Throughout history, human beings have had the tendency to reject their Creator, and replace Him in their lives with gods of their own making. From the Greek and Roman pantheons, to the Egyptian sun-god, people would rather worship a god that they create than the God who created them. Such false gods always have the following characteristics. (1) They are attributed one or more characteristics or powers that belong only to the Living God, especially a power over some aspect of nature. (2) They are given allegiance, worship, or reverence above God in at least some way. (3) They are created either physically or conceptually by man. (4) They are not the Living God, the Creator of all things.
In our modern “educated” world, people often look back at the silliness of the Greek, Roman, or Babylonian gods, as if we are far too sophisticated for such primitive nonsense. But that just isn’t the case. There are many false gods in our modern world; entities that are revered by people above God, and attributed powers that they cannot literally possess. Whether it is the worship of concepts like nature, or power, or physical entities like money, such things should not be respected above God, and they cannot do what God alone can do.
But one false god stands out among others today; this god is worshipped and reverenced as the ultimate god of our culture. Many books have been written about him, and dedicated to him. He is the foundation of most modern philosophy and education. What is the ultimate false god of our age? Is it Evolution? No, Evolution is certainly a popular god. But many people doubt Evolution. And in any case, Evolution answers to a higher god – a god who is far more popular and powerful than Evolution: the god Deep Time.
Deep Time is the concept of vast ages of pre-history: the notion that the Earth and universe are billions of years old. It is a popular belief today, and is considered by many people to be the mainstream “scientific” position. Disciples of Deep Time would probably object to the notion that he is a god, or that he is even a person at all. They might say that Deep Time is an academic concept, the conclusion of scientific reasoning – not a person with power. However, by their actions, Deep Time disciples do indeed imbue him with personal characteristics and powers that only a conscious being can possess. Students of logic will recognize this as a reification fallacy. Nonetheless, for this article, we shall honor their beliefs and refer to their god as their actions suggest that we should. Deep Time, as he is commonly followed today, does indeed fit the characteristics of a false god.
Consider (1) Deep Time has characteristics and powers that belong to God alone. In fact, the parallels are truly amazing! For example, Deep Time has the power of creation. According to His followers, he has made stars, planets, and galaxies. He has made canyons, and mountains. Deep Time separated the continents and oceans. He has made all living creatures through his servant – Evolution. Indeed, Deep Time took the elements of this world, and from that dust he made man. These are all powers and actions that are rightly reserved for God alone (Nehemiah 9:6, Psalm 33:6, Job 38:4, Psalm 104:5-8, Genesis 1:9-10, Genesis 1:20-25, Genesis 2:7).
But it doesn’t end there. Deep Time is also said to have tremendous power to direct the course of events in the universe. Deep Time creates and destroys species and civilizations at a whim. He gives life and takes it away. He continually shapes the earth as he sees fit – changing deserts to lush gardens, and gardens to deserts. Deep Time existed long before man, and will continue long after man, or so we are told. Again, these are characteristics that are rightly attributed only to God (Acts 17:26, Job 42:2, Isaiah 46:10, Isaiah 45:7, Amos 3:6, Acts 17:25, 1 Timothy 6:13, Job 1:21, Isaiah 51:3, 43:19-20, Genesis 13:10, Deuteronomy 29:23, Genesis 17:1, Deuteronomy 33:27, Isaiah 43:10, Revelation 22:13).
But according to his disciples, nothing is too difficult for Deep Time! He is able to do any miracle! Consider this famous quote from Dr. George Wald, “Time is the hero of the plot. … Given so much time, the impossible becomes possible, the possible becomes probable, the probable becomes virtually certain. One only has to wait; time itself performs the miracles.” Yes, the gradual evolution of dust into people may seem impossible. But with Deep Time, all things are possible! He is the “hero of the plot!” Compare this with the characteristics associated with the biblical God (Matthew 19:26, Jeremiah 32:17).
(2) Disciples of Deep Time worship him with reverence and awe. They may deny this with their words, but their actions indicate that they do cherish this god above all others. This makes sense: if indeed Deep Time does have the powers and abilities that his disciples attribute to him, then he should be worshiped. Such worship takes place in the schools and universities, where Deep Time’s wonderful works are praised all the day long.
The worship of Deep Time is found in many a science textbook too. Sandwiched in between the discussions of science will be stories about the amazing feats of Deep Time. A little science here, and an amazing story there. Although Deep Time has nothing to do with science, often the science and the stories are interleaved such that it can be difficult to tell where one begins and the other ends! The mixture makes for an entertaining, though deceptive read.
Devotees take their religion very seriously. Deep Time must not be questioned. That would be sacrilege! Those who fail to worship at the altar of Deep Time are ridiculed, and face being expelled from the classroom. Textbooks that fail to acknowledge the supreme lordship of Deep Time are not likely to be used, or even published. Those who wish to work as professors must swear allegiance to Deep Time and His servant Evolution if they want to be hired.
