“Is Genesis History?” directed by Thomas Purifoy Jr

Is Genesis History?Is Genesis History? is a compelling documentary from Compass Cinema that released earlier this month. Producer/Writer/Director Thomas Purifoy Jr. has created a first-rate documentary that can stand toe-to-toe with the very best documentaries being produced anywhere today. His bibliography (shared at the film’s website) is testament to the effort put into this film. The film features interviews with several of the sharpest minds in young earth creationism: thirteen scientists (counting the bonus features), along with two theologians and a pastor. The host is none other than Del Tackett who many Christian viewers will recognize as the host of Focus on the Family’s The Truth Project video teaching series. The backdrops to these interviews are visually stunning landscapes (from the Grand Canyon to the Virgin Islands and many places in between) or engaging centers of learning (universities, research centers and museums). The sum product is a carefully crafted, engaging, thoughtful presentation of the very best that young earth creationism has to offer.

The film presents the question as a tale of two competing paradigms: the conventional paradigm, which understands the earth to be millions of years old and humanity the product of evolution, and the Genesis paradigm, which understands Genesis to be literal history and the earth to be no more than a few thousand years old, with humanity the special creation of God. With the groundwork set, the project begins with geology and moves through a variety of scientific arenas finding that the Genesis paradigm does indeed live up to the evidence around us. Again and again the issue of worldview comes to the fore, if thinking according to the conventional paradigm, the evidence is discounted or explained away. If willing to think from within the Genesis paradigm, the evidence makes sense and can be truly compelling.

The presentation takes pains to be measured and level-headed in its approach. There is no smug creationist mocking those who believe that their ancestors were apes. This is a serious matter and those interviewed understand how far the pendulum has swung since the days of the Scopes’ trial. The impression you get from watching these men is they care about science and are open to refining their views as they grow in their understanding. They hold to the Bible’s account above all, of course, but these are not pastors playing with rocks – but researchers and seasoned experts who are convinced by the science they see.

I wish the film took more time to address Christian positions for an old earth that stop short of a full embrace of evolution. These approaches are swept together with evolutionary creationists and dismissed as attempts to reconcile with the current scientific paradigm — which may well be discarded in favor of a new understanding, as has happened many times before (even the Big Bang, according to astronomer Danny Faulkner, has its secular critics and is not likely to endure).  The film does not really present both sides of the debate, or exhaustively deal with objections and alternate explanations. The film’s website does have resources for further study, however.

As one who has embraced old earth creationism, I was challenged anew by compelling arguments for the “Genesis paradigm,” to use the film’s language. The discussion of enormous rock formations in Arizona, where an enormous layer is found between two layers that are also found in the Grand Canyon (without that big layer between), does seem to suggest a large flood must be behind it. The bonus feature with an atmospheric scientist explaining how a global flood and accompanying high volcanic activity could trigger the ice age and produce the huge glaciers that covered so much of the continents in a matter of a few hundred years was quite compelling. The film starts near Mt. St. Helen’s and shows how much devastation one volcanic eruption made and all the layers it left behind. Yet while this is meant to show that layers can be deposited quickly (rather than over millions of years), I think it stands to show that the “uniformity” of the present has cataclysms enough to account for some of the geology that these experts claim must point to a global flood. The problems with dating methods presented don’t seem to provide enough evidence to me to counter the findings of science for the last 300 years (Christian scientists before Charles Lyell held to an old earth).

Not all young earth creationists will agree with everything included in the film. Biologist Todd Wodd holds that neanderthals would be classified as human, with most other “ancestors” of man being apes. (Many might not agree with that assessment, I imagine.) Perhaps the weakest link in the film was the discussion of astronomy. The problem of the vast distances in space (and the millions of years of time implied in those distances), has been addressed with many different solutions. Astronomer Danny Faulkner provides his own: the stars are brought to maturity very quickly on the fourth day (like the new plants on day 3) — but there is no further discussion of the many questions such an approach raises. An odd inclusion in the film, is the segment on the tower of Babel: while the discussion given about ziggurats being found in numerous cultures is interesting, the question of the dates given to the pyramids and ancient cultures in general has long presented a challenge for young earth creationism, and this is not even addressed.

