From: email@example.com (James G. Acker)
I must preface this by saying that as of now I cannot
reply directly via posting -- which may be repaired soon. But
I had to state my own position: or rather, the Bible's position.
I wish more fundamentalists would read it, rather than having it
preached to them.
Verses to ponder:
Romans 1:20 (NIV)
"For since the creation of the world God's invisible
qualities -- his eternal power and divine nature -- have
been clearly seen, being _understood_ from what has been
made, so that men are without excuse."
My interpretation/relevance to t.o.: Reaching
understanding from "what has been made" implies that by
looking at/researching/comprehending God's creation, we gain
a sense of God's "invisible" qualities. Is there a
contradiction between "invisible" and "clearly seen"? Not
if the clear sight lies within ourselves, i.e.
comprehension. The physical laws we can formulate may
indicate (to those with faith) a divine hand.
I Timothy 4:1-2
"The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will
abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things
taught by demons. Such teachings come through hypocritical
liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot
Sounds like the ICR to me. See below.
And of course, Hebrews 11: 1-3.
"Now FAITH is being sure of what we hope for and
CERTAIN of what we do not see. This is what the ancients
were commended for.
By FAITH we UNDERSTAND that the universe was formed at
God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what
In a nutshell, I can read this statement to boldly say
that *any* aspect of God's hand in creation cannot be proven
by science! ONLY ONLY ONLY "by faith" do we gain
understanding that the universe is God's creation. Not
through any scientific investigation we undertake, or any scientific
evidence we might hope to glean!
Furthermore, in the instance of "miraculous" healings (which has
been raised many times) -- believers are *certain* that God
has acted, even though His action cannot be "proven", for it
is "what we do not see". Through faith. Alone. A certainty that
God has acted is also possible regarding many non-miraculous
healings, as well.
For you Christians out there, fundamentalist or
otherwise, Creationist or otherwise, is this so hard to
Does not the entire Institute of Creation
Research agenda stand as BLASPHEMOUS in light of these
verses -- for it is clear that in seeking "evidence" of
God's hand in creation, they are NOT certain of that which
they cannot see?
And for those others who claim that they can meet and
commune with God through the course of an ecstatic
experience, that too stands in contradiction of these
verses. For you are not SURE of what you hope for, and thus
need a constant repetition of a mantra which supposedly
represents God to put yourself in a state of hypnotic
servitude and conviction. Which isn't necessary for a
Christian. Convince yourself _once_, and have faith.
And you'll be certain of God's hand in creation -- even
though it has never been, cannot be, and will never be
"You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the
demons believe that -- and shudder."
(I thought of this verse while watching "Leap of Faith".)
This too: 2 Peter 2:1-3
"But there were also false prophets among the people,
just as there will be false teachers among you. They will
secretly introduce _destructive heresies_, even denying the
sovereign Lord who brought them -- bringing swift
destruction on themselves. Many will follow their shameful
ways _and will bring the way of truth into disrepute_. In
their greed these teachers will exploit you with _stories
they have made up_. Their condemnation has long been
hanging over them, and their destruction has not been
I would relish the chance to go to an ICR presentation
and throw this set of verses in their teeth. For all that
the ICR does is make up stories. Which, as many have noted,
clearly brings "the way of truth into disrepute." Davis
Young, a Christian geologist who frequently refutes the ICR
twaddle, has said so more eloquently, and I bow to his
My own opinions -- not CWACK or anybody else.
DR. James Acker (FYI -- not that I care about the title,
except for the misinformed)