This is based on an interview that took place between Dr. Allen Dunckley, and South Jersey newspaper reporter, Kim Mulford, which sums up what Biblical Apologetics and  Beginning with Genesis Ministries are all about. Her questions are in blue, AJD responses in black:

Interview Questions from the Courier Post reporter:

 

1. What is the mission of "Beginning with Genesis Ministries"?

 

01:  Our mission is stated in our header "Bringing the facts of science together with the Truth of Scripture."  Why? Because the Creator is like the "coin" and creation is one side of the coin and His supernaturally revealed Word is the other side of the same coin. Hence one complements the other. As Sir Francis Bacon, the father of the scientific method put it,

 

"Natural philosophy (science was called this in his day) is after the Word of God, at once the surest medicine against superstition and the most approved nourishment for faith, and therefore she (science) is rightly given to religion as her (religion's) most faithful handmaid, since the one displays the will of God (the Word), the other His power (science). For He did not err Who said, "Ye err in that ye know not the Scriptures and the power of God." -- From Bacon's Novum Organum of 1620. 

 

For the founder of modern science, the Bible was the starting point, and science was to enhance the Truth of Scripture, which is still a good arrangement for today.

 

2. In your opinion, how has science and the theory of evolution affected the Christian church?

 

02:  Evolutionism, not science (big difference), has changed the thinking of the overall population of our country.  The zeitgeist, i.e. "spirit of the age," is secular, which is not what it was at the beginning of our country's existence.  Our founding fathers had a high regard for the Bible and even stated that our form of government will only work within a Biblical, Judean/Christian moral framework.

 

John Quincy Adams in an speech given on July 4th 1837 stated,

 

"In the chain of human events, the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birthday of the Savior. The Declaration of Independence laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity."

 

Noah Webster, Revolutionary soldier, Judge and legislator stated,

"The Christian religion… is the basis, or rather the source, of all genuine freedom in government… I am persuaded that no civil government of a republican form can exist and be durable in which the principles of Christianity have not a controlling influence."

 

03:  Evolutionism has stripped Western society of this moral base, and the Bible is clear when it states, "As he (a man) thinketh in his heart so IS he." Prov 23:7.  Jeffery Dahmer stated this truth in his interview with Stone Phillips in 1994:

 

“If a person doesn’t think there is a God to be accountable to, then — then what’s the point of trying to modify your behavior to keep it within acceptable ranges? That’s how I thought anyway.

I always believed the theory of evolution as truth, that we all just came from the slime.… when we died, you know, that was it, there is nothing…” -- Interview with Stone Phillips, Dateline, NBC, Nov. 29, 1994.

 

Also, we know that the Columbine Killers were deeply into "evolutionism" as indicated from their web site, and one even wore a T-shirt with "Natural Selection" imprinted on it on the day of their helping-out-natural-selection  killing spree.

 

04:  Pure evolutionism answers all the meta physical questions that Biblical Christianity answers: Where did we come from?  Why are we here? Where are we headed?   Therefore, Evolutionism is an alternate belief system to Biblical Christianity. It is "Naturalism" which implies "no need for God" otherwise it is not natural.

 

05: The more this belief system or worldview is promoted in the mainstream population; the more negative effect it has on the population, by being a cause in the general population to down play the reality of God and His Word.  This alternative, Naturalistic view has made it possible for people to reject the idea that they are responsible to their creator.  In this rejection through Naturalism, they no longer feel a need to hear the Word of God or to attend church because the truth of Naturalism shows no need for God.  Now I am not saying that this is the only cause of Biblical rejection nor the rejection of Christianity in general.  But it is a reinforcing catalyst to those who want to reject Biblical Christianity, and pour contempt upon the Word of God. (for example Dr. Richard Dawkins, of the God Delusion notoriety, and others following on his coattails)

 

