Amazing Testimony of a former leading Creation Scientist

[grmorton]

First off thanks to Seeb for the kind words. Now to answer Micaiah

Welcome to the forum.

I do not agree with your final statement. As one who spent more that his fair share of time at secular tertiary institutions, I believe the way to build strong Christians is for them to have a sound knowledge of the truth taught in Scripture, and trust in GOd and His word. The way to undermine that trust is to say God's clear assertions on Creation are wrong, and are superseded by man's theories.

Perhaps you could give us a description of the way you interpret Genesis, and what leads you to that interpretation.

I agree with you that knowledge of the Scripture is a basis of a strong Christian faith, but, if that is all one knows, and one doesn't look at the data of the world, the philosophical issues surrounding our belief, then one can't claim to be 'strong. In such a case, one can only claim to know one side of the issue. At one point we put my 2 older sons in a private Christian school. When we moved to Lousiana, which at the time was 49th out of 50 states in educational excellence and I found that my boys were BEHIND in mathematics, I decided never to put them in an inferior educational system again. I sent my boys to secular schools allowing them to take the world in bite sized chuncks. They are all strong christians and one is in the ministry at a very theologically conservative church. I think it is essential that we know what our critics say and deal with it.

That is why, when I went into geology and was faced with the data contradicting my YEC belief, I felt that I had to deal with it rather than do what all my fellow yecs were doing--ignoring the data or explaining all scientific data away.

As to how I interpret Genesis, it is important to me that there be historicity in the account. I have come up with an interpretation which maintains the possiblity of historicity, but which I can't prove is the real story. It is based upon the Days of proclamation view of Genesis 1 in which Genesis 1 has God planning the structure of the universe in pre-temporal 'times'. (pre-eternity?)
That allows us to avoid the observational problems that everyone knows about that the order of events in Genesis 1 don't match the order seen in the geologic record. Planning doesn't have to take place in the same order as execution of the plan. you can see more about this at (ok this place won't let me link so here is the site without an actual link it is silly to have to do it this way. You will have to supply the h t t p:// part of the address)

home DOT entouch DOT net SLASH dmd SLASH daysofproclamation.htm

I also believe that Genesis actually teaches evolution, but all the YECs are too blinded to see that issue. In Genesis 1:11, and 24 god commands the land to 'bring forth life'. The grammatical structure of those sentences indicates that the land did the bringing forth. God created indirectly. see

home DOT entouch DOT net SLASH dmd SLASH dmd SLASH Gen1-11.htm


most of my theological papers are linked to at

home DOT entouch DOT net SLASH dmd SLASH dmd SLASH theo.htm


These talk about how I interpret Genesis. Remember, that historicity is important. If we as Christians go with the YEC view, there is not a shred of history in that approach. Science shows, at every turn, that the YEC interp is flat out false. And that is why I left YEC.

Gotta go to work now.

 

[Micaiah]

Thanks for your response. Can you give a couple of examples of your best evidence you consider best demonstrates the earth is millions rather than thousands of years old.

 

[Dust and Ashes]

Welcome to CR. I too believe that Genesis teaches evolution from those same scriptures, however I do have a problem with some TE teachings. If man is just a highly evolved ape and there was no Adam, how did sin enter the world and why do we need to be saved from it? What about Adam's parents? At what point does Christ's geneology become true/false?

These questions really trouble me and could invalidate parts of the Bible. I know the Genesis account could be allegorical without invalidating scripture but if the geneologies are part true and part made up, how do we know what to trust and what could be made up?

Note, this is not issued as a challenge or anything, I really want to know how others have dealt with these questions so I can get them settled in my mind. Thanks.

First off thanks to Seeb for the kind words. Now to answer Micaiah


I agree with you that knowledge of the Scripture is a basis of a strong Christian faith, but, if that is all one knows, and one doesn't look at the data of the world, the philosophical issues surrounding our belief, then one can't claim to be 'strong. In such a case, one can only claim to know one side of the issue. At one point we put my 2 older sons in a private Christian school. When we moved to Lousiana, which at the time was 49th out of 50 states in educational excellence and I found that my boys were BEHIND in mathematics, I decided never to put them in an inferior educational system again. I sent my boys to secular schools allowing them to take the world in bite sized chuncks. They are all strong christians and one is in the ministry at a very theologically conservative church. I think it is essential that we know what our critics say and deal with it.

That is why, when I went into geology and was faced with the data contradicting my YEC belief, I felt that I had to deal with it rather than do what all my fellow yecs were doing--ignoring the data or explaining all scientific data away.

As to how I interpret Genesis, it is important to me that there be historicity in the account. I have come up with an interpretation which maintains the possiblity of historicity, but which I can't prove is the real story. It is based upon the Days of proclamation view of Genesis 1 in which Genesis 1 has God planning the structure of the universe in pre-temporal 'times'. (pre-eternity?)
That allows us to avoid the observational problems that everyone knows about that the order of events in Genesis 1 don't match the order seen in the geologic record. Planning doesn't have to take place in the same order as execution of the plan. you can see more about this at (ok this place won't let me link so here is the site without an actual link it is silly to have to do it this way. You will have to supply the h t t p:// part of the address)

home DOT entouch DOT net SLASH dmd SLASH daysofproclamation.htm

I also believe that Genesis actually teaches evolution, but all the YECs are too blinded to see that issue. In Genesis 1:11, and 24 god commands the land to 'bring forth life'. The grammatical structure of those sentences indicates that the land did the bringing forth. God created indirectly. see

home DOT entouch DOT net SLASH dmd SLASH dmd SLASH Gen1-11.htm


most of my theological papers are linked to at

home DOT entouch DOT net SLASH dmd SLASH dmd SLASH theo.htm


These talk about how I interpret Genesis. Remember, that historicity is important. If we as Christians go with the YEC view, there is not a shred of history in that approach. Science shows, at every turn, that the YEC interp is flat out false. And that is why I left YEC.

Gotta go to work now.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

and there was no Adam

there is a wide range of views covered by the single label TE.

most conservative TE's believe in the historicity of Adam, the big question is not if he existed but when.

 

[Dust and Ashes]

there is a wide range of views covered by the single label TE.

most conservative TE's believe in the historicity of Adam, the big question is not if he existed but when.

This article really helped me reconcile what I believe with what creation declares. http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/evolution_kuraev.htm

 

[artybloke]

If man is just a highly evolved ape and there was no Adam, how did sin enter the world and why do we need to be saved from it?

You need to seperate biological facts from theological truth. I personally think the story is symbolic of the struggle going on in all of us at all times between the desire to satisfy our own desires and the spiritual and higher demands of the love of God: we all fall down and we all need Jesus to pick us up.

Sin enters the world every time we commit an unloving and selfish act. I don't think you need a particular event to have occured some time in prehistory for us all to need salvation, because we all sometimes commit unloving and selfish acts.

 

[SIXDAYCREATIONIST]

vance, u've been caught lying about "leading creationist sources" it's not even funny anymore. again, ur wrong here. last time u claimed denton was a creationist and kevin refuted u so badly. are you going to continue to lie to paint ur version of a picture?

 

[Vance]

vance, u've been caught lying about "leading creationist sources" it's not even funny anymore. again, ur wrong here. last time u claimed denton was a creationist and kevin refuted u so badly. are you going to continue to lie to paint ur version of a picture?

Usually, I don't engage in conversation with people so childish as to use "u" for "you", but I am not sure what you are talking about, and when someone calls me a liar, that is serious.

First of all, I don't know what you mean by "leading creationist sources". If you mean "leading creationist scientist" when I referred to Glen Morton, I don't think this is a lie at all. He was published more than 20 times in Creationist publications and asked to speak at Creationist events. Given the extreme paucity of any within YEC'ism of any actual working scientists, I think he definitely qualified as a leading creationist scientist. I know they were sure ticked off when he abandoned YEC'ism.

As for Denton, I don't even know who Kevin is, but I don't remember any refutation. I know there was a discussion regarding whether he was a Christian at the time he wrote "Evolution: A Theory In Crisis", but he did talk about God and the impact evolution had on Man's relationship with God. I do know that AiG thought he was agnostic at the time that he wrote the book, and that he seems to be a Theistic Evolutionist now. During a round table discussion with other ID theorists (Behe was one of them), they were discussing Denton and one of them said they were having dinner with him and asked him straight out whether the designer in his "Intelligent Design" model was the Christian God, and he said "well, of course." So, until we hear directly from him, it would be difficult to say what his religious beliefs were when he wrote "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis".

The point about Denton really is not whether he, himself, was a Christian at the time he wrote the book. The important point is that this book was one of the most important books FOR CREATIONISTS after it was written. His book was the foundation of much of YEC critique of evolution. His very arguments in that book are STILL the ones used to this day by YEC's when attempting to invalidate evolution. He talks about micro, but not macro evolution (in fact, he calls the idea of macro evolution "nonsense") and sets out all the details as to why macro evolution just won't work. This was eaten up by Creationists!

