Some creationist arguments I do disagree with

Architect-426, who occasionally posts at EvC, believes that volcanoes played a much bigger role in the history of the earth than is normally recognized, specifically related to the worldwide Flood, and that the theory of plate tectonics is simply wrong. In a brief exchange I had with him I did find out that there has been a great deal more volcanic activity on this planet than I had any idea, so he could be right about volcanism as an unsung major player, but plate tectonics is just too reasonable an idea to dismiss and I don't know how he got so convinced it's wrong. He's been arguing along on this point on this thread at EvC for some time now:

Architect-426 says: Since the (nil) velocity of "plates" truly cannot even be defined as velocity per se, much less translated into energy to "build" anything, then indeed plate tectonics is false in terms of creating geological features.

Thus my entire argument regarding vertical tectonics and volcanism vs. "plate" tectonics, or the idea that land masses move with enough horizontal speed and "crash" into another landmass. This alleged plate tectonic notion is sheer nonsense as shperical mechanics and displacement completely negate this "lateral" type of motion, and is only supported by colorful diagrams to "explain" how this supposedly happens.

Yet the fact remains; no velocity = no energy = no "plate" tectonic construction.

Floodists believe that the separating of the continents by plate movement started out rapid and then slowed down. The movement wasn't always so slow.

But also it seems that even very slow movement of such huge bodies would have quite a bit of crunching force when they impact another body, slow but devastating.

However, a rapid splitting of the continents would generate enough friction or resistance to push up the strata into high mountains at some distance from the exerted force -- Rocky Mountains, Alps -- but more gently buckle the land at the edge of the split -- Appalachians. Architect wants to attribute all mountain-building to volcanism, but I don't see it myself -- the way some mountains are formed, the way the strata were pushed up or buckled, is consistent with the kind of lateral force tectonic movement would exert.

Coyote isn't helping matters in this discussion:

You seem to be trying to force reality to fit within your religious beliefs. Problem is, it doesn't fit. Your religious beliefs are flatly contradicted by reality.

The earth is old, giving the small annual movement of the plates plenty of time to do all sorts of things. You may not like it, but that's the way it is.

I don't think it's Architect's religious position that has him rejecting plate tectonics, it's just the way it looks to him for whatever reason -- based on his experience of the engineering tasks necessary to architecture. That is, it's a scientific position he's taken although one with little credibility it seems to me.

But an old earth isn't necessary. Plate movement fits just fine into the Flood scenario and the Young Earth scenario, does not require an old earth at all. The separating of the continents had to be faster at first and slow down over time of course and some argue that's impossible, but that's all speculation on their part. There's enough evidence for the Flood anyway and tectonic movement explains what happened to the strata AFTER they were all laid down in the Flood. We see them buckled and upended and twisted and split into canyons all over the world. The Flood laid down the strata, then disturbances of the earth such as earthquakes -- caused by tectonic movement anyway -- account for the distortion of the strata. So many Floodists believe that the continents split after the Flood because of forces released in the Flood, and have been moving apart ever since.

New Poster at EvC gives creditable evidence for the worldwide Flood only to be met with the usual flat-out denial

So I guess I have to recognize that I'm still occasionally tempted to join in the scientific part of the evolution discussion despite my generally pulling back from it.

Brand new poster at EvC, Danielcp makes a very intelligent observation that supports the Flood:

I am brand new to this sight and as such may post something that has been discussed already, but I have something that amazes me about the flood.

I have traveled into the western U.S. on several occasions. When I was at the Grand Canyon (AZ, national park), I took note of the very clear explanations of its watery past, as presented in the visitor center. Also, when I was once driving through the desert of western TX, I stopped at a national park, and they also mentioned that particular parks watery past (Guadalupe park). Now these are only two of many places like this, places that had watery pasts, with a fossil record proving it.

After those visits, a thought came to mind. "If I took a world map, and put a simple pin in every place that has a fossil record denoting a watery past, would I be able to cover the earth with pins on my map?" ...need to put that on the "to do" list.

