We have been looking at an article by Luke Nix of Cross Examined of a list of alleged "strawman arguments" that he believed Ken Ham was making on Jeff Zweerink as they debated on Unbelievable. His article which was titled "20 Myths About Old Earth Creationism" was a response to the debate on Unbelievable titled, "Do We Live on a Young or Old Earth?" which had taken place on September of 2019, within about three years beforehand. Luke Nix had called each point a "myth" in which he asserted was a separate "strawman" that Ken Ham had made.
However, as we've been looking at the last two parts in our evaluation of Luke Nix's article we have found out that his responses read more like objections that he has with YECs (Young Earth Creationists/Young Earth Creationism) positions whether than strawman accusation. In fact, as we've gone through each of these responses we've seen no real evidence that Ken Ham, or any YEC, thus far in Nix's arguments, has strawman Zweerink or any OECs (Old Earth Creationists/Old Earth Creationism). In fact, as we've gone through them, Nix has made numerous strawman arguments against both Ken Ham and other YECs. It has become painfully clear that Nix does not understand our position nor the arguments of Ken Ham put forward by him in the aforementioned debate. In fact, I am starting to think he wasn't listening very carefully to the debate, or at least Ken Ham's arguments in the debate, as demonstrated in my last response to Luke Nix.
So far, we have evaluated the first 10 of Luke Nix's "myths" and found that, not only that these "myths" are not strawman arguments that Ken Ham has made during the debate, but they are not "myths" at all! We are already halfway through with our evaluation of Luke Nix's arguments, and so far none of them have panned out successfully. Let's see if any of the others will fail better than his last ten responses to Ken Ham and YEC positions. As always, Nix's comments will be in red, mine will be in blue, and the "Myth" numbers & titles will be in black, bold, and in all caps to distinguish them from the rest of our responses.
MYTH #11: HAVING ANIMAL DEATH BEFORE THE FALL MAKES GOD RESPONSIBLE FOR MORAL EVIL.
Nix: Related to Myth #10 above, Ken Ham tries to show how God is responsible for moral evil if animal death existed before the Fall of Adam and Eve. Since the Christian God is not responsible for moral evil, then if there is a view that necessarily implies that God is responsible for moral evil, then it is false, and its god is not the Christian God. Ken Ham argues that animal death is a moral evil, and since old-earth creation requires that God is responsible for it, then old-earth creationism must be false. He attempts to release God from the responsibility of animal death by saying that the Fall introduced death to the animal kingdom. Many YECs have proposed different models for the Fall introducing death into the natural order (changed laws of physics, attributing creative power to sin, and punctuated equilibrium are just a few) in order to escape the implications of their own accusation.
But all this effort is actually unnecessary because animal death is not morally evil. For an event, action, or behavior to be morally evil, the perpetrator must be a moral agent with the free will to choose to do otherwise, and the offended party must be of intrinsic value. Both of those features are necessary, but neither are present in the physical creation prior to God’s creation of Adam and Eve. Animals are not moral agents, and they are not created in the Image of God, which would be the source of intrinsic value. These are precisely why we do not classify animals killing other animals as murder. “Murder” is “killing” with moral status. Without the moral status, animal killing is just killing, not murder. Since animals killing animals is not performed by moral, free agents and animals are not intrinsically valuable, there is no foundation for calling such death “morally” evil. It does not matter how much death happened before the Fall of Adam and Eve; it was not morally evil. So even though God is the Creator of the natural order (which includes animal death), He is NOT responsible for any moral evil here. Thus this myth is demonstrably false.
Brian: As Nix, himself, admits at the start of this response, this is a reiteration of his previous response to Ken Ham in "Myth #10" which I dealt with in my last post in Part Two of my response to Nix. As I also mentioned in my last two posts is that Nix appears to be elephant hurtling these responses at Ken Han and other YECs, and one of the tell-tell signs is the fact that when people elephant hurtle objections at someone they may split the same objection up, multiplying them, but rewording it to make it look like separate objections when they are the same. Nix is definitely elephant hurtling these objections at Ken Ham & other YECs, but even worse, he's not even trying to hide the fact that's what he's doing it!