But despite my few criticisms, this is an excellent production. The film will not convince every viewer, but it should make them think. I am having my children watch this to see a reasoned, careful Christian alternative to the conventional paradigm provided today. For young earth creationists, this is a boon. What better way to introduce the subject and follow up with additional resources? Christians everywhere can be supportive of the creation debate when handled with the care evidenced in this film. Most of those interviewed were humble and did not impugn motives to others in the wider church who disagree with this approach. Such an attitude becomes Christians of every persuasion.

For more information about this film, visit the film’s website: www.IsGenesisHistory.com. There you can find a downloadable “Guide to the Film,” more information on the scientists interviewed, and resources for delving deeper into any of the topics discussed in the film.

DVD Blurbs:

“Attempts to deal with that one simple question: Is the biblical account of creation and flood meant to be understood as history? Does it describe actual history? And does the world give evidence of recent creation and catastrophic flood? Host Del Tackett tackles these questions head-on and does so in a compelling way.” — Tim Challies, Challies.com

“An engrossing primer on why we can feel confident believing the Bible’s account of creation. I just may need to watch it a few more times with the pause button and a notebook handy. Because for Christians educated within the prevailing evolutionary paradigm, Is Genesis History? provides a much-needed reminder just how young the theory of an old earth is.” — Megan Basham, WORLD magazine

“Will strengthen confidence in Scripture, clarify understanding of the relationships of revelation, science, history, and faith, and enhance understanding of difficult questions all while being both beautiful and entertaining.” — E. Calvin Beisner, PhD, The Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation

Where to Buy:

Disclaimer:

A screening of this DVD was provided by the publisher. I was under no obligation to offer a favorable review.

“Is Genesis History?” DVD Giveaway

I am happy to host a giveaway for a free copy of an intriguing new documentary: “Is Genesis History?” The DVD was released this month from Compass Cinema and the winner of this contest will get a free copy, compliments of the publishers. This movie is a first-class production hosted by Del Tackett, the host of The Truth Project. He interviews several of the sharpest minds in young earth creationism against a backdrop of stunning natural beauty — from the Grand Canyon to the Virgin Islands — all captured in high definition.

My full review will be coming later this week, but I wanted to share the trailer and the opportunity to win your very own copy. The contest ends Saturday night at 8pm Central time, so be sure to enter right now.

“Is Genesis History?” Trailer – DVD, Blu-Ray, Streaming from Compass Cinema on Vimeo.

For more info on this DVD, check out www.IsGenesisHistory.com.

To enter the contest, just fill out your name and email address. I’ll need to get your mailing address if you win, so please use an email that you check regularly, or another winner will be selected.

**UPDATE** Curtis was the winner of the contest. Thanks for trying!

R. Albert Mohler & C. John Collins Debate: Does Scripture Speak Definitively on the Age of the Universe?

I came across a recent debate that R. Albert Mohler and C. John Collins had at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School on the topic: “Does Scripture Speak Definitively on the Age of the Universe?” Here is a link to the video of the debate.

The 2 hour long debate is worth watching, particularly the contributions of C. John “Jack” Collins, OT professor at Covenant Theological Seminary (St. Louis, MO). Skip the first 10 minutes of the video, which is just preliminary info about the debate programs at TEDS).  Collins’ presentation starts at 47:43 on the video.

Listening to the whole thing, I thought that Mohler’s presentation argued more from a theological standpoint — staying in the tradition of Christian thought down through the ages, and alarmed at the potential slippery slope that allowing for an old earth presents. He marshals Scriptural arguments but not in a cogent and forceful manner. Most of the observations Jack Collins gives are agreed to in principal by Mohler but then they are just not enough to push him out of a literal 24 hour day/young earth view.

Collins is no friend of evolutionary creationism (or Biologos). He comes off every bit the conservative churchman he is, as a subscriber to the Westminster Confession of Faith. Yet Collins takes pains to read the text in a way the Text wants to be read. He doesn’t twist the meaning of “day” but sees the days as an analogy and thus not meant to be taken literally. He argues compellingly that the Scripture does not aim to speak definitively on the age of the universe or the age of the earth.  I found his presentation winsome and very carefully laid out. The debate bogged down at the end with Mohler taking most of the time and some important points being skipped for lack of time.

