Looks like you are using an old version of Internet Explorer - Please update your browser
I doubt it was intentional, but in what might be called unfortunate video editing, I’m shown in the newscast directly after remarks made by the reporter (who covered our Creation Museum ’s opening in 2007 in a fair way) that Dr. Waltke had been “labeled a heretic, and called ‘anti-Christian’.” I certainly did not say such things (or even imply them) during my interview. In fact (and while it did not appear on TV), I mentioned Dr. Waltke’s high scholarship and stated that I did not question his walk with the Lord. I did say that I believed his teachings on Genesis undermined the authority of God's Word, and that was the clip used on the news program.
(By the way, in a web article we posted on Thursday, we indicated that it was sad to see “a brother in the Lord” lose his job over this controversy, and so we have not questioned his Christian faith.)
We want to make sure that nobody will connect my comments to the unfortunate charges made by others against Dr. Waltke.
Now it is true the those scientists who believe in evolution discuss and research such things as natural selection, speciation, mutations, genetics, and so on—but such things involve observational science that all scientists (including evolutionists and creationists) can deal with. However, when evolutionists use what they observe in the present (such as speciation) to extrapolate these observations in an attempt to explain molecules to man evolution, they are in the realm of belief.
And let’s face it—what does the belief aspect of evolution contribute to real observational science? How does molecules to man evolution help an engineer build a building or a bridge? How does it help a biologist understand the physiology of a plant? In what way does molecules to man evolution have anything to do with any of our technology? Nothing! Could we build our technology today if no one believed in evolution? Yes we could. Actually, and as our astrophysicist Dr. Jason Lisle often writes (see The Ultimate Proof of Creation), empirical science that built our technology came out of a Christian basis—an understanding of a Creator God, Who is the same yesterday, today, and forever—a Creator God who is responsible for the laws of nature and the laws of logic and the uniformity of nature.
In this regard, Dr. Lisle wrote to me today that “only in the Christian worldview does science make sense: God upholds the universe in a consistent way for our benefit, and in a way that can be studied by the human mind. Science is essentially the study of the consistent, predictable way that God governs His creation. However, science would not make sense in a chance universe. How could we depend upon the uniform behavior of laws of nature—why would there even be laws of nature apart from the biblical God? Why would we think that the behavior of the universe could even be understood by the human mind? Predictability, the heart of science, would be impossible apart from the Lord's promise to uphold the future as He has the past (e.g., Genesis 8:22).”
Of course, I find ardent evolutionists claim that we would not be able to study and understand the AIDs virus, or antibiotic resistance without understanding molecules to man evolution. But this is sheer nonsense. Creationists work with antibiotic resistance and the like, just as evolutionists do, because the research involves what one can observe and test. We have a number of articles on our website dealing with such topics.
In fact, molecules to man evolution is detrimental to scientific research and technology because it wastes so much time and money—and because it is the wrong premise to start with, scientists will be looking at the world through the wrong “glasses” (e.g., that naturalism explains everything and design is only apparent, etc.), and will never make the advancements they could if they had on the correct biblical “glasses.” Molecules to man evolution is nothing more than a belief system to try to explain how the universe and life arose by natural processes.
Dr. David Menton, one of AiG’s researchers and speakers (who has a PhD in Cell Biology from Brown University and taught anatomy at one of America’s leading medical colleges) tells us that Darwinian evolution did nothing to help any of his students become doctors. As he relates, professors would briefly teach evolution, but then go on and teach real medical science that ultimately had zero to do with believing in evolution.
That a man like Dr. Waltke would tell Christians that they should be open to believing such a system (that is nothing more than man’s attempt to “suppress the truth in unrighteousness”) is a sad day for the Christian Church. But it is no different now than in the times of the Israelites when the shepherds (the supposed spiritual leaders) similarly compromised God’s Word with pagan beliefs and led the people astray. It is a shame that a Christian leader of such prominence has gone down this compromise road.
Note: The ABC-TV news segment on Dr. Waltke’s resignation that was originally set to air Thursday evening on World News with Diane Sawyer is now scheduled to be shown tonight (Friday) according to a promotional announcement from ABC; check your local listings for the time World News with Diane Sawyer is broadcast on your local ABC affiliate. I was interviewed by ABC News correspondent Dan Harris for this story, so it’s possible AiG might get mentioned tonight.
If you knew the gift of GodThanks for stopping by and thanks for praying,
(John 4:10) Jesus answered and said unto her, If thou knew the gift of God, and who it is that says to you, Give me to drink; you would have asked of him, and he would have given you living water.
The measure we are impelled to see all the lost saved from hell is determined by how much we fully know in our hearts the Gift of God or who was slain for sins.