Category: debriefing
Are Creationists Nuts? Part IV: Noah’s Ark Sensationalism
Written by Chris
Wednesday, 20 February 2008 04:43
4 Comments

NOAH'S ARK SENSATIONALISM: What are we to make of Noah's Ark news? Believe it? Or reject it? Is it the Ark enthusiasts versus the skeptics, or is there something in between? Here we try to separate the serious from the sensational.

I recently had the opportunity to take part in a short seminar led by Dr. Paul Maier of Western Michigan University. One of the themes of his latest seminar is sensationalism surrounding the many books in recent years about the life of Jesus Christ. His main complaint is that many of them are distortions, not grounded in real history.

People love the sensational, but it is usually not grounded in truth. Recently, a twenty year old "find" of a "Jesus tomb" was trumpeted as the "possible" place where Jesus and his family were supposedly buried. Now if you haven’t heard about this, don’t be surprised or concerned.

First of all, the name "Jesus" (at least the Hebrew/Aramaic equivalent) was an extremely common name even in Jesus’ time. Not only that, but so were all the first names of the people in the Gospels, as were the names of those buried in this particular tomb. Archaeologists had long dismissed this as an insignificant find, and gave it the same treatment when it was brought up again last year. It may have been someone named “Jesus” in that particular tomb, but it was not Jesus “the Christ.” Yes, we still affirm the doctrine of the Scriptures and the Apostles themselves, that Christ truly rose from the dead, and ascended into heaven.

Maier also mentioned, briefly some of the sensationalism surrounding “Noah’s Ark.” And even as someone who believes that the Ark could yet be found on a mountain somewhere, I understood where Dr. Maier was coming from. There IS a great deal of SENSATIONALISM surrounding Noah’s Ark. Dr. Maier pointed out that every year it seems there is some group claiming that they have found Noah’s Ark on Mt. Ararat (or elsewhere), and yet the question remains: Why is it always that the "find" can’t be verified; claims are made that it has gone “under the ice” again, or any number of other excuses? I am reminded of French explorer Fernando Navarro, who brought back samples, allegedly of the Ark. However, carbon dating of the wood showed it to be too far out of range to be genuine.

So, I agree that there is plenty of sensationalism surrounding Noah’s Ark. But as a believer in the historicity of the Ark narrative, I must ask which "facts" should we believe about it, and which ones should we discard? Should we rank Ark researchers among UFO, Nessie, and Sasquatch researchers, the stuff of the X-Files, or is there something more to it? Should we trust the Ark researchers or the skeptics? Unlike “Sasquatch and company,” I will argue that there is actually more than merely specious evidence which points to the fact that the Ark has existed in the past and may even actually be around to this day. It’s in its own category.

Editor's Note: This excerpt reproduced with the permission TheMuseAndTheScribe.com. To view the rest of this commentary visit TheMuseAndTheScribe.com.

The writer also wanted me to add that the picture used for this piece is the "alternative" Ark site claimed by David Fasold and Ron Wyatt, which is a volcanic formation that was later "fortified." John Morris has studied this, and confirmed it. Wyatt and Fasold would fall into the "sensationalist" camp Chris mentions in his piece. (Although one of that pair has since passed away, and according to Chris the other has rejected the site pictured as a hoax.)

 
Blue eyes a ‘young’ phenomenon
Written by Chris
Wednesday, 06 February 2008 06:33
1 Comment

A recent Fox News article brought out some interesting news about people with blue eyes, namely, that blue-eyed people must share a common ancestor within a relatively recent time period. Here’s a perfect example of a scientific discovery that can fit nicely within a “creation science” perspective.

Please read the article before continuing on with this commentary. You can find it at:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,327070,00.html

First of all, we have to be able to decipher what is true science versus what falls under the category “assumptions.” I think a certain number of facts can be established from the evidence.

Fact: Certain people have blue eyes.

Fact: A difference in the OAC2 gene causes this.