(3) Deep Time is manmade. The concept of vast ages of prehistory is not something that has been revealed to us by the Living God, nor recorded by the history books of men. Rather, it is an invention of man to account for the characteristics of our present world without invoking biblical history. The modern version of Deep Time can be traced back to James Hutton – a medical doctor who lived in the 18th century. His ideas were further popularized by Charles Lyell in the early 19th century. However, this is merely a re-imagining of a much older idea. A number of ancient cultures believed that the Earth was significantly older than the biblical timescale.
(4) Deep Time is not the Living God. Nor is Deep Time an aspect of God, a creation of God, or an ally of God. Deep Time exists only as a concept, created by the mind of men. He has no literal existence. Although his disciples ascribe to him many of the characteristics of the biblical God, it is clear that Deep Time is fundamentally different than the God of the Bible.
The biblical God is love (1 John 4:8). The biblical God is righteous, just, and merciful. He made a perfect world with no pain or death, a world that was corrupted by Adam’s sinful actions. God punishes evil, as any good judge will do. However, God is so full of love and mercy, that He has extended forgiveness to all who will trust in Him. He has paid the penalty for their treason by dying on a cross in their place, and will undo the curse of death by resurrecting everyone.
But Deep Time is a cruel, uncaring creator. He creates billions of organisms, only to slaughter them off at a whim. He does not care about justice or love, and is merciless and arbitrary in his judgments. He creates using death and pain, and does not listen to the cries of anguish of his creations. He punishes the innocent along with the guilty, and rewards evil and good alike. There is no forgiveness or mercy to be found in Deep Time – only the certainty of death.
This last characteristic deserves special attention. For the biblical God, death is an enemy that was introduced by Adam’s sin: an enemy that God Himself will destroy (1 Corinthians 15:21, 25-26). But death is Deep Time’s ally and servant. Evolution works through death. Progress is made incrementally by the slaughtering of billions of creatures, so that one may gain a slight improvement. What a sadistic and inefficient process that Deep Time has chosen! I can only say that I’m grateful to the Living God that Deep Time doesn’t actually exist. What a horrible god he would be!
Since Deep Time is so contrary in nature and actions to the God of Scripture, it is disappointing that many Christians attempt to honor and serve both of them. There are those who teach that God used Deep Time to create the universe, in stark contrast to God’s own revelation of creation. They claim that God used billions of years of death and suffering to get the world to be the way He wanted it (apparently unaware that death is an enemy of God, and one that was introduced as a punishment for Adam’s sin.) It’s not that modern Christians want to give up the True God. Rather, they simply want to add another god, one who is contrary in nature and actions to the Living God. Unfortunately, this type of syncretism has been a common failing in God’s people.
Consider the Israelites. Their main struggle was not with giving up God completely, but with adding other gods. They wanted to merge their beliefs with the pagan practices of the day, and worshiped and served the gods of Canaan. This was totally inappropriate, not only because the Canaanite gods are fictitious inventions of the mind, but because God alone deserves our worship and does not tolerate idolatry. In the First Commandment, God states that “You shall have no other gods before Me.” The phrase translated “before Me” has the meaning of “in my presence.” Scripture is clear: God alone is to be worshiped as God (e.g. Matthew 4:9-10).
Remember reading of Baal? Baal was the Canaanite god of weather and thunder. The Israelites often fell into Baal worship, in violation of the First Commandment. Elijah pointed out their absurd inconsistency in 1 Kings 18:21, “How long will you hesitate between two opinions? If the LORD is God, follow Him; but if Baal, follow him.” It was illogical for the Israelites to attempt to serve two contrary gods (and immoral). Are we any different today when we try to add other gods to Christianity?
No man can serve two masters (Matthew 6:24). Those Christians who want to believe in Deep Time along with the biblical God are being dreadfully inconsistent. They may claim that they serve the Lord alone, but by their actions they reveal that Deep Time is their primary god, and the Lord is secondary. We can tell this by the way they handle Scripture. For the Deep-Time-Christian, all Scripture is interpreted in light of the dictates of Deep Time. Thus, Deep Time is primary, and the Scriptures are secondary. Indeed, if the Scriptures were primary, then the individual would have to reject Deep Time as a false god (Exodus 20:3, Isaiah 45:5-6) and fictitious concept (Exodus 20:11)
It can be discouraging to see so many Christians attempting to serve the pagan god Deep Time. It often feels like the Christians who truly stand on God’s Word are so very few. But we should remember that Elijah was discouraged as well. In a time when he was afraid for his life, and thinking that he was the last faithful believer he cried out to God (1 Kings 19:14). But the Lord responded, “Yet I will leave 7,000 in Israel, all the knees that have not bowed to Baal and every mouth that has not kissed him.” (1 Kings 19:18). Think of this the next time you are discouraged about the rampant compromise within the Church. How many more Christians has the Lord kept for Himself who have not bowed the knee to Deep Time?
