Posted on 08/01/2013 10:40:10 AM PDT by fishtank
Is Biblical Creation a Distraction to Evangelism? by James J. S. Johnson, J.D., Th.D. *
The Institute for Creation Research and other biblical creation ministries are sometimes criticized as distractions from the ministry of evangelism. The alleged concern is that the promotion of biblical creation as taught in Genesis creates controversy by derailing the evangelism process—distracting people from learning about who Jesus is and trusting Him as their Savior.
Does teaching biblical creation truth interfere with a proper presentation of the Lord Jesus Christ as Savior? Before that question can be squarely answered, consider the context of the controversy. Dr. John Morris addressed this issue:
A student once asked, “In your debates, have you ever known of somebody who was saved as a result of the debate?” My father [Dr. Henry Morris] and Dr. [Duane] Gish had several hundred debates. One time we ran a request in Acts & Facts to respond to a survey regarding the debates. One question was a salvation question. Many people responded, saying it was a very instrumental point in their journey to Christ.1
Some would argue Dr. Morris was alluding to favorable anecdotal evidence—that he offered no realistic allowance for the individuals who were “turned off” from seeking God because they were alienated by creation-versus-evolution polemics. Others might fault his report as being too vague. They might say he failed to provide any meaningful qualification regarding how to teach creation. They may question whether teaching about creation “in the beginning” helps or hurts a seeker’s journey, his ability to learn about God, and his willingness to come into God’s eternal sheepfold through His only begotten Son.
Clarification about who our Creator God is helps us appreciate Jesus and how He can rescue human souls as the uniquely all-sufficient kinsman-redeemer of Adam’s fallen race.
What about the value of rescuing one sheep?
Certainly for the one lost sheep who comes to the Good Shepherd, statistics are irrelevant (John 10:1-16; Luke 15:3-7). That truth fits one classroom example, which began with a Christian student’s desire to show a biblical creation movie in the main auditorium of a North Carolina state university’s law school.2 The university granted permission to show the movie on campus, but the student was inept at using the media equipment provided. Providentially, his best friend and study partner was mechanically adept, and he agreed to run the film projector for the event. Ironically, the technically talented friend was a doubter—unconvinced that the Christian faith was truly reliable. The creation movie was packed with scientific information and analysis, proving how purposefully living creatures and their indispensably necessary submicroscopic components—such as DNA and RNA—are designed and constructed and how they operate.
In the movie, the creation scientist Dr. A. E. Wilder-Smith explained the material and informational importance of chiral molecules (e.g., the left-handed amino acids needed to build the hardware of life), as well as the mind-boggling complexity and details of human chromosomes.3 A moderated and emotionally spirited discussion followed the showing, with audience viewpoints voiced by both evolutionists and creationists, several of whom were faithful ICR supporters.
But, at the end of the evening, the creation movie’s message was not truly over because the helpful student who ran the projector began thinking about how all of his scientific doubts and excuses were resolved. That conclusion was more than academic—it had logical implications, including some big questions such as: What do I do with the Creator who has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that He is God—the Creator whom Dr. Wilder-Smith declared “became my Redeemer” in the Person of Jesus Christ?
After a time of wrestling with pride and receiving more encouragement to believe in Christ, the mechanically gifted student became a thoroughly convinced believer in the Lord Jesus. The creation apologetics movie was helpful in eliminating excuses that were once barriers to saving faith for that former skeptic—through viewing the movie, he was guided toward becoming a fully persuaded sheep.
Does teaching creation help or hinder evangelism?
Individual experiences may be exceptional cases.4 So the question remains: Does teaching biblical creation with an emphasis on “in the beginning” routinely help gospel evangelism?
Yes—teaching about how God created in the beginning helps us introduce the saving gospel of Christ. In fact, objective evidences in the Bible demonstrate that biblical creation truth is one of the underlying theological foundations for evangelizing unbelievers. For example, consider the role model of Paul’s apostolic ministry. Paul began evangelizing Gentiles with an introductory declaration of God as the Creator (Acts 14:15-17; 17:19-34). But there is even a stronger proof of this point in the introduction of John’s gospel, the only book of the Bible that is explicitly written for an evangelistic purpose:
In the beginning. It is significant that the Apostle John began his gospel with the words: “In the beginning.” He obviously intended that his record should start with the same words as Genesis, that is, with creation. Since his explicit purpose in writing was to win his readers to Christ as Son of God and Savior (see John 20:30-31), he realized the foundational importance of prior belief in special creation of all things by God. People need to know Jesus Christ as offended Creator before they can believe with understanding on Him as sin-bearing Savior and Redeemer. A foundation of true creationism as the only meaningful context for true evangelism is thus revealed through John, under divine inspiration.5
John did not “distract” his readers by beginning with creation (John 1:1-3; 1:10-12). Rather, his gospel authoritatively presents the evangelistic gospel message by introducing Jesus as the incarnate Creator God apart from whom nothing was made that was made (John 1:3; see also John 20:30-31). Therefore, biblical creation truth is the proper theological foundation for evangelism—for explaining how Christ became our Messianic Savior whom we should believe in.