"… a genetic mutation affecting the OCA2 gene in our chromosomes resulted in the creation of a 'switch,' which literally 'turned off' the ability to produce brown eyes." All people with blue eyes (at least those examined so far) have this mutated gene.

The person who originally had the “mutation” did not have blue eyes. The trait was passed on and inherited by grandchildren or great-grandchildren.

Most of the science here has to do with basic genetics.

Here are the assumptions that would be difficult to test:

1. The first blue-eyed person lived 6,000-10,000 years ago.

2. That the gene is actually a “mutation.”

Other assumptions:

3. The conventional scientific scheme calls this the “Neolithic” or “New stone-age” period. (Comment: I think it could be easily established that various “periods” of technology overlap. Just because one person is working in stone, doesn’t mean that another in some other discovered or undiscovered part of the world couldn’t have been working in bronze or iron.)

Let’s put some of the same data in a “creation” perspective.

1. One person 6,000-10,000 years ago having the blue-eyed gene easily fits within a young- earth time frame, if that is actually the case. (But, still, 6,000-10,000 for the origin of blue eyes is an assumption).

2. The origin of the gene may well be a mutation, but is it possible that this was “coded-for,” and, therefore, already part of the genetic possibilities within Adam and Eve? (Creationists may already be saying that this trait truly is a mutation, so my thought here could be at odds with them). Or, if we accept the “mutation” idea at face value, this could have already been part of the genetic code within “Noah’s family” or within the generations shortly thereafter.

3. The idea of close genetic relationships (marriages to cousins as stated in the article) is not out of line with the intermarriages that would have had to occur in the early created earth and after the Flood.

Really, none of the information in the article contradicts a young-earth perspective (except perhaps the comments about the “Neolithic Age” which really are the writer’s interpretations and NOT the FACTUAL evidence).

Here is just another case where one can use the SAME EVIDENCE and come to a different conclusion. One doesn’t at all have to throw science out the window to think within the creation perspective. One only needs to see if there are other possible interpretations of the EVIDENCE.

Editor's Note: This commentary reproduced with the permission of guest contributor, Chris Truelsen. Truelsen is a graduate of Purdue University. He received his M.Div. from Concordia Seminary, St. Louis in 2001. He is Associate Pastor of St. John's Lutheran Church in Lanesville, IN. Chris enjoys writing and blogging as a hobby, and has also written material for the online version of "Higher Things," a Lutheran publication. Chris is the sole writer for the website: TheMuseAndTheScribe.com

 
Creationists not what you’ve been led to believe
Written by Chad Phillips
Tuesday, 17 July 2007 06:40
No Comments

By Chad Phillips
MTW contributing writer

What is a creationist?

The term creationist embodies much more than the secular and religious fundamentalists want you to know. Thats because, both sides want to exploit the term in order to help drive their particular agenda.

Secular intellectual elites tend to use the term in much the same way biblical literalists do. For both groups, the term creationist only applies to those who believe God created the universe and everything in it in six literal 24 hour days by an act of fiat.

But both sides use this narrow definition in very different ways. The enlightened rationalists use it to minimize, marginalize, and therefore, neutralize anyone who would dare question their orthodoxy. The biblical literalists on the other hand use the term to exclude anyone who doesnt adhere to their view, some even going as far as calling into question a persons faith. And both sides use the term and the corresponding "ism" that goes along with it as a means of dismissing legitimate arguments they each have to offer.

Whether though ignorance, or deliberate deception I do not know. But there are a lot of folks, on both sides of the debate, who cant seem to apply the term beyond their own myopic view of just what IT is.

So what is a creationist? A creationist is simply anyone who believes that there is a creator (God) responsible for the physical universe. Thats all.

It makes little difference (denotatively) whether that person believes in a gradual process of God guided evolution or fiat creation. If the individual believes an ultimate being created the universe with all its complexity, they qualify for creationist status.