Excellent job! This really speaks to a term I heard a few months ago; the atheistic trinity. The atheists’ triune god is matter, time, and chance.
‘The atheists’ triune god is matter, time, and chance.’
Also commonly personified as Father Time, Mother Nature, and Lady Luck. And they say they aren’t religious!
That is a very good analysis of worshipping idols and the foolishness thereof. Todays Gods are better known as mans Ideas= Ideology=Idols= Imagination=Image, all start with the big “I”. Man is himself considered the greatest and only God. I enjoyed watching “God of Wonders” in which Dr. Lisle, Dr. Whitcomb, and several others make excellent points to our awesome Creators power, will, and Love all which are clearly visible through Creation and finally ending at the cross of our Lord Jesus.
Very well written Dr Lisle!
I hadn’t ever thought of time being a god from an evolutionary perspective, but it really makes sense!
I wanted to ask your thoughts on the film The Star of Bethlehem by Rick Larson. Have you looked into his findings? I’ve come to admire your opinions would appreciate any comments. I couldnt find anyother way to contact you.
I wouldn’t recommend that video. He makes a number of mistakes in the science, and his “solution” isn’t ultimately consistent with the biblical text, in my opinion. I have no doubt that he is sincere. But I believe he is mistaken. Thanks for asking.
Can you give me a hint as to your caution concerning this video? Is it his timeline of Herrod’s death or the astronomy portion that involves the mistakes? Do you have any place to point me for a good critique of this work? Thanks – sorry for hijacking your topic.
It’s mainly the astronomy, and the strained interpretation he places on Matthew 2:9. It’s just not true to the text. Here is a more detailed critique:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v5/n1/star-of-bethlehem-dvd
Wunderbar! So far, this is the second satirical article I’ve read by Dr. Lisle, and they’re both great (although I still like “On the Origin of Articles” better).
Now watch; it’ll only be a matter of time (possiby “deep time”) before Niel Yoder posts something to ridicule this as “sweeping rhetoric” or a gross misrepresentation, and then go on to prove Dr. Lisle’s point.
Neil, not Niel.
Hmm…like NIELS Bohr maybe? ;<) (Usually they get it as Neal)I’m still awaiting my response to “Josef” on the Endangered Species article…..and maybe some of Dr Lisle’s lengthy comments there as well….
If Dr. Lisle isn’t already working on a response to your last Endangered Species post, I’ll be getting to that soon (possibly in the next day or so). Sorry we didn’t get to it earlier; it probably got lost under all the other “recent posts”.
Sure, no problem………..by “we” you are referring to Creation Research (ICR) staff or affiliates w/ Dr Lisle I presume?? ;<)
“We” as in me, Dr. Lisle, Jacob Howard, Nick L., and such. As far as I can tell, Dr. Lisle is the only one of “us” that is directly affiliated with ICR.
Great piece! It’s so true—dogma of sort can be found in other “scientific” circles as well (fields not concerned with origins, such as health care), but Deep Time has to take the cake as being daddy of them all if God Himself is not to be recognized as creator of the universe.
It doesn’t make sense to think that time itself “does” anything, but nonsense is the only alternative to sense, which is sustained in God according the His word (I just finished “Ultimate Proof of Creation”, and just received “Discerning Truth” in the mail as well—I look forward to reading it.)
I mentioned this before, but it seems to me that the idea of deep time fails as soon as you acknowledge that the universe has any age *at all*, since many (if not all) proponents slyly conflate “deep time” with the idea of infinitude (time extending eternity past), which is something the universe doesn’t have the luxury of in light of biblical history or man’s recent idea of billion years.
Too bad I can’t edit my comment!
Just wanted to add, I believe you alluded to the implied (and inconsistent) idea of infinitude when you quoted Dr. George Wald. Even if time limits were taken out of the way (for the sake of argument), there’s no way anyone claiming science could claim to know, because we can’t do experiments on the past, or go back and look ourselves. All we can do is 1) take God’s word, or 2) come up with our own nearsighted conjectures.
Dr. Lisle,
Your post really only applies to pure naturalism and not Old-earth creationism.
1 Corinthians 15 deals with human physical death. As far as the “last enemy” being death, again this is only death of humans. Look at the context of 1 Cor. 15:21-26, 51-57; 2 Tim. 1:10; Rev. 20:4-6, 13-14, 21:3-4. These all deal with the fact that human death is defeated when we receive our resurrected bodies. There is nothing in the Bible which says that animals did not die until Adam sinned. In fact, carnivorous activity is from God and declared good (Ps. 104:21-28).
