where to look on the internet for accurate information on such things.  But my take is that in the great debate between Hamm and cheesy Bill Nye the Science Guy, the evolutionist are trumpeting victory and the creationists are hanging their harps on the willows (Ps. 137:2) and doing a little weeping. All I can say is good thing Hamm didn’t debate an obstetrician about the Virgin Birth….

a MD about the resurrection of the body, a mathematician about the Trinity, or a physicist with an electron microscope about the Real Presence.  Evolutionist concluding there is no God in creation reminds me of the propaganda the Soviet Union put out in poster form.  It showed a cosmonaut saying something like, “I’ve been up there and I saw no God.” (It now seems that the cosmonaut in question was in fact a Christian and never said that cf. http://www.reddit.com/r/space/comments/go0w2/i_see_no_god_up_here_yuri_gagarin_1961/.)

Worse still are Christians who want to take both sides in the debate.  Theistic evolutionists claim to be able to fit what modern science knows into what the Bible says.  In truth what the Bible speaks of is mainly about what science can not know, could never discover.  The Sacraments, particularly the Lord’s Supper, are called mysteries by Scripture because there is no way you could reason your way or scientifically test your way to the fact that your God gives His Body for Bread and His Blood for Wine for Christians to eat and drink.

We have been prepared for this disparity about what man can know by reason and/or science, falsely so called or not, by Hebrews 11:3 “By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible.”  This means you are not going to be able to reason your way back from what you see to how things were created.  This is precisely what Darwin did in his book.  But this was nothing new even then. The Introduction to my edition of The Origin of Species published in 1909 says, “The idea of the evolution of organisms, so far from originating with Darwin is a very old one. Glimpses of it appear in the ancient Greek philosophers…” (6).

Furthermore, Jesus warns us that if we don’t believe Him when He speaks of earthly things, like how the earth was created, how will we believe Him when He speaks of heavenly things, like how sinners can go to a holy heaven (John 3:12).  And He prepares us for the rejection of Moses’ writings as well. Many defenders of evolution that I have spoken with will admit that at face value Genesis plainly teaches a six day creation and some will admit that it implies a young earth as well.

(Footnote here: The sainted Dr. Raymond Surburg always said that because the Bible itself leaves gaps in chronology, the Lord made it so we could not calculate an exact date. Once you can date the beginning of something you are irresistibly drawn to dating the end of it. The hoping church becomes the calculating church.  Surburg said the gaps would not allow for even hundreds of thousands of years let alone millions or billions but at the most 10,000 or so.)

Back to Moses. Jesus said that if you don’t believe what Moses said how will you believe what He says? If you don’t believe that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth in six days, how will you believe that on the Last Day God will raise you and all the dead and give to you and all believers in Christ eternal life?  We could throw in here two things Luther said:  If a person doesn’t believe in the forgiveness of their sins, it doesn’t matter if he believes God created the earth or not. And, if you can’t understand how God could create all things in six days, give the Holy Spirit the honor of knowing more than you do.

Do I think then that Hamm shouldn’t have debated cheese? Nope. But keep in mind it was a debate between what science thinks it can see and what faith confesses it knows.  And what faith confesses from the Virgin Birth, to the Real Presence, to the resurrection of the dead can never be seen by science, but that doesn’t mean they’re not true. Science does not have the tools to see how God could become Man, how Bread can be Body or the dead can rise. I do, however, think science can see that all things temporal had to come from something outside of time and from an intelligence greater than man. Science can see that life doesn’t come from the inanimate. And science should see that if it can’t get its head around what it can see, i.e. the size of the universe, the number of stars, the complexity of the human genome, etc. it ought to be humble or at least circumspect about it’s pronouncements.

Finally, one of Jesus’ claims to authority is that He knows where He came from and where He is going (John 8:14). No man can know this unless he is told from outside of himself. God tells us we came from Him and He wills that we come back to Him. Evolution says we came from dust and are only going to dust.  That’s God’s judgment on fallen man too, and evolution can get no higher than that. All we are ultimately to evolutionists is as Kansas sang, “dust in the wind”. Cheese is content with being just that. Hamm is not, and isn’t.

 


Comments

Good Thing He Didn’t Debate with an Obstetrician — 58 Comments

  1. @Big Boy #50

    That’s nice. You’re pretty bold to insult someone for his age when you can do so anonymously.

    1 Timothy 4:12 NKJV
    “Let no one despise your youth, but be an example to the believers in word, in conduct, in love, in spirit, in faith, in purity.”

  2. @R.D. #42

    It’s not about apples and oranges.

    It’s about taking Scripture at its word.

    Creation and the Fall were both supernatural events.

    The Lord’s Supper is a supernatural event.

    Same fruit.