Once again, I don't think Nix understands YECs arguments, especially on death before sin. Strangely enough, Hugh Ross even understands what we are arguing at this point. Death is the consequence of Man bringing sin into the world, and, as such, Man is responsible for bringing death into the world through the Fall, not God. God created a perfect world because the Bible tells us this, so according to Scripture it was Man that brought Sin into the world. If OEC was true, then the Bible's teaching on this wrong, and God caused death to come into the world, apart from Sin! It is like every time Ken Ham speaks Nix falls asleep, and his mind checks out. When he awakes he captures glimpses of some of Ken Ham's wording, puts it together, takes it out of context, puts his own interpretive spin on it, and then rewords it to make it easier to respond to. Unfortunately for Nix, this is a very deceptive way to respond to people. When I respond to people I try to understand them to the best of my ability, which includes taken them in context.
Toward the end of his first paragraph, Nix argued, "Many YECs have proposed different models for the Fall introducing death into the natural order (changed laws of physics, attributing creative power to sin, and punctuated equilibrium are just a few) in order to escape the implications of their own accusation." Everything Nix placed in parentheses were strawman arguments. I had already dealt with the claim that "YECs think the laws of physics had been changed" in a previous post responding to Nix, but none of our arguments, claims, positions, nor models call for any changes in the laws of physics. This is what I call rhetorical peer pressure, or a presuppositional scare tactic. It just a way of trying to force their presuppositions on you, in this case, uniformitarian assumptions about the past.
We don't argue the other two either. In fact, "punctuated equilibrium" is actually incorporated in certain views concerning evolution, by evolutionists, not YECs. punctuated equilibrium is the view that sometimes evolution happens really fast and doesn't leave any evidence behind. It is a way for some evolutionists to try and hold onto evolutionary ideas due to the lack of transitional fossils within the fossil record. He could be referring to speciation, although I have never heard any YEC argue for speciation at the Fall. Some OECs, however, think that speciation is "evolution" but this is false. Speciation involve changes that has no new information added to the genome! Therefore, speciation is not evolution, nor punctuated equilibrium. Also, again, I have never heard speciation even being used in reference to the Fall. His list of things in his parenthetical reference is odd since none of them seemed to reflect actual YEC models.
His second paragraph just continues his strawman argument where he thinks we're suggesting that "death" is morally evil, but he misses the point. Death is the consequence for Sin, which, if OEC positions were true, would have existed prior to the Fall, and Adam would have been standing on a proverbial graveyard of death, disease and decay over the course of millions of years, prior to Sin coming into the world, all the while at each stage of Creation God says is "good" until Creation was finished, then he said it was "very good" (see Gen. 1). Nothing in Ken Ham's arguments suggest he thought animals were "moral agents" but rather as animals killing one another would still constitute a world filled with death, disease and chaos, and therefore be opposite from the perfect Creation that God is said to have made in Gen. 1. Btw, the only thing that's "demonstrably false" is his misrepresentation of Ken Ham's arguments.
MYTH #12: IF YOU CAN UNDERSTAND THE GENERAL MESSAGE OF THE GOSPEL WITHOUT THE SCHOLARSHIP, THEN YOU CAN UNDERSTAND THE DETAILS OF CREATION WITHOUT SCHOLARSHIP.
Nix: This myth implies that because the basics of the Gospel can be understood and acted upon by the youngest and least educated among us, that the deeper and more refined details of the Gospel can also be discovered without the need for a scholarship. Ken Ham holds that the same applies to ideas of origins: if the basics of creation can be understood without scholarship, then so can the details be known without scholarship. In the podcast, Ken Ham appeals to biblical scholarship to make his case; then, he comes back later to deny the value of such biblical scholarship. He seems to hold that the “plain reading” (as would be understood the first time a person reads a passage) is the correct and comprehensive understanding- there is no need for further scholarship to determine details. Because Ham both uses and denies the value of biblical scholarship in the same conversation, it is hard to determine which of the mutually exclusive views he takes. But since he pounds the drum of “the plain reading” so much, it is reasonable to think that he (at least by his words and his actions) denies the value of biblical scholarship and affirms that there is no need to pursue further study beyond one’s initial reading of the text.
