Creation Ministries and Oscar Pistorius

Many of you wont know about Oscar Pistorius, you can read up on him here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscar_Pistorius

Its been a quite interesting case with many experts giving evidence. What’s also quite interesting is an article on creation.com where they detail the various kinds of evidence and some of the issues with it. The crux of their argument being that even experts disagree on evidence, which they are able to reproduce, and measure scientifically.

 

The problem is that whilst the CMI might consider themselves experts, they are not. They are “people who have an interest in firing guns” and not “ballistic experts”. When they DO employ “ballistic experts” they only employ ones who agree with their perspective on how they should interpret the evidence.

 

This is completely contrary to to facts, and good “Science”. Most of us study the texts to determine what they are for, what was intended to be said, its socio-historical context, its theological context, its historical theological context, etc. The “Science” involved in interpreting scripture is called Hermeneutics. This is what you do BEFORE you start making any scientific conclusions about creation. In fact, once you do this, you realise that any scientific conclusions you make about creation have very little bearing on what Genesis says at all.

 

They say this:

Further, with the lure of prestige, fame and fortune accompanying evolutionary ‘discoveries’ in academia today, and with most universities firmly ensconced within the reigning materialist paradigm, one would have to be naïve not to believe that much of the evolutionary interpretation is also influenced by the rewards that come with telling the ‘right’ stories.

Apparently evolutionary studies are not based on science, but because scientists are being bribed to manipulate the evidence. Its beside the point because the bible does not have anything to do with the study of evolution, other than the God who ordered the universe also made it possible for science to be done. Either that or all science is a lie.

I liked this article which popped up today on the subject: http://agreatercourage.blogspot.co.nz/2014/09/more-pannenberg-on-genesis-1-2.html

Then:

… when it comes to the past, an objective, reliable eyewitness account of events carries the most weight. When it comes to origins, the claimed evolution from the Big Bang onward had no eyewitnesses and has never been observed in the field or repeated in a laboratory

Of course we know this to be true. However, scientists can measure and observe, then draw a line backwards and get some idea of what happened. However, this same criticism is true of Genesis, because the author of Genesis was not present at creation either. Worse, the author did not ever intend the text to be understood as an explanation of WHAT (the scientific detail) but rather, the WHY (the theological implications of a God who orders the universe), and HOW (this God is the one God who is above all other gods, and understandings).

They go on to say:

By contrast, creation had the ultimate, most reliable and truthful eyewitness possible, the eternal Creator God Himself. And He has given us an account of that supernatural, six-day, once-off event—primarily in the book of Genesis, but confirmed by many other passages of the inspired Word of God. Noah and his family were eyewitnesses of the Flood judgment about 1650 years after creation, and God (and possibly Noah himself) ensured that the account was also recorded for us in the Bible. As in a court of law, let us take the objective, unbiased account of the ultimate eyewitness at His plain meaning when evaluating the evidence for where this wonderful universe, including mice and men, has come from. When we do so, we will find that all of the ‘forensic’ evidence available to humanity as made in God’s image makes perfect sense when interpreted in the light of that record.

God did not WRITE the Bible, he INSPIRED it. There is a huge difference, and the author of the passage in question was not recounting, as I said, the details of what happened, he was not there, he did not know. He was INSPIRED to write about why things are the way they are. He also was not present at the flood, and did not know NOAH.

These people have stolen what it really means to believe in creation, and the name “creationist” and perverted it into some perverted shadow of the truth.

Its time to claim it back.

You Might Also Like

14 Replies to “Creation Ministries and Oscar Pistorius”

  1. They are wrong in saying that eyewitness testimony carries most weight; it doesn’t. Forensic evidence (i.e. scientific evidence) does that. 30 years as a practising lawyer tells me that, though the recent vogue for TV series about criminal forensics might do the same for a non-lawyer (though they aren’t very legally accurate some of the time – there’s a tendency to suggest that forensics do more than they’re actually capable of). In fact, eyewitnesses are notoriously unreliable as evidence, and “reliable and objective” human witnesses don’t exist.

    1. Chris,

      Your comment comes out of a legal, forensic 21st century context–and yes, in that context it is true: eye-witnesses are often quite unreliable–as compared to other now available corroborative or more objective lines of evidence. But in a biblical discussion, your observation comes across as a bit anachronistic. Otherwise, we folks separated by two millennia from the written testimony of eye-witnesses for the Judeao-Christian faith are pretty much out of luck. That was John (1 Jn. 1:1f), Peter (2 Peter 1:16), and Paul’s (i Cor. 15:8) credentialed authority–stemming from being eye-witnesses of Jesus. Eye-witness testimony was the basis for Luke’s (most likely) legal brief to offer to Theophilus “so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.” (Lk 1:1-4) I might add that these eye-witnesses also were guided in their accounts by the Spirit of Truth–which some of us may not have as an inspired resource for all our eye-witness accounts today.

      So I’m not necessarily countering your ‘observation’ (pun intended)–just trying to perhaps nuance it a bit with how today’s veracity of an eye-witness is a bit different than our faith heritage family eye-witnesses.

      Steve

  2. Steve,
    I dont necessarily think you are right. Eye witnesses then, were as reliable as eye witnesses now.

    The issue is the hypocrisy of claiming scientists cant be right because they weren’t there at the big bang, then saying the bible must be accurate because God was there. When in fact, the passage was INSPIRED BY and NOT written by, God. It was written by Moses, who was not there. Moreover, he was not even trying to “do a science” – he was trying to explain how the universe became so ordered, our place in it, and our responsibilities. Then what happened to stuff it all up. He does that in a comparative content with other ancient literature with which he was familiar (whether it was verbal or not is irrelevant).

    It is, as they say, not comparing apples with apples, but really, apples with tennis balls, then wondering why apples don’t bounce.

  3. I am assuming that you can figure out that it was a generalisation. The assumption is that it was mostly written by Moses and compiled by editor(s) with the occasional bits added (like, the bits about Moses death for example). Basically, like all Scripture, the author was a human, INSPIRED by God. God himself did not pen it.

  4. “The assumption is that it was mostly written by Moses”…so I suppose you have spent time in the middle of the desert? I guess at night, in the middle of no-where, you see Moses with pen in-hand, writing? I’ve spent time camping in the desert. Highly unlikely! Continue the fantasy!

  5. I wonder if anyone has considered that the point of it all is that God created the Heavens and the Earth. Just that. Nothing else. There is not a lot of harm in believing in a literal 6 day creation. Yes, there are those that claim if you do not you are somehow not Christian, but they are a small minority. There is no harm in believing God chose to use the evolutionary mechanism to complete His creation. There are those who say if you do not believe this you are not Christian, but they are a small minority. There is however great harm in not believing in God. There is great harm in Christians being short and snippy with each other. There is great harm in the fighting about it. There are a whole lot of really smart and educated Christians fighting about how it happened, and then there are the rest of us little guys who are perfectly content with God created as a matter of faith. Isn’t that the entire point of Christianity anyway? Faith? God created the heavens and the earth. That is really the only point that needs fought over, the how is not nearly so important.

  6. Scott, I had this discussion on saturday with a YEC friend. The discussion whether the world is old or young is a scentific one, not a theological one. The bible, as you point out, only tells us that God ORDERED (made order from chaos) the universe. the “deep” (the ocean) is a regular biblical and ANE symbol for chaos.
    The bible does not tell us the process by which everything happened. Its a theological statement not a scientific one. Yes, the bible says a literal 6 days. There is no other way to interpret it. It is a night and a day, a day. That is the part of the order that God created. It is the framework through which Moses explains why we are here and how we got into this mess.

    I read an interesting anecdote a while back along the lines of Moses dictating to Aaron: Right, so first God.. Hang on, says Aaron, how long will this take?
    Moses: well, quite long..
    Aaron: You realise I have only one scroll right?
    Moses: well took millions of years..
    Aaron: Lets say it took a week, how would you describe it then?

    (also, if I want to be short and snippy, I will. Its my nature)

    1. I am not disagreeing with what you have said here, just questioning why it matters outside of those who are making claims that if you do not believe “their way” you are not Christian. It is a rather fun question for academic conversation I suppose, but in the end it does more harm to the faith than good for it. I do not doubt the faith of Ken Ham, but he hurts the faith overall by how he handles things. I do not know the names of evolutionary Christians who make similar claims outside of my personal experience, so I can not call any of them out here. The whole argument causes immense harm to Christianity as a whole without good reason.

      1. It matters for a few reasons:
        a: because as you say, YEC say you arent a christian or dont believe in the bible if you dont agree. This makes them a cult, and worse, this is not even true, its a lie.
        b: because it does HUGE damage to Christianity to let these people spout these lies without saying something about it.
        c:One of the big problems we have in the church today is that people do not understand their faith adequately.

        We send people to preschool, then primary, and all the way to university to prepare them for “life in the world”. But when they become “like a child” again and have to relearn everything God’s way, we give them a 20 minute sermon from some person who generally is a “pastor” and has very little biblical training and is generally not a teacher. A pastor is someone who helps guide people in their walk. A teacher is someone who educates people in how to understand the bible and gives them the PROPER tools to be able to understand it in all its complexity, for themselves.

        1. i have encountered just as many evolutionary creationists, old earth creationists, etc that say the same things. Most YEC do not say this. Ken Ham’s group does I believe, but he does not represent most of the YEC crowd. The only lie that the YEC crowd spouts is that you must believe ‘their way’ or you are not Christian. Yes, this lie needs to be confronted any and everywhere that it pops up. YEC and those who believe it not at all cult like, and it is incredibly irresponsible to say so. You may as well say that they are not going to get into Heaven and I thought we had established that this was a bad thing…if I am mistaken, I am sorry, but it just seems as if you are taking the opposite extreme as the YEC crowd, and that is just as dangerous and damaging.

          1. I am saying they are wrong..
            And whether the universe was created in 6 days or not has no bearing on anyone salvation, and should never.
            In reality, whether the earth is young or old is a scientific issue, not a theological one. God is equally capable of a 6 day literal young earth creation, or a evolving one, so it matters not. What matters is people lying and misleading people – what did Jesus say about people who led others astray?

            One thing is certain, God’s glory is revealed in creation. A creation, which apparently according to YEC, only “appears” to be old, where creatures only appear to evolve, and where science cant be trusted despite God’s ordering making science possible.

            I think its a pretty serious issue.

Leave a Reply, Please!

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.