Compromised Biblical Creationism
R. H. Brown,
CREATION COMPROMISES. Bert Thompson. 1995. Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press. 303 p. Paper, $10.95.
The objective of this book is demonstration that compromise models such as theistic evolution, progressive creation, day-age theory, and gap theory do not conform to sound principles of either biblical exegesis or scientific evidence evaluation. The author affirms that to be logically sound and consistent, one must identify fully with either historical- grammatical exegesis of the biblical testimony concerning creation, or naturalistic evolutionary models for origins; that regardless of the motivation from which they may be proposed, any of the compromise models produce outright, or eventual, loss of essential faith in the full range of biblical testimony.
Dr. Thompson (Ph.D. in microbiology) makes a significant observation that compromise views concerning Creation Week are largely promoted by professors on Christian college campuses.
Pastors, teachers, and writers who are concerned with the maintenance of essential confidence in biblical testimony will find this book a useful resource. It is principally a collection of statements from creationist literature. The organization of these quotations, together with the author’s comments, makes Creation Compromises a significant contribution to creationist literature.
The discussion of contradictions between the various creation compromises and the Genesis account of origins reflects the author’s perspective from which the terms “heaven” and “earth” in the first two chapters of Genesis designate the entire physical universe, and the term “soul” designates an immortal entity possessed by man (see the 22-item listing under “A Million Contradictions — Not a Million Years” on p 230-233). Nevertheless, individuals whose exegesis is confined to the definitions given in Genesis 1:8-10 and 2:7 (see NIV) will find the book to be largely useful. According to the definition of “earth” given in Genesis 1:10 (e.g., KJV, RSV, NEB, Jerusalem, NASB), the earth is only three days older than humanity, not five days older as specified by Dr. Thompson on p 177.
It is highly significant that “the writers of the Bible deal abundantly with matters of fact in science and history,” while the writings of non- biblical religions “deal almost exclusively with faith/conduct matters” (p 55). The authority of the Bible with respect to faith/conduct is related to the accuracy of its testimony regarding past events. On the previous page the author asks, “Why is it that God’s unchanging revelation in the Bible should be ‘reinterpreted’ to fit the ever-changing theories of modern scientists?” (author’s emphasis). On p 55 Dr. Thompson notes that man seeks to become god, whether as a scientist or a theologian, when the straightforward testimony of the Bible is rejected.
In Chapter 10 (“Biblical Genealogies and the Age of the Earth”) Dr. Thompson points out that genealogy and chronology are separate considerations. Abbreviation in a genealogy list does not invalidate a chronology that is tied to names that are listed. In Appendix II (“The Bible, Science, and the Ages of the Patriarchs”), he states that “one has to read the Bible with a large dose of imagination and a small dose of common sense” to accept some attempts to avoid the direct sense of the chronology in Genesis 5 and 11.
Creation Compromises is an excellent choice as a basis for a series of discussions by a layperson’s group.
Cnidarians appear to have recruited as toxins the same kinds of proteins recruited by many other venomous animals. However, toxin diversity within groups of organisms does not appear to be related to the alleged evolutionary history of the various groups.