Are You Ashamed to Be A Creationist?
Are you ashamed to be called a "creationist"? If you're taking cues from certain Intelligent Design (ID) proponents, you might feel like the label "creationist" is a label to avoid at all costs. Here's why that's both the wrong approach and dishonoring to God.
I noticed a pattern developing as I read a recent article in Evolution News & Science Today, the evolution and Intelligent Design reporting and analysis site run by the Discovery Institute. The Institute is one of the leading advocates of Intelligent Design theory these days. The site features articles by the scientists leading the charge on ID such as Stephen C. Meyer (Signature In The Cell, Douglas Axe (Undeniable) and Jonathan Wells (Icons of Evolution) among many others. This particular article "Wikipedia Erases Paleontologist Günter Bechly" by David Klinghoffer bemoans the fact that the ever popular, but hopelessly secular, materialistic, online encyclopedia Wikipedia, under the control of its anti-creation, anti-ID volunteer editors acted (unsurprisingly) like the anti-creation, anti-ID censors that they are. The article by Klinghoffer points out those editors were unable to contain their blatant bias against Intelligent Design. He notes, "following his admission of finding ID persuasive" they deleted the entry for paleontologist Günter Bechly the "distinguished paleontologist, specializing in fossil dragonflies."
The fact that the secular editors at Wikipedia elected to remove the entry of a notable scientist based on the fact that he does not fall in line with the evolutionary fairytale, but instead finds the evidence of Intelligent Design persuasive did not surprise me. But the pattern that I found distressing (and repetitive) is the clear disdain and annoyance Klinghoffer (and I believe most ID theorist) expresses at being called a "creationist."
His annoyance is understandable. As The
Discovery Institute points out on another one of their sites, calling ID
Theorists "creationists", "...is a rhetorical strategy on the part of
Darwinists who wish to delegitimize design theory without actually
addressing the merits of its case." ID theorists identify first
and foremost as scientists. So for them this is a significant problem.
Their scientific endeavor is to demonstrate using the scientific method
that the evidence of design is detectable in the world we see
(particularly in biological organisms) using
standard scientific methods. So being called or labeled "creationist"
to them means they aren't scientists. (Clearly some rehabilitation and
redemption of the term "creationist" is in order - there are many
scientists who believe in creation.) Thus they attempt to use the phrase
"Intelligent Design" as a technical term to indicate specifically those
engaged in the endeavor to scientifically identify design in God's
That is because most creationists identify first and foremost as Christians - followers of Christ. And what is it that Christ came to do? "... and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me." (John 18.37) And where is truth to be found? Jesus says while praying to God the father, "...your word is truth." (John 17.17) Thus the concern for creationists is first and foremost - truth. That applies also to science. What scientific theories accord best with what we know to be true? Which leads to the next obvious question: What do we know to be true? Here is where scientists of all types betray a commitment to science consensus (of humans) over truth. This is particularly true when theories that are acknowledged to be at root based on circular reasoning (and thus yield results which can be anything the researcher wants them to be) are still accepted. Like the dating of fossils for example.
This is the fundamental disconnect between ID and Creationism - the recognition of truth. It is also why Klinghoffer has no problems with reporting with an apparent straight face the age of some fossils found by Bechly as "discoveries of some pretty horrific insects from 100 or more million years ago". That is of course based on Bechly's estimate of the fossils being 120 million years old. A creationist could not, in good conscience report those years without a qualifier, such as "supposedly 120 million years old."
A better characterization of creationism is, "an identification and defense of what is true with regards to origins. Such truth applies to all systems of thought, including science. Creationists seek also to expose that which contradicts the truth using all tools available as evidence to the truth, including science and the word of God, with the word of God as the final authority over questions of truth that it addresses." Thus to really understand the difference between ID and Creationism you need merely look at the court of final appeal. For the ID theorist, the final appeal is to science and the consensus of fallible scientists - except of course where they disagree with science due to their study of evidences of design. (A bit of an inconsistency there.) For the creationist, the final appeal when evaluating any scientific theory which touches on origins is the Word of God.
To justify a reliance on science you'll hear of the "Two Book" approach. This approach says God has revealed in two ways - through his creation itself, and through his revealed word. They call the two revelations "books", such as the book of nature and the book of the Word of God. While God has revealed in those two ways, the two books are not equal in content. One, the Bible contains revealed propositional truth - truth spoken with words so it can be clearly understood. The other contains truths that must be deduced via observation. The two methods are not equivalent. Consider this: Let us suppose you've never flown a plane. And you come upon a modern Jetliner - say a Boeing 777. Beside it - a bookcase full of books on flying and in particular you note the Pilot's Operating Handbook (POH) for the Boeing 777. Which do you suppose will be more accurate in helping you learn how to fly the jet? Jumping in and just trying to fly it while also trying to understand the complex avionics in front of you; or reading the POH from the manufacturer to tell you things like how and why to do things in a 777?
You might be able to deduce how to fly a 777 without the POH and without crashing it, but observation of the completed jet alone will never tell you things like how long it took to be built, or why the designers decided to create it, or the value the creator places on it. The same can be said of the two books from the creator: we can learn much from observing the world, but mere observation alone will never tell us things like how long God took to build the world, why he created humans, or the value he places on humans. That's why God has made it easy for us, and used words to express clearly the ideas he wants us to know and understand.
Are you ashamed of being a
1. Some things science cannot reveal
2. In trying to be seen as scientists they bend over backwards to not be seen as readers of the manual (the Bible). The problem here is that even when the evidence points elsewhere, they refuse to break ranks with secular scientists and acknowledge where the evidence really points. More on that below.
3. Their implicit disdain for
creationism sets a bad example
With that being the case I can't help
but ask, are you ashamed to identify as a creationist? While I can
understand if you are, I want to point out why you shouldn't be ashamed
and should instead be proud to be a creationist.
1. We have the testimony of God's
The wraps are made as the galaxy spins over time. Thus the older the galaxy, the more wraps you'd expect to see. Scientists have measured the speed of the spinning arms so we know exactly how fast they're wrapping around the center. Physicist Dr. Jason Lisle asks the question, "what would this galaxy look like if it were really 10 billion years old?" So based on the known speed of rotation, he created a simulation. In the simulation he speeds up time so we can see what would happen over billions of years in a matter of seconds. In his simulation, the inner galaxy makes one rotation in approximately 1.5 seconds. The simulation speeds up time to cover 100 million years in about ten seconds. 100 million years is 1/100 of 10 billion years. Thus if the universe is really 10 billion years old, you'd expect the simulation to show wrappings that would be 2 * (1/100) = .02 of the amount shown in the above picture - so probably barely detectable.
But is that what the simulation shows? Not at all. As noted above, the inner galaxy makes a rotation once every 1.5 seconds, so in 10 seconds it's made 6 and 2/3 turns, meaning the two arms make (2 * 6 2/3) wraps = 13 1/3 wraps. That's in just 100 million years. It needs to spin 100 times longer than that to reach 10 billion years, which would create approximately 1,333 wraps. Look at the picture above. Do you see 1,333 wraps? Or even the 13 wraps of 100 million years? Or do you, like me, see just 2 wraps? As Dr. Lisle stated while the simulation played, "We're only at about 100 million at this point, and already its twisted beyond all recognition." Since galaxies, according to the secularist are among the earliest things created in the big bang scheme of things, this alone is conclusive evidence that the universe cannot be billions of years old.
God himself states that he created "the heavens and the earth" or the entire universe as we'd say in six days. And when God was finished speaking, He himself wrote the commandments on tablets of stone:
Why is it so difficult to believe a teaching that is so straight forward and matter of fact? A six day creation (which makes both the big bang and evolution impossible) is only difficult to believe when you believe today's fallible scientists are more credible than God.
And finally and most importantly, we
have the pleasure of our Lord for standing firm to consider:
"His master replied, 'Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master's happiness!'"
