Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Creation Articles’ Category

     In eighteen concise verses of II Peter 3 the Holy Spirit by the apostle Peter gives the believer significant motivation for godly living and insight into God’s works. The historical scope of the verses is nothing less than ‘beginning to end’. 

     God, based on His authority and the worthiness of His person, could simply command man what to do with no further information or motivation.  But knowing our frailty and sinfulness He gives us every conceivable reason and motivation to enable us to please Him:            1)     Christ died for us.   2)  The Holy Spirit indwells us.   3)  He has     given many evidences of who He is through his teaching, miracles, and providence.   4)  He has given us promises.

We are privileged and responsible for what we do with these great helps. The passage I am considering refers to each of these motivations.

     v.1-3: Why is Peter going to write about the huge events of God’s workings?  First of all, Peter wants to remind these hard pressed believers of the teachings of God through the prophets and apostles.  They are all God’s teachings, what Peter later calls Scriptures (3:16, literally, “The Writings”). The apostles communicated that part of God’s teachings are commanded by Jesus, the One Who is Lord and Savior.  Even as he does later with Paul’s writings specifically, Peter here is declaring the apostles’ teachings to be equal with the prophets and clearly God’s teachings.  And is there a difference because Jesus commanded it? In time and voice (that of our Lord, Savior, Elder Brother, Friend, Gloried Son of the Father), yes, but in content, not really.  When Jesus speaks you feel at once as though you have heard this somewhere before and as though He is repeating Himself.  And of course He is as any frequent reader of the Old Testament will know. Peter’s letter is the second reminder he is giving, the first one fortifying them by way of attention to godly living against persecution and suffering. The second part of Peter’s purpose is the specific subject of His reminder, which is somewhat different in approach from I Peter. Chapter 2 spent much time revealing the false teachers within the Body who disturb the faith of many. The “mockers” (v.3) may be one and the same with the “false teachers” (2:1), as many commentators assume, but I rather think these represent a second threat, external scoffers rather than internal deceivers. Rather than gaining advantage by tickling ears (II Timothy 4:3) they combat sound teaching by supposed empirical evidence to the contrary.  “They all are not of us.” (I John 2:19) It is as true today as it was then. The content of the mocking now, as I hope to show, is amazingly similar though increasingly sophisticated. The underlying purpose of the mockers is the same then as now.  As Alduous Huxley so honestly confided, “The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics, he is also concerned to prove that there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do,… For myself, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation, sexual and political.” He agrees with Peter that his purpose was to follow his own lusts.

          v.4-7: The mockers’ question concerning unfulfilled promise is not very intimidating by itself, but couched in the plausibility of empirical data’s absence, supposed historical evidence, and the implied principle of unchanging progress of phenomena with time, what answer might the beleaguered believers broach? And now we have a name for this ‘unalterable’ principle that reveals why history records no empirical data on promises fulfilled- uniformitarianism.  We are told that Nature is the “whole show” (“Miracles” by C. S. Lewis) and within that show the pace of processes (chemical and physical weathering for example) observed now is the pace at which they have always proceeded. That is, “all continues as it was” (v.4). In reality, if this is true, then God is not active in His creation and therefore didn’t create this “show” anyway. Therefore, the mockers today as well as then mean something else by “beginning of creation” than we do, for we are not Deists. Evidence that they believe something else about what creation means follows immediately in their willful ignorance of God’s creative process.

           Peter confronts the fallacy of the mockers’ argument not on the basis of unsound logic but on the basis of a willfully incorrect starting point.  Wrong conclusions are inevitable from wrong presuppositions regardless of how sound the logic. In fact the more sure the logic the more sure the wrong conclusions from the wrong beginning. So Peter sets the record straight by way of four unmistakable works of God, singularities if you will. A singularity is defined in various ways depending on the discipline of study. In math it means a point at which a function is not defined. In physics a gravitational singularity is a point in space where density is infinite and volume is zero (commonly called a black hole). In mechanics (physics again) and technology it is an event, position, or configuration after which subsequent behavior cannot be predicted. The event or place changes what would have happened in a way that cannot be immediately predicted.  Peter is talking about four such events that have and will change the consequences for nature and its creatures in ways only God knows.