Collins’ emphasis on precision of language and his overall thoughts about the science and faith debate refreshing. Here is a faithful scholar who is thinking deeply on this matter and offering some helpful thoughts. This debate spurred me to pick up my copy of his Did Adam and Eve Really Exist?: Who They Were and Why You Should Care. The book is excellent and I hope to search out other materials Dr. Collins has written on this overall topic.

Quotes to Note 41: Nothing Greater to Believe in but Ourselves

Robbed of a broader meaning to our lives, we appear to have entered an era of mass obsession, usually with ourselves: our appearance, our health and fitness, our work, our sex lives, our children’s performance, our personal development…. [We have created] a culture that gives [us] nothing greater than [ourselves] to believe in — no god, no king, no country.

These words were spoken 25 years ago by an Australian academic, but they still ring true today. If anything, social media and the internet has fueled that personal obsession. Now more than ever, our poverty is exposed: “nothing greater than ourselves to believe in.”

I stumbled across this quote in a book I recently read, A Doubter’s Guide to the Ten Commandments: How, For Better or Worse, Our Ideas about the Good Life Come from Moses and Jesus by John Dickson (Zondervan, 2016). Intrigued, I hunted down the source: Richard Eckersley’s article “Youth and the Challenge to Change: Bringing Youth, Science and Society Together in the New Millennium” in the Apocalypse? No essay series published by Australia’s Commission for the Future (July, 1992).

Dickson, is an Australian himself, and is a fellow of Ancient History at Macquarie University, the founding director of the Centre for Public Christianity, and senior minister of St. Andrew’s Roseville. He describes Eckersley’s essay as “a famous government report on Australian youth” and goes on to say: “I remember the report so well because it came out the year before my [book] A Sneaking Suspicion, an attempt to explain the relevance of Christianity for teenagers. The report helped frame some of my thinking, then and now” (A Doubter’s Guide, p. 161).

I want to share a longer excerpt from Eckersley’s essay, which I found is available online in a scan of the publication on Eckersley’s website, here.

Eckersley starts by recounting his reaction at coming back to Australia after several years in Africa, Asia and Europe:

My first reaction on flying into Sydney from Bangkok was one of wonder at the orderliness and cleanliness, the abundantly stocked shops, the clear-eyed children, so healthy and free of the cares of living. Later, however, this celebration of the material richness of life in Australia gave way to a growing apprehension about its emotional harshness and spiritual desiccation. By ‘spiritual’, I don’t necessarily mean believing in God (I am not myself a practicing member of any religion), but having a deep sense of relatedness to the world around us.

…I became aware of the cultural myths that define and support our society. For most of us in the west, the poverty of Africa and Asia is synonymous with misery and squalor; yet it is not. We see their people as crippled by ignorance, cowed by superstition, and oppressed by the harshness of their raw environment; we don’t see the extent to which we are crippled by our rationalism, cowed by our lack of superstition (spiritual beliefs) and oppressed by our artificial environment. (p. 3)

Eckersley goes on to paint a stark picture of the current age (in 1992). Later in the essay he gets to the section from which the opening quote above is taken.

When a society fails to imbue people’s lives with a sense of worth and meaning, then they must attempt to find these qualities as individuals. It is a task that many find extremely difficult, even impossible. People want to know what is expected of them; they need to have something to believe in.

This absence of belief in much beyond ourselves, and the consequent lack of faith in ourselves, are undermining our resilience, our capacity to cope with the more personal difficulties and hardships of everyday life.

Robbed of a broader meaning to our lives, we appear to have entered an era of mass obsession, usually with ourselves: our appearance, our health and fitness, our work, our sex lives, our children’s performance, our personal development.

The consequences of this loss of belief are more serious, I believe, for the young than for grown-ups… [They are] particularly vulnerable to the uncertain culture of our times. (p. 14)

He quotes a study exploring the state of Australia’s youth, and concludes:

But perhaps the most disturbing finding of the study concerns young people’s moral sense. Mackay found that they believed that moral values were in decline, and often found it hard to identify an accepted moral framework within the community — unless they were religious. Moral responsibility to ‘the group’ is much stronger than to ‘the community’, Mackay says:

“Thus the ethical sense is rooted in a social sense, but that social sense is very limited, very transient, and very fragile. Lacking a broader sense of ‘the community’, many young people have difficulty in establishing an ethical framework which has any application beyond the boundaries of their own immediate circle of friends.” [italics original to the article]

The picture that emerges from the Mackay study is of a youth culture that may be meeting the needs of its members in terms of providing them with meaning and an identity, but only just. It is of a culture that is barely holding together, certainly not enduring — a mass-media culture marked by frenetic fashions and polarisation between self-destructive recklessness and abandon, and a more insidiously debilitating cautiousness, social withdrawal and self-centredness. (p. 15)

He then turns to a July 1990 article in Time focusing on “a new generation of young American adults grappling with its values.”