Anyway, we debate the validity of a biblical flood. We, or you, or somebody, argues that it didn't happen. But, there is so much evidence that clearly shows that the world was flooded...how can one argue that there was not a world wide flood? Clearly sea life fossils in desert places around the world point to a flood. Those fossils certainly didn't visit the desert in a car at some point in the past.

Yes, the watery past that figures in ALL the strata and ALL the fossil beds IS evidence for the Flood and I hope he'll continue to collect this sort of data. But then along comes jar, of course, who pronounces as from on high that the Flood simply never happened. How he gets away with his flat-out assertions that are against the forum rules is a mystery, but anyway, he's to be ignored.

Then bluescat48 says:

There are at least 2 reasons for the fossils found in deserts & on mountains, climate change & plate tectonics.

At several times in the ancient past, the world climate was much warmer, with no ice cap. The sea level was several hundred meters higher than it is now, Much of the eastern & central North American was under water. When the climate cooled forming the ice caps the water receded leaving the bottom silt, containing dead organisms, in place. Plate tectonics, the plates colliding built up mountains carrying the remains of life with it. The point is this occurred millions of years ago and not all at once.

Note how he says it, as if it is absolute fact, as if there could be no question about it, although all he's done is offer an alternative interpretation that has no more explanatory power than the Flood as Danielcp has shown.

The actual facts he mentions fit quite nicely with Danielcp's observations and with the Flood in general, yet he apparently fails to notice. That is, before the Flood, and during, according to Floodists, quite in agreement with his statement, "the world climate was much warmer, with no ice cap." Certainly sea level was much "higher than it is now" although "several hundred meters" is probably more than the Flood description requires, and if it WERE that high how could you possibly NOT be talking about a worldwide drowning of the land anyway? Not completely covered if we're talking about present altitudes, but worldwide nevertheless, pretty much what we might expect of the last stages of the Flood before it had completely receded. Yes, such statements are evidence in favor of the Flood, observations or speculations completely consistent with the Flood interpretation, and just because mainstream science has a different way of interpreting their observations doesn't make them any the less consistent with the Flood.

Certainly "eastern and central North America" were under water because the entire world was under water. Then, as a result of the Flood "the climate cooled forming the ice caps" and "the water receded" leaving not just the "bottom silt" but all the layers of the geologic column, "containing dead organisms," and after the Flood "the [tectonic] plates colliding built up mountains carrying the remains of life with it."

All of this is in keeping with the Flood scenario and yet he goes on and on as if it contradicts it!

The only difference is in the timing: "The point is this occurred millions of years ago and not all at once." Well, the evidence for the millions of years is just not there, while the evidence is overwhelming that it DID occur "all at once:" The evidence for this is in the fact that strata all over the planet were obviously laid down one on top of another BEFORE all the tectonic activity distorted them, because they are distorted -- twisted, upended, broken, upraised or sunk, cut or carved -- AS A UNIT, several layers at a time (the entire depth of them in the Grand Canyon), keeping their original parallel relation to one another. Grand Canyon, Grand Staircase, entire Southwest and elsewhere around the world it's incontestable, and it is NOT hard to see that the "unconformities" that are often taken to be evidence for long time gaps between layers are merely layers that were displaced from beneath after the strata were all in place. You just have to open your eyes.

Does creationism turn people away from the gospel?

dwise1 at EvC puts up this thought-provoking post :

Conrad Hyers, The Meaning of Creation: Genesis and Modern Science, John Knox Press, Atlanta, Georgia, 1984, page 26:

It may be true that scientism and evolutionism (not science and evolution) are among the causes of atheism and materialism. It is at least equally true that biblical literalism, from its earlier flat-earth and geocentric forms to its recent young-earth and flood-geology forms, is one of the major causes of atheism and materialism. Many scientists and intellectuals have simply taken the literalists at their word and rejected biblical materials as being superseded or contradicted by modern science. Without having in hand a clear and persuasive alternative, they have concluded that it is nobler to be damned by the literalists than to dismiss the best testimony of research and reason. Intellectual honesty and integrity demand it."

Gregg Wilkerson, co-founder of Students for Origins Research and former young-earth creationist, at the 1990 International Conference on Creationism:

"Creationism by and large attracts few to the gospel, but it turns many away."

It certainly seems to be true at first glance, to the point that it could make a person feel guilty for arguing for creationism at all.

Certainly it's true that there are some very bad creationist arguments, but that doesn't seem to be the problem. There are also some good creationist arguments that nevertheless also turn people away. I've seen this happen over and over at EvC for instance. Science is very sure of itself, but science as it defends evolution is nevertheless a gigantic delusion -- and the distinction between science and scientism in this case is meaningless. Research and reason are not the road to reality they are touted to be.

Then it seems to be worth considering that Christians should only present the gospel, keep the focus on the unbeliever's need for salvation, and leave creationism aside as a sort of secondary issue that only takes the focus away from what matters most.

I can't claim to have given this a lot of thought so I might change my mind eventually, but I think this is a false concern. I think that Biblical creation is intrinsic to the gospel, absolutely essential, and if a person rejects it they would also reject the gospel anyway. I think this is demonstrated on the "deconversion" thread at EvC where I think it could be shown that all those who supposedly deconverted on the basis of the claims of science really never were converted -- born again -- in the first place, never really grasped the gospel, never knew Christ. It was all merely an intellectual assent to a list of propositions or a cultural habit, deeply ingrained habit but not spiritual reality. Another clue to this is that in genuine revivals there are always some proportion of lifelong Christians who realize as a result of the powerful presence of God in the revival that they never were born again, so then they get born again and that's when their Christian life actually begins. They could have been dedicated churchgoers and even preachers for fifty or more years to that point, even knowing the Bible better than most.

There may be both good and bad scientific arguments employed in the service of creationism, but Genesis 1 is always the underlying foundation if we're talking about BIBLICAL creationism. It is mainstream evolutionary science that discredits Genesis 1, FALSE science, that turns people away, but it also discredits the gospel at the same time. That is, the assumptions that contradict Genesis 1 are the same that contradict the supernatural claims of the gospels. If a person is convinced by those assumptions -- the materialist assumptions of modern science -- the gospel won't make any more sense to him than Genesis 1.

Again, "reason and reality" in the service of evolution are a snare and a delusion, seductive to the fallen mind and SO hard, maybe impossible, to break. People must have their spiritual eyes opened, either to recognize the gospel or to recognize the creation.

Also, the implication that nothing but the gospel should be presented pretty much eliminates the role the Christian is to play as salt and light in the world, which is usually understood to mean being an influence against the moral deterioration of the culture. Certainly if the gospel is making converts the culture will deteriorate less anyway, even spontaneously improve as in the case of revivals, but this fact doesn't preclude the separate work of being salt and light. This is what William Wilberforce did in Britain as he worked year after year to eliminate the slave trade. He didn't preach the gospel, he lived the gospel in that work of changing the culture.

Likewise, attempting to defeat the claims of evolution is a worthy endeavor for the good of society, especially in the proper valuing of all life but especially human life as made in the image of God. So is attempting to prevent the murder of the unborn. So is attempting to prevent the corruption of marriage which is the linchpin of a stable society and a protection of human dignity, which should include a lot more than just working to defeat efforts to establish homosexual marriage but does include that for sure. ALL of it is about valuing human life when it comes down to it. That's the work the church -- born-again Christians -- has always done from the very beginning.

Pagan societies promoted human sacrifice, promoted the devaluation of women (one of the "curses" of the Fall), discarded unwanted infants and the sick and elderly. All this was reversed by the influence of Jesus Christ. There are former cannibals who thank Jesus Christ that He changed their culture (one stood up in the audience at a debate with atheist Christopher Hitchens -- it's on You Tube somewhere). Christianity inspired the salvaging of infants exposed to die, promoted the care of the sick and elderly. Christians took in abandoned children, built orphanages, built hospitals, and also promoted science because of its coherent view of a law-giving Creator God, which is far from the pagan gods. Pagan science could only go so far before it would break down in chaotic speculations, it took the Biblical God to inspire productive empirical science.