Interestingly enough, the Apostle Paul denies such a view explicitly in 1 Corinthians 3:2. Paul tells the Corinthian church that he gave them the theological basics and called it “milk,” but affirmed that the theological details, which he called “solid food,” still remained to be grasped by them. A deeper study (scholarship) is required if we are to get to the truth of a view. If we eschew biblical scholarship, then we run the same risk of the Corinthian church and being satisfied only with “milk” and never graduating to “solid food.” When we look deeper into the first chapters of Genesis, we discover that the YEC view is not the only view compatible with the inerrant text. In fact, a range of views are fully compatible. If a person is to pursue the correct understanding, they must begin with the correct list of available options, then use further scholarship and sources of truth to determine which of those available options is the correct interpretation. This myth denies such a pursuit, which is in direct contradiction to Paul, so it must be false.
Brian: I have found lots of OECs and skeptics alike that have a tendency to play the either-or card with their opponents citing authorities: "Either you allow/take scholarly claims/opinions or you don't!" As if you can't acknowledge appeals to authority as both logically fallacious, and admissible whenever it comes down to factual information at the same time. However, this is better understood as a misinterpretation/misapplication of the appeal to authority fallacy. Please let me explain below.
Not all appeals to authority are logically fallacious. The issue is not that you cite authorities, but the way/how you cite authorities. You can cite an expert whenever you are getting factual information from them! I mean, where else are you going to get your information from, a non-expert? This is called deferring to authority in which Bo Bennett comments on:
"Be very careful not to confuse "deferring to an authority on an issue" with the appeal to authority fallacy...The appeal to authority is a fallacy in argumentation, but deferring to an authority is a reliable heuristic that we all use virtually every day on issues of relatively little importance...It is not at all unreasonable (or an error in reasoning) to accept information as provisionally true by credible authorities. Of course, the reasonableness is moderated by the claim being made (i.e., how extraordinary, how important) and the authority (how credible, how relevant to the claim)" (Bo Bennett, Logically Fallacious: The Ultimate Collection of Over 300 Logical Fallacies, 2020, pp. 51-52, bold and italics are in the original).
However, there are ways in which one might cite an authority, but the logic doesn't follow. For example, if the scholar gives his opinion or conclusion on the matter, but such "opinions/conclusions" are, either not based upon evidence, or no evidence is either given by you or the scholar in question. In which case, the scholars opinions/statements are being substituted for the evidence, and, it seems, within the context of your arguments and statements, you are either implying the scholars' infallibility, or you are assuming it! Even if you're willing to admit your scholars are not infallible, it would not change the fact that, within the scope of your argument, it is still being assumed. Also, if you cite an authority that has no authority nor expertise in the area in which they have expertise in is also an appeal to authority. Deferring to authority is only a useful tactic if 1) the authority or arguer has and mentions the evidence too, and 2) if they are relevant authorities in the area(s) in question. As Norman Geisler and Ronald Brooks said in their book on logic:
"Authorities out of their field have no authority. It really doesn't matter how many degrees a person has in nuclear physics, that doesn't mean he knows how to cook. A good example of an authority overstepping his bounds is Isaac Asimov's Guide to the Bible. Now, the man certainly is an expert in physics, biochemistry, science fiction, cosmology, and humanism, but he has no authority in writing about the Bible" (Norman L. Geisler & Ronald M. Brooks, Come Let Us Reason: An Introduction to Logical Thinking, 1990, p. 98, italics in the original).
Citing irrelevant authorities is about like a fish trying to tell a bird how to fly. For example, Hugh Ross might be a great astronomer, but he is not neither a Biblical, nor Hebrew, scholar, so don't be citing him as one! Dr. Hugh Ross, in a debate with Eric Hovind on YouTube, made the comment that there are Hebrew scholars which work for his organization that would claim that the seventh day is open and ongoing, but this would be an appeal to authority fallacy since Hebrew scholars may know a lot about Hebrew, but Ross' claim of the "seventh day continuing" falls within the expertise of biblical exegesis, which will be within the prevue of those who have expertise in biblical studies, such as myself since those are my credentials in which I am even pursuing more education in (check out Hugh Ross' and Eric Hovind's debate on YouTube here). Hugh Ross has neither an expertise in either Biblical Studies or even in Hebrew Studies, even if he tries to act like he does.
Normal Geisler & Ronald Brooks goes further by saying, "The bottom line is this: all appeals to authority ultimately rest on the evidence that the authority has. The only reason to quote an authority is that he knows the evidence better than we do. The letters after his name don't mean a thing without the evidence to back up his position" (Geisler & Brooks, p. 99). In order to make a distinction between properly citing an authority and improperly citing an authority, some, like Dr. Jason Lisle, has chosen to call this fallacy, the faulty appeal to authority fallacy. In fact, Dr. Lisle who has been on my channel once, and is scheduled to come back April 13th, 2022, is a young-earth creationists. The reason this is relevant is because Nix attack seems to think Ken Ham and other YECs are, some how, against the use of biblical scholarship. This is what he said:
"Not all appeals to authority are faulty appeals to authority. It is legitimate to consider the opinion of an expert on a particular topic. None of us has the time or the ability to verify each and every truth claim that has ever been made. We can and should rely upon the expertise of others at times (Jason Lisle, Introduction to Logic, 2018, p. 146).
Dr. Jason Lisle goes further by giving three criteria by which assess authority properly by: 1) Appealing to an irrelevant authority, 2) Failure to weigh in a person's worldview as a contributing factor to his conclusions & assessment, and 3) assuming the infallibility of a fallible authority (Lisle, pp. 146-148). It is really not Biblical scholarship we are against. However, no authority, no matter how smart, how well-educated, or how many letters they just happen to have after their names, they are not infallible with the exception of God, who's our ultimate authority, and is infallible.
I don't think Nix fully understands that since he is, essentially, accusing Ken Ham of double standards with citing scholars that he don't actually have. Nix says that, "He seems to hold that the “plain reading” (as would be understood the first time a person reads a passage) is the correct and comprehensive understanding- there is no need for further scholarship to determine details." He seems to only have a partial understanding what is called perspicuity of Scripture. Yes, most of the Bible is written in a straightforward sort of language that can be understood by most people, but this doesn't negate deeper studies at times. Ken Ham, nor no YEC, is opposed to Bible study. In fact, we're all for it! Perspicuity of Scripture is just a way of saying, for the most part, the Scriptures are written so clear that it can, generally speaking, be understood by the average person. This does not negate biblical scholarship, nor does it require negation of it! It only requires that the average person can understand Scripture: When it says Moses did "X" it doesn't really mean he did "Y"! If the Bible says Jesus' ministry started in Galilee, it doesn't really mean Nazareth!
The problem is that Nix, along with OECs, regarding Genesis 1-11, treat the Bible as if it is some kind of code that needs to be puzzled over and figure out no matter how straightforward the passage. As Ken Ham has pointed out in that debate, OECs do not take this position with any other area of Scripture outside the texts of, and any references touching, Gen. 1-11. It is only with these approaches that such eisegetically techniques are claimed.
Afterwards, Nix made the comment, "Because Ham both uses and denies the value of biblical scholarship in the same conversation, it is hard to determine which of the mutually exclusive views he takes. But since he pounds the drum of “the plain reading” so much, it is reasonable to think that he (at least by his words and his actions) denies the value of biblical scholarship and affirms that there is no need to pursue further study beyond one’s initial reading of the text." As I have already implied earlier, this is a strawman, and factually & logically inaccurate. Nix assumes because Ham is against faulty appeals to authority, & against appeals to such fallible authorities to tell them what the Bible means, in spite of what it explicitly says, that he rejects the use of proper biblical scholarship, but this is not the case, but he does recognize the fallibility of human opinion, & such opinions ought not be used as our "interpretive grid" when it comes to proper exegesis. Nix thinks that such denial of biblical scholarship is logically warranted on the basis of his claims and actions, but a misrepresentation will always logically follow from another misrepresentation.