…According to Time, a prime characteristic of today’s young adults is their desire to avoid risk, pain and rapid change. They feel paralysed by the social problems they see as their inheritance: racial strife, homelessness, AIDS, fractured families and federal deficits….

It may be, then, the greatest wrong we are doing to our children is not the broken families or the scarcity of jobs (damaging though these are), but the creation of a culture that gives them nothing greater than themselves to believe in — no god, no king, no country — and no cause for hope or optimism…. (p. 15)

Eckersley goes on to summarize the problems of society and looks for a cure in an optimistic embrace of science and technology — and, ironically, his hope rests ultimately in mankind = ourselves!

The growing crisis facing western societies is, then, deeply rooted in the culture of modern western societies: in the moral priority we give to the individual over the community, to rights over responsibilities, the present over the future (and the past), the ephemeral over the enduring, the material over the spiritual.

Our cultural flaws and confusion both reflect and reinforce our economic, social and environmental problems. They also undermine our ability to resolve them effectively. Unless we forge a new culture, then it is unlikely we will overcome these problems because we will lack the will, the moral courage, to confront them….

…I believe that the problem rests more with our immaturity in using a cultural tool as powerful as science, and I am hopeful that with growing experience and wisdom, together with advances in science itself, we can create a more benign and complete culture, and so a more equitable and harmonious society. (p. 19)

Eckersley explores physics and how “a more flexible approach” has arisen in “how we use science.” An approach he approves of that allows for finding “purpose — or ‘God’ — in the world described by science.” (p. 23). He hopes this scientific endeavor may:

allow us to create new concepts for expressing religious or spiritual beliefs, different from, say, the traditional notion of a supreme being ‘out there’ watching over us, and judging us — metaphysical metaphors more appropriate to our times and our understanding.

Even now, however, science and spirituality are not mutually exclusive. I think it is less science and the scientific view of the world that cripple us spiritually than it is the busyness and artificiality of our modern lives, the all pervasive manifestations of rationality — an environment that we have created through science. (p. 23-24)

He goes on to focus on environmentalism and how mainstream science is clarifying the need for care of the environment, a cause young people can rally around. His essay aims to change science too, but ultimately the solution is what we make of it. Believing in ourselves and our ability to create a better culture — that is all that people can cling to apart from a religious worldview, such as what we have in Christianity.

I share this long excerpt from this decades old article to make a point. The long decline of our culture has been happening for a long time. There is something missing, and Christians have found the answer in Jesus Christ.

We have a God, a King, and a Heavenly Country to believe in – and that gives us great cause for hope and optimism. We don’t ground our hope in creating a social and cultural dynamic that frees us from the self-obsession of our age. Our ultimate hope, instead, is found in the precious promises we have in Scripture — promises that our God-King, Jesus Christ pledges to fulfill on our behalf.

As citizens of a greater Country, we must resist the urge to focus our hopes only on this present age and our own country — whether Australia or America. We need to work for the good of our city, and shine the light of Christ as we brighten the corner where we are, but we must always remember our faith lies in Someone greater and Something grander. Our obsession must center on our God-King, Jesus Christ. He is the one who calls us to live out our lives with ultimate purpose and meaning as we journey toward our Heavenly Country.

The Rise of Young-Earth Creationism

40 Questions about Creation and Evolution by Kenneth D. Keathley and Mark F. RookerToday among conservative evangelicals there is a concerted effort to defend the “biblical” position that the earth is young. Growing up in fundamentalist Baptist circles, I like many others, simply assumed this was the Bible’s clear teaching. I also assumed that this was the historic position of the church.

There are plenty of good arguments for young earth creationism (YEC) as it is known today. These arguments have persuaded a majority of evangelicals that this is the Bible’s teaching and the position to stand for.