And on and on and on. Society in the West was gradually changed over the centuries by Christians. Not everybody believed the gospel, but society was changed for the better anyway. We are now reverting to paganism again with our devaluation of life as expressed in the theory of evolution in general (yes it DOES devalue life and reverse all the moral gains of the last twenty centuries), as expressed in abortion which is a callous devaluation of human life in the name of materialist science (it's just a bunch of meaningless tissue), with our devaluation of marriage (at least partly a result of the now-embedded notion that we are "just animals"), which leads to chaos, poverty and insecurity. The increase in the influence of pagan religions in the West over the last half century is all part of this degeneration from our Christian cultural foundations.

It is the church's job to oppose these things.

I think if we are not succeeding at these efforts any more this is simply a sign of the deterioration of the church itself, the growing apostasy in various branches of the church, even compromises that have crept into the best of the churches and even into the minds of Christians who are attempting to be the salt and light (if you feel you have to compromise with science to the extent of inserting a few million years between a couple of verses in Genesis, accepting the idea of suffering and death before the Bible says Adam and Eve's disobedience brought it into the world, you've already lost the moral high ground).

It's not the fault of the attempt to change the culture in itself in other words, it's the fault of the churches that we have lost the supernatural power to do that work OR effectively preach the gospel, either one.

Which is why revival is so desperately needed, as I've argued on my other blogs.

Yoo hoo, Dr. Adequate.

Dr. Adequate is a frequent poster at EvC forums, which I suspect functions as some sort of therapeutic outlet for his endless supply of nastiness, sometimes cleverly or "wittily" packaged, against creationists. In this post he liberally slathers his contempt over creationist Fred Williams (of the website Evolution Fairytale), which also gives him the opportunity to use the term "gormless stupidity" in a sentence, but he seems to have abandoned all attempt at accuracy in his zeal to craft a bon mot.

[Williams] Last Friday, Dec 3, we discussed this article on our half-hour 'Real Science Friday' show. We are interested in giving evolutionists the opportunity to call in and comment on either the article, or what we discussed on the radio.

[Dr. A] While there are a few questions I'd like to ask you, I can't comment on what you said on the radio last week because I wasn't listening. Nor, indeed, do I have a radio.

While I can spot numerous instances of gormless stupidity in your article, in order to comment accurately on it in toto, I should need to read the fifteen papers referenced in the original article, and I do not currently have access to Nature.

Nor, I presume, do you, since you never quoted a single word of any of the papers; and while this did not inhibit you from forming a view on their content and validity, it would provide me with certain difficulties, since I prefer to base my opinions on the facts.

Tch, tch, the facts, eh? He complains that he doesn't have access to the "fifteen papers" in Nature supposedly referenced in Williams' article, completely having failed to notice the link to the ONE AND ONLY article at Nature that Williams referenced (from which he can also link to the original sources for each of the fifteen "gems" they cover), or the link to the radio program, given in the EvC post itself, which is ONLINE and doesn't require possession of a radio.

Since I would like to encourage him to read and hear all the relevant material in the hope that he might choose to participate in the upcoming radio discussion, here are the links again:

Fred Williams' article,

The Nature article (singular),

The radio program .

Just wanted to get this much posted for the sake of Dr. A and anyone else who might like to follow that discussion, but I may make my own comments on this topic myself eventually, although, as I've recently said, I've pretty much abandoned the effort to deal with the science questions because the deck is stacked in such a way as to make it futile.

Dean Burgon's Fiery War on Modernist Science-so-called, Part 2

Continuing with some Burgon quotes from Inspiration and Interpretation:

AT THE ROOT OF THE WHOLE MISCHIEF OF THESE LAST DAYS LIES DISBELIEF IN THE BIBLE AS THE WORD OF GOD. THIS IS THE FUNDAMENTAL ERROR (Preface, p. xvii).

YOU ARE NEVER TO FORGET THE GREAT FUNDAMENTAL POSITION, THAT THE BIBLE CLAIMS TO BE THE WORD OF GOD; AND THAT GOD'S WORD CAN NEVER CONTRADICT OR BE CONTRADICTED BY GOD'S WORKS (Sermon II, p. 41).