Psalm 140:27 “They all wait for Thee, To give them their food in due season.
28 Thou dost give to them, they gather it up; Thou dost open Thy hand, they are satisfied with good.”
During creation, God killed them off and replaced them:
Psalm 104:29 “Thou dost hide Thy face, they are dismayed; Thou dost take away their spirit, they expire, And return to their dust.
30 Thou dost send forth Thy Spirit, they are created; And Thou dost renew the face of the ground.”
The Bible never says that this creation was perfect, in the way young-earthers seem to teach it. There will be a perfect creation in the future (2 Peter 3:13; Rev. 21:1-2, 27).
Unlike what you have stated, pain was multiplied/increased in Genesis 3:16, so it had already existed before the fall. The same word form multiply (rabah) is used for the already existing animals (Gen. 1:22) and the already existing humans (Gen. 1:28).
The earth was not cursed, the land of Eden was (Gen. 3:17). Adam was kick out of the garden, not Eden. Later, Cain left Eden, but Adam remained and worked that land. That is the context. Romans 8 is about how we as sinners effect creation around us. Notice, that creation’s cure (Romans 8:21) is same as ours (Romans 8:23), our completed adoption at the resurrection. At that time we will no longer sin and we will rule over earth as God intended, during Jesus’ earthly reign. So, Romans 8 is not dealing with Gen. 3.
Hi Kenny,
>Your post really only applies to pure naturalism and not Old-earth creationism.
Actually, it must apply to old-earth creationism, and cannot apply to naturalism. Naturalism rejects the biblical God, whereas old-earth creationism essentially adds another “god.” That was the point.
>1 Corinthians 15 deals with human physical death. As far as the “last enemy” being death, again this is only death of humans. Look at the context of 1 Cor. 15:21-26, 51-57; 2 Tim. 1:10; Rev. 20:4-6, 13-14, 21:3-4.
The Bible teaches nothing so restrictive; none of the passage you listed even hint that death is normal for the animal world but was introduced only to humanity. The Bible is written for human beings, and so it concentrates primarily on God’s relationship to humanity. But that doesn’t mean that God doesn’t care about animals too. He does, though not to the same extent as people of course (Luke 12:6-7).
The Bible teaches that when God saw everything that He had made, it was “very good.” To think that the world was full of (animal) death and suffering, and that God looked upon such suffering and pronounced it “very good” is to make God into a cruel ogre. A god who delights in torturing his creations is not much of a god, and certainly is not the biblical God.
> These all deal with the fact that human death is defeated when we receive our resurrected bodies.
Yes. It’s not clear why you think that these somehow suggest that animal death is good and normal. Although the focus is primarily on human death, the text does not restrict it to such. It’s not just humanity that will be restored in the resurrection, but the world as well (Acts 3:21). God makes ALL THINGS new (Revelation 21:5)
> There is nothing in the Bible which says that animals did not die until Adam sinned.
Since the focus of Scripture is humanity, we wouldn’t necessarily expect the text to be as explicit when it comes to animals. Nonetheless, if we read the Bible in context and allow Scripture to interpret Scripture without imposing outside philosophies which are foreign to the text, then we can come to no other conclusion than the fact that animal death began with the curse.
Remember, Genesis 1:31 teaches that God saw that everything He had made was “very good.” So of course the world would not have pain and suffering, cancer and other diseases at that time. When were such things introduced? Romans 8:18-22 indicates that the corruption due to man’s sin extends to all the created world.
God instituted animal death at the time of the fall of man. When Adam sinned, what did God do? He provided skins of clothing. Those would be animal skins. So God sacrificed an animal or animals to cover the shame of Adam and Eve – a picture of the ultimate Sacrifice to come. Death was introduced into the world as the right punishment for Adam’s sin.
> In fact, carnivorous activity is from God and declared good (Ps. 104:21-28).
> Psalm 140:27 [sic] “They all wait for Thee, To give them their food in due season.
28 Thou dost give to them, they gather it up; Thou dost open Thy hand, they are satisfied with good.”
It sounds like you’ve been reading Ross, who loves to take the Psalms out of context in order to rewrite Genesis. Psalm 104 discusses God’s providence in today’s cursed, fallen world. It is not referring to the original creation, as should be obvious from the fact that it was written thousands of years later, and refers to ships in the sea (verse 26) and the country of Lebanon (verse 16), which obviously did not exist until long after creation.
The Bible is explicit that all living animals were vegetarian before the fall. Speaking to Adam and Eve in Genesis 1:28-29, ‘Then God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you; and to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the sky and to every thing that moves on the earth which has life, I have given every green plant for food”; and it was so.