  3. @Kathy L.M. #44

    “The question I ask myself and others…how do we go about thinking about science and reconciling science with our faith? We can’t just punt on this question, because we are called to be in the world, although not of the world…and our response is a witness to our neighbors.”

    The way we do not go about it is by engaging in pseudoscience.

    When Paul talks about the Gospel being foolishness to the world, he is not saying we can justify crap science by saying Jesus saves. Crap science is crap science.

  4. @LadyM #46

    “This statement confuses me.”

    Good! The whole subject should confuse us, and we should be comfortable with that confusion.

    “Do you believe that there were never dinosaurs or that they were created after the flood?”

    We have fossils of dinosaurs, so I’m pretty sure they existed.

    We have zero evidence in the fossil record that they were created after any sort of flood. We have zero evidence that they coexisted with humanity at all.

    Scripture does not say they were created after the flood.

    Ergo, my answer is…

    I dunno.

    “If indeed they existed, why could they not have eaten in the garden before the fall?”

    I have no idea.

    “They would not have been carnivorous then – right?”

    I don’t know.

    And I am much more comfortable saying I do not know, than twisting the words of legitimate scientists to support pseudoscientific theories like Ham and Answers in Genesis do.

  5. @Jonathan Mayer #49

    “You didn’t even spell his name right, which makes me think you are lying when you claim to have read all their materials. In any case, if you’re going to accuse someone of doing pseudo-science, support your claim. Otherwise, you’re in the same boat as the accused.”

    Argumentum ad Grammar Nazium.

    I’ve already outlined several issues with the pseudoscientific theory of Flood geology above. In a previous discussion regarding this debate, I went into a very detailed breakdown of how Answers in Genesis deliberately mis-represented findings from paleotologists to support their views.

    The burden is not on me.

    The burden is on those advocating Creation Science theory to prove their theses. They fail.

  6. @JB #4

    “We have zero evidence that they coexisted with humanity at all. Scripture does not say they were created after the flood. Ergo, my answer is… I dunno.”

    All land animals were created on day six of creation. Ergo, humans and dinosaurs did live together, whether you find “evidence” of it or not. Christians can know this for a fact. It isn’t pseudoscience, it isn’t science. It’s historical fact, recorded in divine Scripture.

    “The burden is on those advocating Creation Science theory to prove their theses. They fail.”

    Then you misunderstand the entire purpose of AiG. I challenge you to find one sentence they have written that claims to “prove” what the Bible says is true. I think you also misunderstand science altogether, since theories about earth’s ancient history cannot be proved. They are just what they are—theories. You cannot test whether God created the earth in six days any more than you can test whether life evolved from a primordial pool hit by lightning.

  7. @Jonathan Mayer #6
    All land animals were created on day six of creation. Ergo, humans and dinosaurs did live together, whether you find “evidence” of it or not.

    There is an author who writes East Texas history among other things. He proposes that dinosaurs were hunted to extinction, as the buffalo were, for food. [That theory ignores the fact that the Plains Indians who depended on the buffalo for food, shelter and winter blankets probably would not have hunted the buffalo to extinction. The white man did that (many of them from the comfort of a railroad car) for sport and to starve out the Indians.] But it’s a theory!

  8. @Jonathan Mayer #6

    “It’s historical fact, recorded in divine Scripture.”

    A “fact” not cooraborated by other sources, and contradicted by much of science. I take that not as fact, because it cannot be demonstrated as such.

    Faith is the evidence of things unseen; not reason, not rationality, not logic, and certainly not pseudoscience.

    “Then you misunderstand the entire purpose of AiG. I challenge you to find one sentence they have written that claims to “prove” what the Bible says is true. I think you also misunderstand science altogether, since theories about earth’s ancient history cannot be proved. They are just what they are—theories. You cannot test whether God created the earth in six days any more than you can test whether life evolved from a primordial pool hit by lightning.”

    AiG has advocated many different theses to support their claims. Flood geology is just one, and it has been demonstrated time and time again as pseudoscience. I went through an entire detailed response on a previous thread discussing AiG misrepresentation of findings regarding T-Rex soft tissue. Radioisotopic dating of meteorites has shown to date far past 6,000 years…and please, do not quote the debunked statements of Snelling that say otherwise. The standard Creation “science” misunderstandings of the fossil record don’t do any damage.

    Theories are theories, but this does not mean all theories are equal. Evidence either supports a theory or it does not. Are there issues with evolutionary theory? Certainly. But pointing those out doesn’t support the Genesis account. It just means there are things that scientific theory needs to work out. The issues with Creation science, the lack of evidence, the sheer amount of contradiction and counter-evidence…it’s clear that it’s pseudoscience.

    If you are a Lutheran, you don’t need to rely on any of this for your faith.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.