Old Policy

Maintaining Creationist Integrity
A response to Kent Hovind
by Carl Wieland, Ken Ham and Jonathan Sarfati
Originally published 11 October 2002
updated 16 December 2002 and 2 August 2006
https://creation.com/maintaining-creationist-integrity-response-to-kent-hovind

Here is the pertinent one:

... Note that we most definitely recommend/support some ministries that are not our own, but do not do so for others. We would not, for instance, be able to recommend people who do all or some of the following:

• 1) Persistently use discredited or false arguments, with an unwillingness to correct when the weaknesses are pointed out, and more disturbingly, often fail to understand the reasoning involved.
• 2) Persistently link (in at least some way) creationism with other matters which are of a dubious or ‘fringe’ nature, which have no direct bearing on creation issues but threaten to damage the creation movement by association. E.g.: Geocentrism, fraudulent archaeological claims of Wyatt/Gray, etc.
• 3) Fail to have acceptable standards of accountability in terms of truly independent boards.
• 4) Fail to submit their claims to the normal peer review processes that have arisen/been set up within creationism, i.e., peer-reviewed journals such as Journal of Creation, CRSQ, etc.

Well, as to number 2) I would be "guilty as charged" if it truly were a fault.

Geocentrism links to Creationism as follows:

• 1) With Geocentrism, no guaranteed parallax is involved in the phenomenon so known, meaning no trigonometry gives "distance to nearest stars", meaning we have a very simple answer to Distant Starlight problem. CMI is otherwise very readable, but has convoluted answers to it, one of which would contradict the obvious meaning of the Bible, all stars created after Earth was created, not just their light reaching Earth after then.
• 2) With Geocentrism, no problem as to why Earth was not orbitting anything for three days and started orbitting Sun on day 4 (without Bible mentioning it).
• 3) With Geocentrism, the same argument from design can be made as St. Thomas did (and Calvin repeated, whatever that is worth).
• 4) If Geocentrism takes angelic movers of celestial bodies, including Sun and stars, which I think it does, no problem for such an angel to also obey God in sending Earth more cosmic radiation just after Flood, which involves three results:
  
  
  • i) shortening of lifespans
  • ij) production of the cold of the ice age
  • iij) a more rapid than now production of C14 in the atmosphere (I already counted, if C14 started rising at Flood, from initial near 5 pmC, which is more than I think now for Flood year, and the production was consistently the modern one, as well as the decay, we would now be only at 45 pmC, not 100, which gives mathematical conundra as to more recent dates, and this is presuming the Flood was as far back as 2957 BC, so Ussherists need even more rapid C14 production than I do).
  
  
  
• 5) Like a literal and perfect Eden, Geocentrism ties in with corporality of Resurrection bodies and therefore of the place where blessed souls now and risen bodies henceforth can adore risen and ascended Jesus.
• 6) Like Young Earth Creationism, Geocentrism ties in with literal Biblical facthood of a passage (Joshua 10:12,13)
• 7) Like Young Earth Creationism with real creatio ex nihilo and in instanti and with miraculous abiogenesis (see Satan as witness to creation and his words in Matthew and Luke 4 about turning stones to bread), Geocentrism (for Joshua 10:12) ties in with understanding of miracles, as miracle workers adressing what needs miraculous change of normal behaviour and not something else.
• 8) Like Young Earth Creationism, Geocentrism meets no real obstacle in really operational science, which deals with what can be observed hic et nunc, where Millions and Billions of Years are about the past, not observable in the present, Heliocentrism and Acentrism are about the distant, not observable here (unlike Round Earth which actually can be observed on Earth, piece by piece).
• 9) Like Young Earth Creationism, Geocentrism has Patristic support.

I know too little of Wyatt and Gray to know if their archaeology is fraudulent or not, but I do know that "hard sciences" are attacking CMI for frauds as well, and I suspect Wyatt and Gray can have been picked on because archaeology is not Carl Wieland's field at all, since it is not a natural science.

Or, if the problem is Wyatt points to Mount Chudi instead of Greater Mount Ararat, I would support that. Mount Chudi as the landing place and Göbekli Tepe, nearly due West of it, crossing from Mountains of Ararat to the land of Shinar where there is a plain around Harran, as Babel. Only problem, so far, lack of bricks with bitumen as mortar on that site.

Point one, I do not know from case to case who is failing to understand whose reasoning.

Points three and four, I am an individual writer and as such cannot have an independent board, and as to peer review, I am willing to submit blog links for scrutinity, but they have so far not been accepted. Note, I believe first and foremost in post-publishing peer review.

Would it perhaps be time to re-evalue the policies here alluded to?

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris XI
St. Nemorius of Troyes
7.IX.2019