But has support for a young-earth position always been this widespread? Judging from the last 200 years, the answer appears to be a decided no. Today, that support is weakening and authors Kenneth D. Keathley and Mark F. Rooker have recently given us a book to help evangelical Christians sort through this question and the wider creation-evolution controversy. In their book, 40 Questions about Creation and Evolution,  Keathley and Rooker point out that the young earth position took center stage only in the last 50 years.

Before I provide an excerpt with their comments, I do want to speak briefly about this helpful book. I appreciate the openness each author has in carefully laying out the evidence (good and bad) for the various positions that evangelicals hold. One of the authors favors young earth creationism, and another leans toward the old earth view. But both take pains to speak charitably of the other positions and honestly about the difficulties of his own view. Their irenic candor and careful grappling with the major positions, is what makes this book such a joy to read. A full review of this book will come later, but for now, I wanted to offer this excerpt for your reading and possible discussion.

Here is an excerpt related to the origins of today’s young-earth creationism. I should note that unlike some other works which point out the history behind the YEC position, this book does not malign that view and in pointing out the history it does, is not using the “guilt by association” tactic either.

The Rise of Young-Earth Creationism

As we noted earlier, most Christians, including evangelicals, accepted the view that the universe was millions and perhaps billions of years old. [My comment: he is speaking of Christians in the 18th and 19th Centuries.] This is true up through the first half of the twentieth century. R.A. Torrey (1856-1928), who helped to found both Moody Bible Institute and Biola University and who edited a series of books called The Fundamentals (from which we get the term “fundamentalist”), held to the gap theory. Even William Jennings Bryan, of the Scopes Monkey Trials fame, held to a day-age interpretation of Genesis 1.

Two of the most ardent anti-evolutionists of the twentieth century were W.B. Riley (1861-1947) and Harry Rimmer (1890-1952). Riley, editor of The Christian Fundamentalist and president of the Anti-Evolution League of America, held to the day-age position. Riley insisted that there was not “an intelligent fundamentalist who claims that the earth was made six thousand years ago: and the Bible never taught any such thing.” Rimmer, a self-educated layman and apologist known for his debating skills, held to the gap theory. In a celebrated series of debates, the two men argued for their respective positions with Rimmer generally considered to have been the victor.

Until 1960, the view that the proper interpretation of Genesis requires that the earth be less than 10,000 years old was advocated almost exclusively by George McCready Price, an apologist for Seventh-Day Adventists. Seventh-Day Adventists believe that the writings of their denomination’s founder, Ellen G. White, are divinely inspired and are to be treated as Scripture. White claimed she received a vision in which God carried her back to the original week of creation. There, she said, God showed her that the original week was seven days like any other week. Price worked tirelessly to defend White’s position as the only view that did not compromise biblical authority.

In 1961, John Whitcomb (1924-) and Henry Morris (1918-2006) published The Genesis Flood, which has sold over 300,000 copies and launched the modern creationist movement. Whitcomb and Morris argued that Ussher’s approach to determining the age of the universe was generally sound and that he universe must be less than 10,000 years old. Combining flood geology with the mature creation hypothesis, The Genesis Flood presented a compelling case for young-earth creationism. It would be difficult to exaggerate this book’s impact in shaping evangelical attitudes toward the question of the age of the earth. In many circles, adherence to a young earth is a point of orthodoxy. (p. 187-188)

When I first learned this, I was amazed. It freed me to rethink the matter from a new light. If good Christian leaders like R.A. Torrey, B.B. Warfield and the like could uphold direct creationism yet allow for an old earth, perhaps the matter is not such a do-or-die point. This doesn’t speak to the acceptance of evolution or a rejection of a historical Adam. The book’s authors do draw some clear lines in the sand, but when it comes to the age of the universe, that is a matter on which they agree to charitably disagree. May more of us follow this approach to the controversy. The age of the earth need not be a slippery slope, and good Christians are found on both sides of this debate.

UPDATE: Read my review of this book here.

Check out the book’s detail page at Kregel.com, where you can find an excerpt. Or pick up a copy at any of the following retailers:

Christianbook.com
Amazon.com
Direct from Kregel

Disclaimer: This book was provided by Kregel Academic for review. The reviewer was under no obligation to offer a positive review.