Jesus and the AGE of the earth

I have been waiting a while for the spring 2007 volume of the Master's Seminary Journal to come on line just so I can link one of the articles.

Terry Mortenson, who is a full time speaker for Answers in Genesis and wrote his dissertation on the geology debate that took place in the early 1800s (available here in a popular level format), wrote a rather extensive article for the TMS journal on how Jesus taught about a young earth. He does a comparison with the biblical data as presented by Jesus and the commonly held compromise positions of many evangelical scholars and apologists today. Many folks think the age of the earth is a non-issue in the origins debate between ID proponents, creationists, and evolutionists, but Mortenson does a good job demonstrating the relevance the age of the earth has in the origins debate and the significance with maintaining a biblical view as Jesus taught it.

Jesus, Evangelical Scholars, and the Age of the Earth

The reading may be a tad heavy for some, but well worth the effort.

As a bonus, a second article from the same journal issue is also a good read.

Inductive and Deductive Methods as Applied to OT Chronologies

Those who enjoy reading about biblical chronology will thoroughly enjoy it, and it is a good supplement to the Mortenson article.

Doug Moo Biblical Studies

Those who appreciate the theological and biblical studies of Dr. Doug Moo, particularly his massive commentary on Romans which is one of the best you can purchase, several of his articles have been placed on-line.

He also does photography. Who would have thunk it? I wonder if he does weddings?

Doug Moo Photography and Biblical Theology

Scientism vs. Creation

I saw this cartoon linked over at the Digg site a week or so ago. It looks to be a mocking editorial cartoon that was syndicated around the time Stein's movie, Expelled, was released. There are a few blunderous errors present with it, the least of which is that most "scientists" don't wear white lab coats. More importantly, ID, or what was presented in Stein's documentary, is not creationism and Ben Stein doesn't adhere to the record of creation as revealed in Genesis, nor would a lot of the ID apologists from Discovery Institute.

The most egregious, however, is the false notion that Darwinianism equals science and those Darwinians who are scientists are unbiased and follow the evidence where ever it leads. The idea of "unbiased" scientists is probably the biggest myth in our society today.

Take for instance the first panel. Here you have a scientist asking a student about a pile of bones and what conclusions she can draw from them. If the student, however, were to say, "You know, these bones have extremely complex structures that cannot be explained by the evolutionary model of 'natural selection and descent with modification over millions of years,' perhaps there is another explanation," the prof. would boo and hiss her until his throat was raw and then tell her to get out of his presence. Hence proving the premise of Stein's film.

What is a bit heart breaking is how conservatives who cry the loudest against liberal censorship, media bias, and the strangle hold leftist philosophy has on the American higher education system that squashes any true academic dissent of the prevailing worldviews, are so willing to dismiss Stein's film as being a product of a crank. For example "Zombie" (not his or her real name), who normally does a good job of providing entertaining photojournalism from the asylum of what is the San Francisco Bay area, ran into a lone "creationist" protesting outside of U.C. Berkeley who was promoting Stein's movie. Zombie succumbed to the same woeful inaccuracies pretty much everyone else does when criticizing the film: "Stein's a creationist," "evolutionary biology is established scientific fact," and "theology should be taught at church and not the science classroom."

The assumption made by "Zombie," and other conservative leaning "mega" bloggers like LGF and Ed Morrissey at Hot Air who both had some choice words against Stein and his movie in recent posts, is that scientists are hard facts kind of people with no preconceived biases from which they draw their conclusions, where as creationists and IDers are biased and operate from a position of "faith alone." But is that true?

Let's consider some quotes from these hard facts folks.

At this point, it is necessary to reveal a little inside information about how scientists work, something the text books don't usually tell you. The fact is that scientists are not really as objective and dispassionate in their work as they would like you to think. Most scientists first get their ideas about how the world works not through rigorously logical processes but through hunches and wild guesses. As individuals, they often come to believe something to be true long before they assemble the hard evidence that will convince somebody else that it is. Motivated by faith in his own ideas and a desire for acceptance by his peers, a scientist will labor for years knowing in his heart that his theory is correct but devising experiment after experiment whose result he hopes will support his position. (Boyce Rensberger, How the World Works, p. 17-18).

Science is fundamentally a game. It is a game with one overriding and defining rule: Rule #1: Let us see how far and to what extent we can explain the behavior of the physical and material universe in terms of purely physical and material causes, without invoking the supernatural. (Richard Dickerson, Journal of Molecular Evolution, 34:277, 1992).

Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to the understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. (Richard Lewontin, "Billions and Billions of Demons," New York Review, Jan. 9, 1997).

