Home > apologetics, Bible Study, Creation, Ezekiel, hermeneutics, Worldview > Highlights From Recent Online Articles: Creation Science

Highlights From Recent Online Articles: Creation Science

February 2, 2013

Just a quick look here at an interesting recent online article:

From ICR.org’s January edition of “Acts & Facts”:  a clear and simple article (and written by a Ph.D. scientist), “The Two-Book Fallacy”.  A few months ago I heard the term “two books” (several times) from an Old Earth Creationist, one who often appealed to scientist authority (see this conversation).  ICR’s article points out what should be obvious, the difference between a book and the world around us:

It is not something that is comprised of statements in human language. It is not something that a person can literally read or interpret in the same way that we interpret a sentence. … The advantage of a book is that it is comprised of clear statements in human language that are designed to be understood by the reader. The meaning of a book is the intention of the author. But that’s not the case with nature. What does a rock mean? What does a fossil mean? They don’t literally mean anything because they are not statements made by an author who is intending to convey an idea. …. a record is an account in writing that preserves the knowledge of facts or events. Rocks and fossils are not in the written form and are, therefore, not a record. … the primary purpose of nature is not to teach, but to function. Consequently, the world is not comprised of statements that are easy to understand. Moreover, nature is cursed due to sin. Therefore, God gave us a clear, inerrant account of the major events of history in writing so that we can begin to properly understand nature.

  1. February 2, 2013 at 5:33 pm

    I’d read Dr. Lisle’s article and kind of wondered why the “two books” idea bugged him so much. What you added makes sense. Thanks for sharing. 🙂

  2. February 2, 2013 at 11:49 pm

    Thanks for sharing Dr. Lisle’s quote

  3. Pam S.
    February 5, 2013 at 6:58 am

    Dr. Lisle’s quote made me think of what those who spiritualize Scripture do. Like with nature, they could presuppose their ideas of what it means or what it is trying to say. So then who would be right??? Anybody could say “I am”.


  4. February 5, 2013 at 5:00 pm

    Thanks, Cheri and Jim. Yes, it is a term that old-earth creationists like to use, to the point of annoyance. And yes, Pam, the hermeneutical issue is the same for both creation and handling of the prophetic texts (see this previous post on that topic — https://scripturethoughts.wordpress.com/2012/01/18/the-hermeneutical-connection-between-creation-and-eschatology/ — the spiritualizing approach, rather than just taking the text at face value, leads to all kinds of non-biblical ideas.

  1. No trackbacks yet.
Comments are closed.
%d bloggers like this: