Copyright 2000 Des Moines Register

Reprinted with permission

April 29, 2000 Saturday
SECTION: METRO IOWA; Pg. 6B
HEADLINE: No science between the lines in Genesis
By STEPHEN BUTTRY
Register Religion Writer
People who think Genesis is a science book are calling April and May
"Missionary Lizard Months."
They want to convince you that God created dinosaurs and everything else a
few thousand years ago. An outfit called Answers in Genesis Ministries
International is planning a museum in Kentucky that would present this story of
the dinosaurs and other tales that condense natural history into the past few
thousand years. (Wisely, it's not planning to build the museum near the Grand
Canyon.)
The museum and the push to change public thinking about dinosaurs are the
latest in a long-term campaign to bring scientific regard to the biblical story
of creation.
Creationists won their biggest victory last summer when the Kansas Board of
Education voted to strip evolution from state teaching standards. Flushed by
success, they have continued pressing state and local officials with their
notion that creation is a matter of science rather than faith. Public schools
are considering use of the creationist book "Of Pandas and People."
I'm not a scientist. From a scientific standpoint, I couldn't argue
authoritatively either side of the creation-evolution argument. However, I find
difficulty buying scientific arguments presented by someone who isn't sure
whether the Earth revolves around the sun or vice versa. (Tom Willis, president
of the Creation Science Association for Mid-America and leader of the Kansas
crusade, contends in an interview in the current issue of New Scientist magazine
that serious physicists aren't sure about the sun-Earth question.)
Science aside, I'd like to address the creation question on the home turf of
the creationists: the Bible. The theology and Bible study behind creationism are
shaky.
Let's start by accepting the underlying assumption of every creationist: The
Bible is the inspired and authoritative word of God. You still have to analyze,
interpret and apply the lessons in God's word or you'll be cutting off your
hands before you know it.
The hard-core creationist notion doesn't stand up well under biblical

analysis or interpretation.
If God wanted to explain science in the Bible, why did he stop at creation?
Why didn't he explain electricity or molecules or genetics or gravity? Why
didn't he warn us about the danger of splitting atoms? Light is an important
image in the Bible. Why doesn't the Bible tell us whether it's waves or
particles?
As a book of science, the Bible is grossly inadequate and incomplete, which
hardly makes sense if it's God's word. So maybe some fallible humans have
misunderstood God's word. This wouldn't be the first time.
Consider another basic belief of most Christians: Jesus and God are the same
divine being. We know that this being speaks in parables throughout the Gospels.
Why is it an assault on the faith to suggest that he speaks in parables in the
Old Testament?
I'm presuming that the "creation museum" isn't going to have a Living History
Farms-style exhibit showing foolish farmers haphazardly throwing seed on rocky
ground. You could conclude from Jesus' "Parable of the Sower" that farmers
planted that way 2,000 years ago.
That would be taking the story literally, though, and it would be missing the
point. That parable wasn't about agriculture. It was about people's
receptiveness to God's word.
The parable was, in fact, quite appropriate for this discussion. In
explaining why he taught in parables, Jesus said, "Though seeing, they do not
see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand."
He could be talking about people who read Genesis and think it's about
science.
While the Bible is starkly lacking in scientific content, virtually the whole
book is about God's relationship with people. Doesn't it make sense that God
would set the tone for such a book in the very first chapter?
Answers in Genesis might be wise to reconsider the questions in Genesis. If
Genesis were written to explain how the world was created, it left many
important questions unanswered. Perhaps it was written to explain who created
the world.
The who is answered in the first sentence. Thousands of years later, we're
still working on the how.
Reporter Stephen Buttry can be reached at (515) 699-7058 or buttrys

