Creationist Chittick in Winnipeg Early March

David B. Held dheld at
Sun Mar 7 06:51:29 EST 1999

Casey wrote:
>                   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?

	I'll check it out if I can.

>        Also Dr. Bolton Davidheiser has written a very thoughtful and
> balanced critique of Ross's views.

	Does Dr. Bolton work for ICR?

>      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 scary thing is that it does not at all occur to you that you are
grossly misrepresenting Ross' views.  If you would visit and read the views stated there, I would
appreciate it.  Reasons To Believe is an organization Ross started.  I
find it much more legitimate than ICR.  For those that don't know, Ross
finds no contradiction between the Bible and science.  Hence, the
question of which one is more reliable is a moot point.  Your ad hominem
reference to astrology hardly flatters your later comments.

>      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.

	Yes, by all means, please do.

>      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.

	Not at all.  Dr. Ross is the first person I have read that actually
bothered to see what the literal rendering was.  Perhaps you should
study a little Hebrew.

> 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.

	Well, if you check out:

you'll find plenty of well-documented "mistakes" made by Morris and
others from ICR.  I find that to be a bit more than mere "supposition."

>      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.

	So you're saying ignore anything that contradicts the dogma that you
tell me to believe?  It's a neat little closed system, self-preserving
in every way.  I'm sorry, but I'll evaluate truth for myself, thank you.

> If Jesus had his accusers, what can mere mortals do?

	If Henry Morris acted like Jesus, he wouldn't have founded ICR and
allowed those associated with it to publish deceptive, inaccurate, and
outright wrong claims.

> When he stood before Pilot, Jesus' enemies accused him of many things.

	And yet they lacked the proof.  I think I have plenty of evidence to
believe that ICR is deceptive.

>      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.

	If you want some credibility, then you will quote references before
asking if we want them.  Otherwise, you are begging for skepticism.  You
tell me to be wary of ICR's detractors, yet you seem to think I will
take your words on faith.  That's pure hypocrisy.

> These men have great admiration for ICR.

	Then you should have no problem proving it.

> 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 facts?

	It is this very love of truth that gives me the sense of betrayal I get
when I think of ICR and John and Henry Morris.

>      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."

	Well, now that's very interesting.  How must I convince you that I only
want the truth?  Do I have to simply agree with you without question? 
You have no idea how much time I have spent studying the whole
Creation/Evolution debate, and how much I have struggled to determine
what is the most reasonable explanation.  I post something that you
disagree with, and you assume that I am here to censor anything contrary
to my beliefs.  That is ridiculous and a gross misrepresentation of my

> 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.

	Isn't that just the truth?

>      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.

	Hmm...the professor was already a Theistic Evolutionist.  What college
was this?  I was not trying to insult you.  I was merely stating
something from my own experience, and those of others I know.

> 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.

	That doesn't suprise me.  Most people will ignore the truth even if it
hits them in the head, if it contradicts what they have been taught.

>      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 anyone.

	And yet for someone who did not know that God had created the garden,
and who looked upon it, do you not think that they would assume the
garden had been there for some time?  Consider the stars.  We know that
light can only travel so fast, and yet we infer that stars are very far
away.  We conclude that it must have taken a long time for them to shine
upon the earth.  Are we to believe that God placed beams of light only a
few thousand light-years from earth?  Are there any *real* stars at all,
or is it all just illusion created by God?

>       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.

	I would be much obliged if you would cite references to support your

> Even Jesus said that man was created in the beginning.

	And does the beginning mean on the first week of creation, or merely to
the general time period of creation?  I don't think the language was
specific enough to answer that question, nor was it Jesus' intent to
shed light on that mystery.  Hence, I find this argument irrelevant to
the issue at hand.

> Creationists believe the earth to be young, God tells us it is young,

	Yes, you claim this, but support it not at all.

> 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]

	You don't seem to understand the problem.  It doesn't matter if the
universe is *actually* billions of years old or not.  The very notion of
DECEPTION*.  This has nothing to do with the evolutionists and
everything to do with whether or not Appearance of Age = Deception.  You
have not given us a good reason to believe that Appearance of Age !=
Deception, and most rational people would immediately assume that it

>       Dave, your position is not clear neither is it well thought out. 

	Interesting...very interesting.  I didn't defend my position, and I
find it curious that you think that I have.  I merely stated my opinions
on ICR and Special Creation.  I find it ironic that you would claim that
it is not "well thought out" in a run-on sentence.

> And it is certainly not scientifically or theologically sound, not if
> you adhere to Hugh's views.

	Here you go making unjustified claims again.  You have not in the least
given us reasons to believe that my position is "not scientifically or
theologically sound".  You have not cited the material that "proves"
that Hugh is a blazing idiot.

>       Let me refer you to the first few verses of Psalm 1.

	What for?  Are you going to suggest that Hugh is of the devil?  Perhaps
he's the AntiChrist?  Is he giving "ungodly counsel"?  Are his theories
in discord with the "law of the LORD"?  There is nothing more ridiculous
than someone who quotes irrelevant Scripture to try to prove a point. 
The Word of God is like a two-edged sword, and some have not learned how
to handle it properly.


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         as far as they are certain, they do not
web:      refer to  reality."  -  Albert Einstein

More information about the Bioforum mailing list