Notice that EVERY beast of the earth and indeed EVERY living thing that moves on the earth was to eat plants originally. Only after the flood does God give human beings His blessing to eat meat (Genesis 9:3). The Scriptures don’t say when God gave animals permission to eat meat. (Again, the Scriptures focus primarily on humanity). But it obviously would have been sometime after Adam’s sin.
> During creation, God killed them off and replaced them:
Deep Time is a cruel creator indeed! He creates billions of organisms only to slaughter them off mercilessly. I’m so glad I serve the biblical God instead. The biblical God is Love (1 John 4:8)
> Psalm 104:29 “Thou dost hide Thy face, they are dismayed; Thou dost take away their spirit, they expire, And return to their dust.
30 Thou dost send forth Thy Spirit, they are created; And Thou dost renew the face of the ground.”
Psalm 104 rehearses God’s providence in today’s fallen world. The verses you cited refer to the cycle of life and death that exists today – not the “very good” world that was originally created. This should be obvious: (1) the Psalms were written thousands of years after creation and are not historical accounts, but rather songs of praise to God. They may have occasional allusions to the creation week, but this doesn’t make them “accounts” like Genesis. (2) The Psalms are poetic in nature and should never be treated as historical narrative, particularly when such a view would conflict with the straightforward history of the Bible recorded in the narrative sections. (3) Psalm 104 is about God’s providence in today’s world. This is obvious since it talks about ships, Lebanon, carnivorous activity, and death – all things that we know Scripturally would not have existed before the fall. (4) Passing allusions to creation do not make a creation account. If I said, “look at the moon tonight which God has made” this is not a creation account. It describes the present world, and mentions that God has made it.
> The Bible never says that this creation was perfect, in the way young-earthers seem to teach it.
God Himself called the original world “very good” – “exceedingly good” is an even more accurate translation. Actually, the Bible teaches that everything God does is perfect (Deuteronomy 32:4) – without blemish or defect. Thus, when we put our confidence in Scripture, we must conclude that when God says the world was originally exceedingly good, it must have indeed been so. It would therefore not contain the things that by God’s standards are bad – such as sickness, pain, bloodshed, or death. Indeed, Jesus healed the sick, and resurrected the dead. This wouldn’t make sense if such things were considered “good” by God.
The notion that God would make an imperfect world is fundamentally irrational. If the original world were not perfect, then it would have been flawed in some way – by definition. If the world were flawed in some way, then who would be responsible for such a flaw? It cannot be man, who had not yet sinned. The blame would lie with God. Any imperfection in the original creation would have been God’s fault. But God has no faults.
The original world was perfect because God is perfect, and thus everything He does is necessarily perfect. God makes no mistakes at all; thus, it is impossible for the original creation to have been anything less than absolute perfection. Anything less is contrary to the nature of God. He gave man the power of choice, and man chose to rebel against God. At that point the world was no longer perfect. One would have to be strongly motivated by an unbiblical philosophy to miss this crucial biblical teaching.
> There will be a perfect creation in the future (2 Peter 3:13; Rev. 21:1-2, 27).
Actually, these verses don’t really say that the future creation will be “perfect.” Don’t get me wrong; I trust that the eternal state will indeed be perfect, but not from these verses. Rather, it is because of the character of God as revealed in the Scriptures. God is perfect, and so anything He makes will be perfect. I trust that the eternal state will be perfect because whatever God does is perfect, and there will be no sin to corrupt such perfection. For the same biblical reasons, I trust that the world was perfect before sin.
Revelation 22:3 states that there will be no more curse. Since the curse which was brought about by man’s sin is what caused the original world to be no longer perfect, it stands to reason that once the curse is removed, the world will be perfect again. According to Revelation 21:4, all the things we associate with the curse will be removed in the eternal state – including death.
The point is this: if you don’t believe that the original world that God created was perfect, then you have absolutely no logical reason to believe that the eternal state will be perfect.
> Unlike what you have stated, pain was multiplied/increased in Genesis 3:16, so it had already existed before the fall. The same word form multiply (rabah) is used for the already existing animals (Gen. 1:22) and the already existing humans (Gen. 1:28).
That’s fallacious reasoning. An increase is just that: an increase. The Hebrew word can indicate an increase from nothing to something, or from something to something bigger. Going from zero to something greater than zero is an increase. And the word is used that way in a number of instances. The flood waters increased from nothing to something (Genesis 7:17), Hagar’s descendants were increased from nothing to many (Genesis 16:10), God’s miracles in Egypt were increased from nothing to many (Exodus 7:3), wealth can go from nothing to great increase by labor (Proverbs 13:11), and so on.
So clearly, the word does not remotely imply that there must have been pain to begin with. Indeed, this would contradict Genesis 1:31 which says that everything was “very good.” When the curse is removed, and all things are restored (Acts 3:21), there will once again be no pain (Revelation 21:4).
> The earth was not cursed, the land of Eden was (Gen. 3:17).