DESTROY MY CONFIDENCE IN THE BIBLE AS AN HISTORICAL RECORD, AND YOU DESTROY MY CONFIDENCE IN IT ALTOGETHER; FOR BY FAR THE LARGEST PART OF THE BIBLE IS AN HISTORICAL RECORD. If the Creation of Man, -- the longevity of the Patriarchs, -- the account of the Deluge; -- if these be not true histories, what is to be said of the lives of Abraham, of Jacob, of Joseph, of Moses, of Joshua, of David, -- of our Saviour Christ Himself? ... Will you then reject one miracle and retain another? Impossible! You can make no reservation, even in favour of the incarnation of our Lord, -- the most adorable of all miracles, as it is the very keystone of our Christian hope. EITHER, WITH THE BEST AND WISEST OF ALL AGES, YOU MUST BELIEVE THE WHOLE OF HOLY SCRIPTURE; OR, WITH THE NARROW-MINDED INFIDEL, YOU MUST DISBELIEVE THE WHOLE. THERE IS NO MIDDLE COURSE OPEN TO YOU (Sermon II, p. 46).

HE WHO SURRENDERS THE FIRST PAGE OF HIS BIBLE, SURRENDERS ALL. (Sermon II, p. 51?).

THE BIBLE (BE PERSUADED) IS THE VERY UTTERANCE OF OF THE ETERNAL; -- AS MUCH GOD'S WORD, AS IF HIGH HEAVEN WERE OPEN, AND WE HEARD GOD SPEAKING TO US WITH HUMAN VOICE. Every book of it, is inspired alike; and is inspired entirely. ... THE BIBLE IS NONE OTHER THAN THE VOICE OF HIM THAT SITTETH UPON THE THRONE! EVERY BOOK OF IT, -- EVERY CHAPTER OF IT, -- EVERY VERSE OF IT, -- EVERY WORD OF IT, -- EVERY SYLLABLE OF IT, -- (WHERE ARE WE TO STOP?) -- EVERY LETTER OF IT -- IS THE DIRECT UTTERANCE OF THE MOST HIGH! (Sermon III, p. 76?)

[The above are all copied from David Cloud's For Love of the Bible, pp. 131, 135, 136, 137. All the emphases are his. Where I've put a question mark after a page number, what I've copied is only a portion of a long segment and I don't know which of the page numbers noted refers to what I copied out.].

Cloud sums up, p. 137:

What we see in the previous excerpts [from which I've taken the few quotations above] is one of the most brilliant scholars of the nineteenth century boldly testifying of his faith in a perfect Bible before the student body of the university. We can be sure that such a testimony has not been heard at that university in many a decade, probably not in this century. Burgon's views did not prevail. His earnest pleas were ignored. The soul-destroying gloom of rationalism has long settled over Oxford.

[p. 138] Burgon was a scholar, but he refused to dance to the scholar's tunes. We will see that today's Rationalists -- Metzger, Bruce, Kenyon, Aland, and that gang -- treat Burgon as if he were some kind of tradition-bound crank. In fact, a great many who profess to be evangelical today hold rationalistic views on the Bible, denying the literalness of the first three chapters of Genesis, rejecting the absolute perfection of the inspired text, claiming that the Bible is inaccurate when it deals with "scientific matters." Burgon's defense of the verbal-plenary inspiration of Holy Scripture steps on the toes of the vast majority of today's Christian scholars and theologians.

Often we worry about how many are drawn away from the truth by the claims of science, which is what motivates many Christians to try to argue against those claims scientifically. But as I've reported recently, I've finally pulled back from that effort because no matter what one says, no matter how telling a point you make on that level, they will deny it one way or another. The evidence for the Flood is everywhere, for instance, but they are blind to it and rationalize it away. The evidence for the degeneration of life is good but they deny it and won't even consider doing what it would take to demonstrate it. They are under the spell of their theory, perhaps irrevocably doomed to delusion.

