Creationism, Christians, and Honesty

@thoughtful, I’m a woman. I read here regularly. I don’t post a lot because many of the threads get very technical in fields I don’t personally have expertise in, so I stay out and just read.

I’ve read Sanford’s Genetic Entropy book. He was lying in chapter 2 when talking about what Kimura would agree with. I read the paper cited. It did NOT back up Sanford’s arguments. And the patriarch graph toward the end was ridiculous and not something that should be coming from a credible scientist. It was bad enough that I would call it dishonest to use it as evidence of anything.

Other creation scientists have routinely lied. Dr. Snelling of AiG has an article about a folded rock that he says is evidence of a global flood because it folded without cracks. The picture with the article is blurry and has people in weird places in front of it. Elsewhere on the AiG website, you can see a better picture of that formation, and it clearly has cracks. Lots of them! The biggest ones are right behind where the people were standing in that photo. I emailed AiG to ask about it, and they gave a canned response and a circular argument that the cracks must have happened after folding during the flood. I find a better explanation of how that formation occured in the book The Grand Canyon: Monument to an Ancient Earth.

I believe it was Snelling who also sent Mt. St. Helens rocks to a lab that said on their website that their equipment can’t date things less than 2 million years old, then Snelling said, “See! Radiometric dating doesn’t work!” That’s like weighing a feather on a truck scale and complaining that the scale isn’t accurate. You can’t misuse a tool and then say the tool doesn’t work. That’s being dishonest.

They’re not persecuting you for being a Christian. Don’t have a persecution complex. We Christians in the United States live a relatively persecution free existence right now. Unfortunately, mocking has become a national trend, done by all sides of every debate, and also done by our leaders, who sound like toddlers having a meltdown.

I’d recommend the book Reformed Theology and Evolutionary Theory by Gijsbert van den Brink. If you’re not reformed, that’s OK. The author is a theologian who holds a reformed stance, but much of what he says overlaps with non-reformed stances. I’m not reformed, and I’ve enjoyed the book quite a bit.

I’d also suggest John Walton’s books. Walton is conservative and takes the Bible seriously. He also is well versed in ancient Near East writings, so he talks about the cultural background of the Old Testament and how that can illuminate our reading of the text. There’s his Lost World of… series and also Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament.

Another book I’d recommend is A Worldview Approach to Science and Scripture by Carol Hill (a Christian geologist).

All of these authors take fairly conservative views of Scripture. None of them believe Genesis 1-11 are fables.

Why? What does that matter? There are a lot of things we don’t know scientifically. I have no problem saying, “I don’t know, but I know God is the author of it all.” Whether God snapped his metaphorical fingers and life began or He set up conditions on Earth knowing life would result using the natural processes He created, doesn’t matter to me. I can still say, “God did it.” If a scientist in a lab creates life in early earth like conditions one day, I’ll say, “Cool! Maybe that’s how God did it!” OOL research doesn’t in any way, shape, or form affect my faith or my belief in God as the creator. And I don’t think the ID version of God tinkering at certain points is necessary either. :woman_shrugging: What’s wrong with God creating natural processes that do cool things naturally, like creating all life from a common ancestor?

I used to be YEC. When I left it, it opened my eyes to all the wonder of God’s creation that I’d previously had to say didn’t happen, because it didn’t fit with YEC view of things. I have a stronger faith now, and I have more awe for what God has done. :slight_smile:


Did you email him to see if he had a reasonable response rather than assume a fellow Christian was lying?

Relatively, sure.

I would encourage you to post more…I don’t get caught up in the scientific things I don’t understand either, but your view could be helpful to temper the conversations, obviously a crowd pleaser. :slightly_smiling_face:


Would the failure to respond to such an email be convincing evidence for you that he was lying?

I’m going to respond with Philippians 2:

So if there is any encouragement in Christ, any comfort from love, any participation in the Spirit, any affection and sympathy, 2 complete my joy by being of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind. 3 Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves. 4 Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others. 5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus,[a] 6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,[b] 7 but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant,[c] being born in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. 9 Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, 10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Lights in the World

12 Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, 13 for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.

