Rating: 
Summary: A comprehensive treatment of Christian compromise.
Review: Dr. Jonathan Sarfati, author of Refuting Evolution and Refuting Evolution 2, has produced a valuable book which gathers numerous lines of evidence, both exegetical and scientific, to oppose the compromise position known as "Progressive Creationism"--which attempts to reinterpret the six days of Genesis as long ages.
Dr. Sarfati illustrates the many inconsistencies between the plain meaning of the Genesis account vs. the position of those who attempt to find in it support for the notion that God used evolutionary processes and long ages to create.
The book deals with the errors of Scriptural compromises with evolution in general, but especially the brand of "Christian origins" taught by Hugh Ross of Reasons to Believe. The title of the book reflects its intended purpose: to refute the compromising view of Christians who attempt to fold evolutionary theory into the Biblical account of creation.
A unique contribution of Sarfati is his treatment of the contribution of church history (the views of the church fathers), exegesis of the Scriptures, and physical evidence from science in concluding that Progressive Creationism lacks support. In a sense, it occupies a position half-way between secular rejectors and earnest exegetes of Scripture. While failing to satisfy the skeptics, neither does it satisfy those who are concerned to understand what the bare text of Genesis is actually saying. Sarfati exposes the many liabilities of the view which attempts to be all things to all people pleasing none and playing fast and loose with the various lines of evidence.
Not only does Sarfati effectively demolish the poor reasoning and inconsistent exegesis of Progressive Creationism, while doing so, he repeatedly exposes the questionable claims of one of its main proponents: Dr Hugh Ross. Ross has attained a fairly high profile, having published a number of popular apologetics works and having being hosted by Dr. Dobson on Focus of the Family and by John Ankerberg of the John Ankerberg Show. Unfortunately, many Christians have swallowed Ross' apologetics--thinking his material upholds the Bible--when in fact he embraces a number of beliefs which are seriously out-of-step with Biblical teaching. (Perhaps the most troubling views are his belief in human-like "pre-Adamite" beings who lived prior to Adam and Eve but who lacked full spirituality; and the existence of death in the created order prior to the Fall.) The reader comes away from Sarfati's work with a much greater appreciation for caution in evaluating the claims of Ross.
Highlights of the book include a summary of the creation views of various church fathers (who were overwhelmingly young-earth six-day creationists despite Ross' claims to the contrary), a discussion of the reasons why general revelation (in nature) must never be considered on a par with the special revelation of Scripture, a discussion of the created kinds and the difference between speciation (evidence of a reduction in information) and evolution (requiring an increase in information), and natural evidence for a young earth.
We recommend this book for those concerned about the viability of the teachings of Dr. Hugh Ross or who have interest in a single-volume treatment of many of the issues surrounding the evolution/creation debate within Christianity. This book should be on the shelf of every creationist.
Rating:
Summary: Refutes theories embraced by some as 'fact'
Review: Excellent refutation of 'arguments' like Damien's who have swallowed big bang cosmology and old earth as 'fact' contrary to Moses' plain statements, language and grammar in context.Any honest scientist will tell you that radiometric dating methods and big bang theory are far from established facts. While some evidence can be interpreted that way, Sarfati demonstrates conclusively that the Bible in its natural, normal sense CANNOT be interpreted to fit the big bang chronology. Much of the evidence can be just as fairly interpreted to negate billions of years. Starlight, for example, can be plausibly explained with Speed of Light at Infinity during Creation, not repeatable or observable under currently operative conditions. Hugh Ross and his disciples have the burden of proof to show the Bible means to convey billions, not thousands of years. So far, they have not established their case credibly or cogently after a preponderance of the evidence fairly evaluated. This book, along with the Bible and established/settled science (not unproven theories) shows the big bang to be a little bust!
Rating: 
Summary: The simple facts.
Review: I have to admit that I had trouble reading this book because it has a lot of big words. But there were some things I understood. I now realize it is perfectly acceptable to use an arguement to disprove itself. The Big Bang Theory can not be true because we can't prove what started the Big Bang. This arguement is also called the "I'm a Christian, therefore I am always right when interpreting the Bible" theory. Here are some more tidbits. The book clearly teaches that every word of the Bible must be taken literally. I can respect this. For example, God created the Earth in six days. On the seventh, he rested and watched football. Progressive creationists suggest that six days can be interpreted differently. The very same Bible says A day in Heaven is like a Thousand Years on Earth. I have figured out the problem between progressive creationists and those who believe in literal interpretation. God's clock moves much slower than man's. Whenever studying religion one must keep in mind that the more you study of the mystery's of Christ, the more difficult it is to understand. Perhaps the best insight I can give about this book is to use it as a paperweight because I can't make heads or tails of it. You will believe what you want to believe, as will I. This book will not affect your opinion.
Rating: 
Summary: I "literally" don't understand this position...
Review: If you want a 400 page tirade against astronomer Hugh Ross with a preposterous cosmology thrown in that includes such ideas as "white holes", a universe centered on our galaxy, and "quantized red shifts", then this book is for you. I view Brian Greene's writings as a much better investment for someone seeking an enlightened education in the latest cosmological findings.
Sarfati apparently considers Hugh Ross the biggest threat to Christianity since the ancient Romans. Why else would he mount such a vicious, malicious, and personal attack.
Save your money and your time.
Rating:
Summary: Shame
Review: It is a real shame when a Bible beleiving Christian vehemently attacks another the way that Sarfati attacks Ross. Dogmatic adherence to a 24 hour view is not essential to salvation. Ergo, as Christians we should be able to discuss this issue without the frothing rhetoric that is seen in this book.
Not worth the read.
I will be happy to dialogue with anyone who e-mails me.
Rating:
Summary: Young Earth is Biblical; Old Earth is mythical (see 2Peter)
Review: It is clear the prior reviewer has not read this book or its supporting material carefully. The mind was made up as anti- Young Earth (normal 6 days as Genesis naturally reads). The author here demonstrates how powerful the Biblical and Scientific evidence (of settled, established Science, not the fabrications and contrived theories of Dr. Ross, et al) is for taking Genesis 1-11, especially Gen 1-2, in a straightforward, plain understanding as 6 ordinary days. While it is clear many Christians struggle to reconcile Genesis with what they learned in school or from those claiming scientific authority, the Bible is well able to defend itself.
Much non-Darwinian data supports Young Earth, which is upsetting to some who can't handle contrary evidence and the resulting 'scientific discomfort'. There is NO WAY Moses could have meant his 6 days were anything but - you guessed it - 6 days! The 2 million Hebrews he was writing Genesis for would never have come up with all the outlandish theories we have today, embraced by respectable theologians and scholars of all people! I suspect when Moses wrote 'God', he meant God. When he wrote 'beginning', he meant beginning. 'Created' meant created.
'Heaven and earth' meant - you guessed it. Look at all the nouns, verbs, adjectives Moses used. Why, friends, was Moses literal with all his vocabulary except yom (Hebrew for day)??? When explaining Genesis to a child, teenager or non-scientific person, what would they ordinarily gather Moses means? 6 days =
6 days. It would be great to see Old Earthers try all their interpretive gymnastics about why 'day' means almost anything but day to the rest of Genesis 3-11. Try Chapter 4 where Cain says 'Today'. Or all the references to days in the Flood narrative. Or Chapter 9 where 'Seedtime & Harvest, Day & Night will never cease'. What does Moses mean by yom in these places? Would his original Hebrew audience have tracked with all our notions of what Moses means by Yom throughout Genesis? Or did Moses have just one, standard, dictionary definition that he used consistently? Please, friends, let Moses tell us what he plainly means. Don't rely on Charles Darwin, Carl Sagan, Stephen Hawking, modern science or revisionist Old Earthers like Hugh Ross (whose grasp of Hebrew is problematic at best and treats nature like the 67th book of the Bible. Ross' degree/training is astronomy/astrophysics, NOT Bible interpretation/grammar). All this book asks is that we prayerfully read Genesis for ourselves without modern scientific filtering. Let Moses speak for himself, plainly and naturally as if you were Joshua or Miriam or Caleb hearing Moses read the Creation account to the people. When you're done with this book, try John MacArthur's BATTLE FOR THE BEGINNING.
Rating:
Summary: Outstanding defense of the biblical doctrine of creation
Review: Jonathon Sarfati has done a magnificent job of defending the Biblical record of creation and the flood in this book. Many Christians will rightly critique biological evolution arguing for some kind of an `intelligent designer' responsible for life but when it comes to the age of things few will take a firm stand against the evolutionary interpretations in this realm. It's so important that our model of history is consistent with the words of scripture. We want to point people to Jesus Christ as the creator not some hypothetical `designer'. Some people feel we should determine from nature how to interpret the Bible. This is flawed in so many ways. One danger is it elevates human historical science as an infallible means of determining truth.
Compromisers like Ross talk about the `facts of nature' as if he has complete knowledge of the operations of the universe. This is nothing more than a deceitful lie. Somehow as a seventeen year old Ross was able to solve all the mysteries of the development of the universe and concluded the evolutionary theory called the Big Bang is a fact. Having already determined this must be true, he then went to the Bible and made it fit to this. Of course at this time Ross knew no Hebrew (he still knows essentially none) and knew nothing about the historical Christian understanding of the creation account. All that matter to him was that his interpretation could be reconciled with his uncritically accepted Big Bang theory.
