Tag: secular

ALTERNATIVES

Gary Pollard

I love ancient history. The events of the New Testament were the most important in all of history, so I do not mean to cheapen their significance in any way. The period of time that interests me the most is from roughly ancient Egypt’s Middle Kingdom and before (all of the world, too, not just Egypt). A lot of writers have many and varying opinions about these eras, but I’ve come to the conclusion that we simply know very, very little about the life and times of the ancient world. The further back we go, the more interesting it gets. This is probably because mystery is fascinating! 

When it comes to the Antediluvian period (a catch-all term for anything that happened prior to the first destruction of the previous age), it’s most fascinating of all. It seems to me there are four main camps of interpretation concerning deep antiquity: 

  1. The Mainstream
  2. The Alternative (West, Hancock, etc.)
  3. The Really Alternative (Talbot, Cochrane, Velikovsky, etc.)
  4. The Weird Alternative (ancient alien crowd)

One does not have to buy their theories hook, line, and sinker to gain some kind of value from each major camp (well, except for that last one). I know faithful, devout Christians who find themselves more or less in at least one of these camps. I’ve read as much of the first three camps’ work as I could get my hands on over the last several years — and the primary sources they base their work on. I’m fallible and subject to bias in ways I may well be blind to, so this is a subjective judgment: none of them can conclusively prove their assertions. 

So I’ll give you my opinion in a few sentences — and I can’t stress enough that opinion is all it is. No one asked for it, and it isn’t worth much. But I can see the writing on the wall, and know that the mainstream’s days are numbered, and that vacuum will be filled by one of the other three major alternatives. 

Mainstream

To be transparent, this is my least favorite category. At least the ancient alien types, as far-fetched as their ideas are, are intellectually honest about what remains unknown or inadequately accounted for. The mainstream camp posits a linear model of civilization’s development, is rigidly uniformitarian (and openly hostile to the possibility of global cataclysms in recent millennia), and resorts to censorship and dirty tricks when it comes to their opponents. I have no love for gatekeepers or bullies. Despite the glaring mysteries surrounding ancient architecture and some ancient writings, the mainstream camp presents themselves as having figured it all out, with just some tweaks and a couple extra archaeological finds needed to wrap it all up with a bow. One can achieve machine-age precision in megalithic architecture with sand, trying hard, and dolerite pounding stones, apparently. Since the views of the mainstream are readily available and monopolize educational materials, I have merely highlighted two or three of the major flaws in this model. 

Alternative

Since the 1980s or so, this camp has been most influenced by John Anthony West, Graham Hancock, Robert Bauval, and other writers like them. This camp believes that a great, technologically advanced civilization lived before and during the last ice age (dated in their materials to about 12,000 years ago), and was brought to the brink of extinction after a catastrophe (probably a comet or meteor in their view) reset and remodeled the earth. This is an oversimplification of their views, but is generally correct. They believe that our cultural memory of a Golden Age, the great megalithic architecture that defies explanation, and global cataclysm myths come from the survivors of this Golden Age and cataclysm. To the hunter-gatherers who also survived the cataclysm (usually referred to as the Younger Dryas catastrophe), these people were remembered as “sages” who gave them the marks of civilization (agriculture, architecture, laws, language, etc.) in exchange for food and other survival necessities. 

For dating, they often point to prominent constructions that appear to be aligned to certain constellations, but only as they would have appeared in the time they posit. Precession of the equinoxes plays a major role in this view. All of these writers use Hamlet’s Mill (de Santillana and von Deschend) as their starting point, especially where archaeoastronomy is concerned. It seems to be from this one prior that all subsequent theories come. 

So here are the problems: these researchers reject uniformitarianism in favor of catastrophism (while still seemingly accepting an evolutionary model), but still assume that a) the earth has maintained its current inclination (minus obliquity modification) for all of human history, b) that dating methods, which rely on uniformitarian assumptions, are mostly reliable, c) that the rate of precession has never deviated in any meaningful way, d) that archetypal figures were exclusively human, despite their profound astronomical or celestial tone, e) that monotheism was a much later development, and a few others we don’t have the space for. 

This camp does a very good job of highlighting the holes in mainstream dogmatism, but don’t necessarily shrug off all of the baggage of modern scientific dogma. They have contributed greatly to archaeological work outside the mainstream and are totally opposed to the practice of classifying or covering up finds. But I do not find their theories convincing. 