But Denton himself does not seem to believe any of those arguments against macro evolution anymore, since his latest book ACCEPTS macro evolution as a fact! True, he does not believe the causes of those macro evolutionary changes are exactly what science says they are, but he still believes that Man evolved over billions of years!! I am still reading his latest book, but unless I come across something very different during the rest of it, it seems that the guru of anti-evolution has abandoned many of those ideas so dear now to YEC'ism. I will let everyone know when I finish the book whether he somehow reconciles his two positions.

Be very careful when you call someone a liar.

 

[JVD]

Sixday...

Are you really accusing Vance of lying or are you just attempting to malign all the YECs by acting this way?

 

[JVD]

 

[Vance]

You know, there was once an atheist who came on these boards in the guise of a YEC for the purpose of making YEC's look bad. He would rant and rave in the most embarassing fashion, making wild accusations, using the most outdated YEC arguments that even AiG has said should not be used anymore. He accused TE's of not being Christian in the most insulting terms, and basically played the obnoxious bore.

What was very sad was that he was not spotted as being a fraud since he fit right in with the YEC's that were here at the time.

Generally I would say that the group of young earth ceationists we have on the board now are not like that at all. Most are respectful and well-spoken. But the post from SIXDAYCREATIONIST above reminded me of that story.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

there are some website parodies that are hard to spot for the same reasons:
http://objective.jesussave.us/creationsciencefair.html

lots of people think it is real.
it sure sounds like YEC's *grin*

 

[Vance]

I used to work in a video store back when "This is Spinal Tap" came out. I was always shocked when people would come back and say "wow, I never even heard of that group before" or "I thought it was cruel the way they made that group look so bad . . .".

Edit: I followed that link and it is SO close it is scary.

 

[SIXDAYCREATIONIST]

u originally had posted this in the Creation vs. Evolution, but they removed it because of course - this response by Kevin who showed you were lying:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I find this fascinating, and I now have the book to read. Michael Denton, who has been considered a leading creationist and one of the leading proponents of intelligent design and has written books very critical of Darwinism, seems to have "readjusted" his position.

Lie number one: M. Denton was never a Creationist to begin with. He just didn’t accept evolution. There are many things that Denton has said that Creationists have disagreed with.

What is almost scary in its irony is that it seems that a great deal of the current Creationist thinking is founded upon "Evolution: a Theory in Crisis" and now its author has basically abandoned those arguments in favor of new ones!!

Lie number two: the modern Creationist thinking was founded upon Dr. Gish, Dr. Morris, and Dr. Gentry. The Genesis Flood, is what got many creationists excited about Creation to begin with. As for Denton’s book, about evolution being in crisis, his arguments still stand against evolution, and many evolutionists have had to alter their view on things (such as oxygen being found in lower layers).

What made me want to read his book was AiG's frustration at the seeming "defection" of one of their heroes!

Ken Ham is an ex-evolutionist, what does that mean for evolution? *roll eyes*

A first grader could come up with a better argument than that. People change their views, many people on both sides have switched; that does not make Creation or Evolution more valid. The empirical evidence is what makes a scientific theory valid.

It is a sad thing if evolutionists have to start using arguments like this to make their theory sound more valid. Perhaps the empirical is beyond evolutionists.


Kevin Davis – The Skeptic Times

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

yeah, i'd say kevin called u on ur lies.

 

[grmorton]

Welcome to CR. I too believe that Genesis teaches evolution from those same scriptures, however I do have a problem with some TE teachings. If man is just a highly evolved ape and there was no Adam, how did sin enter the world and why do we need to be saved from it? What about Adam's parents? At what point does Christ's geneology become true/false?

These questions really trouble me and could invalidate parts of the Bible. I know the Genesis account could be allegorical without invalidating scripture but if the geneologies are part true and part made up, how do we know what to trust and what could be made up?

Note, this is not issued as a challenge or anything, I really want to know how others have dealt with these questions so I can get them settled in my mind. Thanks.

I agree that Adam must be historical. I handle it in a way that nobody likes, but hey, that is the way life is sometimes. My suggestion can be seen at (and here again, I am too new to give you a link

home.entouch.net/dmd/synop.htm

 

[grmorton]

Thanks for your response. Can you give a couple of examples of your best evidence you consider best demonstrates the earth is millions rather than thousands of years old.

Yeah, first there is the fact that not a single radionuclide exists which has a half life less than about 450 million years. If the earth were younger than that, and if God had created those short lived nuclides, we should expect to find them. The 450 million year half life barrier is due to the fact that after about 10 half lives very little of a nuclide remains (unless some modern process is making the nuclide.)

Secondly, burrows exist up and down throughout the entire geologic column. These burrows take time for the animal to dig them. They are not escape structures as is often claimed by uninformed YEC leaders. Kurt Wise actually helped me out when I gave a paper at the 1986 Intl Conf. on Creationism. He told the audience during my Q&A that burrows are found where the dirt is thrown out of the burrow and makes a little conical shaped cone at the former surface. I will attach a few burrows to show what I mean. you can see more at

home.entouch.net/dmd/burrows.htm

Well, it seems that the attachment page isn't working. You will have to look on that web page.

Finally, I find the 6 million couplets of layers in the Green river formation very hard to explain givien a global flood. These layers (in the middle of the old Lake Gosuite not the old Fossil Lake often cited by YECs) show a nearly 11 year cyclicity which matches the sunspot cycle, it shows a 20,000 year cyclicity which matches the precession of the equinoxes and a 100 kyr and 400 kyr cycle which matches cycles in the earth's orbital eccentricity. I see no way to explain that in the standard 1 year global flood of the YECs.

That is why I believe that the earth is millions of years old, along with every other peice of geologic data.

Along the southern coast of Louisiana is 75,000 feet of sediment which is of Jurassic to Recent age. If you follow that sediment to Austin Texas, it is found to cover several thousand feet of Paleozoic sediments, all of which is fossilifierous. Now, if the flood deposited all this, then along southern Louisiana it deposited 205 feet per day or 8 feet per hour. At that rate, we shouldn't find burrows in that sediment because any animal burrowing in the sediment would be covered by 8 feet in an hour. But we find millions of burrows in that sediment. That doesn't make sense if there were a global flood.

Gotta go to bed cause I gotta get up early.

 

[Amalthea]

Ken Ham is an ex-evolutionist, what does that mean for evolution? *roll eyes*

IMO Ken Ham would tell you he was a reformed child molester if it led to more donations. I also doubt he is truly an ex-evolutionist because I seriously don't think he has the intellectual capability to be an ex-anything that requires some thought in the decision.

 

[grmorton]

Lie number one: M. Denton was never a Creationist to begin with. He just didn’t accept evolution. There are many things that Denton has said that Creationists have disagreed with.

I would disagree with you.



Quote Taken From: Michael John Denton, "An Anti-Darwinian Intellectual Journey," in William Dembski editor, Uncommon Dissent, (Wilmington Delaware: ISI Books, 2004), p. 153

“I was brought up in a Christian fundamentalist family and believed that man was specially created by God in the relatively recent past as described in the Book of Genesis. The church my family belonged to accepted a non-literal interpretation of the ‘days’ in Genesis so that each day was considered to represent a long geological period.”​

Copyright respective of citation source.


And he is on an 1998 AiG tape, From a Frog to a Prince saying:



Quote Taken From: Keziah Video Productions, From a Frog to a Prince, 1998

Well I tend to think that perhaps the then evidence suggests a transcendent sort of Hebraic God in the Judeo Christian tradition. An external creator made the world and he gave it its order its pattern, its ends. It’s consistent, I think, with the evidence, Its consistent with it.”​

He now accepts evolution. He was a creationist.

 

[JVD]

IMO Ken Ham would tell you he was a reformed child molester if it led to more donations. I also doubt he is truly an ex-evolutionist because I seriously don't think he has the intellectual capability to be an ex-anything that requires some thought in the decision.

I feel like some kind of a referee here. Can't you people be a little mature? I know you all have great minds...better than mine, but you need to try to use them in an adult manner.

 

[Vance]

But, SIXDAYCREATIONIST, you are still calling me a liar?

It is an open question whether he was a Christian when he wrote that book. Where is your evidence that he was not? We have provided evidence that he had a Creationist background and made statements in that book and elsewhere that would indicate Christian beliefs.

Calling someone a liar is a VERY serious thing, especially another Christian. You had best be able to back it up. Remember, that lying involves the specific intent to deceive. You had best be able to show some solid evidence of this or you must retract your statement.

As for Denton's book, I am talking about the modern wave of YEC'ism that has risen since that book was published. It was HUGE for Creationists, in my opinion, it was the most important book for the YEC cause from the time it was written until now. Much of what we hear from Creationists originated in that book. If the writer of the book that all these theories are based on now rejects his own statements, then this definitely DOES say something about the value of those theories.

Now, seriously, you have called me a liar. You had better step forward and prove all of the following:

1. That the statements I said were, indeed, false

AND

2. That I made them knowing they were false.

Unless you can provide solid proof of both of those things, I would expect an apology.