MAKING SENSE OF THE CREATION EVOLUTION DEBATE

A critique by Andy Hanson

Note: This critique was shortened and framed in the larger context of a series of Hope Channel evangelistic efforts being produced by the Adventist Church. It can be viewed on the Spectrum Blog, thanks to its editor, Alexander Carpenter. The following is my extended critique of the five presentations alone.

Watching this series was a painful experience. For starters, the production values were abysmal—the audience never learned the name of the man who introduced the participants each evening, the camera work could only be rated “inexperienced amateur”, and the content of the five, ninety-minute broadcasts belied their promised titles.

Neither speaker appeared comfortable with their almost extemporaneous, tag team presentation of information. Timothy Standish babbled excitedly about the wonders of nature, and Ron Clouzet’s presentations were a jumble of theological and scientific references. He spoke when only a biblical worldview could satisfactorily establish what really happened.

Darwin was quoted often. His words revealed him to be very aware of the problems his evolutionary theory presented to the scientific community. He did not speculate about the origin of life, and only published The Origin of the Species after years of consulting with the leading scientific minds of his day. These honest reflections and carefully worded letters were used by the speakers to diminish Darwin’s credibility.

As I reread my notes, I have come to the conclusion that people who weren’t in attendance may think I’m overly critical. If you come to this conclusion, I suggest that you order this series of lectures and see for yourselves. It will be available in about six weeks. Email understandingcreation@gmail.com

Wednesday, May 4

THE WAY WE WERE: GOD AND THE BIG BANG

My title: Poetry is Science?

Notes:

• The Big Bang theory was competently explained and then discredited by an appeal to logic.
• The literal seven-day creation story was treated as fact.
• Creation of the earth, sun, and moon took place in six literal twenty-four hour days.
• When the stars were created was a matter of speculation. (There was no mention of the Genesis 2 creation story.)
• It was assumed that Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible at God’s direction.
• There are a myriad of reasons, scientifically, to support the notion that our world is a very unique and special place.

Thursday, May 5

THE LIFE OF CREATURES: WONDER AND TROUBLE IN PARADISE

My title: Literal Confusion

Notes:

• All viewer questions considered were of the “softball variety”.
• Differences between accepted scientific conclusions and the literal words of the Bible are due to misinterpretations of the Biblical text.
• A Biblical world view takes into account supernatural acts and is therefore “unrestricted”
• Evolution requires periods of impossible “spontaneous generation”.
• How life began requires a “theological explanation” for both evolutionists and creationists.
• There is a difference between theoretical Macro Evolution and observable Micro Evolution.
• The earth was created 6000 years ago.
• The biblical account of the Universal Flood is factual. (It was not mentioned that, according to the biblical chronology, the Flood occurred around 2500 BC.)
• Basic animal “kinds” entered the Ark in pairs. (No mention was made of another account in Genesis 7.)
• According to Standish, the Arc was “a very big boat”.
• Waters above the earth and beneath the earth combined to cover the entire world.
• It is possible that a miraculous wind evaporated enough water so that dry land finally appeared.
• According to Clouzet, “There are a number of things we don’t have an explanation for.”
• The humility of Moses is required as believers seek to understand other worldviews.

Friday, May 6

GENES AND GENIES: WHAT WE KNOW AND WHAT WE DON’T

My title: Gee Wiz!

Notes:

• Viewers with questions regarding race and repopulation of the earth after the flood are told that Abraham lived 500 years after the flood.
• Standish dazzles with stories about the incredible biology of life and gets carried away. This leaves Clouzet very little time to make his theological contribution.
• “It’s incredible!”; “It’s amazing!” are a frequent refrains.
• Solomon, the wisest man who ever lived, still didn’t understand why things happen the way they do.
• Clouzet: “It takes trust to figure out what we don’t understand.”

Saturday, May 7

THE FLOOD AND THE FOSSILS: RECORD OF A LOST WORLD

My title: Lost in Geologic Time

Notes:

• Early on, it was clear that neither Standish nor Clouzet knew what they are talking about.
• Apropos quote: “Don’t always believe people who speak with great confidence.”
• ‘There’s not much chance that you will meet Darwin in Heaven.” (That is almost a direct Standish quote.)
• The geologic column is like a layer cake.
• The Grand Canyon’s exposed, extensive, unbroken sedimentary layers are evidence of a recent universal flood.
• There is very little evidence of life in the Precambrian period.
• Radio carbon dating is explained and critiqued. (No other dating method was mentioned.)
• (There was no discussion of the age of dinosaurs, Neanderthals, evidence of primitive homo sapiens, genetic history, oil fields, or plate tectonics.)

Sunday, May 8

FATHER GOD OR MOTHER EARTH: THE PROBLEM OF EVIL AND A LOVING GOD

My title: Blind Guides

Notes:

• A disclaimer from Standish: “We are not archeologists, physicists, or geologists.”
• “You’ve all seen the Discovery Channel.”
• God’s creative power is revealed in nature because most natural things are “happy and cooperating”.
• “No one can find out God from beginning to end.”
• Herbivores are “good” animals and remain pretty much as God created them.
• Sin turned some animals into “bad” animals like carnivores—a picture of serrated shark tooth flashes on the screen.
• “Rational people are unsettled by violence in the natural world.”
• Darwin was influenced by Milton’s deistic tendencies in Paradise Lost.
• “Darwin wrote about a God he didn’t understand.”
• “Everyone has a religion, even atheists.”
• “Science has no position regarding evil.”