In Nix's second paragraph he decides to try & show that such faulty appeals to authority is warranted by the Scriptures by giving an example of 1 Cor. 3:2. Nix comments on these passages, "Paul tells the Corinthian church that he gave them the theological basics and called it 'milk,' but affirmed that the theological details, which he called 'solid food,' still remained to be grasped by them. A deeper study (scholarship) is required if we are to get to the truth of a view. If we eschew biblical scholarship, then we run the same risk of the Corinthian church and being satisfied only with 'milk' and never graduating to 'solid food.'" Accept this is not what Paul was talking about! Let me cite from Paul's own words in context:
"But I, brothers, could not address you as spiritual people, but as people of the flesh, as infants in Christ. I fed you with milk, not solid food, for you were not ready for it. And even now you are not yet ready, for you are still of the flesh. For while there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not of the flesh and behaving only in a human way?" (1 Cor. 3:1-3, ESV).
Nix had taken Paul completely out of context! Paul was speaking of spiritual maturity because some people within the Corinthian church had acted in a childish fashion. It was their behavior that was in view, not Paul imparting theological truths on them. By the way, even if Paul wanted to impart theological truths in this way this wouldn't be no different than a preacher did it, and, as per Paul's M.O., he would have did it according to the Scriptures, but not in a way that override the Scriptures that he believed in. Plus, he was an apostle where such authority of spiritual & theological guidance was within his authority. However, Nix has misused the passage to support his view to use opinions of scholars and scientists, which are diverse to begin with, to override the clear teachings of Scriptures. However, his misapplication had failed, and proved to be circular since he was trying to use his "authority" to override Paul's clear meaning in the process.
There to the end of his response, Nix had, furthermore, said, "When we look deeper into the first chapters of Genesis, we discover that the YEC view is not the only view compatible with the inerrant text. In fact, a range of views are fully compatible. If a person is to pursue the correct understanding, they must begin with the correct list of available options, then use further scholarship and sources of truth to determine which of those available options is the correct interpretation. This myth denies such a pursuit, which is in direct contradiction to Paul, so it must be false." Nix seems to assumed, as many OECs do, as well as Zweerink in the debate Nix is evaluating, that the presence of such disputes or alternate viewpoints means you have to go deeper than the plain reading of the text. As if the straightforward meaning must be overwritten in the presence of such disputes, and a "deeper meaning" must be sought after. However, persons may still dispute meanings that are plain and straightforward. The presence of alternate viewpoints does not mean there is a basis for such disputes.
Also, the YEC view is the only view that is compatible with the plain meaning of Scripture. How can the belief of billions of years be compatible with the passage that, "in six days God created the Earth" (Ex. 20:11)? It would take some heavy-duty hermeneutical gymnastics to get out of that one! Neither Nix, Zweerink, Hugh Ross, or other OECs are not factoring in the weight of their presuppositions have on the text, but the more we deal with Nix's arguments the more these presuppositions with using secular opinions, in spite what they might claim or don't claim, is coming out.
MYTH #13: OEC TAKES SOMETHING FROM OUTSIDE THE BIBLE TO USE IT TO REINTERPRET GOD'S WORD.
Nix: What is very dangerous about this myth is that it makes a simple statement but never explicitly states the conclusion or the logic to the conclusion. It is true that OEC takes something from outside the Bible and uses it to interpret God’s Word. What does OEC take from outside the Bible? God’s actions: His creation. Time after time, the Bible affirms that God’s actions (His creation) are a valid source of truth. Psalm 19 states that the heavens declare the glory of God; Romans 1 affirms that the knowledge (truth) available to all in creation is so reliable and visible that it is enough to condemn a person; and Jeremiah 33:25-26 states that the laws that govern the universe are as constant as God Himself! (see Myths #16 and #20 below for more on this).
Not only is it biblical to use God’s actions, it is perfectly logical to use a person’s actions to help interpret what their words mean. We do this every day. We even do this when trying to interpret what America’s Founding Fathers meant when they penned the Constitution (see my post “Deconstructionism, The Constitution, and Biblical Interpretation“).
This myth is simply an attempt at a scare-tactic. It is presented as if OEC is concluded because people have approached Scripture with an atheistic presupposition (see Myth #2 above and Myth #14 below) and are trying to make Scripture subject to atheism. If God tells us that His actions are reliable sources of truth, then it is perfectly legitimate to use His actions to help us interpret His words. And to refuse to allow God’s actions to guide our interpretation is another way that we refuse to accept “solid food” and remain satisfied with “milk” (see Myth #12 above).
Brian: The elephant hurtling is really shining through with every response that Nix makes. As noted by Nix, this response is very similar to his previous response, and even a few others, but it falls short as the others did. He rewords his title to replace a person's personal opinion with the word "something" in order to try and pave the way for his following response that OECs are allegedly "interpreting God's Word with God's actions" but this is another non sequitur. Nature is abstract. Even though God created the world and universe, nature isn't propositional. It has no propositional statements of truth within it. In addition to this, Nix has now conflated natural revelation, which is also called general revelation, with special revelation, which is a major categorical error, although a very common one among OECs.
The Bible is special revelation because the revelation has specificity, and it carries the gospel message of salvation with it. It gives specific information about the personhood and character of Christ. You don't get that from natural revelation. The best that you can get from natural revelation is that there is a God, He created the universe, and you maybe even able to ascertain certain attributes from God such as his intelligence or ultimate goodness, but what you can't get is how old the universe is, or whether it started with a "Big Bang" or not. Since natural revelation lack specificity that special revelation has these things must viewed with a subjective interpretive framework. This doesn't mean you can't look at those things, but they must be viewed through the presuppositional framework of the Scriptures, which is propositional.
He ends his first paragraph by assuming that the constancy of the laws of physics would lead to propositional statements concerning the history of the universe, but this is also false and a non sequitur. It doesn't follow logically. The only things that the laws of physics can tell you is that the laws of physics has always been present. What it can't tell you is how the universe came to be, nor can it tell you how old the universe is. By bringing up the laws of physics again he may be assuming his previous strawman argument with YEC positions (see Part One of my response to Nix).
In Nix's second paragraph he equivocates on the word "interpretation" by going from interpreting a person's actions (body language) to interpreting their words (propositional truth claims). However, a person's actions may grant you limited knowledge about a person, it cannot give you specific details as Nix's arguments are obviously requiring. The equivocation happens whenever the word "interpretation" is being used to describe understanding what actions a person is making versus the words a person may say. For example, someone may come off flirtatious, so a girl may interpret that as them being interested in them, but most flirtatious people rarely act or speak of such interest. Most of the time it is just the way they are. Nix gives the Constitution as an example of this, but the Constitution is propositional revelation, not the actions of a person, so this is the false analogy fallacy. In addition to this, the Constitution is changeable based upon the additions of bills beyond the Bill of Rights. At one time the Constitution condoned & advocated slavery (Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 of the Constitution), and now it doesn't (the 13th Amendment). In fact, if one must interpret what the Constitution now says against someone's actions, then how would you interpret its opposing slavery (the 13th Amendment) now against the fact that Thomas Jefferson owned slaves?
His last paragraph accuses our accusation to OECs as being a "scare tactic" starting off. This is false. Scare tactic is an attempt to scare you into submission of a particular action, but wanting to use internal, exegetical standards for interpreting Scripture instead of outside opinions is not a scare tactic, but rather it is proper exegesis. Nix ends his post by reiterating his false analogy, and his misapplication & misinterpretation of Paul's words in 1 Cor. 3 which we have already dealt with (see above).
MYTH #14: OEC TRIES TO FIT MILLIONS OF YEARS INTO THE BIBLE BECAUSE THE SECULARIST NEEDS IT FOR EVOLUTION.
Nix: Similar to Myth #2, Ken Ham attempts to discredit using God’s actions (His creation) to interpret His words by appealing to atheism. Myth #2 already demonstrated that big bang cosmology not only does not indicate atheism, but it requires theism. This myth is necessarily dependent upon the idea that the currently measured age of the universe (~13.7 billion years) is enough time for unguided evolution to produce what we see today. This could not be further from the truth.
Big bang cosmology and a 13.7 billion-year-old universe was not a relief for the naturalist when it was discovered; it was a brick wall that evolution slammed against then and continues to slam against today. This was one of the key reasons that big bang cosmology was rejected by naturalists for so long! 13.7 billion years is orders of magnitude too young for unguided evolution to produce what we see today! In fact, many naturalists are positing that an infinite multiverse exists that would provide them with enough time across all of reality just for evolution to produce what we see today even one time! Big bang cosmology is no friend to the secularist. Not only does big bang cosmology require a Cause and a Designer, it chronologically constricts the naturalist’s evolutionary story to suffocation! Big bang cosmology is rather a powerful enemy to the naturalist, which adds yet another reason for its truth.
Brian: If each of these responses by Nix are starting to seem like reworded reiterations of each other, it is because they are. This is the result of Nix's elephant hurtling attempts at these objections. As we've already seen, Nix's objections and explanations are littered with strawman arguments & misrepresentations of both Ken Ham's, as well as other YEC, positions, & he keeps making them. Even in the title above we find a very subtle strawman with the term "the secularists" in which no YEC thinks you have to be a secularist to believe in deep-time assumptions, or that belief in the big-bang model would make someone a secularist. However, that doesn't mean one won't accept secular assumptions about the past, even though they, themselves, may not be a secularist.
It seems that Nix has assumed that his subjective interpretations about God's creative actions with the objective meaning of God's written revelation. He words it that way on purpose, but this is a reflection of his view not Ken Ham's. In the above response, Nix, still tries to get the Christian God out of the Big Bang model, but he conflates the Kalam Cosmological Argument with the Big Bang model which are, again, as I pointed out in my first responses to Nix back in Part One of my response to him, are not the same things. The model can only explain, if it is true, what happens following its expansion from the singularity. I am not saying the big-bang model would lead to atheism necessarily, and neither is Ken Ham, only that it wouldn't, within the model itself, lead you to the belief in the Christian God, but it does have atheistic assumptions to it. Also, the big-bang model does not require theism. If that was the case, most astrophysicists and astronomers who believe in the big-bang model would be theists instead of atheists, but the reverse is true.
Nix, furthermore, commented that, "This myth is necessarily dependent upon the idea that the currently measured age of the universe (~13.7 billion years) is enough time for unguided evolution to produce what we see today. This could not be further from the truth." However, both YECs and most OECs, who're not theistic evolutionists, agree, even this amount of time is not enough time to make evolution possible. Whenever YECs bring it up is because evolutionists are motivated by this idea that enough time would make the theory evolution more plausible. So, atheists would tend to gravitate more toward a theory that assumes a more naturalistic beginning, and allot for deep-time assumptions, which this theory does provide.
In his second paragraph, Nix begins by claiming that the big-bang model was a "brick wall" which they stumbled against & continue to do so today. It is true that originally evolution wasn't well received at the time by atheists because, at the time, most scientists, being influenced by Greek thought, thought the universe was eternal. Any theory claiming a beginning was inconceivable to them. It is also true that evolutionists are always wanting more time to support their position, and there are some who postulated a theory called the Oscillating Universe Theory that attempts to do this very thing. However, in spite this, most atheists and evolutionists have gravitated to the big-bang model.
Nix last comment was that, "Not only does big bang cosmology require a Cause and a Designer, it chronologically constricts the naturalist’s evolutionary story to suffocation! Big bang cosmology is rather a powerful enemy to the naturalist." Now, Nix has overstated his case again as he did earlier on in Part One of my response to him. To reiterate, the big bang model does not imply a Creator! At best, it could imply a beginning of the universe, not a Creator Himself. I do believe there is good reasons and evidence for a Christian God who created everything, but you won't find it in a secular story about the past that has no basis in evidence and facts, and reads more like speculation. Either way, the point is that evolutionists like the big-bang model for one reason: because it does allow for deep-time assumptions.
MYTH #15: ALLOWING NATURE TO INTERPRET SCRIPTURE OPENS THE DOORS TO IMMORAL, SECULAR VIEWS (INCLUDING GAY MARRIAGE).
Nix: Since Ken Ham is under the mistaken impression that allowing God’s creation to help us interpret Scripture sneaks in an amoral view (naturalism), I can understand why he would be scared of this myth (and propagate the same fear to his followers). However, it is not the act of allowing nature to interpret Scripture that is the source of moral conclusions; rather, it is the presupposition that one approaches the Scripture. If one already has the view that atheism is true, then all behaviors are permissible in their view. However, as seen in Myth #13, the usage of God’s actions (His creation) to help interpret His words is grounded in Scripture, which already holds that the Scripture (which includes the ethical claims) is inerrant and authoritative. A Christian allowing God’s creation to help them interpret God’s words does nothing to damage the ethical claims of God’s words and actually affirms their truth by affirming the truth of the biblical claims of the physical world.
