I’m blessed here at Apprising Ministries to have as a friend Dr. John Morris, ((http://www.icr.org/john_morris/, accessed 2-6-13.)) president of the Institute of Creation Research, who also endorses this online apologetics and discernment ministry. ((https://www.apprising.org/endorsements/, accessed 2-6-13.))

Dr. John Morris happens to be the son of the late Dr. Henry Morris, known as “Intellectual Father of ‘Creation Science,'” ((http://wapo.st/KZu33P, accessed 2-6-13.)) and:

received his Doctorate in Geological Engineering at the University of Oklahoma in 1980. He served on the University of Oklahoma faculty before joining the Institute for Creation Research in 1984. Dr. Morris held the position of Professor of Geology before being appointed President in 1996. (source)

You need to understand that Dr. John Morris is every bit the scientist as those who would reject God in favor of evolution. In other words, e.g. he’s educated in issues such dating methods to measure the age of the earth.

In The Illustrated Origins Answer Book, Paul Taylor ((http://www.christiananswers.net/dinosaurs/bio-taylor.html, accessed 2-6-13.)) of the Christian Answers Network points out the huge problem as we approach these crucial issues related to the fairytale for adults we call evolution.

The fact is, the scientific evidence for evolution and/or the age of the earth is nowhere near conclusive and instead can just as easily be interpreted in such a way to prove intelligent design. Hence the need for a Creator.

Then how is it that evolutionary scientists, despite this lack of actual scientific evidence, are able to make it look to the largely uninformed public as though they’ve solved the mysteries of life apart from God? Taylor enlightens us:

There are three common misconceptions about scientists: (a) Scientists are objective, (b) Scientists are unbiased, and (c ) Science is infallible…[but] Scientists are emotional human beings who carry with them a generous subjectivity [this means personal opinion] into the supposedly objective search for the truth.

Here’s an example; longtime professor of Biology at Harvard University, the late Dr. George Wald, winner of the 1967 Nobel Prize for Physiology and Medicine, spoke very candidly on this very subject:

Louis Pasteur experimented with spontaneous generation. When he had finished, nothing remained of the belief in spontaneous generation… The reasonable view was to believe in spontaneous generation; the only alternative, to believe in a single, primary act of a supernatural creation [by God].

There is no third position. For this reason many scientists a century ago chose to regard the belief in spontaneous generation as a “philosophical necessity”… Most modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in [God and] special creation, are left with nothing.

I think a scientist has no choice but to approach the origin of life through a hypothesis of spontaneous generation… One has only to contemplate the magnitude of the task to concede that the spontaneous generation [from non-life to] a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are–as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation. ((George Wald, “The Origin of Life,” Scientific American, Vol. 191, No. 2, August 1954, pp.44-53, emphasis mine.))

Dr. Wald, who was widely known as one of the preeminent scientists of his day, could not have stated the secular humanist’s position of naturalism any clearer. But, there’s no belief in evolution here based on scientific evidence.

Rather, what we can plainly see is that the humanist just doesn’t want to even accept the possibility that God exists. And so, when the scientific evidence for evolution is missing, they simply make a philosophical decision.

The tragic decision to reject God as the Creator of this immense universe of such intricate design and to believe what Wald knew was impossible. As God told us — The fool says in his heart, “There is no God” (Psalm 14:1).

Unfortunately, more and more big names in the evangelical community have come under the spell of science and reject the young earth presented in Scripture when we take the 6 days of creation in Genesis 1 literally.

Space allows but a couple of examples associated with the postmodern New Calvinist camp. In a short video at Desiring God John Piper is answering the question What Should We Teach About Creation? He tells us:

take [John] Sailhamer’s view [in his book Genesis Unbound], which is where I feel at home. His view is that what’s going on here is that all of creation happened to prepare the land for man.

In verse 1, “In the beginning he made the heavens and the earth,” he makes everything. And then you go day by day and he’s preparing the land. He’s not bringing new things into existence; he’s preparing the land and causing things to grow and separating out water and earth. And then, when it’s all set and prepared, he creates and puts man there.

So that has the advantage of saying that the earth is billions of years old if it wants to be—whatever science says it is, it is—but man is young, and he was good and he sinned. He was a real historical person, because Romans 5 says so, and so does the rest of the Bible.

That’s where I am,… (source)

Notice Piper’s capitulation: Whatever science says the age of the earth is, it is. However, science has changed that age many times. Then there’s the video Interviewing Tim Keller from Eric Metaxas this past March 10, 2012.

Metaxas tells us:

At the New Canaan Society retreat a week ago I chatted with NYC Redeemer pastor Tim Keller for an hour in front of 500 close friends.  We talked about his life, about Adam and Eve and evolution, and about Hell.  He’s quite the cut-up! (source)

If you happen to go to watch the interview where it was you get:

(source)

However, you can now find it here. Just after the 20 minute mark in that video we hear the following exchange:

Keller: I’m an old-earth, progressive creationist who believes there really was an Adam and Eve.

Metaxas: A literal Adam and Eve.

Keller: Yes.

Metaxas: Theistic evolution?

Keller: Not quite.

In that video interview Keller goes on to explain that he believes God did intermittently intervene in the processes; so in this way, he differs slightly from theistic evolution. As he said, his view is a progressive creationism.

As such, Keller would hold that God created the earth over millions or billions of years. You may also be aware Tim Keller has been listed at BioLogos as accepting their view:

that both Scripture and modern science reveal God’s truth, and that these truths are not in competition with one another. It accepts the modern scientific consensus on the age of the earth and common ancestry, including the common ancestry of humans. (source)

In fairness, Keller doesn’t seem to be listed at this time. Even so, we do know from the 2012 Metaxas interview that Keller’s current position does still agree with the above. As we saw earlier, so would that of John Piper.

And with all of this in mind then, we come to the fine lecture below from my friend Dr. John Morris of ICR where he begins with the truth:

[N]ow we want to talk about the age of the earth. Creation is what it is. But the Bible says creation occurred, not very long ago. And if we’re going to be biblicists, we’re going to have to stand on that.

And, did you know, there is a great deal of scientific information that supports that clear biblical doctrine that, creation occurred not very long ago. The young earth; creation, not very long ago.

HT: Herescope

Further reading

• TAKING EVOLUTION TO SCHOOL
• KEEPING YOU APPRISED OF: EVOLUTION
• JOHN MACARTHUR: CREATION—BELIEVE IT OR NOT