Connecting the Dots: Some Comments on the Recent Uniter Column

Journalism student and reporter for the U.of W. Paper “The Uniter” Ethan Cabel assured me that he would e-mail me the article he was intending to write after our lengthy interview. After reading the column myself I think I understand why it may have “slipped his mind.”

The article begins,

““God is not the God of half people,” said John Feakes, sitting at the back of the Oxford Bible Church, his one leg restlessly jerking up and down.

“God is the God of full people.”

Feakes is the creator of Winnipeg’s Christian Evidences museum, which grew out of his basement rec room in 2007 and into the Oxford Bible Church, a meeting place for the Christian reformist sect, the Plymouth Brethren.

The museum is made up of archaeological artifacts, fossils and books meant to prove that the Earth was created in six days, that humans walked with dinosaurs and that the planet is only 6,000 to 7,000 years old.""

Intentionally or not, Cabel has seriously misrepresented me. He begins his article by quoting me as referring to God as the God of “whole” people, without bothering to inform his readers as to the context. As it stands, it looks as though I am completely off in la-la land, babbling about theological and doctrinal issues absolutely detached from the origins debate. Cabel has strewn a bunch of disconnected dots onto the page leaving readers scratching their heads wondering what in the world I was talking about. Okay, let’s connect some dots.

Cabel asked me several times about biblical interpretation, wondering if Genesis need be taken as literal history. I was happy to give him the reasons why I thought it did. I also affirmed my belief that the Bible is not only 100% correct in all that it states plainly, but also in what it implies. My support for this latter assertion comes straight out of Matthew 22:31-32. Here, defending the doctrine of a future, literal resurrection of the dead, Jesus states that God, speaking to Moses, identified Himself thus:

“I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.”

When God made this identification to Moses the patriarchs were long dead, yet He was still somehow their God. It can only mean that, though their bodies were dead, their spirits where alive somewhere. It also implies that there will be a physical resurrection of these saints. Why? Because God promised a physical land to Abraham and his descendants forever. We know that the patriarchs never actually received this land and so, if God is to make good on His promise, He’s going to have to raise these Old Testament saints to physical life. This is what Jesus was arguing. His detractors, the Sadducees, understood exactly what He was saying. No one said, “Hey, you’re reading into the text something that isn’t there!” No, these religious leaders got the message and were silenced. All this to say that the Bible is to be taken as correct in all that it states plainly, and all that it implies. This is the context in which I made the statement, “God is not the God of half people.”  God made humans as immaterial persons conjoined to physical bodies and He intends for us to have these bodies, improved to be sure, forever. He is the God of full people.

Cabel also misrepresents what I am setting out to do with our little museum. He states that our intent is to “prove that the Earth was created in six days, that humans walked with dinosaurs and that the planet is only 6,000 to 7,000 years old.”

This has never been my goal, for the simple reason that it obviously can’t be done! We’re talking about one-time events that took place in the past. By their very nature they cannot be “proved” in the same way that say, a mathematical equation can be proved. On the other hand, I do think that what we can observe and consider in the areas of science, history and philosophy certainly do support the biblical creation worldview. That is to say, I do feel that the biblical creationist is going to have an easier time interpreting the observable data out there than the atheistic evolutionist. Nevertheless, when asked by Cabel why people believe in evolution when there is no evidence for it, I responded emphatically that there are plenty of phenomena that could be pointed to as evidence for evolution. Genetic change, for example, can and does occur. The evolutionist often points to various examples and types of genetic change as evidence for evolution. I pointed out however that the creationist would challenge the idea that the type of genetic change actually observed can legitimately be extrapolated to accommodate Darwinian evolution. Here the debate is centered on how each side chooses to interpret the data. Which side is handling it in a more consistent and intellectually satisfying way? That’s for the individual to decide. By overstating my intent Cabel has effectively set up a straw man that the evolutionist can easily knock down.

Perhaps the most misleading – I would say outright erroneous – comment made by Cabel followed my statement about the biblical creationist having the “intellectual high ground.” Cabel writes:

“I believe that the creationist has the intellectual high ground in this debate,” he said, before launching into a theological argument.”

This isn’t the way I remember the interview going at all. When Cabel wanted to talk Bible I talked Bible. When he wanted to talk science I talked science. I don’t remember switching gears the way he suggests. As a matter of fact, I distinctly remember that after I made the comment about the creationist having the intellectual high ground I went on to build – not a theological case – but a philosophical case to substantiate my claims.

I quoted the British biologist L. Harrison Matthews as stating that evolution and creation are parallel belief systems. Both are concepts, Matthews stated, that believers know to be true, but neither up to the present has been capable of proof.  I pointed out to Cabel that the debate is really centered on the question of how we come to know what is true in the first place. As far as I’m aware, there are five arbiters or avenues of truth generally recognized by philosophers: Rationalism, Empiricism, Intuitionism, Faith and Pragmatism. I briefly sketched for Cabel my main reasons for claiming that no matter which of the five one wants to consult, the biblical creationist has the “intellectual high ground.” I specifically remember going into some detail concerning Rationalism, Empiricism and Faith.

Leaving the dots unconnected the way Cabel does (or making false connections as in the case just noted), the reader is left with the idea that the creationist worldview is based on nothing more than a blind faith in an antiquated old book.  I do indeed have faith in the Bible, but it is certainly not a blind, uninformed faith.  And while the Bible may indeed be old, it is, in my opinion, certainly not antiquated. As Psychiatrist J.T. Fisher has pointed out:

“For nearly two thousand years the Christian world has been holding in its hands the complete answer to its restless fruitless yearnings.  Here…rests the blueprint for successful human life with optimum mental health and contentment.”¹

It is my sincere prayer that folks in Winnipeg will come to accept what this precious book has to say, that they might reap immeasurable benefits, and that God may be thereby glorified.  That’s why CARE exists.

That’s what I’m really trying to accomplish around here.

- John Feakes

Notes and References:
1. As quoted by John Warwick Montgomery, “History and Christianity”, Downers Grove, Illinois, Intervarsity Press, 1971, p. 65