           The first of these is the Creation (v. 4-5) whereby God made the rules of the game. Next was the Flood (v. 6) which destroyed the equilibrium by overturning all the pieces on the game board.  In the future comes the Day of the Lord (v. 7,10-12) with the return of the Game Designer and meting out of judgment, game over. Lastly arrives the New Heaven and New Earth (v. 13) which awards those selected as the winners- a new game with new rules. The game metaphor focuses on the reason why these singularities changed what happened afterwards.

     God has and will intervene in His Creation to fulfill His purposes.  The mockers may deny it or ignore it or explain it away but their blindness is willful and their deceit is shallow in light of the evidence.

           Peter reviews details of the 4 events some of which teach us brand new facts. The Creation comes about, as do the rest, by God speaking them into existence (Psalm 33:6). In the case of heaven He spoke it out of nothing (“ex nihilo” as the creationists like to say). The earth at this point it seems was a part of the heavens in the form of water. As it says, “the earth was formless and void” (Genesis 1:2), as fluids are apt to be, taking the shape of a container, if they have one. The solid earth or land was formed by bringing it up out of the water (Psalm 136:6) in which it now sits and is fully saturated, and it was also shaped by the water through erosion and deposition no doubt as the dry land was appearing (Genesis 1:6-10). The heavens, that is the atmosphere, were formed between two layers of water, and the Psalmist declares “Praise Him…waters that are above the heavens” (148:4). Evidently God formed the heavens, including all that came from nothing and subsequently the earth from water. God is the “Maker of all” who “stretched out the heavens” and “made the earth by His power” (Jeremiah 10:12,16).

     Peter rushes right on through the next big event, the Flood of Noah’s day. He is doing considerable clumping by saying “at that time” for an event that was 1600+ years later.  But it was all ancient history and the point seems to be that the agent God used for creating, water, could just as well be used for destruction, flooding. We know of course based on God’s promise and the symbol of the rainbow that God is not going to repeat this type of destruction, but that does not prevent or slow Him down from His purpose. His Word is just as powerful to destroy by fire as by flood, and He is not slack (II Peter 2:5). “Present” denotes that this heavens and earth are neither in its origin pristine form nor the “new” form to be later created. God has not forgotten nor has He been rendered unable. Rather it is reserved and kept for fire. The appointed destruction and judgment are determined for the ungodly, so mockers beware.

           v. 8-10: Verse 8 is frequently misused by the skeptic to mean that since God overlooks lengths of time then the days of Genesis 1 could just as well be ages of time in which great geologic and biologic changes took place by slow naturalistic processes. But the context of Psalm 90:4 from which this thought comes indicates the timelessness of God as compared to the short life span of man, not His inability to tell time. For God clearly gave Moses the record of numbered days in the Creation Week and evening and morning delineating literal 24 hour days. And because God is timeless, He can be patient and exact about the timing of fulfilling His purposes, which is not slowness. He gives a legitimate invitation to all “for whoever will call on the name of the LORD will be saved” (Romans 10:13), and yet only those He calls will be saved (Acts 13:48).

           He is patient now and many are being called to Him (3:15) but things will change suddenly and unexpectedly like a thief breaking and entering while you are asleep. The day of the Lord is usually referred to as a period of time in which judgment falls as in verse seven, but the suddenness and finality of this event speaks of one actual day or moment in time. The references to fire (v.7), pass away with a roar and intense heat and burned up (v.10), and burning and elements melting with intense heat (v.12) seem to the modern mind to so obviously  refer to thermonuclear annihilation of all matter. But how could Peter, who at best would have an Aristotelian view (earth, air, fire, water) of matter and more likely had none (untrained, Acts 4:13), give such an accurate description of matter’s demise? The prophet need not fully understand what God is giving him to describe. The Psalmist could not have understood the type of crucifixion Christ would undergo when he described it in such clear detail in Psalm 22. Ideas about God’s nature like the Trinity that we read in Scripture are still not understood. But there it is. In Christ “all things hold together” (Colossians 1:17), but when He withdraws His hand it will cease to hold together and every fundamental force will cease its function as the physical world comes unglued and is no more. In the case of believers “this perishable must put on imperishable” (I Corinthians 15:53).