It must be God's will, then, that we simply hold up His Word to them instead of spending so much time on the scientific questions. God's Word is sharper than a two-edged sword and if they ignore it they will be finally judged by it. Burgon's defense is a wonderful model for us.

There is no doubt also a great deal of pride and fear of man that motivates those who abandon parts of the Bible to Science-so-called while claiming they can hold onto the rest. This is a great snare. We have to hold to the Bible no matter what they say against us, no matter what it does to our reputation in the eyes of the worldly. God's word is "foolishness" to fallen humanity. They lack the "ears to hear" and we can't give them that, we can only give them the Word and either they can hear it or they can't. That's just the way it is. They will call us "morons" and worse, and eventually they may even persecute us here in the Land of the Free, just as they do in the rest of the world. When we are called to Christ we are called to die to this world, and this is one way we must die to it.

What a glorious testimony Burgon has. We should all aim for that faithfulness to God's word in denial of our standing in this world.

Dean Burgon's Fiery War on Modernist Science-so-called should be our model

John William Burgon has so far figured in my blogs only on the subject of the Bible versions as an inspiring and passionate scholar and writer against the revisionist Bible put out by a cadre of modernist Anglican churchmen in the 19th century. But now I've been introduced to another of his writings through David Cloud's wonderful history of the Bible versions controversy, For Love of the Bible, in which he discusses Burgon and quotes at length from Burgon's book in response to a modernist tract of his day, which puts Science-so-called above God's word. Oh how I love Dean Burgon. The more I read of his writings the more I love the man whose mind produced them. He is, as David Cloud calls him, indeed a "warrior," a warrior for truth over lies, in this case the truth over the lies of modernism, the lies of Science-so-called. I found his book online at CCEL but I'll probably mostly be quoting from David Cloud's book.

[Sometimes I think I won't be much interested in seeing ANYONE I know from this life in heaven, not family or friends -- oh a few exceptions do come to mind (and of course we'll all be perfected and love each other completely) -- but there are plenty of people I know only through their books or books about them that I could follow around for eternity, and Burgon is one of them. If of course one can have eyes for anyone besides the Lord]

The fire with which Burgon writes offends some, though it's a quality I've always particularly enjoyed in his writings, and here he defends this style:

When a few words have been added concerning the manner in which I have executed my task, this Preface shall be brought to a close. ... A man feels strongly and warmly; writes fast and freely; is determined to be clearly understood: IS WEARY OF THE DIGNIFIED CONVENTIONALITIES UNDER WHICH SCEPTICISM LOVES TO CONCEAL ITSELF WHEN IT COMES ABROAD. ... Some respectable persons, I doubt not, will think my treatment of them harsh and uncharitable. ... If I may declare my mind freely, PUNCTILIOUS COURTESY IN DEALING WITH SUCH OPINIONS, BECOMES A SPECIES OF TREASON AGAINST HIM AFTER WHOSE NAME WE ARE CALLED, and whom we profess to serve. Seven men may combine to handle the things of God, it seems, in the most outrageous manner; while themselves are to be the objects of consideration, tenderness, respect! I cannot see their title to any consideration at all. (pp. xxiii, xxiv).[Cloud 131-2][all caps are Cloud's, large type and bolding are mine]

Right. THAT is the spirit in which we SHOULD respond in defense of the word of God against those who attack it, not against nonChristians who don't know any better, but certainly against those who call themselves Christians (or who at least know what Christianity teaches) and yet support modernist attacks on the Bible.

These days if you dare to call a heretic a heretic you may be denounced as harsh and unloving by the heretics who call themselves Christians, and the heretic will even be supported by people you know to be Christians, very weak Christians, who think Christian love is a flabby thing that amounts to always being nice to everybody. No, Burgon is right. We are NOT to be nice to people who claim to be Christian but attack God's word and allow dangerous lies to go unchallenged. Yet, even when one attacks only the lies and not the person today's shrinking "Christians" may find that too "harsh." No wonder the church is so weak.

