Uncommon Sense

May 23, 2013

Creationists at a Crossroads

If you haven’t read John Zande’s brilliant post on the turmoil in the Christian world over the biblical scholars finally blowing the lid off of the Big Biblical Secret (Psst, the first five books of the Bible are fiction! . . . pass it on.), I highly recommend it to you (Well, This Is a Little Embarrassing, Isn’t It?).

Now creationists, people who believe that the universe was brought into being by magic, either 6000 years ago or maybe 14 billion years ago, are in a bit of a bind. Creationists argue against the findings in cosmology, physics, geology, space sciences, and biology because they prefer to believe that the story of the creation of the universe as told in Genesis of the Bible is literally true.

Well, biblical scholars have finally pointed out what they have known for over a century, that there is not one shred of evidence that the first five books of the Bible are historical and there is a great deal of historical evidence that points to their being fiction.

So, creationists, who were blocked from getting their “scientific doctrine” into school textbooks in this country as a violation of our separation of church and state doctrine and who then reclothed their doctrine as the “Intelligent Design Theory,” therefore have a bit of a problem. They are arguing that they are right and the biblical scholars, whose job it is to know about these things are wrong.

What do you want to bet that this is exactly what they will do? After all, they have had a considerable amount of practice telling biologists, Darwinists, chemists, physicists, astronomers, geologists, archeologists, cosmologists, evolutionists, etc. they are all wrong. How hard could it be to add a majority of biblical scholars to the list?


  1. We could even expand this…. when the next Creationist Bill is presented get rabbi Wolpe to argue against it. That will, in-turn, drag out the orthodox rabbis to contest him, which will then call upon the actual experts (the scholars and archaeologists) to settle the matter before the media! PUPLICITY!!!


    Comment by john zande — May 23, 2013 @ 11:03 am | Reply

  2. Interesting post. However, I have to disagree with you in that biblical scholars consider the first five books of the Bible as fiction. I have personally met a historian, archaeologist, and Bible scholar by the name of Dr. Ted Wright. He has discovered many things that confirm many of the stories in the Torah. Also, check out the works of astro-physicist Hugh Ross. He gives a great balance and shows that faith and science can co-exist. His website is at http://www.reasonstobelieve.org. Hope this helps and God bless.


    Comment by pastorbrianchilton — May 23, 2013 @ 11:42 am | Reply

    • Well, I am glad you have met those learned gentlemen. It does not change the argument. Dr. Ross is an astrophysicicct who makes his name arguing against evolution which is very, very far from his field of expertise, so he is barely better than a layman with regard to that topic.

      Just because you have met a couple of people who share your views doesn’t make them anything but . . . shared. The story” of how the first five books of the Bible is actually reported in the Bible. See if you can find it. And then ask yourselves these questions: a group of priests “discover” a work of Moses, long lost, that gives considerable power to … priests, could this not be a “work of man”? How could divine scripture be lost? Where would priests be to find it that they couldn’t have found it hundreds of years earlier? How is it that this text could be read aloud three times in a single day and end up constituting five whole books of the Bible that would take days and days to read aloud? Could it be that it was added to by ? for ? purpose?


      Comment by stephenpruis — May 23, 2013 @ 12:00 pm | Reply

      • Good point Stephen on the evolution factor Stephen. I was addressing more of the issue of beginnings. Some biblical scholars do accept a theistic evolution form of philosophy. Technically, I am an Old-Earth Creationist. I have no qualms considering the fact that the “day” mentioned in Genesis could have been a period of time longer than a 24 hour period. However, on the issue of evolution, others such as John Lennox are able to speak on the issue. Even though I do not personally adhere to the evolutionary theory, the theory is a process that follows certain functions. That means that it, and the universe too, is information based. That has the signs of design all over it. Also, I have no qualms considering the fact that Moses wrote a majority of the Torah and that it was perhaps edited over time to fill in the gaps. I don’t know your beliefs, but if you consider that God could have spoken through individuals, then it is possible that God could have spoken through multiple individuals. Considering that the Bible holds at least 40 different writers, I think this is within the realm of possibility. Lastly, I do not think the issue over the Book of Deuteronomy being lost in any way changes the fact that it could have been inspired. Were the texts written by men? Yes. Were they inspired by God? Well, that is a question that everyone must answer for his or her self. But for me, I say, “Yes.” Thank you for being cordial. Blessings.


