“Beyond Creation Science” by Timothy Martin and Jeffrey Vaughn

Beyond Creation Science, click to view on Amazon.com
Authors: Timothy P. Martin & Jeffrey L. Vaughn
Format: Softcover
Page Count: 527
Publisher: Apocalyptic Vision Press
Publication Date: 3rd edition, 2007
ISBN: 0979914701
Rating: 2 of 5 stars

I want to thank Timothy Martin for providing me with a complimentary review copy of his book, Beyond Creation Science. It was a pleasure to read and interact with this book.

It’s a rare book that aims to confront its readers thinking and challenge their deep set assumptions and beliefs on an important topic. In Beyond Creation Science, Timothy Martin and Jeffrey Vaughn attempt to do this on two fronts, with the young-earth / old-earth creationism debate and end-times theology (eschatology). With such a daunting aim, it would be surprising if the book succeeded in both goals with every reader.

While the book did not overturn my thinking completely on both ends of the Bible, it did stretch my mind and give me cause to evaluate what I believe in light of the Bible’s entire teaching. The authors present their case well in a coherent manner, and they deserve a hearing.

The work is subtitled “New covenant creation from Genesis to Revelation”, and the authors do succeed in convincing the reader that Genesis and Revelation are inextricably linked. How one thinks and interprets Genesis directly impacts how he thinks of eschatology and Revelation.

A strength of the book is its stress on biblical theology–seeing all of Scripture in light of the redemptive story. I also share a suspicion of dispensationalism with its authors. I found their claim–that the same scientifically literal approach, championed by dispensationalists, which results in a full-fledged futuristic approach to Revelation (pre-trib, premillennialism) also leads them to subscribe to young-earth creationism–convincing.

While I am not completely convinced of old-earth creationism, this book certainly gave me more respect for that view. The authors show how young-earth creationism, was in large part advanced after the threat of Darwinism surfaced, and with the benefit of dispensational hermeneutics. I was shocked to learn that the hugely influential book The Genesis Flood (by John Whitcomb and Henry Morris), was based to a large degree on an earlier work by a Seventh Day Adventist (who would certainly be biased toward a literal 24-hour day view of the creation week), one George McCready Price who wrote The New Geology in 1923.

What was especially fascinating for me was the authors defense of a local flood view. I’ve always just assumed the flood was global. The evidence does seem quite compelling when you examine the terminology used and some of the Biblical and scientific questions which arise when one holds to a global flood. In our scientific age we are biased to see global-sounding terms as unequivocally global. In days gone by, that is not how such terms were understood, and this book explains why.

Another interesting element in the book was the discussion of the antediluvian lifespans. The book shows how it was only Seth’s descendants who were said to have long ages. It also points to millennial lifespans mentioned in Isaiah and Revelation and concludes the biblical ideal life is one thousand years old.

I must admit I was wary of this book’s advocacy of full preterism. I had hardly been exposed to partial preterism before reading this, so full preterism was hard to swallow. In one sense I can see the evidence for partial preterism (the view that the Olivet Discourse has largely been fulfilled in the Roman destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70). But as the arguments were pressed further for a full preterist view that the resurrection is solely spiritual (i.e. regeneration), and the new heaven and new earth are fulfilled in a Christian’s existence today, I had to balk. In Acts, the angels say Jesus will return visibly like the disciples saw him go into heaven, and in John 14, Jesus says he’s building a place for us and will come back to bring us to be with him. These are just two passages which in my mind directly contradict a full preterist view.

To be honest, this book is not attempting a full fledged defense of full preterism. The book focuses more on Genesis than Revelation. And it doesn’t attempt to answer all the counter arguments for both issues. It aims to show how one’s views of prophecy influence one’s views of creation and the flood. It succeeds in that respect.

I found the book fascinating but remain unconvinced. Often I thought the argumentation was somewhat weak. Authors were quoted as if simply providing their quote proved the point. When trying to disprove the notion that death could not exist before the Fall, the book did not adequately deal with some of the key theological and exegetical supports for that view. This being said, I can understand many of the Biblical arguments for these views now. I can appreciate the authors’ desire to follow Scripture wherever it leads. This is what all of us should aim to do. And to that end, studying out the claims of preterism and evaluating them Biblically is no waste of time.

