Dave Miller and the fun rhetoric of young earth creationism
- Hi, everyone.
A couple of years ago, Dave Miller, who is currently the new
executive director of Apologetics Press, wrote an article using the
typical young earth creationist rhetoric that taking science
seriously leads to all the evils of the world (apparently Dave thinks
these evils didn't exist before science came along!) at this page
Let's pretend for a moment that Dave was writing this same article
in, say, the year 1682, in which case, he would have written it
something like this...
The assault of humanism upon the American mindset in the last half-
century has taken a dreadful toll on our culture. Its atheistic
tentacles have invaded virtually every facet of social life:
politics, education, entertainment, medicine, industry, and yes,
religion. The church has not eluded its grasp. Evidences of
humanistic influence in the church may be seen in the fluctuating
attitudes toward morality, authority, worship, and fellowship.
One prominent manifestation of humanistic influence in the church is
the tendency to make concessions to the theory of heliocentrism. Even
Christian college science professors have been seduced by pseudo-
scientific "proof " that the Earth revolves around the sun.
Heliocentrism's survival as a credible viewpoint depends upon a
mechanistic view of the solar system. This circumstance has created a
climate in the scientific community in which those astronomical
methods that support a heliocentric Earth receive preeminence, while
those that support an unmoving Earth are effectively ignored.
Once a Christian accepts the idea of a revolving Earth, he
automatically is placed in a position where he must abandon a literal
interpretation of those biblical statements telling us the Earth does
not move. He must reject the statements that the Earth cannot be
moved (or accept some other compromising concept such as the Metaphor
Theory, "Phenomenological Language" Theory, etc.). Historically, in
their frantic need to maintain their own credibility as a valid
academic discipline, liberal theologians reevaluated their views of
the Bible, and altered their assessments in order to accommodate the
mechanistic, naturalistic framework of science. Consequently, the
accounts that God has firmly established the earth and that the Earth
cannot be moved, and that He had Joshua command the Sun to stand
still (not the Earth) have been stylized as "figurative"
or "metaphorical" or "phenomenological" language. It is incredibly
naïve to think that Christians can use these terms to refer to the
literal statements of the Bible, and there be no connection with
liberal theology, a mechanistic, naturalistic view of the world, and
a devaluated view of the inspiration of the sacred Book.
Once the biblical text is compromised, once the obvious meaning of
Scripture is whitewashed in order to make its teaching more palatable
and in step with secular culture, once Scripture is adjusted to fit
human ideas rather than human ideas being adjusted to fit Scripture
the battle has been lost and Satan has won. No one should be
surprised if our children have enough sense to see it, and to live
Of course, Satan's evil heliocentric plot has won a virtually total
victory, since almost all Christians today have been undermined by
accepting the fact that the earth revolves around the sun, and any
Christian who seriously thinks otherwise is considered by other
Christians to just not have a clue and to be mired in quite
antiquated notions. Isn't young earth creationist rhetoric so fun?
- Todd wrote, in part:
> A couple of years ago, Dave Miller,Todd,
> who is currently the new executive
> director of Apologetics Press, wrote
> an article using the typical young earth
> creationist rhetoric. . .
> Let's pretend for a moment that Dave
> was writing this same article in, say, the
> year 1682, in which case, he would have
> written it something like this...
> (snip, snip)
That was a very good paraphrase of the article. Reminds me of a tactic
I once used. Very effective, I think.
However, don't you think you need to start referring to Dave Miller as
Dave Miller, Ph.D. or Dr. Dave?
Hmmm, I was just wondreing if Dave Miller is goiong to be copyrighting
"Dave Miller, Ph.D. like Dr. Bert appears to have done?
You know, in my own limited involvement in thees things, I don't have to
imagine how Dr. Dave might have said things a few hundred years ago.
It was only a few years ago that Dr. Dave was down the street where the
son of Thomas B. Warren, Ph.D. was preaching at the time and putting
that Matthew Maury story over on my daughter.
I think he left off our discussions that he was going to do with Maury
what Dr. Bert said he was recently going to do with that "Rock 'n Reel"
story; keep researching it.
I don't recall if Dr. Dave ever gave up his Maury claims. Since he's
now taking over at Apologetics Press (maybe being in charge of
dismantling it?), maybe one of his first orders of business ought to be
going through the A/P records and disclosing what information they have
regarding Dr. Bert's source for his Maury statue claim, whether such
records reveal Dr. Bert's knoweldge and involvement in the demise of my
first discussion list, and whether such records reveal the "rest of the
story" regarding those CRSQ letters and Dr. Bert's knowledge that I did
not write what Dr. Bert called my "feebla attempt".