Suddenly, we’re imbedded in a frothy quantum foam of unlimited possibilities. It’s a free-for-all where each solemnly presented theory is soon changed or rebutted. In one sense, it’s very cool. Imagination rules! It’s a unique period in cosmology’s history. Throw the math this way, that way, tweak the equations, set fire to the physics building, nothing matters. It’s Alice in Wonderland meets Stephen Hawking. Unfortunately, cosmologists are starting to resemble naked emperors parading before the mass media. Hey, we love you, but you have no clue about the universe’s true origin or fate, and little knowledge of its composition. Yet each pronouncement is delivered with pomp and flair. Maybe you need a serious “time out.” (Bob Berman, Astronomy, July 2004)

These are just a smattering of comments from various evolutionists regarding their "unbiased" approach to science. I see a lot of "faith" pre-commitments with these citations, and not a whole lot of hard, scientific facts, and in some cases, blind faith commitments. In my mind, evolutionists are just as guilty of saying, "Here's our conclusion. How can we handle the facts to support it?"

Black Power Resources

Most folks are unaware of the fact that the ideology expressed by Rev. Jeremiah Wright has its roots in a specific theological philosophy called Black Liberation Theology.

In order to have a quick primer on what this theology and its advocates teach, here are some resources that may be helpful:

Robert Morey provides some historical background and a general outline of BLT:
Truth about Black Liberal Theology

James White's discussion of James Cone's book, Black Theology & Black Power. James Cone is one of the leading promoters of BLT. The citations from this book are startling, and if only a thoughtful reporter would put together some questions gleaned from this book to ask Rev. Wright, who praises Cone's material, when he goes on his own book tour later this year.

Jason of Fide-O points us to a video of Cone preaching his theology.

Eric Redmond's comments about Rev. Wright and BLT.
Listen also to his discussion on Al Mohler's program on the same subject.

You ain't rich enough

A friend shot me this link.

Luxury on Singapore Airlines

Singapore Airlines has introduced their luxury suites on their A380 airbus. Complete with private rooms, in-air Internet access, big honking flat panel HDTVs, and get this, your seats can lay down and become a full sized bed! The emperor decadence.

Watch the computer simulation, and then eat your heart out by watching the promotional video featuring the girl with her hair blowing in the wind. Nothing says luxury like long, wind blown hair.

Something tells me that American won't be having these on their flights to Dallas and Little Rock. That means I will still have to suffer a 3 hour flight, sitting in the middle seat in coach with a fidgeting toddler on my lap. It's amazing how fidgeting toddlers can get so heavy so quick.

Richard Dawkins' post box

To: Dr. Richard Dawkins
Subject: Panspermia and exogenesis

Dear Dr. Dawkins,

I must begin my letter to you expressing how you are such a great encouragement to myself and many other intellectuals out here living in an irrational, superstitious world. You have demonstrated outstanding courage as a beacon of reason and logic in a society whose citizens are beholden to tribal deities and witchcraft. Your example only moves me to being a more aggressive "evangelist" for the atheist "gospel."

I recently returned from a showing of that movie Expelled. I only went because I wanted to be able to refute the non-nonsensical propaganda that belches forth from the sewage container dishonestly called "the Intelligent Design" movement. Ben Stein is a let down which is to be expected from a creationist goon like himself.

I must say, however, that your interview with him was a breath of fresh air in an otherwise odious film. It was alone the price of admission. You could tell he didn't know how to respond to your brilliant answers, and when you suggested to him that the first self-replicating molecule could have very well been brought to our planet by extra-terrestrial, intelligent life, the look of incredulity on his face just showed me what a moron Ben Stein truly is. Has he never heard of exogenesis before? Or panspermia? It is probably one of the most legitimate theories to explain the origins of life on our planet! He seemed to carry on as if he had never heard of it before. Has Stein never heard of Dr. Fred Hoyle or Dr. Francis Crick or Richard C. Hoagland? I mean, almost every night a person can hear leading experts on the subject talk about panspermia for a couple of hours on Coast to Coast AM.

Well, the theory of panspermia sirred up a question in my mind I wanted to ask you, Dr. Dawkins. Do you think the aliens who seeded are planet billions of years ago expects anything from us? I mean, they are in a sense our alien overlords, those who "created" us, as it were. Perhaps they want us as humanity to be living at a particular standard of conduct. Of course, our first inclination is to think they would want us to be striving for world peace, but I remember seeing this Twilight Zone episode - from the newer series in the 80s - where these aliens had sped up evolution so the human race would strive - not for peace - but for making better weapons. Who saw that one coming!? And imagine if the only reason aliens seeded our planet was to turn us all into a big human processing plant to cook us up in alien TV dinners!