06: True science actually backs the Bible.  When archeologists and scientists uncover evidence, it is in line with the Bible. For instance, Dr. Nelson Glueck became known as the "Dean of Palestinian archaeologists" because of his many "discoveries" in the holy lands. Why was he so successful? He used the Bible as his "field guide."  In his own words, "No archaeological discovery has ever controverted a Biblical reference…. Scores of archaeological findings have been made  which confirm in exact detail historical statements in the Bible."   Oceanographer Matthew Maury (1806-1873) used Psalm 8's references to  "the paths of the sea" as the catalyst for finding the oceanic currents that are used for shipping even today.  Mr. Maury had no doubts that the Bible was the infallible Word of God. The Bible had stated that the Life is in the blood, that the earth is a sphere, and that there are mountains in the ocean etc, long before science confirmed these statements.  Although the Bible is not a science book; since it comes from an infallible, Omniscient God, when it speaks on things of "science" it is accurate and true.  And as an corollary: Although the Bible is not a history book per se; since it comes from an infallible, Omniscient God, it will be accurate in its expression of historical matters. 

 

07:  True factual science done according to the scientific method of Sir Francis Bacon, does not contradict the Bible.  Any conflict between observed science and the Bible is not caused by the science fact itself, but by the interpretation of that fact.  For instance, when a bone of a large reptile is dug from the ground, the Bible is not in conflict that such creatures existed (see Job 40 and 41), the conflict is in the interpretation of when they existed.  The Bible states that they were created on the fifth and sixth days and existed with man, while the evolutionist states that they lived millions of years ago based on the assumed geological column and the corresponding, assumed index fossils. KEY: Interpretation of a "fact" is not science; it is an opinion, which swings both ways for the evolutionist as well as the creationist.

 

3. According to a 2006 survey by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, majorities of white mainline Christians (62 percent) and Catholics (59 percent) believe humans evolved over time. About 28 percent of white evangelicals believe humans evolved over time. About 21 percent of Americans who accept evolution believe evolution was guided by a supreme being. What is your view?

 

Kim, Lets analyze your numbers:

 

08:  62% "Mainline" Christians believe in evolutionism, which means 38% don't

59% Catholics believe evolutionism, which means 41% do not, which is higher than I would expect since the last three popes said nothing was wrong with it.

28% of evangelicals believe in evolution, which means 72% do not.  Is it not interesting that those who believe the Bible to be God's Truth to all Humanity reject the man made ideas about evolution the most?

 

09:  The key here, Kim, is that Truth is not determined by popular vote or majority vote.  The Bible IS God's Word whether mankind believes it is or isn't.  The Bible simply IS True, period.  It does not matter what any man or group of men, or a society thinks or says --  it still is true, and all will be brought to trial before the Creator God based on it.

 

10:  The Bible says that God created man on the sixth day of creation.  I accept what God says; then there are those who believe that evolution was guided by a supreme being, the two positions are incompatible.  As evolutionist, William Provine at Cornell University stated,

 

"As the creationists claim, belief in modern evolution makes atheists of people. One can have a religious view that is compatible with evolution only if the religious view is indistinguishable from atheism.”

 

Ardent evolutionist, Dr. Michael Ruse admits,

 

"Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion -- full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality.  I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint . . . . The  literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion.  This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today." (Ruse, from his essay, "Evolution Science and Religion")

 

11:  Just because there are compromisers who are more influenced by what fallible men say; rather than being influenced by what an Infallible Creator says, does not mean anything really. The ONLY thing that these compromisers are doing is muddying the waters on the issue so to speak.

 

4. In an essay posted on your Web site, you write: "Anyone who says they can believe in evolution and also be a "Christian" has been greatly deceived and shows his total disdain for God's Word, and consequently total disdain for God Himself."

 

Rev. Michael Dowd, author of "Thank God for Evolution," says he has deep reverence for the Bible but does not rely on it as a "science book." He says: "Which makes more sense to you? That God would have communicated all the really important stuff in dreams and intuitions to goatherders and fishermen 2,000 years ago? Or that God would still be truly a divine communicator and be communicating today through every single fact discovered by science? It gives me a much more loving, big picture of God that God would still be communicating today."

