In a message dated 04/30/2005 3:54:23 P.M. Central Daylight Time, wayfaringman@...
In a message dated 04/29/2005 6:58:11 A.M. Central Daylight Time, wayfaringman@...
Well it sure looks to me like Mr. Sturgis is setting up a strawman. Because no knowledgeable creationist that I know of claims that the Bible is a scintific textbook. The claim is that it is historically accurate. Especially in the case of origins.
Actually, both ICR and AIG claim that the Bible is both historically AND scientifically accurate. The also both claim that ANY evidence that contradicts the claim is "invalid".
Need links (again)?
it is the position of the Institute that the two are compatible and that all genuine facts of science support the Bible.....
The Bible, consisting of the thirty-nine canonical books of the Old Testament and the twenty-seven canonical books of the New Testament, is the divinely-inspired revelation of the Creator to man. Its unique, plenary, verbal inspiration guarantees that these writings, as originally and miraculously given, are infallible and completely authoritative on all matters with which they deal, free from error of any sort, scientific and historical as well as moral and theological.
Link: ICR Tenets of Creationism
The 66 books of the Bible are the written Word of God. The Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant throughout. Its assertions are factually true in all the original autographs. It is the supreme authority, not only in all matters of faith and conduct, but in everything it teaches. Its authority is not limited to spiritual, religious or redemptive themes but includes its assertions in such fields as history and science.
By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.
Link: About AiG: Statement of Faith
There ya go, Harry... the statements of two leading creationist organizations that the Bible is scientifically correct and that evidence contradictory to it is "invalid" (or alternatively, only "genuine" evidence is compatible with it).
Can we rule out ICR and AIG as "knowledgeable creationists"?
I believe you have misunderstood both ICR and AiG. They are meaning that the Bible doesn't contradict science.
THE BIBLE IS A TEXTBOOK OF SCIENCE
by Henry M. Morris*
� Copyright 2004 <../copyright.html> Institute for Creation Research. All Rights Reserved.
"If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not,
how shall ye believe if I tell you of heavenly things?" (John 3 :12).
The Christian polemicist frequently is confronted with the problem of the scientific "errors" in Scripture, especially in its first eleven chapters. Often he is tempted to resort to the solution of neo-orthodoxy and to protest that "the Bible is, after all, not a textbook of science, but rather of religion." "It is meant to tell us the fact of creation, not the method of creation; it tells us who is Creator, not when or how He created. It points us to a confrontation with the Creator, not an understanding of earth history."
It is obvious, of course, that the Bible is not a scientific textbook in the sense of giving detailed technical descriptions and mathematical formulations of natural phenomena. But this is not adequate reason for questioning the objective accuracy of those numerous portions of Scripture which do deal with natural phenomena and historical events.
But the Bible�s not a science textbook, is it?�
by Carl Wieland </home/area/bios/c_wieland.asp>
This common objection to believing the straightforward history of Genesis has, in one sense, a simple answer � �No, it�s not�. Dr D. James Kennedy correctly says about the Bible, �It is not a scientific textbook. It is not a textbook on religion. It is not a textbook at all; it is a revelation from God!�1