           Verses 11-18: God will then create a new heaven and new earth that are not perishable where believers in their new imperishable state of righteousness will see God and dwell with Him forever. All that the first heaven and earth failed to be because of Adam’s sin the new ones will be without the threat of being tarnished by sin. Peter has said that the Creation will be destroyed three different times, making clear his point that the mockers are totally wrong. This leads to the point of application for the believers. Peter is so intent on presenting the solution that he gives most of the answer in the question, “What sort of people ought you to be?” I see 4 applications in the final verses:

1) True awe brings about holy conduct, anticipation of glory, and working with His plan  (v.11-12)

2) The conduct will be characterized by a diligence for holiness permeated with peace (v.14)

3) This awareness will produce a guard against error (v.17)

4) and a life characterized by growing in grace and knowledge of Christ (v.18)

Verse 16 seems to be included by Peter as a last shot at those who disbelieve what God has said.  And in so doing he excludes modern positions about Paul’s epistles not being equal with the rest of Scripture.  Mockers, false teachers, whoever else is untaught and unstable distort what the “Writings” of the Prophets and Paul have to say. And since Scripture is spiritually discerned who would expect them to do otherwise, but Peter has pre-warned you, so that you may be on guard and grow.

Read Full Post »

As time passes I seem to have more, not less, on my mind than I can bring to the front burner and cook. I have so many incomplete questions and thoughts that sit on back burners and in warming alcoves that some will spoil before they ever get cooked.  Rather than a source of discouragement it reminds me that there are life times of ideas to explore in God’s person and works and I shan’t ever get bored  in this one. And it encourages me also that my mind is more active, albeit somewhat slower, than at earlier times, so that I am confident of God’s continued work in my heart and mind.

After college and some number of years of self study in “true science”, unbiased by evolutionism and naturalism (OK, highly and proudly biased by biblical thinking- what of it?), I had come to the conclusion that naturalistic thinking had only two difficult to confront evidences against 6-day Creationism. The first was radiometric dating which gave a clear cut way to measure time since the formation of rocks.  After years of study and a number of different evidences to the contrary, I feel confident in saying Creationists have overcome this difficulty. Polonium halos forming is less than three minutes in granite, the possibility of additive or subtractive contamination in parent and daughter isotopes, evidence for changing decay rates in carbon-14, and most significantly the absence of large amounts of helium from the alpha decay in the uranium series strongly suggesting the youth of the rocks (Don DeYoung’s Thousands . . .Not Billions (Master Books, Green Forest, Arkansas, 2005)) have given sufficient alternative evidence and explanation of this phenomena to render great age unneccesary.  The second difficulty I saw was distant starlight as inferred from redshift data. How could the universe be less than 10,000 years old if starlight had been coming from stars for millions and billions of years? The “appearance of age ” suggestion by some Creationists was never satifactory to me since it means practically that Christians could always retreat to a “miracle” to answer unanswerable questions. Now don’t get me wrong. I not only believe God has but does interfere with Nature for His purposes to accomplish great and actual, albeit rare, miracles. But if God is the God of order and reason then His Creation reveals Him and His work in reasonable and orderly ways, though incompletely without Scripture. And though I much prefer correct explanations, that is not the main point of giving a reasonable explanation, for we can no more know if our scientific explanation is right than can the Naturalist. Sorry, it is simply the limited nature of science. However, we now have a reasonable and convincing explanation for the “starlight problem”. And as such Naturalistic explanations are unneccesary. This fact does not mean that my faith was weak before and stronger now. God said it; that is all that matters, but since I was not created with fins or scales, I get tired swimming upstream in this Naturalistic culture. A little slowing of the downward current on occasion is pleasant . It turns out that the explanation is a matter of relativistic perspective. Einstein chose a convention (rule of thumb, reference frame, or perspective if you like) that was useful and convenient for his mathematical and scientific thought experiments but is not required. Einstein was concerned with observers at different locations. In order to retain this perspective he had to consider them going at the same velocity in the chosen frame of reference. If instead the location of the observers is forfeited so that they are at the same location then the velocity may vary. The result is a new definition of simultaneous that matches the Bible’s explanation for how starlight arrived at earth on the same Day Four that it was created. For considering the age of the universe, the author argues convincingly from evidence that Einstein’s convention is not the correct one. If you are neither faint of mathematical or logical thinking you may like to read it as well:   http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v3/n1/anisotropic-synchrony-convention    Even though I cannot revel in a complete understanding of every detail it adjusted my perspective by comparison to a new one and that is pleasant.