 

 How would you respond to his question?

 

12:  Kim, you have provided a perfect illustration to the very words which you quote me saying.  Dowd's distain for the Word of God is underscored with his demeaning use of the terms, "goatherders" and "fishermen" and "2000" years ago. Using these terms under the influence of the question, "Which makes more sense to you?" demeans these terms.  What Dowd is implying through the juxtaposition of terms is that the Bible is not to be taken seriously because it was written by ignorant men (fishermen and sheepherders) and is out dated by 2000 years because modern men have been enlightened by science and now "know" more.

 

13:  His statement, "It gives me a much more loving, big picture of God…" is the false argument of "Appealing to authority"-- his authority! His "picture of God" is subjective; he can certainly hold that "picture" but that certainly does not mean it is in anyway correct.  And if it is contradictory to the Word of God (which it IS) then it is a false "picture" no matter how emotionally attached he is to it or how sincere he is in communicating it. We are to derive our "picture" of God from His infallible Word; not from the fallen, subjective imaginations of man's thinking.

 

14:  It is a misleading argument that Dowd uses for one thing, God Wrote His Word; God is the Author of his Word.  God wrote His thoughts using humans as we use a pen to write our thoughts.  Whether we use a 10 cent Bic pen; or a gold plated, elegant fountain pen, our thoughts are still conveyed the way we want them onto the paper.  The characteristic of the pen may be seen through the writing, but it is our words that go onto the paper not the "pens" words. So It was with God writing through the "human pen" whether it was a king, fisherman, statesman, or goatherder-- it is still God's infallible Word to Humanity expressed the way He wanted it to be, and He preserved it for us for all time.  The Word of God does not change because it is Truth, and truth, in order to be "truth" ,cannot change.  The heart of man is still the same as it has been since the fall of Adam and Eve in the garden. Therefore the Word of Truth is still relevant for all today because nothing has changed as far as God  and His revealed moral and spiritual Truth; and man's moral and applied decay.

 

15:  In this example, Dowd has dismissed the Bible as authoritative and relevant for today. By doing so He has demeaned the Creator God revealed in the Scriptures by inferring that He does not have the ability, power, wisdom, and presence to communicate with human kind though a human pen; and that God did not create the way He testified in His Word that He DID.  Also it demeans the Word of God by inferring that it is at least 2000 years out dated.  This is deplorable to do and to promote for someone who says they "love" God!  The Bible is clear in that God says, "If you love me; keep my commandments."  Commandments in Scripture is synonymous with the Word of God and "keep" means "guard, protect and obey."

 

16:  The Crux of the issue is the fact that both Biblical Creation and Naturalistic Evolution are "apparatus' of investigation" by which One can understand and interpret the "facts" of science.  With this, the  real evolutionist says, "I don't need "God" ( the crux of naturalism) to interpret the facts I see…. The Biblical Creationist says, "I don't need fallible man's interpretation of the "facts" to understand the facts I see in the light of God's revealed Word. In light of this, we must understand that theistic evolution compromises both the core tenets of naturalistic evolution and the core tenets of God being the Creator as revealed to us in the opening chapters of the Bible-- and from his own statement as you quoted above, Mr. Dowd is a classic example of this. 

 

17:  It is not possible to combine the Almighty Creator God of the Scriptures, with man's erroneous views of origins.  The two are simply not compatible as God cannot lie, Titus 1:2, and His statement of creating in six days, contradicts the view of change over a long period of time.   The true facts of science brought to light today communicate that what God said in His Word is true.  The only conflict is in the interpretation of those facts.  There is no conflict between true Science (observable facts) and the Bible, rather there is great agreement between them.  The conflict is in the interpretation of the facts as given by evolutionists framed by their world view, versus the Biblical world view of the Creationist.  Interestingly, the Facts of science fit the creation model better than the evolutionary model. (models are used to outline premises and expectations of things that cannot be observed in the present.)