Really Alternative

This one is too complicated to adequately summarize, but I will do my best. Most of these writers got their inspiration from Immanuel Velikovsky, whose work likely needs no introduction. The field as it exists today pays homage to Velikovsky, but does not accept his theory. The field is one part plasma physics to one part comparative mythology. Most seem to agree with David Talbot’s theory as put forward in The Saturn Myth and in Thunderbolts of the Gods. So as to not misrepresent their work, I’ll give a stratospheric overview: 

The present solar system arrangement is not the same one our ancient predecessors saw. They point to archetypes in all ancient mythologies, ancient rock art, and even major holes in modern gravity-dominant/General Relativity cosmologies (which they replace with a complete, alternative cosmology known as Plasma Cosmology or EU). Their work is difficult to get through for someone like me, but is certainly compelling in many points. I will say, as subjective as this is, that some of their points resolved a couple of nagging questions I’ve had for some years, which no one else seemed to be asking. Beyond this, I cannot go into further detail without misrepresenting their views. Some of their major premises are so different from what we’ve always been taught that I find them very difficult to accept. My official view is to file the relevant data away and consider it possible-but-radical. 

So if you aren’t familiar with their work, you’ll have to trust me when I point out the major problem: God is nowhere in their theories. Many of them are scientists and secular mythologists, so they seem to universally reject a Sovereign. This is ironic, considering their cosmology fits, in my opinion, more perfectly with scripture and descriptions of God than any other cosmology today. But they attempt to explain away all of the supernatural events in the Bible (and in other writings considered sacred by the peoples who read them) as merely extreme celestial phenomena. As far as I know, none of them has attempted to account for consciousness, and they — despite rejecting gradualism — still speak of cosmic timescales in terms of billions of years. I’m not opposed to an older earth or universe (and I don’t agree with Bishop Usher’s view that creation took place in 4004 BC at 9:00 in the morning, either), but have yet to see evidence not based on assumptions to support it. The typical arguments against this group are irrelevant to this discussion because those are based on an a priori fealty to the standard model. 

Conclusion

We don’t know for certain what exactly happened in the ancient world. Neither the Standard Model nor any of the alternative theories have a monopoly on truth. My approach has been to read as much as I can, and not outright reject anything unless it is wholly incompatible with what the Bible has revealed about God. At this point, I find so little value in the mainstream models of history and cosmology that I use them exclusively for reference or to steel man something else I’m researching. No model that allows for gatekeeping or concealing discoveries is worth anything. 

So we should read as much as we can, always using the text of scripture (not peoples’ opinions about the text, but the text itself) as a standard. Be open to everything, but very slow to fully accept anything. This may be useful to remember when the Standard Models collapse, and that vacuum is filled with one of these alternatives. No one has a monopoly on the truth, except the Father — and Christ himself is Truth. When we see him just as he is, and when what is seen only partially is revealed, we will finally Know. 

Dozen Thousand

Gary Pollard

It’s so encouraging that many public figures (by extension, many of their audiences) have rejected outright atheism and godless evolution! Even those who would never consider themselves believers have rejected some of the main pillars of evolution. Among them are people like Joe Rogan, Randall Carlson, Graham Hancock, Jordan Peterson (who does describe himself as a believer in some capacity), Ben Van Kerkwyk, and many others. 

What have they rejected (minus Peterson)? Gradualism/Uniformitarianism — a belief (it is a belief) that current processes are sufficient to explain how things were in the past. Uniformitarianism is the foundation supporting a belief that our earth is billions of years old, that geological processes take millions of years, and it serves as the bias behind radiocarbon/radioisotope dating. 

So what’s the problem? These same proponents of catastrophism (the belief that geological processes are best explained through natural disasters rather than gradual changes over long periods of time) still view the earth as being billions of years old. They still have an evolutionary view of our timeline. Progress is progress, so I don’t want to be harsh in discussing these people! 