God chose to first introduce Himself to us as our Creator—that same Creator God who, as Dr. Wilder-Smith gratefully acknowledged, “became my Redeemer” (Genesis 1:1; John 1:1).2 And that is how we should introduce Him to others. When was the last time you showed or gave away a creation movie such as God of Wonders?6 This can be a very nonthreatening way to witness. DVDs like this help us appreciate the glory of our Creator, and they can help us evangelize lost sheep who need to be brought into the fold.
References
Morris, J. D. The Genesis Flood, Lesson 2, page 30. A transcribed lecture from the Institute of Creation Research’s School of Biblical Apologetics (SOBA). To learn more about ICR’s SOBA (which offers degree programs for M.C.Ed., B.C.Ed., and A.C.Ed.), visit icr.edu/soba. The law school illustration alludes to the use of a biblical creation movie that focuses mostly on explaining creation science rather than providing a gospel presentation. See Wilder-Smith, A. E. 1983. Origins: How the World Came to Be. Origins video series, volume 3. Mesa, AZ: Films for Christ. The movie’s content matches much of what appears in A. E. Wilder-Smith’s book The Natural Sciences Know Nothing of Evolution (Costa Mesa, CA: The Word for Today Publishers, 1981; translated from the original German by Petra Wilder-Smith).
The creation science movie featured Dr. A. E. Wilder-Smith, a European young-earth creationist inventor who earned three doctorates in the overlapping sciences of biology, chemistry, and pharmacology. See Wilder-Smith, A. E. and B. Wilder-Smith. 1998. Fulfilled Journey: The Wilder-Smith Memoirs. Costa Mesa, CA: The Word for Today Publishers.
Exceptional results may illustrate God producing good results from not-so-good circumstances, or even from human misbehavior (Genesis 50:20; Numbers 22-24). See the editorial footnote by Henry M. Morris for John 1:1 in Morris, H. M. 2006. The New Defender’s Study Bible. Nashville, TN: World Publishing, 1563. God of Wonders DVD, available through the ICR online store (icr.org/store).
* Dr. Johnson is Associate Professor of Apologetics and Chief Academic Officer at the Institute for Creation Research.
Cite this article: Johnson, J. J. S. 2013. Is Biblical Creation a Distraction to Evangelism? Acts & Facts. 42 (8): 18-19.
“you mentioned that structures without one part were completely non functional. I showed that you were wrong, without one part, the eye is functional, just not functional as an eye. That means your argument of irreducible complexity is countered.”
You rambled something about the eye evolving from a light-detecting spot, without remarking about how complex even the light-detecting spot is. I didn’t even bring up the eye originally. I brought up how cells attach the P to the ADP. You didn’t tell me what good a half-made light-detecting spot is, or what good a half-made ATP Synthase is, ignoring even the larger process that that particular enzyme is but a part of. And now you’re telling me that you countered something.
“Human point of view: random mutations, purposeful survival.
Divine point of view: Foreseen mutations, foreseen survival.”
Do you propose, then, guided evolution from the divine?
what happens if you reverse the polarity of the gravity field?
Guided evolution would not be something that we could determine. We are unable to get past quantum mechanics.
Whether it is guided or not would not be something that we could determine.
Einstein: “G-d does not play dice.”
Bohr: “Albert! Quit telling G-d what to do?”
Glad you agree that the eye could evolve from a light detecting spot, and that such a spot could be useful, compared to other creatures that did not have such a spot.
“Guided evolution would not be something that we could determine. We are unable to get past quantum mechanics.”
Did you say that just because it sounds fancy? What does quantum mechanics have to do with whether a light detecting spot will spontaneously evolve on the inside of your ass? Do living cells randomly fly apart because of quantum mechanics at any time, at any moment?
Except that all our evidence is that death has existed for millions of years.
Death is the default condition. Life a rare exception, a gift. If you doubt that, I recommend you look up your great great grandparents.
“Glad you agree that the eye could evolve from a light detecting spot, and that such a spot could be useful, compared to other creatures that did not have such a spot.”
I never made any such agreement at all, or any kind of concession at all on the matter. But, in the same spirit, glad to see that you concede to all my points.
“Except that all our evidence is that death has existed for millions of years.”
But, judging from your responses so far, I think your “evidences” are merely assumptions and various assertions that break down when examined under closer detail.
Yes, quantum mechanics predicts that random things happen.
Light is a wave, or a particle, depending on what kind of experiment you perform.
