Christian Civilization

Here is the pdf of the article published in the Journal of Creation:  “Intelligent Design leaders promote a naturalistic epistemology”

Abstract:  In part 1, I show that Intelligent Design (ID) movement leaders promote a naturalistic worldview in two ways. First, they claim that ID is compatible with atheism because the designer of life on earth could be a finite designer, like a space alien in a world without God, which concedes the reasonableness of the naturalistic worldview that the universe is ultimately determined by matter rather than a Mind. Second, they promote a definition of science and an empiricist view of knowledge that exclude the authority of divine revelation, thus conceding that science and knowledge can be explained without God.  But, I then briefly explain, the secular empiricist view of knowledge has been a failure. In part 2, I argue that science is dependent on God and His revelation, not a supposedly theologically neutral scientific methodology. Despite his claim that ID is compatible with atheism, I show how ID leader William Dembski’s view of complex specified information is comparable to and only consistent with an intelligent Creator who is the source of human knowledge and the unity and diversity of the world.

A review of Genesis, Science, and the Beginning: Evaluating Interpretations of Genesis One on the Age of the Earth by Benjamin D. Smith, Jr.

I can agree with the author about one thing.  He says that, while young-earth creationists are generally in agreement in their interpretation of Genesis (p. 17), old-earth Christians keep multiplying new interpretations of Genesis to justify their acceptance of Big Bang cosmology.  He counts 9 different old-earth interpretations of Genesis (p. 21).  Ben does not want to face the fact that the most obvious reason for this difference is that young-earth creationists are largely willing to conform their thinking to what the text says, while old-earth creationists have come to a view of earth’s history independently of the text, and their view is one that the text cannot bear.   Old-earth creationists keep trying to come up with ingenious ways to make a square peg fit into a round hole.   Ben makes sure to tell the reader that, as far as the format of his book goes, he is going to look at the text of Genesis and follow it wherever it leads, regardless of the scientific evidence.  Yet, he also divulges that in his own personal thinking, he changed his belief in young-earth creationism to an old-earth view because of scientific issues; then he began searching for an interpretation of Genesis that would fit what he thinks that scientific evidence demands (p. 31). Continue reading →

David Haines will be presenting a paper on Van Til at the upcoming  apologetics conference at Southern Evangelical Seminary.  Joshua Whipps provides a good critique of a previous paper that Haines wrote on Van Til, but the summary of his thesis for the new paper that Haines provides is full of problems itself.  Even though Van Til is difficult to understand at times, I can’t imagine someone who actually took the time to read several of Van Til’s books coming to the conclusions about Van Til’s positions that Haines does.  Haines repeats some standard misconceptions about Van Til, so he must be repeating what some other uninformed critics of Van Til have said.  This merry-go-round has to stop.  Continue reading →