Watchman Magazine

How Much Evolution Is Too Much?

 

All brethren with whom I am familiar by personal discussion or reading their material affirm that God created the universe, both animate and inanimate. I think it fair to say that all brethren I know would deny Darwinian evolution which affirms the evolution of all forms of life from a single, one-celled source or a few one-celled sources arising from non-living matter. However, some of our brethren are now saying that, while they deny the animate creation evolved beyond the stated limit of “after its own kind” given in the Bible, they accept the evolving of the inanimate creation from the “big bang” 20 billion years ago.

Share This

• Continue reading

What Happens When We Mythologize Part of Genesis?

I attended a Lord I Believe Seminar back in the spring of 1996, and came away with decidedly mixed feelings. Much of the program was highly commendable. Brother Hill Roberts did a superb job of using statistical probability to show that it was impossible for life to have originated by chance. Yet, there were several aspects of the presentation that trouble me. In particular, I am concerned about Hill’s approach to the book of Genesis, especially as it relates to the issue of time and the age of the earth.

Share This

• Continue reading

And the “Lord I Believe” Seminars

“It was wonderful!” “I almost didn’t go but I am so glad I did!” “Our children will never doubt the existence of God!” It was really good!” “It was awesome!”

These and other comments were made by different Christians in Tampa, Birmingham and Florence describing a seminar on evidences called “Lord, I Believe.” This seminar is presented by Hill Roberts and others, most who are members of Weatherly Heights church of Christ, in Huntsville, AL. During the seminar, they present much good material demonstrating the impossibility of evolution, evidence of special design in creation which requires a Designer, evidence of the historical accuracy of the Bible and the resurrection of Jesus.

Share This

• Continue reading

And the “Does God Exist?” Organization

The purpose of the following review of John Clayton and his teachings is not meant to be a complete look into the man and his teachings. It is only a summary of some of the errors that are taught in his materials. A more extensive review of his teachings may be found in the book, In the Shadow of Darwin ­ A review of the teachings of John N. Clayton.⁽¹⁾ The importance of such a review is seen in the connection of John Clayton with the teachings of Hill Roberts (discussed elsewhere in this issue). The teachings of Hill Roberts will at times evoke the names of men like Clayton and Hugh Ross. In Robert’s Lord I Believe seminar, the presentation titled “Tool 3: Origins” is “Adapted from John Clayton’s A Practical Man’s Proof of God“⁽²⁾ Some of the materials handed out at these seminars encourage the listener to read the top 8 books from Robert’s list. One of these books is The Source by John Clayton. Hill Roberts also promotes the “Does God Exist” ministries of John Clayton in his handout “Reaching Out to the Skeptic” and provides catalogs of Clayton’s material at some of his lectures.

Share This

• Continue reading

For any teaching to gain a hearing, it has to have one or more proponents who are teaching or defending the view. “Old earth creationism” has several major proponents. One of the most prominent of those proponents in evangelical circles is Hugh Ross.

Who is Hugh Ross?

Hugh Norman Ross is president of Reasons to Believe, Inc., Pasadena, CA. He has a M.Sc. and Ph.D. in astronomy from the University of Toronto, and he was former Minister of Evangelism at the Sierra Madre Congregational Church. As to Ross’ beliefs about creation and evolution he is classified as a Progressive Creationist.⁽¹⁾

Share This

• Continue reading

Words have meanings, but they often have different meanings to different people using them. Our English language is difficult to understand at times because one English word can have many different meanings. It is imperative, therefore, in any meaningful discussion to first define the terms used. Often in a debate the disputants will first define their terms. This is important for both the opponent and the audience in order to completely understand the issue. In the same way, it is important in the discussion of creation issues to define the terms beings used. A person might say, “I believe that God created the universe in six days,” and mean something completely different than what another means when he says the same thing. I have been asked by Harry Osborne to contribute an article for this special issue of Watchman Magazine covering some of the language used in the creation-evolution debate. I am happy to do my part in making others aware of this language so that we all can be prepared to discuss and challenge these issues.⁽¹⁾

Share This

• Continue reading

There are some who insist that the account of Noah and the Flood is an exaggeration at best, and a downright myth at worst. Unfortunately, there are even some who claim to believe the Bible who insist that the Flood was a local phenomenon. They claim that the Flood was limited to the region of Mesopotamia, a region prone to flooding. In this article, we will examine this claim from two distinct angles. First, we will see what the Bible says about the Flood. Then, we will see whether there is any external evidence to support the Bible’s account.

I. Is It Possible To Interpret The Flood Described In Genesis As A Regional Flood?

Those who support the idea that the Flood was confined to Mesopotamia point out that the word “all” is not always used literally. For example, Mark 1:5 tells us that “all the land of Judea” were baptized by John in the wilderness. Of course, we understand from the context that this does not literally mean every single human in the land of Judea. So, it is reasoned, the word “all” does not need to be taken literally in Genesis 6-9, either. The claim is made that the word is used in an accommodative sense, and that only the “inhabited portion” of the earth was in view. The assumption is then made that only the region of Mesopotamia was inhabited, and the conclusion is drawn that the Flood of Noah’s time was confined to this region.

Share This

• Continue reading

IntroductionAs stated elsewhere in this special issue of Watchman, Hill Roberts believes that God conceived of the plan of creation in six literal days, but then took billions of years implementing that plan. In other words, God spent six days thinking and 4.5 billion years acting. This view is reflected in Hill’s general treatment of the geologic column. When I attended a Lord I Believe Seminar in the spring of 1996 in Murfreesboro, Tennessee, it was obvious that Hill accepted the standard geologic column and tried to adapt the Biblical account of creation to it. He believes that the geologic column is a record of God’s progressive creation of life.This approach was not limited to the adult class. Our 4th grade son came home with a “Challenge Page” handout that asked students to correlate the fossil record with the Genesis account of creation. One side of the page shows the standard geologic column that can be found in nearly every evolutionary textbook. The other side of the page contained blank lines. The header says, “Can you match the fossil record with the Genesis Record?” Again, this clearly implies that the geologic column is a record of the progressive creation of life.

Share This

• Continue reading

Do They Exist?

I. Evidence of an Old Earth?

Before we embark on this inquiry, we must first note certain things about the nature of this topic. First, let us consider the possibility that the universe was created in the way the Bible describes in Genesis chapter 1. If the Bible is correct, then the first humans were created full-grown, as man and woman, not boy and girl. Therefore, if you or I were able to go back in time to see Adam and Eve on the very day they came into existence, they would not appear the same way a 1-day-old human appears today. Likewise with the animals, and the trees. If we were able to go back to the Garden of Eden, and cut down a tree, it would most likely have rings, just as if it had been there for many years. Likewise, if we were to examine a rock, it would be fully formed, just as any rock we pick up today. But it would not be millions, or thousands, or even hundreds of years old; it would be just a few days old.

Share This

• Continue reading