He goes on:

This is no literary misunderstanding, or I could have been amicable enough ... No other than an attempt to destroy Man's dearest hopes, is this infamous book: no other than an insult, the grossest imaginable, offered to the Majesty of Heaven; an attack, the more foul because it is so insidious, against the Everlasting Gospel of Jesus Christ. IN SUCH A CAUSE I WILL NOT SO FAR GIVE IN TO THE SMOOTH FASHION OF A SUPPLE AND INDIFFERENT AGE, AS TO PAY THESE SEVEN WRITERS A SINGLE COMPLIMENT WHICH THEY WILL CARE TO ACCEPT (Preface, pp. xxvi, xxvii). [Cloud, 132][all caps are Cloud's, bolding is mine]

And then he goes on to defend the Book of Genesis -- THE BOOK OF GENESIS, THE VERY FIRST VERSES OF GENESIS -- against the claims of "Science." Oh happy day, he makes me weep for joy at his bold defense of truth, at the same time weep in mourning over the lies that have taken over our formerly Christian civilization ever since Darwin.

The arguments he is answering are the same arguments we are called upon to answer now -- the insertion of thousands, millions of years into the Creation Week for instance.

I want to post this now as I need a break, although I may want to come back later and add more as he gets into the meat of the argument.

=========================================================
But here I want to quote his own motto at the beginning of his book because it is so apt and so true to his character:

I CANNOT HOLD MY PEACE, BECAUSE THOU HAST HEARD, O MY SOUL,
THE SOUND OF THE TRUMPET, THE ALARM OF WAR.

{That's from Jeremiah somewhere]. How I wish there were more true Christians now with his spirit. How I wish he had won the war, for the sake of the Church which is now laboring under a miserable load of modernist garbage, in the form of the modernist Bibles at least, and under a spell of some kind of mealy-mouthed nicey-niceness too. But he didn't win -- except I know he won the praise of our Lord and will enjoy it for eternity and that makes me happy.

He didn't win. The idiots won. The unbelieving modernists won. They took over the Anglican church for one thing. They are behind all the modern Bibles for another.

===========
Later. As I've come back to this after my break, reading along in the Preface at CCEL, I just want to report again how happy Burgon makes me. And his writing has almost the same effect as Scripture itself on me, obviously because he is so utterly devoted to God's word -- the peace that passes understanding comes over me at times as I read him, just as it does as I read Scripture, undoing knots in my muscles, even putting me in a state of worship.

But also sometimes I burst into laughter at his ability to capture the sheer evil stupidities of his opponents, as here:

There is a certain form of fallacy of statement in which this Gentleman’s writings abound, which calls aloud for notice and signal reprobation. He has a marvellous aptitude, (one would fain hope through some intellectual infirmity,) of connecting together in the same sentence two or three clauses; one or two of which shall be true as Heaven, while the other XXIXis false as Hell. The reply to such a sentence is impossible, without many words,—far more than Mr. Jowett’s sentences commonly deserve.—Sometimes he strings together several heads of thought; of which enumeration the kindest thing which can be said is that it betrays an utter want of intellectual perspective. To unravel even a part of this tangled web so as to expose its argumentative worthlessness, soon fills a page. . . . . But there is another kind of fallacy which the same gentleman wields with immense effect, and in the use of which he is a great master; which, because it was absolutely impossible to handle it fitly in the proper place, shall be briefly adverted to, here. I proceed to describe it not without indignation; for I am profoundly struck by the intellectual perversity, not to say the moral obliquity, which has so entirely made this vile instrument its own.

The fallacy then is of this nature. When Professor Jowett would put forth something especially deserving of reprehension,—some sentiment or opinion which he either knows, or ought to know, that the whole Church will resent with unqualified abhorrence,—he assumes a plaintive manner, and puts himself into an interesting attitude; sometimes even folds his hands, as if in prayer. He then begins by (1) throwing out a remark of real beauty, and so conciliating for himself an indulgent hearing; or (2) he goes off on some Moral question, and so defeats attention; or (3) he delivers himself of some undeniable truth, and so disarms censure; or (4) he says something of an entirely equivocal kind, and so leaves his reader at fault. Candour, of course, gives him the benefit of the doubt. XXXIt is not till the sentence is well advanced, or till it is examined by the fatal light of its context, that one is shewn what the ambiguous writer really was intending. A cloven foot appears at last; but it is instantly withdrawn, with a shuffle; and you experience a scowl or a sneer, as the case may be, for your extreme unkindness in inquiring whether it was not a cloven foot you saw? . . . . Meanwhile, the learned Professor has gone off in alia omnia, with a look of earnestness which challenges respect, and a vagueness of diction which at once discourages pursuit and defeats inquiry. The fish invariably ends by disappearing in a cloud of his own ink.