No – the curse is not limited to Eden. Romans 8:21-22 teaches that all creation groans under the bondage of corruption. The effects of the curse due to Adam’s sin were worldwide, which makes sense since he was to rule over what God had made. Moreover, since the entire world (everything that God had made) was “very good” when God finished creating, and since today the entire world is not “very good”, it should be obvious that the curse has impacted the entire world, not just Eden.
Even a careful reading of the text in Genesis indicates a universal effect. God cursed the serpent “more than” all the cattle and beast of the field – implying that they too were cursed, though to a lesser extent. (Genesis 1:14). Of course, since animals die now, and suffer disease and other types of pain, it is obvious that they too were affected by the curse since such things are not “very good” by God’s standard.
> Adam was kick out of the garden, not Eden. Later, Cain left Eden, but Adam remained and worked that land. That is the context.
Yes. But all creation was cursed because Adam was God’s steward over the earth.
> Romans 8 is about how we as sinners effect [sic] creation around us.
It goes back to Adam specifically (e.g. Romans 5:12).
> Notice, that creation’s cure (Romans 8:21) is same as ours (Romans 8:23), our completed adoption at the resurrection.
Just as human beings were once immortal and perfect, the Earth was once perfect and without death. Both humanity and the world have been cursed and await deliverance. Once again, the Earth will be perfect and without death, just as people will be perfectly righteous and without death again. But Romans 5-8 makes no sense in an old-earth theology.
> At that time we will no longer sin and we will rule over earth as God intended, during Jesus’ earthly reign.
That’s one particular view of eschatology – which I’m not going to get into at this time.
> So, Romans 8 is not dealing with Gen. 3.
Romans 8 is an obvious reference to Genesis 3 and makes no sense apart from it. When did the world become corrupt? It was when Adam sinned. That’s when death came into the world (Romans 5:12). The entire world was “very good” before this event. And it will be again.
Pingback: Deep Time – the god of our Age | Time For Discernment
This highlights how pagan philosophy can be dressed up as modern “science”
I have heard the argument that given infinite (or at least billions upon billions of years) time, an Ape would eventually type out a play by Shakespeare but the question remains who is the author of infinity (or the Ape) if not God and who created time and -called “infinity” to exist in in the first place? The comforts of deep time are easy to appreciate as they can hide and smudge a multitude of mysteries, theories, philosophies and difficult questions and gives perhaps false sense of antiquity and place in the universe that would otherwise avoid the harsh questions of reality and existence
“I am says the Lord, we can fall into the trap of infinite regression but I am says it all, creation needs a creator, no thing produces nothing, there can be no such thing as “blind chance” if there was no thing to conceive of the notion of chance in the first place. Circumstance, chance, infinity, matter, energy, maths, logic, something from nothing all require an author unless you believe in magic. Time has become the magic wand to produce the universe out of the magic hat and evolution from the witches cauldron to produce life from matter.
Dr Lisle,
Very interesting article. I appreciate your work. I am 19 years old and am currently discerning my call to live a religious life.
I had a simple question for you. What particular sect or Christianity do you subscribe to (Roman Catholic, Baptist, Lutheran, Presbyterian, etc)? I am simply curious. I haven’t been able to find this information on the internet.
Mick
Mr. Lisle, the belief that the earth was created recently is faith-based (non-secular). Is the belief that the earth formed naturally (or directed naturally by a god) across deep time really faith-based?
Even the idea that the earth is 4.6 billion years old is “faith-based”. Let’s not confuse “secular” as meaning “without faith”. A secularist has faith that his uniformitarian assumptions about the past are accurate through all time in the past.
Faith-based beliefs are not secular, because they compete with or deny other faiths. Faith is religious. If uniformitarianism or Deep Time cannot be proven as undeniable facts, then they are faith-based and therefore not secular. This is what I intended for all to understand…
Mr. Lisle, what do you think?
>“Faith-based beliefs are not secular, because they compete with or deny other faiths.”
Ironically if we stick to this definition of “secular” then secularism itself wouldn’t be considered secular because secular beliefs also compete with other faiths/beliefs, e.g. creation versus evolution.
>”Faith is religious.”
Secular beliefs are “religious” in the sense that they are ultimately founded on faith. Also, faith isn’t necessarily religious in the traditional sense of “religion”. For example, if you were to go into surgery, you’d have faith that your doctor will do his best to perform his job, right? You also have faith in his skill-set, right? Do you consider these religious beliefs? If not, then this is an example of faith that is not religious, therefore it is not true that faith is always religious. If you do consider these religious, then I guess everyone is religious.
>“If uniformitarianism or Deep Time cannot be proven as undeniable facts, then they are faith-based and therefore not secular.”