        Comment by pastorbrianchilton — May 23, 2013 @ 7:41 pm | Reply

    • Are you serious? Dr. Ted Wright… Masters degree in Apologetics at Southern Evangelical Seminary. That’s your “expert”?


      Comment by john zande — May 23, 2013 @ 12:23 pm | Reply

      • Yes, why not? He is good enough to have been featured on the History Channel. Yes, I would consider him an expert. He has been invited to several archaeological digs. He has been to Jericho, Mt. Ararat, and throughout Jerusalem. So yes, I would consider him a biblical expert especially since SES concentrates on biblical studies among other things. In addition to this, he holds a bachelors degree in anthropology from Mississippi State University. You do not only consider people experts who agree with your position, do you? I hope not, because that would be disappointing. If people are considered experts who agree with certain agendas, then we have no standard for accepting anyone as an expert.


        Comment by pastorbrianchilton — May 23, 2013 @ 7:28 pm | Reply

        • You mean History Channel which plays marathon Ancient Aliens episodes?

          “He has been to Jericho, Mt. Ararat, and throughout Jerusalem”…. Well good for him! So have millions of other people.

          I generally like my authorities to be of the non-biased, impartial, open-minded and “professional” persuasion.


          Comment by john zande — May 23, 2013 @ 7:46 pm | Reply

          • So, in other words, you like your authorities to be biased towards naturalism; partial against organized religion; open-minded as long as it does not include things like God, miracles, morality, revelation, and any possibility of an after-life; and professional as long as it holds to the Humanist Manifesto. Is this correct? I don’t mean to sound snippy, but that is what many mean by that kind of statement. Interesting post, nonetheless. 😀


            Comment by pastorbrianchilton — May 23, 2013 @ 8:04 pm | Reply

            • Professional, as in “Professional.” I think that’s quite clear.


              Comment by john zande — May 23, 2013 @ 8:10 pm | Reply

  3. Pastor Brian,

    John and Stephen have a hard time accepting that smart people can believe in creation. They rely heavily on authority and consensus for their arguments, which is bad enough. But then they seem to think that only those who agree with them could possibly be an authority on the subject. It doesn’t matter to them that a man (any man, especially a mere astrophysicist) has spent so much time studying the bible and archeology, etc. If he doesn’t have the proper atheist scientific bona fides, he can’t be trusted to tell the truth. I wonder how many astrophysicists they’d cite in arguing against creation. And isn’t it interesting that so much deference is given to certain biblical scholars when their findings seem to help their argument? Why not give as much to one who believes in creation? Isn’t it his job to know these things, as well?

    Why is a man who begins with the idea that there is no god, who then studies evolution to be trusted any more than one who begins with belief? Isn’t the atheist scientist’s authority at least as compromised by his preconceptions as the believer’s?

    And by what measure may we prudently trust any man on the subject? What kind of man would they trust and believe who says creation is how it all happened? Would they only trust an atheist scientist to find the truth, if his findings were “God did it”? I seriously doubt it. It’s the finding they have a problem with. The problem I have with them, is that they don’t think their criteria for authority (though it remains unclear to me what those criteria may be) can possibly be flawed.

    It would be helpful (if they believe candor and clarity are helpful in debate) if they’d say, “Only a man who (fill in the blank) can be trusted to speak authoritatively on the origins of the universe”. But, then we’d be able to cherry pick their experts like they do ours. Wouldn’t we?


