Sorry for the delay in getting to the meat, but in preparing for this series, I have made use of several sources which it will be good to identify. And I’ve discovered some additional interesting facts that should inform us of the background and nature of the author and article I am attempting to rebut. Then, in order to be "fair and balanced," you should probably also know from where I am coming in this area. In other words, why do I think I have any authority to write on this controversy and why should you pay any attention to my prose?

The primary source other than the fertility of my own mind and experience will be material gleaned from the Answers in Genesis (AiG) website, including, but not limited to, the book Refuting Evolution 2, by Dr. Jonathan Sarfati with Michael Matthews. Yes, these are the same people who have recently opened up a "Creation Museum," much to the loudly proclaimed distress of evolutionists across the country. (Again I ask, why the fuss if the facts are on your side? Given that the multitudes of other museums in the world are evolutionary in their content, where’s the beef? Given that it was built 100% by donations, and is maintained by such, and not a penny of taxpayers money, why have a cow?) I haven’t been there, so I don’t know what specific content they’ve set up, but it is meant to fulfill the same function of other museums, which is to educate and entertain, so if it’s not a "scientific" presentation, that is not an argument against it. Just get over it.

More to the point, the AiG website contains a large body of data, discussion, and presentation of materials spanning the range of sophistication from the childishly simple (because it’s meant for children!) to the scientifically erudite. Before you dismiss it, or criticize it out of hand, please answer their arguments and data with more than ad hominem expletives and alleged self-evident arguments of alleged consensus.

The following is gleaned from Dr. Sarfati and is self-explanatory:

Scientific American was founded by the artist and inventor Rufus Porter (1792–1884), who thought that science glorified the creator God. In the very first issue, his editorial stated:

‘We shall advocate the pure Christian religion, without favouring any particular sect …’

And he wrote an article ‘Rational Religion’, where he wrote:

‘First, then, let us, as rational creatures, be ever ready to acknowledge God as our Creator and daily Preserver; and that we are each of us individually dependant on his special care and good will towards us, in supporting the wonderful action of nature which constitutes our existence; and in preserving us from the casualties, to which our complicated and delicate structure is liable. Let us also, knowing our entire dependence on Divine Benevolence, as rational creatures, do ourselves the honor to express personally and frequently, our thanks to him for his goodness; and to present our petitions to Him for the favours which we constantly require. This course is rational, even without the aid of revelation: but being specially invited to this course, by the divine word, and assured of the readiness of our Creator to answer our prayers and recognize our thanks, it is truly surprising that any rational being, who has ever read the inspired writings should willingly forego this privilege, or should be ashamed to be seen engaged in this rational employment, or to have it known that he practices it.’

Since Porter, Scientific American has had only six editors in chief, and the most recent two have diametrically opposed their founder’s original vision. Now...Scientific American works to push an atheistic world view in the guise of ‘science’, and a number of corollaries such as a radical pro-abortion, human cloning and population control agenda.

...

...the current editor since late 1994, one John Rennie (b. 1959), has also fervently promoted the anti-God evolution agenda. Like many anti-creationist propagandists, he often launches into attacks with a poor understanding, and he has only a bachelor’s degree in science, so is far less qualified than the leading creationist scientists at AiG and ICR [Institute for Creation Research]. Under his editorship, an article was published in the March 2002 issue, vociferously attacking creationists and misrepresenting the Kansas curriculum controversy. It illustrated the vitriol that can result when there is any attempt to mildly de-emphasize the treating of evolution from goo-to-you-via-the-zoo as fact....

Thus for the qualifications of the author whose arguments are to be considered in this series.

I began my intellectual life being taught and believing evolution was the only explanation for origins that made sense (i.e., Mr. Rennie’s position). When I became a Christian in high school (I had been raised in a liberal Protestant church, which gave me a background in the facts of Christianity, but not the critical information necessary to be a biblical Christian), I, in my naivete, immediately morphed into that chimera hated by both sides, the theistic evolutionist. This view holds that God used the mechanisms of evolution to do His creating, thus holding both creation and evolution to be true (also know as "trying to have your cake and eat it too"). As you might imagine, since it posits a God, the evolutionists adamantly condemn it, and since it acknowledges the validity of evolution, creationists view it as an unacceptable compromise.

When I went to college (an Ivy League school; in fact, the only Ivy League school founded as a bulwark of humanism rather than a seminary for Christian theologians) to begin my formal education in the biological sciences, I fortunately found a church that specialized in an apologetic approach to sharing Christianity, as well as teaching its members to think critically in matters theological and practical. My college training and experience both in the classroom and my local church soon revealed significant disparities between the facts and any form of theistic evolution. Neither the Bible nor the scientific evidence would support the party line of evolutionary doctrine. My position shifted to what is sometimes called a "long earth creationist" model. Thus I remained through a bachelor’s degree in neurobiology and behavior, a master’s and a doctorate in biochemistry (with an unofficial minor in immunology), a two year postdoctoral position at a major national laboratory, and through nearly one and a half decades of research and development in in vitro diagnostics (making the blood tests the doctors use to figure out what’s wrong with you). Through it all, I have developed and maintained the conviction that God’s Word and God’s world will never contradict one another, and I have yet to see any credible evidence that this position is in error.

About five years ago I ran into the work of Ken Ham and AiG (at a homeschooling conference). Since I do consider the Bible to be a valid source document (see below), and, indeed, one that supercedes man’s theories, I paid rapt attention to his explanation of why the so-called "short earth creation" model (this is the version most often identified with the term "creationist" and usually associated in the MSM and by evolutionists as referring to Luddite wackos and various other epithets denoting mental deficiencies of large orders of magnitude; OK, short form: they think we’re stupid) was the correct one based on Scriptural data. The primary argument is the timing of the entry of sin and death into the world. A full explanation would deserve an entire post in and of itself, and it is explained on the AiG website, so I will refer my readers there for now. Suffice it to say that I am now one of the deranged knuckle-dragging Troglodytes who actually believe the earth has been around for about ten thousand years rather than millions and billions of years, having been created by the divine fiat of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and revealed to us uniquely in the Holy Bible.

One final word here regarding the Bible as a data source. For many, this is a concept that automatically marginalizes to the outer limits the holders of such a view in the minds of those who do not. However, this entire series, indeed, this entire blog, operates unashamedly under the proposition that the Bible is the Word of God, and that the God of the Bible is there and He is not silent (with a bow to Francis Schaeffer for that phrasing). This is not, however, a blind leap of irrational faith against all reason and evidence. Let me turn your attention to a story in the gospel of Mark:

And they came, bringing to him a paralytic carried by four men. And when they could not get near him because of the crowd, they removed the roof above him, and when they had made an opening, they let down the bed on which the paralytic lay. And when Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, "My son, your sins are forgiven." Now some of the scribes were sitting there, questioning in their hearts, "Why does this man speak like that? He is blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?" And immediately Jesus, perceiving in his spirit that they thus questioned within themselves, said to them, "Why do you question these things in your hearts? Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Rise, take up your bed and walk'? But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins"--he said to the paralytic-- "I say to you, rise, pick up your bed, and go home." And he rose and immediately picked up his bed and went out before them all, so that they were all amazed and glorified God, saying, "We never saw anything like this!"

Mark 2:3-12 (English Standard Version, ESV)

Now the answer to the question Jesus asks should be obvious despite what your Sunday School teacher may have once told you: it is easier to say "your sins are forgiven." I could walk around in a robe telling people their sins are forgiven and noone would be the wiser. You can’t see sins being forgiven. And that’s the point. "That you may know..." Jesus gives them evidence they can see: he heals the paralytic. In other words, the way epistemology (the philosophy of how we know) in the Bible works, the things that can be tested are used to prove the things that cannot be tested. The objective is used to validate the subjective.

Thus, it is untenable to say that the Bible may be inaccurate and untrue in the things we can test (as in places it touches on geography, history, science, or other areas we can evaluate with various kinds of evidence), but it surely must be true in those great theological doctrines we can’t test.

Does God really expect us to use logic and evidence as a basis for our faith? Well, let’s see:

"Set forth your case, says the LORD; bring your proofs, says the King of Jacob. Let them bring them, and tell us what is to happen. Tell us the former things, what they are, that we may consider them, that we may know their outcome; or declare to us the things to come. Tell us what is to come hereafter, that we may know that you are gods; do good, or do harm, that we may be dismayed and terrified. Behold, you are nothing, and your work is less than nothing; an abomination is he who chooses you."

Isaiah 41:21-24 (ESV)

Not only does God do so, He gives us an evidence specifically for His existence in His book, to wit, history written in advance, also known as fulfilled prophecy. A detailed analysis of this is beyond the scope of this post, but I will refer my readers again to Josh McDowell’s book, Evidence that Demands a Verdict, for an extensive presentation of this and other areas of evidence for the proposition that the Bible is the uniquely revealed word of the living God and not just men’s writings (should you like to see some of this here, let me know in the comments; I am always looking for posting fodder). Scoff if you will, but don’t even think of doing it here unless you can answer the arguments in that book, and counter somehow the evidence presented there without falling into misrepresentations and logical fallacies.

I think I am at least as qualified, if not more so, both in science and theology, to address the creation/evolution issue as is Mr. Rennie. Let the fun begin!

Come, let us reason together....

First installment

Next installment