Well I certainly would say that uniformitarianism and the secular age of the age can’t be proven by undeniable facts. If these “facts” were truly undeniable, then there wouldn’t be a debate, would there?
Also, I must point out that if it is true that anything that requires faith gets disqualified as being secular, then there really isn’t such a thing as secular beliefs.
You bring up an excellent case. I suppose it would be necessary to distinguish between religious faith and non-religious faith. The question is whether the issue of Deep Time is a religious faith-based issue, or a non-religious faith-based issue. I would say that it is a religious faith-based issue because it ultimately deals with God/god/gods as to whether He/it/they exist and how/if He/he/she/it/they created the heavens and the earth.
We can therefore say that a secular belief is simply a non-religious belief such as, “I think it will rain tomorrow.” So, in secularism, there would be no invoking of any religious faith-based belief unless it is explicitly stated so for every single occasion throughout.
Our education systems, when dealing with the unobserved past, deny God/god/the gods the possibility that he/she/they acted in a supernatural way on occasions not absolutely verifiable and therefore stumble onto religious faith-based issues. This implies that the school systems are not secular. A true secular system may not prescribe any particular religious faith-based belief/s without being more than explicitly clear.
Enrique,
If I may interject myself in your dialog with Josef, I’m curious as to what lies underneath your question above? What is the question at the heart of your objection to Dr. Lisle’s post about the idolatrous nature of those Christians who hold to ‘Deep Time’?
I suppose the question at heart would be, whether we can protest to the belief of Deep Time with any legitimacy in the secular systems (e.g. public schools)?, because if not, then the remarkable claims made by creationists will not have any significant impact on the establisments of society. More than this, I wanted to convince my friends that secularism, contrary to our self-hazardous perception of it, is in favor of the defense of our particular God of YECism, if properly defined.
I will provide a preliminary definition of secularism as, in my honest opinion, it should be understood:
Secularism is the momentary, voluntary negation of indoctrinating others of one one’s religious beliefs. Religious beliefs can be discussed but they must be clearly acknowledged as such. Morality is honored in a secular environment and everyone’s religious beliefs must be respected. No teaching must deny or contend with a religious faith-based belief. Secularism must be truly unbiased and non-religious but never anti-religious.
I should probably also attempt to define a religious belief (a religious faith based belief) as:
A belief that supports or contends with the existence of any particular god or gods or their supernatural workings in the unobserved past or as revealed in recorded history, religious works of authority, or as taught by a denomination.
Enriquqe,
The millions and billions of years of ‘deep time’ are part and parcel of man’s attempts to worship that which is created and not the Creator, exchanging the truth of God for a lie (Rom. 1:25). It’s a philosophical construct that man builds to suppress the truth that he knows God exists (his own constitution tells him this), but denies it, finding ways to bolster and support this denial and refusal to acknowledge God and honor Him for who He is. Do you know this God?
I’m not sure I follow. How do secularists support the God of Scripture and its doctrine of creation? Do you have any documentation, quotes, citations to support this?
I think that you are defining secularism, essentially, as anti-Christian doctrine. You cannot possibly be saying that a philosophical construct, like deep time, that would be an attempt “to worship that which is created and not the Creator” or anything that exchanges “the truth of God for a lie” should be taught in secular environments (such as public schools) as being acceptable to everyone, and therefore secular, right? Yes, I have put my faith in Christ the Lord, the only one who always speaks the truth.
If I have been taught correctly, deep time is a religious belief, if it is not an absolute proven fact, because it implies that, if a god or gods exist, they MUST have created or formed the heavens and the earth across millions and millions of years. If someone denies or contends with your own religious beliefs (faith based beliefs relating to god or gods or the supernatural in the un-testable, unrepeatable, unobserved past), then they are making a religious claim. If someone says, for instance, that “no one whose body was completely destroyed has ever risen from the dead in the past”, then they are making a religious claim. Likewise, if someone says “man evolved gradually across millions of years by natural selection and mutations”, then they also are making a religious claim, since they are declaring revelation (faith based absolute knowledge) by denying the equivalent possibility that a supernatural event explains the same phenomenon.
A secularist, I suppose, would be a person who encourages a non-religious environment however, religion is not always barred in these environments if someone states that “this is what my religion teaches”, i.e. only for educational purposes and not for indoctrination. This secularism, which I am defining to the best of my ability, would be in favor of the God of Biblical Creation because it better defines for us what can and cannot be taught in secular systems as facts and how. Biblical Creationism would be on equal ground as say Theistic Evolutionism, Atheistic Evolutionism, Old Earth Creationism, etc.
Can you please tell me what you think?
Enrique,
What is your point about Dr. Lisle’s post? How do you agree or disagree with his post? I think you have summarized your point by saying:
“
This has no relevance to Dr. Lisle’s post, and I fail to see how that dovetails with anything he says.