These are just things we need to keep in mind as we consider the theory of panspermia. It may even be helpful when we are forced to debate these ID yahoos.

Thanks Dr. Dawkins,
Keep up the good work.

Ryan Harris

Gleanings in Job #12

Who God Is (Job 25-26)

My purpose with these studies on Job is to acquaint the reader to a book of the Bible that is often neglected. Folks tend to know about the first few chapters where Satan, under the divine hand of providence, subjects Job to severe trial. We may even know about the last few chapters of the book where God speaks to Job. However, it is the middle sections of the book that are often overlooked because they tend to be difficult to understand. Hopefully, these studies can shed some light on those overlooked sections.

When Job's friends come to him to offer comfort in his suffering, their main line of argument was that he suffered because God was punishing him for a variety of unconfessed sin. Each of his closest companions, Eliphaz, Zophar, and Bildad, give three speeches to Job calling him to confess his sin.

With this post, we come to Bildad's third and final speech and the shortest in the entire book, a mere six verses. His primary theme in these verses is the majesty of God in contrast with the insignificance and iniquity of all men.

I. His Case (25:1-5)

God has dominion. In other words, God is absolute sovereign over the affairs of the world.

- He has the authority and ability to command the armies of men (25:3), and in fact controls them even when they may not realize it.

- He is omnipresent (25:3). Bildad declares, "Upon whom does His light not rise?", meaning God's presence shines upon all men everywhere. There is no where where God is not.

- He is holy (25:4-5). Contrasted to men, God is absolutely pure, implying the holiness of His character. Pulling from a rather unique illustration, the fact that the moon only reflects the sun's light, Bildad says God's holiness outshines the moon reflecting the sun, and even the stars. And He certainly can outshine man, who is basically a maggot or a worm, the most base creatures on the earth.

II. His Conclusion (25:6)

Bildad concludes his short comments by pointing out that in light of who we know God is, we as men are nothing before Him, just a lowly worm, a decaying refuse eating fly larva. When we know the truth of who God is, how then can Job claim to be able to stand before God and have Him judge his case?

In contrast to Bildad's short, six verse speech, Job's words from Chapters 26-31 are the longest.

III. Job's Response (26)

In chapter 26, Job explains to Bildad that he knows who God is. His tone in the opening verses is one of annoyance, like he is offended that Bildad would lecture him on such an obviously revealed truth of God.

Job recognizes that God's Majesty, His sovereign authority, extends to several arenas in our world:

- God is sovereign over death (26:5-6). Interestingly, Job describes death in personal terms. He speaks of "the dead" as those who are still in existence, but not in our world. This can easily be taken to mean Job had an understanding of life after death.

The dead are said to tremble. They know the reality of their fate. When we depart this world in death, we do not cease to exist as many in our day and age wish to suggest. We will face judgment as Hebrews 9:27 reminds us in the NT. Additionally, Job describes those dead who are "under the waters and those inhabiting them." This could be taken to mean those who were perhaps drowned in the judgmental waters of Noah's flood. Job and his friends lived close enough to this event that it would still be fresh in the minds of their culture. Moreover, Sheol and Destruction are naked before God. Basically, no man can escape the gaze of God even in death. There is no where to run or go from His presence.

- God is Sovereign over heaven and earth (26:7-13). Job describes the power of God over the things above, below, and on the earth. The description he gives of God's ability is remarkable:

> He has set the foundations of the earth, hanging our planet in space (7).

> He controls the weather (8, 9), binding up the water in thick clouds which distill upon the earth in rain.

> He orchestrates the turning of the earth so that life on our world enjoys day time and night time (10). The description Job provides is of God drawing a circular horizon of the waters and setting the boundary of light and darkness. The pictures we have from space show the circularity of the atmosphere around our world. This image is particularly pronounced when seen contrasted against our oceans. Additionally, there is the termination line (see picture above) where the darkness of night is divided from the day as the earth rotates. Amazingly, Job knew about these things in his day.

> He commands the seas (12). The power of the ocean and its ability to sink massive oil tankers in a storm is easily controlled by God. As a footnote, who else in the Bible had the power to command the waves of the sea?

> He sets the splendor of the heavens (13). The wonder of our universe as seen through our limited telescopic instruments here on the earth reveal the wonder of God's creative Spirit. Looking further and further into space only to see more radiant objects that never seem to end only demonstrates the omnipotence and eternity of God.

Job's conclusion is almost an understatement compared to what he has just reminded us of: "Indeed these are the mere edges of His ways, and how small a whisper we hear of Him!"