I would recommend Bible students read this book. But I would caution them against the full preterist view. It runs counter to the historic church creeds and seems to deny some important truths. At the least be wary of it and do more research before adopting that view as your own.

Disclaimer: this book was provided by the author for review. The reviewer was under no obligation to provide a positive review.

This book is available for purchase at the following sites: Amazon.com or direct from beyondcreationscience.com.

Bigfoot Found

I’m not making this up! Check out this story from Fox News:

Bigfoot Trackers Say They’ve Got a Body

I’ve always been fascinated by the hunt for bigfoot. And I don’t buy the claim that modern science has everything figured out. We’ll have to wait for the news conference Friday, and the results from the testing to come in, but this could be the most interesting news story of the year. Or, then again, maybe not.

Check out the links at the bottom of that story. They link to the pictures of the body, and there’s a Fox News video as well.

Global Warming: The Myth of Consensus

I came across a couple of articles which explore the myth of scientific “consensus” when it comes to global warming being primarily caused by man.

Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte did some research in surveying all scientific papers published from 2004 to Feb. 2007 (the results will be published in Energy and Environment). Michael Asher of Daily Tech obtained a pre-publication copy and comments on Dr. Schulte’s findings:

Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers “implicit” endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no “consensus.”

The figures are even more shocking when one remembers the watered-down definition of consensus here. Not only does it not require supporting that man is the “primary” cause of warming, but it doesn’t require any belief or support for “catastrophic” global warming. In fact of all papers published in this period (2004 to February 2007), only a single one makes any reference to climate change leading to catastrophic results. (emphasis original)

Just prior to coming across that article, I read the latest edition of Imprimis. It was a speech by S. Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences, University of Virginia entitled “Global Warming: Man-Made or Natural?” In his article, Singer quietly argues that man’s contribution to global warming is minimal and that such warming is part of a natural cycle and may have some positive benefits.

He also had this to say about “consensus”:

In identifying the burning of fossil fuels as the chief cause of warming today, many politicians and environmental activists simply appeal to a so-called “scientific consensus.” There are two things wrong with this. First, there is no such consensus: An increasing number of climate scientists are raising serious questions about the political rush to judgment on this issue. For example, the widely touted “consensus” of 2,500 scientists on the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is an illusion: Most of the panelists have no scientific qualifications, and many of the others object to some part of the IPCC’s report. The Associated Press reported recently that only 52 climate scientists contributed to the report’s “Summary for Policymakers.”

Likewise, only about a dozen members of the governing board voted on the “consensus statement” on climate change by the American Meteorological Society (AMS). Rank and file AMS scientists never had a say, which is why so many of them are now openly rebelling. Estimates of skepticism within the AMS regarding man-made global warming are well over 50 percent.

Personally, I believe there is much that mankind can do to destroy the environment. We are called to steward it and watch over it. Yet I can’t help but believe there is an ulterior agenda behind the global warming protests. Just look at factories today versus 60 or 70 years ago. We’ve come a long way and improved emissions immensely. No matter what concessions industry makes, there are loud demands for more. With other concerns facing our world, a maniacal devotion to one particular issue is unwise. It has the potential to negatively impact the fight against poverty and for good health in the undeveloped world.

“Reclaiming the Two Books of God” by Don Sailer

351 footnotes will either make or brake a 100-page book. In this case, it is the footnotes (which document the many quotes)  which make the book so interesting. The books full title is Reclaiming the Two Books of God: Restoring Moral Sanity to the Church. And the book’s author is Don Sailer. Some of you might recognize the author’s name from his interaction in the comment threads over at Sharper Iron. Yes, he is a fundamentalist, but he also has a doctorate from Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary and currently pastors an Evangelical Free Church, so he is not your ordinary guy.

And it takes an unordinary guy, sometimes, to take on an unpopular topic. His book focuses on the widespread rejection of Biblical authority in both church and mainstream culture. He traces the issues which led to the abandonment of Biblical inerrancy and one by one, all the cardinal doctrines of Christianity.

For such a difficult topic, the book is helped immensely by the opening discussion of the Scopes’ trial. With that colorful event as a backdrop, Sailer moves on to tackle the growth of modernism and the advancement of Darwinism. He then details both the fundamentalist defense of the Bible’s authority in the face of modernism and the extreme humanist reaction against naturalism. In all of this, Sailer is sounding a call for today’s church to return to a firm position on the Bible’s authority.

While there is obviously much that could be said about these subjects, Sailer focuses in on the intersection of the two books of God: Creation and Revelation. Using the Puritan imagery of two books, Sailer discusses how science and the Bible complement each other. He focuses on the arguments that stem from the Darwinian view of science — ultra naturalism, if you will. And he contrasts that view with the Fundamentalist view of Scripture.

Sailer aims to accomplish his impossible mission through the use of numerous quotes. These often help the book, by letting historical figures speak to the issues themselves. He quotes, for instance, many of the leading fundamentalists and modernists of the late 1800s and early 1900s. Sometimes, though, I must admit, the quotes tend to weary the reader. And at times Sailer seems to jump from contemporary authors to those of yesteryear without properly alerting the reader. All in all, though, the value of the book is in the many quotes.

A secondary main point of the book is to demonstrate how the two books of God do not contradict each other. Rather than attempting a full fledged creationism discussion, Sailer focuses in on one key point: the age of the earth. Leaning heavily on Gorman Gray’s book The Age of the Universe: What are the Biblical Limits?, Sailer presents a strong case for a mediating position. He defends six literal days of creation, but claims that the universe and the planet earth were actually created before those six days: there is an unspecified amount of time between Gen. 1:1-2 and 1:3ff, he argues (cf. Is. 45:18). He also notes that Scripture merely teaches that God created and ordered life on earth in the six days. This position avoids the problems of the Gap Theory (death before Adam), and joins young earth creationists in denying evolution and affirming a literal view of Genesis. At the same time, it allows for the scientific findings of the speed of light in relation to the size and age of the universe.

I must admit that two things struck me as odd in Sailer’s discussion of the age of the earth. First, I could see how strict Biblical literalists who claim the chronology in the Bible would point to the earth being only at most 10,000 years old, would argue that Don is doing the same thing the modernists did with science: accommodating his view of Scripture to science’s claims. Second, I thought it odd that the book which had hitherto spoken largely in generalities and affirmed all those who resisted modernism, now became so specific as to dismiss old earth creationist views (like the Day Age theory) and strict young earth views out of hand.

Yet this view of creation appeals to me. I admit that I can see how astronomical and geological claims for the age of the earth and universe would be a stumbling block to people’s faith if they are told the bible teaches expressly a young earth. But the Bible does not teach this directly, and so it is a needless stumbling block. (I know evolution vs. creation is a big enough stumbling block of its own, but lets not discuss this here.) So I can see how this view does much to “reclaim the two books of God”. I haven’t come to a definitive conclusion on this issue yet, but if you are interested in a short article defending a Day Age view of an old earth, check out this one by Justin Taylor. And then check out Gray’s book (the first few chapters of which are online).

In conclusion, I would heartily recommend Don Sailer’s book. It is only 109 pages and is quite easy to read, and the historical quotes he pieces together are worth the price of the book. Consider, for example, this gem from William Jennings Bryan:

They first discard the Mosaic account of man’s creation, and they do it on the ground that there are no miracles. This in itself, constitutes a practical repudiation of the Bible: the miracles of the Old and New Testament cannot be cut out without a mutilation that is equivalent to rejection…. (pg. 18)

His discussion of the Scopes’ trial is enlightening, and you will be fascinated by his discussion of the age of the earth. Through it all, Sailer stresses the importance of Biblical inerrancy and succeeds in making his case that we cannot abandon the Bible’s authority, or else we are left without any Christianity at all. And considering the issues facing today’s church, this is a case worth hearing.

Disclaimer: this book was provided by the author for review. The reviewer was under no obligation to provide a positive review.

This book may still available for purchase at Amazon.com.