Creation Science Review -
Ray McBerry
This week a teacher of the Bible was brought to my attention, a person named Ray McBerry, who pastors a church in Georgia. His teachings purport that God's creation can be understood strictly from Genesis, without any regard for scientific evidence. You can view his series of messages on Biblical Cosmology by clicking the link Message 1 below. It should be noted that his views are not accepted by young earth ministries, such as Answers in Genesis, the Institute for Creation Research, etc.
Ray begins by laying the foundation upon which he approaches Scripture. with 2 Timothy 3:16-16, 2 Peter 1:20-21, and 1 Timothy 6:20. These verses establish that all Scripture is inspired by God, and is to be taken literally. I have no issue with these issues. 1 Timothy bears closer examination.
O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called.
This verse is key, as Ray uses it to justify ignoring science if he feels it conflicts with his interpretation of Scripture. He further states there are some things that mankind calls science, that is not real science (voodoo magic in his words). He will use this to dismiss anything he does not agree with (very convenient method of ignoring evidence).
At this point, I must lay my own foundation. True, God's Word is inerrant. True also is the fact that it is written in Hebrew/Greek, is translated into English, and then we humans interpret God's Word. And although God's Word is inerrant, our interpretation of it is not, as we are humans, and are subject to being fallible. This is the key failure of teachers such as Ray, who claim they are correct in their teachings...yet those teachings are based upon his man-made interpretations of God's Word. In claiming his teachins are correct, he elevates his teachings to the level of inerrancy...something reserved only for God's Word.
Ray goes on to use Romans 3:4, "...let God be true, but every man a liar." He says we are going to take God's Word at face value, and take it as true, even if it's contradicted by modern science. Problem is...if we take God's Word at face value, we are not taking God's Word at face value, but man's interpretation of that Word, and if every man is a liar, then the interpretation could also be a lie...Ray's interpretation, my interpretion, etc.
He then presents a 'Biblical Pledge,' which basically means 'accept what I say'. It is true we are supposed to appoint leaders among us to teach us from God's Word. All too often, YEC's will use such a Biblical pledge to elevate their teachers (Ray McBerry, Ken Ham, etc) to the point of infallibility. It is in this way that YEC's can simply dismiss any evidence they hear without even considering it. (this is a trademark sign of cultism within YEC,
Discussion
McBerry starts with a slide on the origin of animal life. He mentions evolution, which mankind largely believes, and says every creature was created exactly as it is today in six days. Old Earth Creationism has no problems with his statement, as we only vary in the length of day, McBerry going with 24 hour days, and OECs with days that are millions/billions of years long). Some OEC's believe God used evolution, and that is not a topic for this article.
McBerry asks who do you believe, man, or God's Word. He has set himself up to dismiss anything he disagrees with, so its an easy choice for him.
He moves on with a slide on the origin of human life. He claims modern science says man evolved from primates, particularly the apes. This is a blatant misrepresentation of what science says. Science does not say we we evolved from primates/apes...we evolved in a separate line from primates/apes. This is a typical errant claim made by many YEC's, and it is a good indicator that they have not really researched evolution when they handily dismiss it.
He moves on to a slide titled The Chicken or the Egg? This looks at the appearance of age issue. He says modern scientists say earth looks old, so it must be old. He claims they believe its 45 billion years old (he is off by a factor of 10, as it's 4.5 billion). Ray says God created it about 6,000 years ago, but it looks old, with mature trees, the chicken (not the egg), and man fully grown. I urge you to read the appearance of age article linked above. There is also the issue of God's integrity. If God created with the appearance of age, (such as the moon with it's craters), then the moon testifies to a past that never happened. In short, it's a lie, as the past is false, and this makes God's creation a lie, as it testifies to events that never happened.
His next slide is about science vs. the Bible...which are you going to believe. If you are a YEC, this is a real problem. If you are an OEC, science has been shown to agree with the Bible, so this is not a problem (for more, see Old Earth Creationism, and other articles on this site). From McBerry's perspective, he must discard modern science that does not agree with 'his interpretation' of the Bible.
Lies
Now we come to the meat of his presentation.
Lie #1. Origin of the universe...science says Big Bang, Bible says created by God. Not much to consider here, as God could have used the Big Bang, and if he did, then it was created by God.
Lie #2. Length of creation, or billions of years, or six literal days. Again, not much here, as the days of creation can mean long periods. He makes a point of stressing it as 'literal' days. A day can be literal, and be billions of years at the same time. For more, explore the link above.
Lie #3, the Earth. Modern science says it came into existence after the sun and starts, and the stars were created on day 4. If you read this at face value, sure, you would believe as McBerry does. If you interpret it along with the science, you see how it's possible to view creation in the correct order as told in Genesis 1. For brevity here, I merely provide the link that addresses the issue. Properly understood, there is no lie here.
Lie #4. Origin of Day & Night. This is tied to Lie 3, as the link provided there answers the issue. Again, there is no lie here. Interestingly, he says the light before the sun came from God. If that is the case, and God is light (which he is), then how could God have gone dark during the nights of Days 1-3 of creation? Oops.
Lie #5. Origin of plant life. This is answered in the Genesis 1 link above. No lie here. He also addresses the idea that some creationists believe the Days were long periods, and says the idea all plants were created on Day 3 destroys this idea. If you interpret it correctly, as the days overlap, this is not a problem. One must remember God is relating this creation story to a primitive man, who had no understanding of scientific processes, thus the message had to be simple. But you may say, 'that's merely your interpretation.' That is correct, it is, and its subject to human fallibility. I urge you to examine these issues yourself, so that you can reach a conclusion you believe is right (your interpretation). Don't merely 'dismiss' my words, or Ray McBerry's words. Truly investigate them. If you dismiss my interpretation, you haven't truly investigated the matter.
Lie #6. The Sun and the Moon. Modern science says moonlight is a reflection of sunlight, whereas the Bible says they are separate sources of light. He uses a slide that shows how a reflection of light is wrong. I had to laugh here. This point is so silly as to not need a rebuttal. He goes on to list verses that talk abotu the moon's light. He goes on to show a slide on the nature of moonlight, saying if it was a reflection of the sun's light, it would have properties of sunlight (gives off heat, causes Vitamin D production in humans, results in photosynthesis, etc. He claims 'little scientific work has been done to study the differences between sunlight and moonlight. In reality, many studies have been done (here is one explanation, here is another).
What is lacking here is that he provides no scientific evidence to show that the moon produces its own light. His listeners are merely have to accept his word (interpretation). He speaks about the sun being 400 times larger than the moon, yet he wants his listeners to accept that the sun and moon are the same size. He presents no scientific evidence that they are the same size, other than our eyes (observation). He then goes off on a tangent about sun worship, which is irrelavent for this discussion.
The distance to the moon can be measured by bouncing a lasar off the moon and measuring it's time to get to the moon and back, and those measurements show the moon averages about 250,000 miles away. The distance to the sun can be measured mathematically, to be about 93 million miles. McBerry does not address these issues...he merely bases his claims on his interpretation of Genesis.
Conclusion
My takeaway from his first message is that he shows a blatant disregard for any scientific measurements, and bases his conclusions merely on his interpretation, a man-made, subject to being fallible interpretation. As such, it will be impossible for anyone who adheres to his teaching to objectively examine the facts using science. People who fall for his teachings do not investigate things themselves, but rather wish to be led by others...there is no attitude in them to "examine things to see if they are true."
God created the earth and universe, and we examine what he has created through scientific laws that God created, thus we should be able to use these God-created scientific laws to examine his Creation. McBerry says to ignore the science (which God created) and accept what McBerry says (an interpretation of fallible man).
I started this out planning to do a rebuttal for each of the 8 lessons, however this now seems pointless. I looked at message 2, more of the same, a complete rejection of science, with zero scientific claims to back up his claims. He goes so far as to claim that gravity does not exist, and no scientific experiments have proven gravity exists (takes a new level of 'ignorance' to swallow that one). Indredible to think that in the 21st century there are people who believe the earth is flat. My suggestion for people like this...ignore them. They will never accept the truth, as their brainwashing is so deep that they will flatly reject anything you say without even examining the issue, because they know they are right.
I have to applaud McBerry for the level of commitment he shows in his beliefs. He has spent countless hours putting together his beliefs to justify his ignorance of science. Sadly, people who want to be led (instead of 'thinking for themselves' abourt science) will fall for his teachings.
If you are not a Christian, and you have been holding out on making a decision for Christ because the Church always preached a message that was contrary to what you saw in the scientific world, then rest assured that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, and you can believe in Christ and receive salvation, while still believing in an old earth. Click here for more.
Are you a Christian who believes in young earth creationism? Now that we have shown the many difficulties of the young earth creation science model in this and many other articles, how does this impact your Christian life? If you are a young earth creationism believer, click here.
To learn more
about old earth creationism, see
Old Earth Belief,
or check out the article
Can You Be A
Christian and Believe in an Old Earth?
Feel free to check out more of this website. Our goal is to
provide rebuttals to the bad science behind young earth creationism,
and honor God by properly presenting His creation.