Read Full Post »

Everybody is talking about change but little is occurring.  That’s mostly because real change comes from within, not from without.  The external can work upon the internal, but essentially the needed changes in our nation will only result from changes of heart-repentance, paradigm shifts, worldview renewals, actions born out of changed beliefs.  I don’t have all of the answers but God does.  I have merely tried to point out some of those answers in the area of God’s involvement in His Creation. I conclude that effort with this 15th in a series article about The Basic Issue.

Read Full Post »

In this 14th in a series I do a cursory survey of the lack of evidence for macroevolution.  To put it bluntly, the Christian’s faith is reasonable because it is based on evidence both past and present, but the Naturalist has no such evidence for evolution on which to base his faith.  Check it out by clicking on Fly in the Soup

Read Full Post »

Old, entrenched ideas resist change.  Holding them up to the light of evidence hastens their demise.  I hope this is what is beginning to happen as a result of the LSEA.  Check it out by clicking on Big Change or Little (13th in a series).

Read Full Post »

Creationists need to be informed about Evolution and Intelligent Design concerning their advantages, disadvantages, and problems.  Ben Stein has done an excellent job of challenging evolution’s hold on academia, the courts, and the media and Intelligent Design’s challenge to evolution.  If the following article does not convince you then let me say it again.  Go see “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed”.  I believe that it will be an enduring tool to fight Darwinism.  Click on See Expelled (12th in a series) to learn more.

Read Full Post »

Should matters of faith be investigated by the impersonal processes of science?  Perhaps the more pertinent question would be should equal time be given to studying differing matters of faith (also called presuppositions)?  Is it possible to be unbiased by studying all matters of faith?  Or is it possible to study no matters of faith?  Not that I totally answer all of these questions but I do believe I touch on them in such a way that you can develop good conclusions.  If you are curious click on singularities (11th in a series).

Read Full Post »

The 20th century was bloody for frequently ideological reasons rather than merely power hungry reasons.  What ideology and logical framework drove this madness?  Would you be surprised to find out that some of it was driven by madness occurring in the United States that still exists?  Could a 19th century biologist exert any influence over such atrocites as communism and Nazism?  Click on Darwin and Tyranny (10th in a series) to see some evidence to answer these questions.

Read Full Post »

Without mincing words I move from the evidence for creationism to the ramifications for society of not accepting it in this 9th in a series article. You can read the article by clicking on At the Stem

Read Full Post »

Interpreting what we see and hear and otherwise intimately or remotely detect is always a subjective exercise. At its most objective and logical Science can only be as true as the presuppositional truth upon which it is based. Given two sound logical processes the one starting with truth is the only one that can end thus. Read about how Charles Darwin had the beginnings of truth but accepted a false interpretation of how the earth’s structure came to be by clicking on His Own Interpreter (8th in a series)

Read Full Post »

Big South Fork Canyon

Do rivers form canyons or do canyons form rivers?
Do rock layers form one per event or does one event form many rock layers?
Do many small catastrophes result in the remnants we see or do the remnants we see result from one large catastrophe?

