Dr. Craig Talks with a Young Earth Creationist!

In a class at HCU on the historical Adam, Dr. Craig dialogues with a student who is upset about the treatment of Young Earth Creationists in their academic pursuits!

QUESTIONER: Hey, Dr. Craig. In regards to your comment earlier, just a single response. I think Young Earth Creationism should be included in the acceptable range of opinion, and that's my only goal here.

DR. CRAIG: What should be?

QUESTIONER: Young Earth Creationism. I think it should be included in the acceptable range of opinion. And my impression is that we're treated like flat-earthers and disrespected. That impacts our ability to do things like get hired in scientific fields, to get money for research, and things that we need to advance our paradigm. So that's all I'm . . . what?

DR. CRAIG: Have you read the book yet?

QUESTIONER: Your book?

DR. CRAIG: Yes.

QUESTIONER: Of course I have!

DR. CRAIG: OK. Well, there are many auditors, you see, who don't even have the book, and so I just wanted to ask if you had read it, because I made a real effort in this book to include Young Earth Creationists as dialogue partners in this debate. While I regard the claim of creation science as preposterous and not a plausible alternative, I regard the hermeneutical claim of Young Earth Creationism with deadly seriousness and think it has to be on the table. And so you'll find in the footnotes I'm interacting with Jonathan Sarfati's commentary on Genesis. I treat him just as I would Richard Averback or Victor Hamilton or Claus Westermann as a significant dialogue partner. I should tell you one of the things that I did after my book was accepted and in press, is I proposed a Four Views book on the historical Adam and asked Ken Keithley if he would be the editor and I would represent the ancient genealogical Adam view. Andrew Loke would represent the recent genealogical Adam view. Kenton Sparks, who's in your Halton book you're reading, would represent the non-historical view. Then I insisted there has to be a Young Earth Creationist involved in this book. This is one of the four views that needs to be included. And I'll tell you, I had a terrible time finding any Young Earth Creationist who would agree to participate. When I approached Jonathan Sarfati, the paranoia was unbelievable . . . that I was . . . They thought that it was a conspiracy to embarrass them. Ken Keithley – they resented him as the editor. They thought that Ken would write in the introduction to the book things deriding their point of view and would sabotage them. I said look, you can approve anything or disapprove it that Ken writes in the introduction of the book; I'll submit it to you for your approval. They still wouldn't do it. And I said, well, how about this: you write the introduction on your view, and we'll include it with what Ken says about the other views, but you write it. They still wouldn't do it. The paranoia was just thick; they wouldn't participate in the book. And so I turned to Kurt Wise instead. I thought, well, Kurt Wise is a scientifically credible person who could be in the book, and the response I got from him was indignant and abrupt. He said, “Why would I participate in a book that calls into question the Word of God?”, and so forth. And so we finally settled on someone that Ken Keithley knew that I think is maybe a professor at Liberty or maybe at Southeastern. But I've got to tell you, I made a real effort to include the Young Earth Creationists in this debate, and it's not been easy.

QUESTIONER: Well, I appreciate that, but what I am looking for is an acknowledgment that we should not be discriminated against in scientific fields because of our views.

DR. CRAIG: I just haven't spoken to that either way. I mean, I understand what you're saying that people who hold maverick positions are often discriminated against. I remember in cosmology, the area I'm more familiar with, Halton Arp was a cosmologist who called into question the Big Bang model and the explanation of the redshift, and he found it very difficult to get telescope time because the people who control these great telescopes – this is precious, this time is so precious to accord to observational astronomers, and they felt it would be just wasting it to let Arp have telescope time to pursue his maverick hypotheses. So you have to make a decision: Is that right or is it not right? And I haven't spoken to that at all. I've not said anything about it. It's not my place.