14 Do all things without grumbling or disputing, 15 that you may be blameless and innocent, children of God without blemish in the midst of a crooked and twisted generation, among whom you shine as lights in the world, 16 holding fast to the word of life, so that in the day of Christ I may be proud that I did not run in vain or labor in vain. 17 Even if I am to be poured out as a drink offering upon the sacrificial offering of your faith, I am glad and rejoice with you all. 18 Likewise you also should be glad and rejoice with me.

He is not lying. You are not understanding the argument.

You are still not understanding what the dilemma here is for radiometric dating. Are you aware that they still have not been able to date the Mt St Helens eruption? Do you know what it means when I say that radiometric samples are contaminated? Do you know what it means when I claim that all radiometric samples are contaminated? Are you aware of how contamination disqualifies radiometric dating as an authentic science?

Be different. Dig for truth in deeper ways than the average Joe on the street. Don’t believe the consensus just because it is the majority. For me personally, it is when the majority believes a certain way that I become suspect and want to dig deeper.

1 Like

This has been my experience, as well. I was raised YEC, but my undergraduate and graduate education in Biology and 20 years of teaching experience have taught me even greater appreciation for God’s creative work.


In what way is that a response? And why does your theology seem to place Paul above Jesus?

It’s not about the “argument.” It’s about concealing relevant evidence itself.


Snelling never concealed evidence. Those layers were “wet” and folded. Then over time, they cracked. What is he concealing?

You and yours are apparently just not understanding the argument.

He intentionally photographed the rock with people standing in front of the obvious crack that he claimed wasn’t there.


That is a big accusation you are going to have to prove.

I’m fairly certain I’ve read about it and seen photos before, but I spent a few minutes looking and haven’t found what I was looking for. My apologies - I retract my statement.

I have my own stories too in dealing with YEC. I have a notorious history with them. Believe me. I do have my stories.

I submitted a paper once - a good paper that received 2 good reviews out 3 - and there was clear indication that I was set up to fail.

We all have our YEC scars.

detailed here:


Wow, you sound like QAnon.

I did dig deeper, thank you. When I was teaching my kids using YEC materials and they and I were noticing things didn’t make sense. I dug deeper into YEC materials and just found more and more that didn’t make sense. Finally I looked at the mainstream explanations and everything came together and made sense.


Here is what Snelling actually said: “Notice that these sandstone layers were bent 90° (a right angle), yet the rock was not fractured or broken at the hinge of the fold.”

Can you all see the “hinge of the fold”? I’m not sure I can because I am not right up on it, but what I “think” is the “hinge” does not look cracked to me. Snelling apparently has been right up on it. Have any of you done the same?

I read his response to someone else emailing him. It wasn’t all that helpful. He had no good explanation. And unfortunately, Kimura is no longer alive to refute it himself. But really, the paper was very clear. Sanford said Kimura didn’t put beneficial mutations on the graph because there weren’t any, but the paper said he didn’t put them on there because they had too much effect on his model. That is exactly the opposite of what Sanford was arguing. I don’t know how you can read what he wrote and read what Kimura wrote and not see an obvious lie.

Sanford is welcome to do his own research and publish that research, but instead, he chose to misuse existing research that did NOT show what he was trying to argue. That’s dishonest. But his audience is laypeople that are looking for YEC evidence, and he sounds sciencey and has the cool gene gun, so surely whatever he says must be true! :wink:


@cwhenderson, the original AiG article is linked from Mercer’s link. Here’s where Snelling makes the statement:

The whole sequence of these hardened sedimentary rock layers has been bent and folded, but without fracturing ( Figure 1 ).


His statement is actually true. Of the numerous folds present in the photo, and specifically at the “hinge” where the 90 degree turn occurs, exactly how many fractures did you find? Two, three, four overall?