Dropping “Hovind lies” into Google™ will bring up a host of sites. However, the one I particularly enjoy is the article on the Creation Ministries International site, Maintaining Creationist Integrity A response to Kent Hovind in which Creationists take Hovind to task for dishonesty. (The “AiG” mentioned throughout the article is the Creationist site, Answers in Genesis where it was originally posted. There has been some sort of political schism within the group and AiG no longer posts the article, although CMI continues to display it.)
Michael Behe, is not quite in the league of Hovind, but even he lied in his book Darwin’s Black Box. (In fact, the thread has now disappeared into the mists of time, but when the former member Phaedrus tried to use Behe’s claim that “evolutionists” were “afraid” to do the research, I turned up a half dozen papers on the topic in question that predated Behe’s book with a simple Google™ search–and that was befoore Google™ added their special papers search tool.)
Regarding the idea that there has been a centures-long plot by “atheists” to use “Evolution” to destroy a belief in God, it is instructive to look at the Talk Origins page on Changing Views of the History of the Earth. Running down the list of people who contributed to a growing realization that the Earth was far older than 6,000 years, (thus providing the time-line that later scientists would need to posit slow, evolutionary transitions in life forms), we note that the following persons were known to be religious (and several others might be supposed to have been religious in that they were never hailed up before various religious courts for their opinions, although I will not insist that they were not closeted secular humanists ):
Simon Stevin
Rene Descartes
Nicholas Steno
Thomas Burnet
John Ray
William Whiston
Comte de Buffon
Jean de Luc
James Hutton
Robert Townson (although he was a Catastrophist, his support was scientific, not biblical)
Baron de Cuvier
William Buckland
(The point not being that they all embraced what science now recognizes as the age of the Earth, but that they each contributed toward the eventually-gained knowledge that the Earth was far older than the Biblical account, even though many of them were deeply religious. Given their participation in the debate, claims that they were all plotting to overthrow religious belief are incredible on the face of it and ridiculous on deeper review.)
As far as Old Earth goes, the best Christian scientific spokesman I’ve run into is Dr. Hugh Ross of Reasons to Believe. He’s an Old Earth Creationist, which is where I stand (tho I concede probably more to Divinely-guided Evolution than he does).
Here’s one to toss the Pastor’s way (not that I have the guts to do this at my church)- the Universe, the Earth & even physical humanity may be quite ancient,
and that the 6,000 year age only applies to Adamic humanity. There’s tons of fun & also potential danger in speculating on that direction.
I have never heard of that interpretation FriarTed. I will use that. I have tried to explain that even among theologians, Genesis is interpreted very differently and there are 5-10 commentaries on it that would all be considered within the definition of “mainstream Christianity”. I have a handful of those commentaries lying around somewhere at home. I’ll have to dig them up.
To add to this, I have been called out by my bible study group. Armed with their new found information from the creation series, we got in to a discussion on origins and not only was my salvation brought into question but I was prayed for…even after I requested that they refrained from doing so.
I should have left the room before this but I was a bit taken aback at the venom they were spewing.
So I am writing a letter to the group and explaining that what they did is wrong and I will not be retuning to the group unless they can acknowledge that they could be wrong and that it doesn’t matter to salvation. Even then, I’m not sure I want to except for the small possibility that this might be a breakthrough. If they can acknowledge the possibility that they are fallible, then we may be able to have better conversations. I’m a sucker for punishment
Truthfully, I wouldn’t recommend getting into 6000 year old Adamic humanity as opposed to a more ancient humanity as it could really blow up. Alas, some proponents of it have taken it to some unfortunate racist conclusions. Just getting
them to concede that Old-Earth Creationism is acceptable may be your best hope.
Did I miss it or did you discuss what church you attend?
If you do write to the small group, I suggest you note what you do believe to be
substantive in Christian faith, so that if they do reject you, they can’t challenge
your stance of main C’tian teachings.
):