Today Ross makes extensive use of Hebrew technicalities to argue for long ages of death before sin and a local flood. Apparently the plain words found in modern English translations aren't sufficient to convince those who don't tightly embrace the Big Bang theory like he did. In reality his use of Hebrew is a smoke screen hoping to impress those not informed on the language. Sarfati spends much time in this book knocking down one long age 'biblical' argument after the other with many references to Ross's major works. Ross has never answered most of these. For instance in his latest book Ross ignores older YEC literature on the extra Cainan in Luke likely being a copyist error, the lack of evening and morning on the seventh day being no problem for a young earth, the usage of evening and morning for the first six days in no way indicates an `alert' to the reader of non-literal days and why the flood must have been global. These `biblical' arguments are so easily knocked down it's a shame so many sound evangelicals use them. For example, one of Ross's main arguments for long creation `days' is the lack of evening and morning on the seventh day. If Moses really wanted to alert the reader the seventh day was still going he could simply have said `and there was evening' keeping the same syntax as the first six days clearly showing the day was still going on since it lacked the closure `and there was morning'. Also Ross points to many passages in the Bible that can unambiguously teach long ages to argue for long ages in Genesis. The problem is none of these passages are in Genesis. So if the creation `week' was really a long age why aren't these words in Genesis?
The highlight of this book has to be the chapter on the flood of Noah's day. Sarfati gives a devastating Biblical and scientific critique of the local flood. Many people will claim arguing for long creation days is based purely on biblical data and science is not an influence. The lie of this statement can easily be exposed by seeing what these same people believe about the flood of Noah's day. Just about all of them will argue for a local flood. Why? Because evolutionary geology rejects that a global flood ever happened. One notable exception is Ross supporter Gleason Archer who does accept a global flood. Local flood supporters are better off claiming the flood never happened as this position is simply impossible to defend scientifically without extensive divine miracles to first keep the water elevated and then to erase all the evidence that it ever happened! Ross's `flood' would have been the largest known flood in history and left no geological trace which he concedes, yet smaller shorter ancient floods, like the Missoula flood, left abundant evidence.
Uncritical acceptance of long ages also has an unfortunate consequence in anthropology. Since certain human fossils are dated by evolutionists in the hundred and thousands to millions of years ago, Ross must relegate certain fossils to intelligent human-like creatures that aren't in Adam's line and aren't part of Jesus's redemption. Since Ross supporters who are conservative biblical scholars won't allow the genealogies to extend beyond 60,000 years Ross selectively chooses which fossils are and aren't human based on his acceptance of evolutionary dating methods as gospel truth. Apparently Ross's god finds the death and suffering of human like creatures, which evidence strongly indicates had full potential to experience suffering like humans and had awareness of their own mortality, as very good. Ross even gives ammunition to racist people, who argue from evolution, that smaller brain size or less advanced culture indicates less than fully human.
Ultimately the real motivation for people like Ross and others is the desire for intellectual respectability. They are so afraid of being laughed by godless men that they feel they must accept the evolutionary view of history. But of course they still want to claim to believe in the orthodox doctrine of creation so they have God create the species according to the evolutionary timescale. The sad thing is atheists are no more impressed with this position than YEC. Atheists like this position more only because its closer to full blown evolution. It's a step in the right direction and less threatening than YEC. But in no way do they find this position challenges any of their beliefs. They clearly see the Bible doesn't allow long ages and the Big Bang and long ages are aggressively defended by the most anti-Christian scientists today since its so consistent with biological evolution and atheism.
Rating:
Summary: Gets Moses' Original Intent Correct - BRAVO!
Review: Only Moses' original intent settles how long the first of weekdays went. Thank you for an excellent biblical and settled-science refutation of compromising progressive creationism.
Rating:
Summary: Long Age Genesis View no longer Possible
Review: Penned by the respected and brilliant scholar Dr. Jonathan Sarfati, this book represents a total analysis and refutation of the long-age Genesis position popularized by Dr. Hugh Ross. Called Progressive Creationism, it maintains the age of the earth and universe are what the evolutionists say they are while still attempting to maintain Biblical "authority." Dr. Sarfati makes a detailed examination of Ross's faulty theology and science and utterly destroys any last possible argument that the days of Genesis were anything but historic, 24-hour days, or that the flood was in any way local. The previous reviewer made the claim that the creation account is not "exhaustive," and this is certainly true. Nevertheless, this doesn't mean that they tell us nothing, and what they do tell us is a recent, six-day creation week. Dr. Sarfati demonstrates this conclusively. We have no excuse for creationist-nilhism.
Our previous reviewer then claims that various "councils" have determined that the word day can mean either literal day or length of time. Actually, the hebrew gives 5 different possible meanings to the word for "day," which is "yom." This doesn't change the fact that the context of a specific passage dictates which meaning is used, and the context and wordage used in the creation account clearly and repeatedly mean 24-hour passage of time.