    Comment by conservative2cents — May 25, 2013 @ 3:59 am | Reply

    • You seemed to think we began as atheists. I did not. I began as a Methodist. By studying Nature one arrives at atheism because what you would call “God’s creation” conflicts with many of the Bible’s claims and because so many Christians seem to think the Bible is inerrant, while errors can be seen left and right in it, one can only conclude that Christians are making it up as they go. Christian apologists point to “biblical archeology” as evidence for the events in the Bible. By and large, they simply confirm that sites mentioned in the Bible existed (or often did not). For example the story of “the walls of Jericho coming tumbling down” is hardly supported by the fact that that city never had walls.

      No scientist is expected to be an atheist or start from an atheistic point of view and yet almost all of us end up that way. You decry this as the faith bending power of the study, we respond that nature simply just doesn’t confirm your hypotheses. And it is because we do not argue from authority that we think so. The sciences in all fields do not operate from authority and it is the consesus of those who have studied the matters in detail that matters to other scientists, plus the fact that if we wanted to study it ourselves, the data and the experiments and the reasoning are published so that we could.

      And you would put up as an authority a dabbler in such matters against a large number of biblical scholars who have reached a consensus, enough of a consensus that the Jews are urging their Rabbis to finally bring the people on board, that they no longer need the childish explanations and can handle the grownup ones? And you accuse us of arguing from authority?


      Comment by stephenpruis — May 25, 2013 @ 7:41 am | Reply

      • Yes, you do. So do religious folks. But, yes, you do.

        You just won’t accept some findings from the same type of “men of science” that, had they been dabbling and disproved the bible’s account of the beginning, you’d point to as one of the learned (and enlightened) consensus.

        So, “Only a man who (fill in the blank) can be trusted to speak authoritatively on the origins of the universe”.

        You, a former Methodist, having studied science, have come to a different conclusion. Is changing one’s mind a credential?

        How about Dr. Richard Lumsden, professor of evolution? Certainly, he has the “right” scientific credentials. He says he realized that what he had been teaching as science really wasn’t very good science. And that when things seemed impossible to explain, he’d revert to a position of “Well, it must have happened, because here we are”. In other words, he knew by faith that life just started, because science (the belief) should not leave room for the supernatural.

        When he finally applied science to evolution science, he found that the only thing that could account for life was a creator.

        The question to you is this: Is this the kind of man you may listen to? One who believed in evolution and life without a creator? One who used to mock creationists? One who changed his mind?


        Comment by conservative2cents — May 25, 2013 @ 1:03 pm | Reply

        • There is no such thing as a professor of evolution (as a title) and the theory of evolution makes no attempt to determine where or when or how life began; the theory of evolution addresses how one lifeform may transform into another, so it is not a failing of the theory since the theory does not address it. It is entirely possible that an alien spacecraft came by and seeded our ocean’s with one-celled organisms from which all ofhter life began. At this point in time, we could not tell that that did or did not happen. But that all current life could form from such one-celled organisms, yes, an argument could be made for that happening.

          And you keep offering up individuals while I point to common consensuses. There are always individuals who disagree. My point was, and still is, that the biblical account of “creation” was not meant to be historical, that it is fiction, that there is nothing in “God’s creation” that supports it, and that it is a woeful misinterpretation of scripture to “believe” that it is literally true.


          Comment by stephenpruis — May 26, 2013 @ 7:48 am | Reply

          • He, a PhD, professed that Darwinian evolution was settled science at Tulane University. He believed it. He said it. He taught it.

            I keep bringing up individuals because there are so few of them. How many Galileos were there? Was one Galileo enough to turn accepted scientific principles on their heads?

            The point is that you reject individual’s claims by calling them dabblers, out of their fields of expertise. Not that they are saying things that aren’t true. Just that they’re not the type of people who should be trusted.

            So, go ahead. Why should Dr. Lumsden not be trusted?


            Comment by conservative2cents — May 26, 2013 @ 9:58 am | Reply

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: