The following is an excerpt of a conversation I had with a young earth creationist from about two years ago. This was soon after being falsely accused of positions I hold to and being called a heretic and non-Christian. In this conversation I’m actually called a poor witness to Christ because of my views. I’ve changed the name of the other student for confidentiality. I know it may be difficult to have the full context but you should be able to pick up the jist of it as you read along. Enjoy!
Jack, I appreciate that you feel I am a learned individual, but do you understand how seriously offensive your unsubstantiated accusations are? (My name is not Maxwell).
“First is an apology, I misinterpreted and claimed you believed in evolution (which is in fact heresy saying God is not the creator of the universe) when there is no evidence you actually. No you’re right, I with this new evidence it is not a dividing line between believer and non believer.”
I’m not an evolutionist, but theistic evolution does not deny God as creator of the universe. You claim that there is no evidence for evolution. I believe there is evidence for evolution and to totally dismiss it would be unwarranted. You may not like their evidence, or believe the evidence is wrong, but you cannot simply dismiss it as “no evidence.”
“But you said ” The passage only depicts death coming to man because of sin, not to all life. “< /span> when referring to Romans 5:12. Of course he only mentions man since animals are not the object of salvation so there is no need to say all life. Unfortunately, scripture describes a different story Gen 3 ” So the LORD God said to the serpent, “Because you have done this, “Cursed are you above all the livestock and all the wild animals!, also 3 verses later, “Cursed is the ground because of you”. I will also use Paul to rebut in Rom 8:22 “For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now.” The whole earth is cursed and from Genesis it says that it is from sin.”
There are two ways of interpreting this. Nowhere in Genesis 3 is there an indication of plant life or animal life that is affected by the fall. Paul states that death comes to all men because of sin. Animals and plants cannot sin and do not face the consequences of sin. Even in the passages you cite there is no indication of death as a result. Romans 8 is descriptive of the second law of thermodynamics, that the universe is subject to decay. If the laws of physics changed due to the fall we should be able to see the change. However, we do not observe a change in physics anywhere in the universe (that would have any real effects). For this change in physics, there would be a violation of God’s very covenant with the established laws of nature (cf. Jer. 33.25).
Secondly, the prominent philosopher and mathematician, William Dembski, proposes an interesting position in his newest book The End of Christianity. Dembski advocates a retroactive efficacy of sin being introduced in to the world. Just as salvation is retroactively efficacious, God knew that sin would enter the world and that he preordered the world with the effect of sin for purposes of physical consistency throughout the universe to express the extreme gravity of sin. Either interpretation is plausible.
“You used many fancy terms for my claims which impressed me of your knowledge of the use of the English language but you contradicted yourself when you said well [Jeremy] said it but I am assuming you believe it ” We do not believe in Christ because we believe in the Bible; we believe in the Bible because we believe in Christ.” Do you believe the words Christ spoke were inerrant? Because your system goes against Mark 10:6 when Jesus said “At the beginning of creation He made them male and female”. Also said ” I would also like to add that the validity of the Bible is not essential to the Gospel message “< /span> That’s not a good witness to an unbelieving world to say that what we believe does not have to be valid in terms of truth. That is what’s at stake here, truth.”
This is incredibly offensive in accusing me of being a poor witness for Christ. This is nothing short of an ad hominem attack. You haven’t refuted anything with respects to the reasoning process; merely you state that I’m a poor witness. 1) Nowhere have I ever denied the truth of Scripture (which makes your accusation unwarranted). And 2) if you find my argument to fail please show me which premise is invalid and the error in my reasoning to show that it is unsound. This five-premise syllogism (and one conclusion) avoids circular reasoning in the inerrancy and inspiration of the Scriptures. With regards to Mk. 10.6, I’m not quite sure why you included that verse. Many theologians don’t believe that verse has anything to do with the timing of creation because no matter how you interpret it, Adam and Eve were created at the end of creation; therefore, many theologians believe Jesus is referring to the beginning of the creation of marriage.
“Please rebut, refute as you wish but this will be my last post on the subject. Looking forward to more posts for you but I believe that YEC has both the scientific evidence and the Bible on its side! This is a non- essential issue to saving faith of Jesus Christ but I have seen and heard many that once they do not take the literal interpretation of Gen that it seeps into the rest of scripture. I’m sure this is a drop in the bucket compared to the conversations you have had around campus! Wish I was there! Great info and research Max see you next week!”
In the discussion board on scientific evidence for YEC, we can discuss scientific issues, which fall horribly short of a reflection of the record of nature in my opinion. I don’t discuss the issue of creation on campus for this exact reason. Young earth creationists surround me and I don’t want to cause a problem because I know that some people will accuse me of heresy and being a poor witness to Christ. I thought that perhaps in an academic setting that could have been avoided.