What a satisfying description of the methods of such sanctimonious liars. The devil certainly does know how to guide his captives into such mind-twisting exercises.

This is almost at the end of his Preface. The end goes:

It shall suffice to have said thus much. These pages must now be suffered to go forth; not without a hearty aspiration that a blessing may attend them from Him sine Quo nihil est validum, nilil sanctum; and that what was intended for the strength and help of those who want helping and strengthening, (I am thinking particularly of what has been offered on the subject of Inspiration,) may not prove misleading or perplexing to any.

Science rejects THE source of truth and prides itself on its trek down the primrose path.

At EvC today,

Percy writes:

Dembski writes:
As a biblical inerrantist, I believe that what the Bible teaches is true and bow to the text, including its teaching about the Flood and its universality.

An inerrantist of any type, whether Newtonian, Darwinian, Einsteinian or Biblical, cannot be considered a scientist.

This is of course a foundational principle at EvC, though to one who knows the Bible as the Word of God, very odd, as if Science had consciously chosen to be misled. Consciously or not, of course, they ARE misled.

The thread to this point has questioned whether Dembski is really true to the Bible, but I don't have an opinion about that and it doesn't make a difference on this particular point. Dembski claims to believe that the Bible is inerrant and Biblical inerrancy is the point in question.

Percy doesn't seem even to recognize that his statement is based on nothing but a raw assumption, the assumption that the Bible is on the same level as the writings of Newton, Darwin and Einstein, a mere human work. But of course to a believer the Bible is truly the word of God, and as the word of God it can instruct us in EVERYTHING as whatever God says is foundational to ALL truth, including science. It's not a scientific text but it says just enough to make science a liar if it ignores it.

If you start with the Bible you can't go wrong, scientifically or any other way, as long as you recognize that your take on what the Bible implies on scientific questions may not be right. But if you make your own fallible intellect your foundation you will forever be finding what seem to you to be contradictions with the Bible. The problem with scientific thought over the last oh 150 years or so, particularly about origins -- origin of the cosmos, origin of the planet, origin of life -- is that it has progressively rejected God's word because fallible intellect is unable to reconcile its own impressions with the Bible's often veiled hints.

Early scientists had some strange ideas about what sort of evidence the Biblical Flood would have left, for instance (and science is stuck still with those strange ideas), so when science pointed out a fact or two that did not square with their strange ideas they jettisoned not just the strange ideas but the Bible itself, as if those strange ideas came from the Bible, which they didn't.

Same with Galileo. The Roman Church was enamored with the teachings of Aristotle through Aquinas, mixing pagan belief with God's word (just as they do with their worship of the "saints" and the "Queen of Heaven" and relics and indulgences and all that pagan superstition along with their lavish pagan paraphernalia and unholy wealth), and Aristotle's pagan religion put the earth at the center of the cosmos. So it was Aristotle, not the Bible, that Galileo's findings contradicted, but people still have the mistaken impression, since the Roman church taught that mistaken impression, that it was the Bible he contradicted. Now they have accepted Galileo and rejected the Bible, although there is no contradiction, and they have accepted evolution and rejected the Bible, although it should be the other way around.

The early geologist Hutton took a look at a formation on the coast of Scotland and declared off the top of his own fallible head that it proved that the earth was ancient, far more ancient than the age determinable from the Bible, and scientists ever after have accepted that declaration from his fallible head and added their own fallible conjectures to it, declaring it all fact as they went, as well as their conjectures about some supposedly objective scientific procedures they believe confirm it.

God will laugh in the end.