But if you are seeking praise from men instead of from the only God. (John 5.44) you will find it hard to believe God's clear teaching. In fact, you will likely find you are too ashamed to admit to believing it because his teaching clearly contradicts both the big bang and Darwinian evolution. If you throw in your lot with those who deny foundational truths taught in Genesis (a six day creation, global flood, dispersion of people/creation of languages at the Tower of Babel, etc.) You risk throwing your lot in with those of whom Jesus says:
My advise to you - don't be ashamed - be proud. Christians need to reclaim the proper use of "Creationist" as a rational belief just as Ken Ham is reclaiming the rainbow for Christian use as a reminder of God's promise(below). Help take back the word so it can be a badge of honor. Help it to be seen as a term that regular, intelligent people who proudly believe the word of God use unapologetically to apply to themselves - for many good reasons.
Duane Caldwell | posted October 25, 2017
1 David Klinghoffer, "Wikipedia Erases
Paleontologist Günter Bechly", Evolution News, October 10, 2017
3. The excuse they used
to delete the entry for Bechly was the claim that he was not notable
enough for Wikipedia, in spite of the fact that Behly himself spoke
regarding his credentials and notorietya and pointed out regarding
himself that there were "dozens of more secondary sources from the print
press, TV and radio” plus “three described new insect orders, more than
160 described species, and insect family Bechlyidae, a genus and 8
species named after me, 2 edited books and numerous book chapters, 1
book in German about me, and a ResearchGate score that is higher than
85% of ResearchGate members.” - Klinghoffer, "Wikipedia
4. "Intelligent Design",
Discovery Institute — Center for Science and Culture, accessed
6. For more on the problem of circular
reasoning - particularly with regards to dating fossils see my article:
8. Wynne Parry, "Ancient 'Frankenstein'
Insect Discovered", Live Science, July 19, 2011,
9. Please note techniques like
radiometric dating, or counting tree rings or examining ice cores or
looking at rock layers do not measure age directly. They measure
some other quantity (a ratio between parent and daughter elements in
radiometric dating, and the number of rings in a tree trunk for
example), they do not directly measure age the way you can
directly measure the length of a box for example. Direct measures of
time are done by starting a clock at the beginning, stopping it at the
end, and noting the elapsed time. Such a method is not available for
determining the age of the earth or universe of course.
10. Klinghoffer notes,
"But once they’ve got you falsely tagged as a “creationist,” none of it
matters." Clearly he disdains even casual association with creationism.
That's unfortunate since because ID theorists believe we are designed
by a creator; they too, are technically Creationists - in the
basic sense of the word, if not their technical sense. Clearly there's a
strong desire to separate ID and Creationism, with the implication that
any association with creationism is a negative one.
11. Atheist scientist Neil DeGrasse Tyson
for example, in his Cosmos series seems to take particular delight in
taking shots at creationists. When he isn't saying a belief in a young
earth is impossible...
...He's claiming the laws of science
explain away the need for God:
12. Dr. Stephen Meyer in an interview
with The Chuck Colson Center for Christian World View, states that with
regards to the young earth position "most think it's old" - that is most
Intelligent Design theorists don't believe in the young earth position,
and hold to a billions years old earth.
13. As I point out in Intelligent
Design's Blind Side, ID Leader William Dembski considers the
Answers In Genesis Life sized Noah's Ark and theme park an
"embarrassment and a waste of money." This of course stems from a
contempt for the doctrine of a global flood.
14. For more, see my article: "Diamonds:
A Girl's and a Creationist's Best Friend", Rational Faith, 11/29/2014,
17. A Biblical creationist will tell you
that the earth was created first, and the stars (and thus galaxies) not
created until day 4. Thus in the Biblical scheme of creation, the earth
is older than the galaxies (albeit only by a few days). Gen 1.14-29
18. For details on how this is known, see
my article "Saturn's Rings are Young!", Rational Faith, 2/23/2014,
of shame and disgrace
| Fotolia (used by permission)