Schrodinger’s cat is either in the box or not in the box, and you don’t know until you look. when you look, it collapses from the state of it being unknown to either being there, or not being there. Until you look you don’t know.
Fossils are found in layers when drilling for oil. The older fossils are at the bottom. The older fossils died, just as the younger ones. The pattern is repeatable every time you drill into that kind of substrate.
So is the prehistoric oil alive, or was it alive until Adam sinned, and after that it died?
“So is the prehistoric oil alive, or was it alive until Adam sinned, and after that it died?”
There have been industrial successes in even converting waste into usable oil within 2-3 days, nor does even the non-artificial processes within the Earth require ages of time to do so.
For example, on the “recent origin of Bass Strait oil and gas”:
“When endeavouring to correlate their vitrinite reflectance and geothermal gradient measurements from the various exploration wells, Shibaoka et al.5 found that the best explanation of differences was disequilibrium caused by recent rapid subsidence of the sediments. However, this disequilibrium not only indicates a recent rapid event, but an incomplete one. Thus, since the sediments are still subsiding, new exinite and vitrinite in the sediments are constantly being carried down into the oil and gas generating zones. As a result Shibaoka et al.5 concluded that ‘hydrocarbon generation must be occurring strongly at the present time with the products migrating relatively rapidly either into traps or to the surface.’ This conclusion is consistent with the facts that (a) the hydrocarbon traps under Bass Strait were full when discovered, and (b) most of the oil in the reservoirs was low in sulphur5 indicating it has not been extensively altered by bacterial or other processes.
The above evidence alone indicates recent rapid burial of the coal-bearing sediments followed by rapid generation of hydrocarbons and very rapid migration of oil and gas into traps. This is clearly contrary to the popular concepts of slowly forming coal bearing sediments and oil formations.”
http://creation.com/the-recent-origin-of-bass-strait-oil-and-gas
“Yes, quantum mechanics predicts that random things happen.”
Sorry, but I’ve never heard of a cell flying apart due to quantum forces. Therefore, I don’t really understand what that has to do with the evolutionary argument.
You wouldn’t hear of it unless there were performed many many experiments designed to detect it. Such is the nature of Quantum Mechanics.
10 E14 experiments anyone? I guess I should submit a grant application!
Good points all GPH - they are also discussed here - See items 12 thru 19 of my original post in #9 of this thread for
101 Evidences for a Young Age of the Earth...And the Universe
Also donmeaker, human DNA is approx 3 billion coded sequences of A, C, T, & G - the number of intelligent [not random] changes required to go from any one life form to any other are astronomical. More molecules [10 to the 40th power] exist in the entire universe than all the time required for anything to macro-evolve at the present observed rates of change. Billions no, not even trillions of years are simply not enough time - evolution is a major facical hoax...
Even Darwin himself claimed if one does not find thousands upon thousands of transitional fossils in the gelogic record then his theory completely falls apart.
Certainly the transitional fossils have been found, as Darwin predicted.
There have been found over 10 homids alone.
Mutation doesn’t occur by molecule, but rather by gene. Further, proteins can be applied to new functions with no change.
By contrast, creationism predicted NO fossils of creatures now extinct, as G-d said “It is good”.
So the fact that water can be created now by oxidation of Hydrogen means that there was no prehistoric water, by your logic.
Right. Sure. Uh-huh.
If you want to assert there was no prehistoric water, then you have to come up with a reason why carbon 14 dating works and doesn’t work. It works on historic artifacts, but you must come up with a reason why it wouldn’t work on prehistoric artifacts.
And then you have to come up with a reason why it aligns so well with other dating methods.
Now I would not, by choice argue with Christians. I find them good people. I would just assert that those who dissent from evolution should have their (odd) beliefs respected, which would mean denying them vaccinations and antibiotics, just as Jehovah’s Witnesses should be denied blood transfusions.
After all, sudden death from minor disease or injury is no big deal right?
LOL.
“forward by Ken Ham!”
Embarrassing.
As Paul Harvey often pointed out - you need to hear “the rest of the story”...
Thousands upon thousands of transitional fossils - 10 hominoids [homids sp?] - really?! Every evolutionary claimed transitional fossil has 1 major problem in that they are fully formed lifeforms - meaning they are not transitional.
Creation has not [nor the Bible for that matter] made any predictions per say but certainly all or the vast majority of creation models recognize that almost all of the fossil record was laid down with Noah’s Flood.
Here is an eye-opening site if you care to read the strongest opposing viewpoints against evolution [part I] and the best hypothesy for creation - the hydroplate theory [part II] - if you care to listen to the rest of the story...
Center for Scientific Creation - In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/IntheBeginningTOC.html
Also re: the site above Dr Walt Brown PhD does supply a list of 40 or so predictions for his hydroplate theory and yes some have already been confirmed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.