@news.dmreg.com
On the Web
Read more on the Internet:
* www.answersingenesis.org
* www.onthenet.com.au/=stear
Copyright 2000 Des Moines Register
Reprinted with permission
May 6, 2000 Saturday
SECTION: METRO IOWA; Buttry Stephen; Pg. 6B
HEADLINE: Some Christians serve as a poor example
By STEPHEN BUTTRY
Register Religion Writer
Christian passion sometimes runs so strong that it crowds out Christian
compassion. As a result, some people who think they're spreading Christ's
message become rather shrill.
When you encounter such people, it's best (though not always easy) to keep in
mind that Christianity doesn't teach that we lose our human weaknesses when we
believe in Jesus, just that God forgives our sins.
I reminded myself of that several times in the past week as I read messages
from fellow Christians taking issue with my column suggesting that creationists
were misinterpreting Genesis.
Before I share some excerpts from my correspondence, I should make a few
things clear:
* I didn't and wouldn't say all Christians are shrill. I have been blessed in
this job to deal regularly with a wide range of Christians (and believers of
other faiths) who are friendly, generous, respectful and courteous, whatever our
disagreements. That includes some of the people who sent messages to me about
creationism.
* I enjoy a good argument. I don't take offense when someone disagrees with
me.
* I may be wrong. Actually, I know I'm wrong. Maybe not about this, but about
something. I'm not going to defend or repeat my arguments of last week. Let's
assume I was wrong and consider whether these writers addressed me in a manner
likely to win me over to their viewpoint.

I can't imagine how anyone thinks it is at all persuasive to question

another's faith or professionalism because of an honest disagreement. Check out
these excerpts from my mail:
"How difficult it must be to be on such shaky ground with what little faith
you must have," one correspondent wrote. She said she had "read better high
school papers." She assured me she was going to heaven and asked if I could say
the same.
Another writer started with the old refrain about the Register and me being
liberal, then went on to discuss the debate over evolution and creation.
Then he got personal, saying, "I cannot close without pointing out your
apparent lack of faith in God regarding His revelation to man."
He concluded by saying, "I can assume that I have simply cast my pearls
before swine." (To his credit, in a later message this man apologized for the
swine remark.)
Another writer accused me of deliberately "misleading the public." (I had not
even written what he said I was trying to get you to think).
"Steve, Steve, Steve," began one letter, immediately taking the condescending
tone of a parent addressing a teen-ager.
Not surprisingly, the letter itself (from a pastor) was not brimming with
Christian charity: "How do you keep your job as a REPORTER with such a terrible
job at reporting?"
Perhaps some of those readers had spent so much time in Genesis that they
forgot some other portions of the Scriptures -about refraining from judgment,
about clothing ourselves in humility, about pure wisdom being considerate and
full of mercy.
I'm always puzzled when I read and hear judgmental words from people trying
to share their Christian faith. I wonder if they really think such
self-righteous condemnation helps them witness for Christ.
The condescending pastor ended his letter with a postscript: "By the way, did
you stop to think about all the people who will now see Answers in Genesis on
the web and see the things they weren't taught in school? Thanks for the free
PR."
Yes, I published that Web site so people could check the other side out for
themselves. I didn't find the Answers in Genesis material persuasive, but I feel

quite comfortable presenting views that differ with mine.

In fact, with this column you'll find several pro-creationist Web sites, most
of which readers called to my attention. You also will find the Internet address
of the Kansas science teaching standards.
(Several readers had mistaken notions about the Kansas Board of Education's
controversial decision last year about teaching of evolution.)
If you're interested in the evolution-creation debate, I encourage you to
visit some of those sites. Readers who wrote me were impressed with their
explanations for the recent creation of the Grand Canyon, among other things.
I wasn't convinced, but I don't condemn someone just because we disagree.
Reporter Stephen Buttry can be reached at (515) 699-7058 or buttrys
@news.dmreg.com
On the Web
* Kansas teaching standards: www.ksbe.state.ks.us/
outcomes/science_12799.html
* Institute for Creation Research: www.icr.org
* Creation Research Society: creationresearch.org
* Chronology-History Research Institute: mashiach6000.org and
www.ncn.net/=chri