John Ankerberg Endorses Errors In Progressive Creationism

A well known Baptist preacher is making some startling statements such as advocating science has now shown how God precisely created the Universe, and science in certain situations, is a better tool than the Bible to use preaching to the lost.

John Ankerberg who has other doctrinal problems, has endorsed “day-age” theory or known as “Progressive Creationism.” This not to be confused with Young Earth Creationism, rather it associates itself with these flaws…

– Over millions of years God created new species as others went extinct.

– The record of nature is just as reliable as the Word of God

– Embraces the Big Bang Theory, claiming it’s been proved through scientific observation

– Death and Disease existed before Adam and Eve

– Denies A Global Flood, but claims the flood was local

– Manlike creatures were made before Adam and Eve who were not created in God’s image and had no hope for salvation.

In a letter, Ankerberg attacks young earth creationism proponents such as Dr. John Morris and Dr. Duane Gish because he disagrees with their stance on the earth being about 6,000 years old. Ankerberg uses worldly reasoning and faulty logic as he states in his letter, “At the time I thought, it’s going to be difficult to defend the young earth position if no scientist has been persuaded by the scientific evidence to accept it.”

It appears, he is more worried about what secular scientists think, and makes a faulty conclusion that no scientist accepts the young earth theory. There are many scientists who accept it, but certainly not the majority but certainly it’s not none of them. Ankerberg is also a great admirer of a Dr. Hugh Ross who he has on his tv-show a number of times. He is a progressive creationist.

Dr. Hugh Ross holds to the points I mentioned above concerning the “day-age” theory with a another flaw, a belief in a 67th book of the Bible is nature which means worldly interpetations of nature can supercede the Word of God.

It’s very clear that John Ankerberg is getting more worldly as time progresses, holding to the beliefs of man rather than God. It’s a faulty assumption (progressive creationism) and needs to be repented of, that science connected to evolution is better than the Bible itself.


7 thoughts on “John Ankerberg Endorses Errors In Progressive Creationism

  1. I think Ankerberg rightly said that no scientist accepts the Earth to be 6000 years old. None at all.

    Can you name a few who do ? Or are these your ‘true scientists’, not scientists ?

    You are clearly very religious, and open about that (which I applaud), something ID people do not do.

    But creationism is not science.

  2. eelco2:

    “Can you name a few who do?”

    Here are a few. Note that many scientists who are YECs do not claim their worldview openly in order to keep their job.

    John Sanford – basically inventor of transgenic crops using his “gene gun” technology.

    Richard Damadian – inventor of the MRI

    Todd Wood – biochemist – part of the team who sequenced the rice genome

    Arthur Chadwick – Dinosaur paleontologist – pioneered the use of high-resolution GPS for mapping bone beds with GPS

    Leonard Brand – made the front cover of the journal “Geology” for his work on rapid accumulation of diatoms in fossilized whales. Also has done lots of research in water-deposition environments

    John Hartnett – Cosmologist/physicist researching extensions to general relativity

    Steve Austin – geologist studying Grand Canyon redwall limestone and nautiloid deposition environments. He has also published his research on the earthquake associated with the Biblical book of Amos.

    Anyway, as Michael points out, there are in fact YEC scientists. These are just some of the more big-name ones – there are many more. They are certainly a far minority, but they are certainly there.

  3. Dear johnnyb61820,

    you simply cannot prove that there are ‘many’ YEC scientist that keep their worldview for themselves in order to keep their jobs. This is a baseless accusation. I do not know any of them, and I am an active, reasonable networked scientist. There might be some that perhaps hope YEC is true as that is more in line with their specific religion (it is not 6000 years for all religions, of course), while the scientist in them tells them YEC cannot be true scientifically. Surely some people wrestle with this dilemma …

    If there would be any scientific evidence for YEC, most scientists would line up and rush to publish this, and be famous. Alas, there simply is no scientific evidence for YEC.

    All these people you mentioned are creationists, I presume, calling themselves ‘true scientists’ ? If they are creationists, then they reject the scientific method, and I would not call them scientists anymore.

    To my mind a scientist is someone who uses the scientific method. YEC is obviously based on the bible, and is therefore not science, but religion. Which is perfectly fine, of course, as long as we are honest about this.

    Sanford is an interesting case: looking him up on wikipedia I read: “Formerly an atheist, since the mid-1980s Sanford has looked into Theistic Evolution (1985-late nineties), Old Earth Creation (late nineties), and Young Earth Creation (2000-present).”. It seems he cannot make up his mind, which is also perfectly fine. But to me this looks like someone who abandoned the scientific method during his life. He got into Cornell when he was still a ‘real scientist’ (as compared to your ‘true scientist’).

  4. Steve Austin has a degree in geology, but he is not a scientist. He is a fraud!! His “Grand Canyon dating” project is a complete scam.

  5. Could someone please remind me what this big ‘ole sided war is being fought over? Why we have creationists facing-off against atheists? I seem to have forgot what we are actually fighting over. Because if it’s a war over the minds and souls of feeble-minded flaky people, I fail to see the reward. I have no need for such, and it would be futile to brag about “souls I won for the kingdom” to the almighty God.

    Religion and science do intersect, but I think rather seldom. I’ve been thinking about what the two lampstands and olive trees represent (cf. Rev 11, Zech 4:6, Luke 18:17, Matt 11:25-26, Genesis 32:23-34). It is my own understanding that what God is getting at here is ORTHOGONAL to science and reason. Am I missing something?

  6. Hey Jonny,

    You state,

    Could someone please remind me what this big ‘ole sided war is being fought over? Why we have creationists facing-off against atheists?

    What was Jesus fighting over in Mathew 23?

    By quoting science, what do you mean by that? What is your definition of science?

  7. Hey Michael,

    so you are capable of posting responses after all !

    What is your definition of science, and what is your scientific background ?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s