But I would like to remind myself (and whoever may read this) of why I don’t believe the earth is any more than (at most) 12-15,000 years old: 

  1. Population of earth — We double in population every couple of decades. Allowing for disasters, if humans (or humans-ish, as evolutionists say) came onto the scene 1,000,000 years ago, we’d have something like 1×105000 people on earth today. The known universe couldn’t hold anywhere near that many people, much less our one planet. Since the current population of earth is around 8.02 billion (according to commerce.gov), we can safely assume that we’re no older than 12-15,000 years. 
  2. Sediment layers across our ocean floors are far too “thin” to support an age of hundreds of millions of years. Sediment should be “choking the oceans” if the oceans were that old. The salinity (saltiness) of the oceans is another problem for old-earth proponents — it has been convincingly proven that our oceans are getting saltier with time (rather than remaining constant). Based on current salinity, our earth is no more than several thousand years old. 

Many other brilliant authors have written much more than can be contained here. I recommend perusing the Institute for Creation Research’s website, as well as Apologetics Press and Answers in Genesis for more proofs. While the secular world is still off on quite a few things, we shouldn’t overlook the fact that progress is being made. 

At least for right now, there does seem to be a positive trend in society’s thirst for meaning! Let’s make the most of this by showing God’s love even more. Let’s prove to the world that there’s no better life than a Christian life! Our God is coming back — when he does, the entire world will see him. Let’s show them that we believe in him enough to love like Jesus!  

1  Butt, K. (2001). Fighting the crowd over a young earth. ApologeticsPress.org. https://apologeticspress.org/fighting-the-crowd-over-a-young-earth-882/

2  Tomkins, J.P. & Clarey, T. (2021). The oceans point to a young earth. Institute for Creation Research. https://www.icr.org/article/oceans-young-earth

Why Is A Generation Leaving Religion?

Neal Pollard

Pew Research Center recently revealed that “Four in ten millennials (those, according to this source, currently between 23 and 38) now say they are religiously unaffiliated”(fivethirtyeight.com). The data seems to indicate that “today’s younger generations may be leaving religion for good” (ibid.). A contemporary study put out by the American Enterprise Institute reveals at least three reasons why: (1) They didn’t have strong religious ties growing up, (2) Their spouses are more likely to be nonreligious, and (3) They feel religious institutions are not relevant for shaping the morality and religion (or nonreligion) of their children. Parental example, dating choices, and biblical literacy and faith, then, are major drivers in this discussion. 

Those polled revealed their thinking. A majority felt that religious people are less tolerant of others, less informed or even intelligent than their secular counterparts, and less necessary for shaping their family’s moral viewpoints. At least, reading this one study and the authors’ interpretation, it seems that leaving church is a deliberate lifestyle choice of people who at least sometimes are encouraged out the door by poor examples of faith. 

Notice the startling closing paragraph of the article, which states,

Of course, millennials’ religious trajectory isn’t set in stone — they may yet become more religious as they age. But it’s easier to return to something familiar later in life than to try something completely new. And if millennials don’t return to religion and instead begin raising a new generation with no religious background, the gulf between religious and secular America may grow even deeper (“Millennials Are Leaving Religion And Not Coming Back,” 12/12/19, Cox, Daniel, and Amelia Thompson-DeVeaux). 

I found it important to share those findings for these reasons:

  • It is a matter of crisis. People abandoning God’s Word and will is foreboding (Judges 2:10ff; 2 Timothy 3:1ff; 4:3-4; 2 Peter 3:3ff). It is happening, and it must matter to us. It does to God. 
  • It is a matter of correction. The home can change course if it is on the broad way. Individual Christians can improve their ethics and morality in public (Ephesians 4:25ff). Soul-conscious Christians can make the most of our opportunities to share Jesus in Christlike fashion (2 Timothy 2:24-26). We must change what we can change. 
  • It is a matter of consequence. A culture does not get where ours currently is as the result of sincere devotion to Christ and His Word. Hosea 4:6 is incredibly relevant. The law of sowing and reaping is immutable, for good and bad (Galatians 6:7-8). Whatever we exalt as guide is leading us somewhere.
  • It is a matter of courage. The only way I can see for this to change is for you and me to not just believe something or hold a conviction. The early Christians didn’t confine their faith to the holy huddles of the assemblies. They stood up for Jesus every day and every way. 

Two of my three sons are millennials and the third is only a couple of years too young to qualify. This is, largely, their generation. They and their faithful Christian peers are faced with reaching them, and they need our help. Talk to them and have honest conversation about how to raise your effectiveness together in stopping and reversing this exodus. This is not about preserving a comfortable lifestyle, which is threatened by sin (Proverbs 14:34). This is about preserving souls, which will face Jesus some day (Matthew 25:31ff). 

Walking Away