See more evidence from Mount St. Helens by clicking on Many Grand Canyons
(7th in a series)

Read Full Post »

“Ooooh, layers!” exclaims the donkey to the ogre. But he still didn’t understand and I’m not talking par-fey or onions but polystrate fossils. It’s neither a personality thing nor a cause of hardening of the arteries. I guess you’ll just have to read by clicking on God’s Gift to Creationists (6th in a series) to see what creationists were so happy about when it happened.

Read Full Post »

1. What is the difference between something incredible and something wonderful?
Matching.
___ 2. Evolution a. Wonderful
___ 3. Creation b. Incredible
. c. Both

See my discussion by clicking on Incredible or Wonderful (4th in a series)

Read Full Post »

The answer to my questions about beauty is not subjective, a mere warm fuzzy reaction. Rather, the answer is a rising of our emotion and spirit to interact with the inspiring truth we behold about God. To understand better read my article by clicking on Beauty and Truth (3rd in a series)

Read Full Post »

Truth cannot be mixed because the result must always be less than truth.
Two contradictory ideas cannot both be true in that the truth of one means the falsehood of the other. Click on
Contradictory Sycretism (2nd in a series) to learn more.

Read Full Post »

What do the fish fossils really show? Evidence for catastrophism. Click on Something Fishy (5th in a series) to get a fuller answer.

Read Full Post »

The creation/evolution conflict is not ultimately over who has the science but on the difference in belief systems.

From shortly after the time of Christ until present day many authors in Western Society have written about two great books of revelation, or knowledge about God. This idea is clearly stated by Raymond of Sabunde, “there are two books given to us by God, the one being the book of the whole collection of creatures or the book of nature, and the other being the book of sacred scripture” Theologia Naturalis (1436). Augustine explained the importance of the book of Nature in that “there is a great book: the very appearance of created things. Look above you! Look below you! Note it. Read it. God, whom you want to discover, never wrote that book with ink. Instead He set before your eyes the things that He had made. Can you ask for a louder voice than that? Why, heaven and earth shout to you: ‘God made me!’” (City of God 11:22).

This metaphor of the books flows quite naturally from the Bible. For example, in Psalm 19 the psalmist says, “The heavens are telling the glory of God and their expanse is declaring the work of His hands. Day to day pours forth speech and night to night reveals knowledge” (Psalm 19:1-2). “The Commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes” (v.8). And the Apostle Paul in clarifying the role of nature says, “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—His eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made.” (Romans 1:20) Christians accept the books of Nature and Scripture and that they do not contradict one another as they reveal God and His works.

I have had people make statements to me that are very similar to the following: “I don’t accept what the Bible says; I only accept empirical data!” Or put another way, if I can’t see it and feel it I will not believe it. Or, “I only accept science, not religion.” One term for this viewpoint is naturalism, which is the view that all things can be explained in terms of natural phenomena. Are people who say these types of things accepting only one book of evidence or knowledge, the Book of Nature? I think not. To explain, let us consider the topic of origins (where we came from and how the universe began). Was there any man or woman there to observe the beginning? Can an experiment be done to test the origin of the universe?
Can an experiment be done to once again start the universe? Are any of these questions open to being proven wrong? The answers are no. And since the origin cannot be observed, tested, repeated, or falsified, it is beyond the realm of science. It is in fact based on presuppositions- assumptions, which cannot be demonstrated but are accepted before observation is made- which are also called beliefs. Naturalism and its offspring evolution are based on faith. Evolutionists accept the books of Nature and Naturalism as internally consistent evidence of Nature and Its progress.

The argument then is not between Religion and Science. Rather, Christianity and Naturalism, each with their own holy books, are battling over the interpretation of the book of Nature by using and misusing Science to try and convince each other of the truth of their holy books.

I hope to show in small part that one serves science and society far better and satisfies the soul far more than the other. This service and satisfaction will in turn render praise to the one whom it is due.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts

Myrela

Art, health, civilizations, photography, nature, books, recipes, etc.

Overflows from the Heart

"But the things that proceed out of the mouth come from the heart…" Matthew 15:18

CreatorWorship

Pointing to the One who made, saved, and sustains