Creationist Chittick in Winnipeg Early March
casem at pangea.ca
Sun Mar 7 02:23:41 EST 1999
May I recommend to you the very readable and fairly
written book entitled Creation and Time:a report on the Progressive
Creationist book by Hugh Ross?
Also Dr. Bolton Davidheiser has written a very thoughtful and
balanced critique of Ross's views.
Hugh's position seems to be that science is so very impressive that
the Bible, the Word of God, must be judged accordingly. And because he
does not consider God's Word more reliable than man's fallible theories,
this may explain why he has gotten off track theologically and so teaches
his devotees that the Gospel may be known entirely from the stars, an idea
that is totally foreign to the Scriptures.
The authors cited above point out that Hugh's sometimes makes claims
that are not supported by scientists in general. I can supply some
examples for you if you wish.
Besides sharing Hugh's science and theology, such as it is, you seem
also to share his disdain for scientists and Christians who hold to a
literal rendering of the Scriptures. It is unfortunate that you accuse Dr.
John Morris of being dishonest when you have little more than supposition
for a basis. Perhaps the error in dates he published are publishing
errors which of course anyone else might be excused for making, but not a
creationist, and especially not a creationist who believes in the Bible.
My familiarity over the years with the opposition to ICR and to other
like-minded creationists has taught me that there are a lot of people who
are very hostile to Christianity and who pride themselves in digging for
dirt. You need to be careful that you do not rely on these sorts for your
information. If Jesus had his accusers, what can mere mortals do? When
he stood before Pilot, Jesus' enemies accused him of many things.
I made only passing mention of Damadien and Poirier and did so
because I needed to keep my posting short, but you already find fault as
though you think that I am just making things up. I can quote them for
you from their lectures if you want. These men have great admiration for
ICR. Why do you and others so readily look on the negative side? Do you
not pride yourselves in your rationalism and your regard for all of the
I do not find in your posting a willingness to get at the truth, which
seems also to be the case, it seems, in most of the postings of others that
I see in the newsgroups. I find cynicism and a desire to shut down
dialogue, unless of course "you agree with my line of thinking." Not many
true philosophers on the net. But many are they who oppose themselves to
truth and who try to turn off the tap of truth as hard as they can as soon
as ever it begins to drip.
You try to insult me by saying that my students will discover the
errors in my teaching when they arrive at college or the university. I
recently had a former student tell me he wrote a paper for a fourth year
microbiology course and received an 'A' as a grade, from a professor who is
a theistic evolutionist and who has little time for Biblical creationists.
But the professor thought that the student put forth a good argument. I
only wish my other students would take the evolution/creation controversy
seriously. But at any rate many students do return to reassure me that
they still agree with what I taught them .
On the matter of age, if you give it some thought, if God created man
as the Scriptures tell us and placed him in a fully-functional garden,
surely any reasonable person would say that this garden and the man would
have to appear to have some age. In no way was God attempting to deceive
On the other hand evolutionists assume that the earth is 4.6 billion
years old when the Bible indicates very clearly that it is young. Even
Jesus said that man was created in the beginning. Creationists believe
the earth to be young, God tells us it is young, but it is not inconsistent
to say that the earth had an appearance of age at its beginning [I think it
is here that evolutionists interpose their assumed billions of years and
then charge God with deception]
Dave, your position is not clear neither is it well thought out. And
it is certainly not scientifically or theologically sound, not if you
adhere to Hugh's views.
Let me refer you to the first few verses of Psalm 1.
David B. Held <dheld at uswest.net> wrote in article
<36E0D985.721 at uswest.net>...
> Casey wrote:
> > Creationist Donald E. Chittick to Speak in Winnipeg in Early March
> > The lectures to be given are part of a program called Case for
> > Creation which is sponsored by the Institute for Creation Research,
> > El Cajon, California. 92021
> As someone who grew up zealously defending Creationism, I have some
> comments to make on this. First, I had to give up 7-day literal
> Creationism because I am more interested in truth than religion.
> Special Creation (as put forth by ICR, and in contrast to general
> creation, or the creation of the universe, without direct elaboration of
> its constituents) is not well supported, either in science, or in the
> Bible. It is truly a product of religious dogma stemming from an
> amateurish reading of Genesis.
> John Morris, founder of ICR has been caught, on numerous occasions,
> incorrectly citing sources in his papers. He and countless other
> ICR-type "researchers" have (by all rational appearances) intentionally
> deceived people by referring to secular scientists' obsolete papers as
> recent. In one trick, Morris cited a geologist's work dating from 1958,
> and in his bibliography, printed that the paper was from 85, implying
> that it was a recent work. The "mistake" was obviously a ploy, because
> he knew full well that other work had superseded the '58 paper, and his
> work would not be taken seriously if he cited such aged sources. So,
> unless he is a complete dyslexic moron, the only reasonable explanation
> is that he intentionally transposed the year to make the work appear
> more legitimate than it was.
> Dr. Hovind is another Creationist who now only talks to Christian
> groups. He has debated secular scientists, but after reading a
> transcript of one of his debates, it was easy to see why his publicity
> only books him for religious audiences. When I saw a tape in a series
> he produced, I was intrigued by some of his arguments. Then I found a
> rebuttal of those very arguments, and saw that half of them were based
> on clearly obsolete hypotheses that were little more than guesses at the
> time and now have empirical evidence to show that they are faulty.
> Ultimately, Special Creation requires a belief in Appearance of Age,
> which implies a deceiving Deity. This is in complete contradiction to
> the nature of the God that Creationists put forth. To all Creationists
> I recommend the book _Fingerprint_of_God_, by Hugh Ross.
> > Other leading researchers such as Raymond V. Damadian (inventor of
> > the MRI) and Jules Poirier (design engineer whose work guided the
> > descent of the Lunar Lander Module) would I'm sure agree with Dr.
> > Jones. Sir Isaac Newton would also smile approvingly on these
> > remarks, from what we know of his thoughts.
> No, I don't believe that any of those gentlemen would agree with
> Special Creationism. In fact, Newton himself believed that the universe
> was static, and infinitely old. Unless you can quote sources to
> indicate otherwise, I seriously doubt the legitimacy of your claims.
> > Geoff Casey
> > Senior High School Teacher
> I hope your students are not sorely disappointed with you when they
> take college physics, chemistry, or biology. Read Hugh Ross. If you
> can refute all of his arguments, then more power to you. Otherwise,
> consider what he has to say thoughtfully, and remember that "The Truth
> shall set you free."
> David Held, Chief Programmer "As far as the laws of mathematics refer
> Business Computing Solutions to reality, they are not certain; and
> email: dheld at uswest.net as far as they are certain, they do not
> web: www.uswest.net/~dheld refer to reality." - Albert Einstein
More information about the Bioforum