Re: Why?

Glenn Morton (
Sun, 12 Apr 1998 13:33:32 -0500

At 01:02 PM 4/12/98, Lloyd Eby wrote:
>To all:
>A simple question: Why do people persist in believing in and arguing for
>things that are so clearly false, namely (1) the young-earth theory and
>(2) the theory that (all, most of -- the particulars of the view are
>unclear to me) the fossils that we find were laid down in Noah's Flood?

In my case, I think it boiled down to a major case of arrogance that I knew
the mind of god. When I was a Young-earth creationist I did it because I
truly believed that:

1. I had interpreted the bible correctly (couldn't even conceive of the
possibility that I hadn't gotten it right)
2. there would be explanations for the difficulties coming in the future. (the
GREAT YETI; I don't have the answers YET I will in the future). This is
based upon the mistaken idea that God will provide the answers we need and
thus God becomes our puppet to serve our goals.
3. and to admit the problems gave me severe theological difficulties which I
was not willing to face.
a. the theological difficulties were that there was no account of the flood
which matched the Biblical account and thus the Bible was
demonstrably in
b. Death before the fall could not be included my theology and thus death
before the fall was not possible if the bible were true. Since the
was God's word evolution was therefore ruled out.
c. Jesus spoke of Noah and was descended from Adam therefore they must be
real people
d. If God couldn't be the creator, then he couldn't be the savior. (I
think about God creating in a fashion I might disapprove of)

4. Everyone around you is saying the very same thing, that the earth is
young. There is an incredible support system among conservative churches
for the young-earth/global flood theory. If everyone around you is saying
the same thing you will tend to fall in line. When I was in high school we
had the "radio" joke. It was not a joke, but a crowd of conspirators would
pull it on unsuspecting people. At the "punchline" which was not funny at
all, everyone would start laughing. About 99% of the time, the unsuspecting
soul would burst out laughing also in spite of the fact that he had no idea
what was funny. The 'joke" was indeed funny when the target laughed really

This support system also extends into the publishing world and here I will
throw some criticism at the old-earth, theistic evolutionists also. There
are two publishing camps in Christendom: the YEC and the 'theistic
evolutionist' press. Among the YECs you can't get published easily if you
advocate a local flood, an old earth or evolution. Among the 'theistic
evolutionist' press it is difficult to get published if one thinks that
there is any history in Genesis. Thus, each side reinforces the notion that
there is no middle ground between the two groups. Then the lack of
published possibilities for a middle ground becomes evidence that there is
none or that anything proposed as a middle ground is worthless. And
young-earther's and/or antievolutionists use this lack to tell their flocks
that it is an all or nothing game. Either their way or the Bible is out the
window. And the 'theistic evolutionist' press plays their part well by
offering flood scenarios which have so little relationship to the Scriptural
description and this falls right into the hands of the young-earther's most
powerful argument that theistic evolution destroys the Bible.

5. But this is the worst item. I tended to disbelieve anything science said
in this area because the Scientist was viewed as holding his beliefs simply
because he wants to reject God. No scientist was viewed as being honest and
indeed this is what lots of Christian apologists from Henry Morris to Duane
Gish to Phillip Johnson tell the flock (short examples provided below). And
if the scientist isn't honest, when he tells you something you don't have to
listen because of 1-3 above and you know he isn't telling you the truth
anyway. Scientists were not honorable people. In this way, anytime someone
presents data contradictory to your viewpoint you can ignore it, patronize
the purveyors of those ideas because they are deluded souls, or simply
reject that it is a fact at all. This presents an incredible shield to any
counterevidence sinking in. This effect is also tied to the trust
Christians have towards other christians, especially apologists who tell
them what they want to hear and tell them that what they want to believe is
absolutely true. Thus when the suspicion of scientists is united with the
trust in a fellow christian (who is honest because he is among the
redeemed), it is really difficult to get anyone to listen to those voices in
the wilderness saying that there are troubles.

This last feature is the most insidious because it allowed me and currently
allows many thousands to live in a totally make believe world where no fact
can possibly impact your theology or your faith. It is self-delusional in
the highest degree and I was captivated by this self-delustion for years.
This also is why today I want facts and nothing but observational facts.
They are the only thing that really have any ability to guide how we
interpret scripture and the relation between God and the universe. Today I
Christians who propound views which require that mankind disbelieve what
they see in this world are doing incredible damage to Christianity by
removing Christianity from a connection with this universe. Ideas that
violate what we see are not really worthy of serious consideration.

Short examples of Apologists denigrating scientists

"The entire scientific community has accepted the great age of the
universe; indeed, it has built all its science upon that
supposition. THey will not give it up without a fight. In fact, they will
never give it up, even if it means compromising their reason or even their
professional integrity, for to admit creation is to admit the existence of
the God of the Bible. This is exactly what the world system will not
do."~Paul Steidl, The Earth, The Stars, and the Bible, (Phillipsburg, New
Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1979), p. 94

"The reason most scientists accept evolution has nothing to do,
primarily with the evidence. The reason that most scientists are
unbelievers, and unbeliving, materialistic men are forced to accept
a materialistic, naturalistic explanation for the origin of all
living things."~Duane Gish, Evolution: The Challenge of the Fossil
Record, (El Cajon: Creation-Life Publishers, 1985), p. 21

"The German biochemist Bruno Muller-Hill tells a memorable
story to illustrate his thesis that 'self-deception plays an
astonishing role in science in spite of all the scientists'
worship of truth':~Phillip E. Johnson, "The Emperor's New Theories," Books
& Culture, March April 1997, p. 11--(Muller-Hill's story is about children
in school some of whom were destined to become scientists. But in the
entire story, not a single child was yet a trained scientist.)

"Since scientists had already made up their minds that 90 million
years was too little time, they dismissed the ocean-salt method as
unreliable."~Paul Steidl, The Earth, The Stars, and the Bible,
(Phillipsburg, New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing
Co., 1979), p. 23

"Making evolution one
of the 'Big Ideas' of science could only be proposed by
philosophically biased scientists who have decided they want their
viewpoint to dominate, not because it has any value in science
education or proof in empirical science."~Richard B. Bliss "Science
Education - Its Methods and Purpose," Impact, April, 1989, p. iii.

"I am not here concerned with objections to my criticism of
the alleged chronological order of the fossils. My previous larger
treatise on this subject has not been answered. It will not be
answered. But it has been ignored, and probably will still be
ignored, because very few even among men of science have the
patience to follow carefully a completely new line of argument
based on unfamiliar facts."~George McCready Price, The Geological
Ages Hoax (New York: Fleming H. Revell, 1931), p. 93

"The presently accepted system of historical geology is basically
nothing else than a philosophy or a religion of evolutionary
uniformitarianism. This will become more evident as we consider
the true nature of physical processes studied by scientists in
general and geologists in particular."~Henry M. Morris, Biblical
Basis for Modern Science, (Grand Rapids: Baker Bookhouse, 1984), p.

GRM again, Why would anyone want to listen to a bunch of biased, ignorant,
decepitive scientists like those described above? So when a scientist
disagrees with creationism, he is working out of his biased, ignorant,
deceptive nature, not from honesty!!!


Adam, Apes, and Anthropology: Finding the Soul of Fossil Man


Foundation, Fall and Flood