Alright that’s true, but I don’t know any other way of introducing these new (and important) concepts to him. Thank you!
For all the fallacies and all of the lies I have heard in order for people in the United States to denounce the truisms of scientific discovery and the empirical evidence that justifies that your ideas of bringing religion into education is disgusting. If you actually went to school and actually did physics and chemistry you would understand the math and science behind the deduction of time. The reason you state that time is a creation of man is because you are unable to comprehend due to your ignorance of religious infatuation. Pick up any microbiology article and tell someone in that field how a “Creator” could deduce such intrinsic diversity within the functionality and molecular makeup of these organisms. Your ignorance blinds the fact that physics and math is not the only proof of non-creation, it just rectifies that you are living in fallacy and it scares liberal thinking people like myself to send their children into a society where slander and lies are being conveyed in their basic education.
Zarred. You dont seem to quite grasp Dr. Lisles article, in fact, you wrongly accuse him of ‘stating that time is a creation of man’. Dr. Lisle has a P.H.D in astrophysics so attacking his education probably isn’t the best idea.
I would recommend reading the article again, slowly. Try to actually understand what he is saying. Next time you reply try not to use logical fallacies such as straw-men.
J Zarred: “If you actually went to school and actually did physics and chemistry you would understand the math and science behind the deduction of time.”
As Micah has already pointed out, Jason Lisle has a Ph.D. in Astrophysics. But this statement here is actually quite a bit more embarrassing than simply making a mistake. Because all Zarred had to do was click on the “About Dr. Lisle” link at the top of this very page, and he could have saved himself from showing that he hasn’t even done the slightest bit of research on the one he criticizes! Had he actually taken the time to read Dr. Lisle’s biography, he would have seen this:
“[Jason Lisle] graduated summa cum laude from Ohio Wesleyan University where he double-majored in physics and astronomy and minored in mathematics. He then earned a master’s degree and a Ph.D. in astrophysics at the University of Colorado in Boulder. Dr. Lisle specialized in solar astrophysics and has made a number of scientific discoveries regarding the solar photosphere, including the detection of giant cell boundaries using the SOHO spacecraft. He also does theoretical research and has contributed to the field of general relativity.”
Also, I can’t help but think that Zarred’s statement is sort of a “jab” at creationists, in that he has it in his mind that just because someone is a creationist, they must not have gone to college and studied the sciences. Not only does Jason Lisle’s background refute this, there are also a lot of other creationists with just as impressive credentials as well. And though my credentials are nothing to brag about compared to Dr. Lisle’s, I happen to have a BS in chemistry, and have nearly completed minors in both biology and mathematics. And I never found any compelling reason in college to abandon the creationist’s model.
I think he’s gone away to eat some non-created humble pie.
I learn alot from reading your blogs and comments Dr. Lisle, and you are great encouragement for me. I go to a public high school in Texas and am completely aware of the god of our Age. I wish that I were taught of God’s creation from the Bible in school because I desire so much to learn more about His glory in His creation all the time. It’s hard and a battle everyday because there is opposition and as well as temptation. I’m afraid I don’t know too much about how to debate creation and evolutionism but just reading your blogs has helped me to learn more solid biblical truths and how to defend the Faith. Thanks!
Hi Dr. Lisle! I thank the Lord for your writings, you’ve taught me a great deal about God’s creation and how to be logical and exhibit good reasoning.
I had a question for you and I thought this might be the best place ask it –
This question was posed to me that I’m having some trouble getting my head around – If God is infinite, and He is outside of His creation and is separate from it (made it out of nothing, non-panenthistic), how can God be truly infinite? How can the material realm not be a part of the infinity that God is – In effect, how could you “add on to infinity”?
Now I suspect there might be a faulty assumption or misunderstanding underlying the question itself, but I can’t quite put my finger on it yet. I would greatly appreciate your thoughts on it!
Anyway, thanks again!
Hi Dean.
When we say that God is infinite, we mean that some of His attributes are unlimited. His knowledge, His power, for example. Interestingly, some aspects of God are not infinite. The number of persons in the Trinity is three – not infinity. I think you are correct that question is faulty. There are at least two problems that I see. First, mathematicians will point out that you can add to or subtract elements from infinite sets without changing the number. In other words, infinity plus one is still infinity.
But more importantly, when God created the universe He created something separate from Himself – something that is not God. And so He wasn’t adding anything to Himself. Consider this analogy:
The number line is infinite, yes? The numbers extend from negative infinity to positive infinity. Yet, there are things that are not numbers that are not found on the number line. A duck, for example, cannot be found anywhere on a number line. Would it be reasonable to assume that since ducks are not found on a number line, that the number line is not infinite? No. The number line is infinite by definition, yet there are things that exist apart from it. Likewise, God is infinite, and yet He has created things that exist that are not “part” of Him.