Ham is also fond of saying that a Christian can follow biblical ethics and believe in the big bang, but they are doing so inconsistently. As discussed in Myths #2 and #14 above, though, big bang cosmology is not an atheistic but rather theistic view of the origin of the cosmos, so there is no logical inconsistency between the Christian who agrees with both biblical ethics and big bang cosmology. This myth is simply false.
Brian: Nix title actually has a reification fallacy in it. Nature cannot interpret anything since it's an abstract concept, and once again he's conflating natural revelation with special revelation, & with interpreting propositional truth claims with non-propositional nature. Since nature can neither offer interpretations (because abstract concepts have no personhood), nor state its interpretations. People may interpret for it, but any interpretations will be subjective since we're dealing with non-propositional revelation.
The "slippery slope" as proposed by Ken Ham actually makes sense once people start embracing the idea that its OK to abandon or reinterpret Biblical authority. Which is his whole emphasis as he states at the beginning of his debate. It is true that a fallacy in logic called the slippery slope fallacy which has the person claiming that something following another event that leads to another event & so on, but this would only be the case if no true slippery slopes existed! Not all slippery slopes are illogical. A true slippery slope, for example, such as one abandoning the authority of the Word would lead you to a true slippery slope, as such would not be a logical problem. Just ask Bart Ehrman when one statement in the Bible that he couldn't reconcile led him on a slippery slope that led him on a path that turned him into one of our most committed opponents of Christianity of this century.
Nix continues his attacks by saying, "However, as seen in Myth #13, the usage of God’s actions (His creation) to help interpret His words is grounded in Scripture, which already holds that the Scripture (which includes the ethical claims) is inerrant and authoritative. A Christian allowing God’s creation to help them interpret God’s words does nothing to damage the ethical claims of God’s words and actually affirms their truth by affirming the truth of the biblical claims of the physical world." There is nothing in Scripture claims such "grounding" in Scripture. The Bible says nothing about using Creation to interpret Scripture. He conflated natural revelation with special revelation, & then misinterpreted and misapplied 1 Cor. 3 to fit his view, but nothing in the Bible claims to interpret God's propositional revelation in Scripture by using natural revelation of God's Creation. Nix has now committed eisegesis. There is just no just no such reference in the Bible.
His implication from the middle of his first paragraph to the end of it, seems to imply that nature is equally as inerrant as Scripture, but this is seriously disturbing, especially since we live in a fallen Creation. Paul writes, concerning this fallen Creation, that:
"For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us. For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies" (Rom. 8:18-23, ESV).
Paul even contrast how sin corrupted our flesh to how it also corrupted Creation. God reveals Himself in Creation, but when Man brought sin into God's perfect Creation, he corrupted it. OECs tend to maintain they don't think Creation was corrupted, but the Scriptures plainly says that it was. So, our fallible, corrupted natures are being used to interpreted a fallen Creation? It is not that it can't be done as much as it has to be weighed and judged over on the basis of Scripture. However, nature itself, cannot be considered on par with Scripture, or for that matter, superior to it.
He continues to reiterate his past fallacious claims and misrepresentations all the way until the end of his response. Unfortunately, he continues to claim that the big-bang model purely had "theistic" assumption rather than "atheistic" assumptions, even though the big-bang model was created without any consideration for the existence of God.
We have gone over three posts with five responses from Nix each, and every time we were met with fallacious arguments, elephant hurtling, fallacious reasoning, strawman, and unbiblical assertions. So far, nothing that Nix has suggested have been substantiated by good reasoning, evidence, nor any truth from Scripture. We have seen a lot of eisegetically comments, and we have seen him conflate natural revelation with special revelation, but no backing up any of his claims, and this third post containing the five responses by Nix has not fair any better. Although, if the last three sections of responses are any indication of the last five, I don't have high hopes for Nix's last responses to Ham. However, since we have already committed ourselves, let's see how well he fairs in our last post together on Nix.
Коментарі