Creationist Says Christian Evolutionists Overlook Biblical Authority
Creation Museum CEO and President Ken Ham has written a blog post, blasting a Christian academic for overlooking Biblical authority in an attempt to explain the long lifespans of people mentioned in the Genesis 5 and 11 genealogies.
Ham, the founder of the apologetics ministry Answers in Genesis, supports a literal interpretation of the creation account in Genesis, and maintains that compromising God's Word in Genesis makes the Bible untrustworthy.
To make his point, Ham cites the example of an article written by Jim Stump, a PhD in philosophy from Boston University and the Content Manager at BioLogos, a group that promotes evolutionary beliefs....
""Linked to this foundational truth that God has supernaturally created, Warfield conceived of creation and evolution as mutually exclusive concepts. That is, creation connotes the bringing into existence of something new, something that is not already âinâ previously existing forms. Evolution, by contrast, speaks of a development and improvement of previously existing matter. Evolution, by definition, originates nothing; it only modifies. To say âevolutionâ is to deny creation, and to say âcreationâ is necessarily to deny evolution. âWhatever comes by the one process by that very fact does not come by the other. Whatever comes by evolution is not created; whatever is created is not evolved.â To speak as some do of evolution as âcreation by gradualismâ or âcreative evolutionâ is nonsense. Each excludes the other. âYou cannot modify by originating; you cannot originate by modifying.â This is not to say that there cannot have been both creation and (subsequent) evolution, Warfield often concedes, but it is to say that evolution by the very nature of it cannot explain origins. Warfield at times expresses frustration that this basic distinction is not recognized." (F.G.Zaspel)
Let me reaffirm my position with ALL FEAR AND TREMBLING. I stand as an ant among giants I am sure, I cannot hold a candle to the theological hieghts these men have apparently reached, I was very fearfull when I wrote what I wrote but I do think the question has to be asked and to what degree are we ignoring how serious this really is to God by not seriously addressing it? I am more fearful of offending God then men, day in Genesis is the same word front to back; day.
Since when is "modern science" the guide post of the voracity of scripture?
This is where I struggle deeply with men like Warfield and Hodge. Follow me on this and I will take corrections. They allowed outside influences to be introduced into their interpretation; "we must allow for modern science........." and hence they did believe in an "old earth" scenario and look at the trickle down effect.
I am not arguing one never makes mistakes or draws differing conclusions: "infra-supra, pedo-credo" but these are not worldly assumptions introduced into the text, but old universe is and I can't help having a major issue with it.