Our previous reviewer then passed beyond the scope of a review and criticized an article on the AiG website hy Dr. Carl Wieland, which demonstrates a misunderstanding on the part of the reviewer below. He criticized AiG for using the information of "secular scientists," but this is the whole point! It is a quite acceptible method of proving your position--citing someone who is not a member of your own position who gives support to a contention of your own view. It is known as the "hostile witness," and is often used. So it seems that our reviewer friend doesn't feel that AiG should use information from secularists at all. But once something is published, it belongs to the scientific community (in an indirect sense, of course; I'm not supporting communism) and anyone can use the ideas or build off of them as they will. One is tempted to point out that Hugh Ross cites secular sources as well, as do most christian writers. Are they too to be chastized for it? Furthermore, in this case, Wieland's point was that christians should not marry their theology to secular science as Ross and others do, lest they find themselves divorced from it tomorrow.
Our reviewer continues in his criticism by arguing that these scientists are trying to take away God from the universe that the causation of the Big Bang provides. Yet they have been trying to anyway, and the Big Bang was a major way of trying to do this in its own right. Many theologians have lept at the chance for proof of God causing the creation--but they stumble with the Big Bang because they are defending some vauge, impersonal God-thing of deism and general theism, and not the God of the Bible, who used a six-day creation act to make the universe, earth, and everything on it, as opposed to the deistic deity of the Big Bang who hid behind a naturalistic creation process such as cosmic evolution. Contra to the previous reviewer's complaints of AiG using "any source" to support their position, Wieland also commented on the illogical idea of the eternal universe that the secular scientists were trying to resurrect, and it is the kind of tactic that will prove to people that the creationist's predictions and oft-mentioned problems with the Big Bang have turned out to be accurate after all!
Part of the measure of a man is being able to admit error, our reviewer argues. Naturally I and AiG agree. That's why AiG published an article on faulty creationist arguments. If someone thinks AiG is in error, I recommend they use the useful feedback section of their website to discuss it with them. Just because someone claims there are errors does not make it so. Then, our reviewer commented that the Scirpture never demanded the young-earth view. Apparently, he did not take his time in reading Dr. Sarfati's book, as he clearly demonstrates the necessity of the young-earth position. The idea of interpreting Genesis as anything but literal days wasn't even thought of until the onset of the enlightenment in the 1700s.
Certainly we can agree with the previous reviewer that admiting AiG's science is in error is not compromising Scripture (though none have yet been able to prove how, why, or where they are in actual error), but contra the previous reviewer, abandoning the young-earth position is most certainly compromise.
The last comment by the previous reviewer was that long-age is not the same as Darwinian evolution. Naturally, this is completely true! However, evolution isn't the main problem. Rather, long age is the problem. Accepting long-agism resulted in the church and the world accepting evolution. Long-agism is the problem, evolution the result.
Rating:
Summary: I "literally" don't understand this position...
Review: Sarfati and the Answers In Genesis organization have a lot to lose if they are wrong about the young-earth position. Having a lot to lose ultimately leads to desperation and attempts to belittle the opposing view. However, Hugh Ross is right (in his latest book "A Matter of Days" that this day issue has got to be resolved soon or nonbelievers will continue to see us as a bunch of buffoons. There are theological questions no matter which interpretation you take, but the creation accounts in the Bible are certainly not exhaustive. Furthermore, councils from various denominations on "day" interpretaion have concluded that "day" can mean a 24-hour period or long (but finite) periods of time - both are "literal" interpretations. However, I'm quite concerned with the direction that AIG has taken. One example (from their website) is the recent citation by Carl Wieland (a colleague of Mr. Sarfati) of an "open letter" from the secular scientific community regarding their doubts on the "Big Bang" theory. The irony is amazing: they are citing an open letter from secular scientists to cast doubt on the Big Bang theory. Unfortunately, these same scientists aren't casting doubt on the AGE of the universe whatsoever, just the particular theory that describes its beginning. Furthermore, it is quite reasonable to assume that these same secular scientists are attempting to cast doubt on the Big Bang in order to rekindle the Eternal Universe theories that remove the causation that the Big Bang has demanded. So in other words, Answers In Genesis is attempting to provide evidence for their young-earth position by citing secular scientists who doubt the Big Bang - not because they think the universe is young - but because they want to remove the very possibility of God from its creation! This citation is precisely the kind of tactic that leads unbelievers to dismiss Christianity, yet in their desperation, they'll cite from any source. Part of the measure of a man is being able to admit error. I can understand how the young-earth position was once reasonable, though Scripture never has demanded it. But the position has been untennable for quite some time. Admitting they are wrong on this issue does not mean (contrary to their book) that they are compomising Scripture, nor does believing in an old earth mean equivocation with Darwinian Evolution.
|
