June 10, 1992 Mr. John Ankerberg The John Ankerberg Show P.O. Box 8977 Chattanooga, TN 374
June 10, 1992
Mr. John Ankerberg
The John Ankerberg Show
P.O. Box 8977
Chattanooga, TN 37411
Dear John:
Following the events of the last several months, and particularly our
phone conversation on May 27, I am deeply concerned that your TV series
and book will not be as compatible with Biblical creation as at least I
had envisioned when I first agreed to participate. My first concern
occurred at the time of our video taping session at the Rea County Court
House when you expressed reluctance to having the members of our panel
get involved with evidence for a young earth lest we lose the audience
we were trying to reach. This surprised me since virtually all of the
scientists you invited to participate on that day were young earth
creationists. Two of the members of the panel, Austin and DeYoung,
discussed scientific evidence for a young earth in their presentations
and I was disappointed that their views on this matter would be edited
out of the tapes and book.
My next concern came when our conference phone calls and group mailings
did not include Duane Gish. I began to suspect that, for some
unexplained reason, Duane was out of the book and wondered if he might
be edited out of the TV series as well. Duane's views on creation and
evolution are well known from his many debate tapes, videos and
publications. I could see no reason why anyone who would invite him to
participate in the first place, would have occasion to be either
surprised or disappointed with his presentation.
Then the manuscripts for the book began to come in and with them more
cause for concern. After seeing DeYoung's manuscript censored of any
discussion of the age of the earth, I began to wonder how Steve Austin's
original field research on Mt. St. Helens and the Grand Canyon could be
purged of all evidence for catastrophism and a young earth. This really
bothered me because Steve was perhaps the only person involved in your
TV series and book who presented his own relevant laboratory and field
research. In a phone conversation with Kurt Wise in December, I was
told that Steve's paper was being completely rewritten.
When my last group of manuscripts arrived I noted that Steve Austin's
manuscript was still not in and that now even his name was missing from
the mailing list of those receiving manuscripts! Clearly something was
going on behind the scene about which I was being kept in the dark.
Finally, the whole mess was revealed to me in our last phone
conversation. My worst suspicions were confirmed; of all the people
who were asked to give up a weekend with their families and spend 12
straight hours taping your TV series on Creation, only Kurt Wise and I
remained! If I understand you correctly, Duane Gish was eliminated for
not being "up to date," Steve Austin was eliminated because he might
turn off folks with his ideas on the age of the earth, and Don DeYoung
was eliminated because "no one liked his manuscript!" Well, I for one,
was quite pleased with the contributions of all three of these men at
our taping session. I liked DeYoung's manuscript though I agree that it
would have benefited from some revision (particularly the section on the
planets).
Of the manuscripts still being considered for publication, I was
especially pleased with those of John Oller, J. P. Morland and Thaxton &
Bradley. Oller covers some new ground in the creation- evolution
controversy in providing compelling evidence that the whole human
capacity for language could not have evolved in progressive steps over
time but demands the intelligent design of a Creator (by the way, Oller
too is one of those young earthers and ICR supporters!). Morland and
Thaxton & Bradley provide lucid digests of the main features of their
important published books.
I must confess that at the time I read his manuscript, I was unfamiliar
with Hugh Ross. I found his discussion of evidence for design in the
universe to be interesting though a bit pedantic and convoluted in
style. In my opinion, it is a pity that Ross is going to replace
DeYoung in your book because I believe more people would have benefited
from reading DeYoung's discussion of the unique biological suitability
of the earth. Compare, for example, Ross' treatment of the effects that
multiple moons might h ave on the earth with DeYoung's treatment of the
same subject. For Ross, it's just another item in one of his several
lists of "facts" while DeYoung discusses the implications of this
surprisingly important point in a lucid and interesting way that would
appeal to the average reader.
I have some far more serious reservations about some of the claims and
implications in Ross' manuscript. I was deeply troubled by Ross'
premise, in the very first paragraph of his paper, in which he insists
that ones theology should be made to fit ones cosmology, and not the
other way around! This is particularly disturbing given the necessarily
speculative nature of the whole field of cosmology. Why should a
Christian, of all people, insist that where the speculations of fallible
men are in contradictio n to the infallible Word of God, it is God's
Word that will have to somehow give way. But then Ross doesn't appear
to speculate in his manuscript, he simply declares that the universe is
17ñ3 billion years old, and then pompously demands that "all age
stretching attempts to save non-theistic science should cease!" Most
cosmologists are currently satisfied with their 17 billion years for the
age of the universe, but if the plasma model for the origin of the
universe replaces the Big Bang in popularity, and they demand hundreds
of trillions of years, I don't doubt that Hugh Ross will find a way to
grant it to them from his marvelously elastic Bible. After all,
according to Ross, theology must be made to fit cosmology.
After reading his manuscript I was quite anxious to learn a little more
about Hugh Ross and his views on creation. A friend in St. Louis
called my attention to the ICR Impact articles 217 & 218 about Ross and
loaned me a copy of Ross' book, The Fingerprint of God. I was shocked
to see Ross dismiss Henry Morris, and apparently all creationists like
myself who "hold to a 24-hour creation day," as folks who present "bogus
evidences for a young universe" and who only succeed in "misguiding many
whose science education and biblical training are inadequate to aid them
in evaluation" (The Fingerprint of God, page 155). Wow! Are you sure he
is one of the good guys John? I mean with people like this on our side
we really don't need any opposition.
As I had feared, Ross' publicly expressed disagreements with
creationists such as Henry Morris, go well beyond merely the age of the
earth and universe. As is so often the case with progressive
creationists he is left with a lot of time that needs to be some how
forced into the precisely defined days of Scripture and this leads to
all sorts of mischief. Since one of the reasons progressive
creationists accept a 4.5 billion year old earth is their uncritical
acceptance of an essentially evolutionary interp retation of the
geological column, they must inevitably deny the global nature of the
Noachian Deluge so clearly taught in the Bible. This inevitably
requires that the geological column show evidence of God's "progressive
creation" rather than evidence of God's angry judgment of death and
destruction in a world wide flood. Then, since fossils in the
geological column obviously include the dead remains of animals and men,
the progressive creationist inevitab ly must argue that physical death
did not come into the world by sin, as the Bible clearly teaches, but
rather God intended from the beginning for animals and men to suffer
pain and death. This finally denies the very Gospel of Jesus Christ who
was sent into the world to save man from sin, death and the power of
Satan.
One has only to examine Ross' own view of the Gospel to see the fruit of
the dreadful cascade that begins with denying a literal six day
creation. In his book The Fingerprint of God (pp. 180- 161), Ross
declares that all that is necessary for man to be saved may be learned
from nature itself, apart from the Bible. Obviously, no one can learn
from nature about the undeserved love of God in sending his only
begotten Son Jesus Christ to save man from sin and death through His
perfect life, death and resurrection. The Bible declares that this
Gospel is an unfathomable mystery to unregenerate man and must be
revealed in the Word of God (the Bible) through the power of the Holy
Spirit. In contrast, Ross' "gospel" is reduced to the religion of
universalism where any one can be "saved" by merely recognizing God in
nature. How truly the Bible says: "a little leaven leavens the whole
lump."
John, I fear that you may yet join James Dobson in his unqualified
endorsement of Hugh Ross and progressive creationism. At least it was
clear from our phone conversation that you intend to permit Ross to
promulgate his views in your TV program and book despite what I gather
has been a great outpouring of concern and reservations on the part of
many Christians. I understand that it is your show and you are free to
include or exclude any ideas or people you wish. Still, I fail to see
why you have chosen to complicate things for your TV series and book (to
say nothing of your viewers and readers) by bringing in a man who has
publicly shown contempt for the intelligence, views and motives of many
of the very sort of Christians you chose for your panel. If you prefer
the views of Hugh Ross over men like DeYoung, I fail to see why you
initially sought the support of the ICR folks who for years have warned
Christians about the grave Spiritual dangers of progressive creation and
theistic evolution. Surely you could have assembled a large panel of
scientists with strong academic credentials from the roster of the
American Scientific Affiliation who would have been much more
comfortable with such views.
John, while I am professionally concerned that people discover and
understand science as accurately as possible, I am personally even more
concerned that they find a saving faith in the redemptive work of our
Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. This can only come to those who, with
the help of the Holy Spirit, humble themselves before the Word and let
God's Word be true though every man be made a liar. I don't believe
that it is evolutionism that stands in the way of man's acceptance of
the Gospel of Christ but rather man's unbelief in the Word of God
itself. Surely we will not lead any one to Christ by attempting to
rationally convince them of some form of creation at the expense of the
clarity and inerrancy of God's Word. After all, Satan himself believes
in creation. Perhaps a more limited objective of merely attempting to
rationally convince people of intelligent design in nature may be a
worthwhile goal on a Christian TV program such as yours, but we must not
undermine the Word of God in the process.
I have tried to communicate to you how strongly I feel about your
decision to eliminate the ICR scientists from your TV show and book, and
to put in their place a man like Hugh Ross. We each have to do what we
think is right before God no matter how much it may offend some men. I
have decided that I can no longer be a part of the direction you are
taking your TV series and book. I must ask you to let me join my
friends from ICR and edit me also out of your TV series and book. If
you choose, you are free to have someone write up any information or
ideas I have shared with you but my name and participation must not be
mentioned.
Sincerely,
David N. Menton
Copyright (c) 1992 by the Missouri Association for Creation
**************
This file originates from the Missouri Association for Creation BBS:
Origins Talk
Discussions & Files On:
Origins, Christianity, Science,
Education, Technology
Featuring 125+ conferences including USENET News Groups!
Silver Xpress, Echodor, & .QWK Mail Readers
Walt Stumper
Voice: (314) 821-1234
Internet: c1749h@umslvma.umsl.edu
walt.stumper@f9.n8012.z86.toadnet.org
405 N. Sappington Rd, Glendale, MO
63122-4729
GenNet FamilyNet FidoNet ToadNet
33:6250/1 8:3006/28 1:100/435 86:8012/9
PC Pursuitable (MOSLO)
BBS: (314) 821-1078
E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank