Answers in Genesis's 7 C's of History, revisited

The graphic above is from Answers in Genesis (AiG) on-line materials. It represents a 4th C, confusion. I believe getting permission for its use is not needed, as I am using a little bit of their post in criticism of AiG.

In a previous post, I commented on the 7 C's of History, a structure by AiG, used to organize human history. The post notes that nearly half of the Bible is not covered by any of these 7 supposedly main points -- Abraham, Moses, nearly all prophecy, the Psalms, and more of the Bible, in Genesis 12 through Malachi are not mentioned.

It is also true that their 4th point, "Confusion," the story of the Tower of Babel, occurs in only one chapter of the Bible, Genesis 11. So far as I can discover, that story is not referred to at all, anywhere else in scripture.

This is remarkable. A supposedly Bible-based organization leaves out large parts of the Bible, including some pretty important ones, and puts in one story that is not referred to in the New Testament at all, and is found in only one chapter of the Old Testament. Bible-based? Sort of.

Thanks for reading.

Ken Ham/Answers in Genesis ignores much of the Bible: revising Ham's 7 C's

Answers in Genesis has posted a way of looking at history, by Ken Ham and Stacia McKeever. They hang human history on 7 C's, as follows:
Creation
Corruption
Catastrophe
Confusion
Christ
Cross
Consummation

In their discussion, each of these C's has scripture describing that particular event, or stage.

Others have noted -- I can't remember who -- that since Confusion is about the story of the Tower of Babel, which is in Genesis 11, and the next stage is Christ, their scheme leaves out almost the entirety of the Old Testament.

No Abraham, no plagues of Egypt, no Moses, no Exodus, no Mount Sinai, no Ten Commandments, no Tabernacle, no system of celebration and sacrifices, no prophets, no wisdom literature, no Psalms, no David, no Solomon, no Temple, and much more -- you get the idea. More than half the Bible left out!

Bible scholars are by no means unanimous on the dates and geographic extent of events in Genesis, but by the reckoning of Answers in Genesis, the Tower of Babel (Confusion) was in 2242 BC. (Or 2246 BC.) Thus, about 2240 years of the history of life on earth are ignored in the 7 C scheme. Answers in Genesis says that creation took place in 4004 BC. So their scheme leaves out about 37% of what they believe to have been earth's history, and more than half of the times, and most of the events, covered by the Bible. Amazing, for a Bible-based organization.

I propose, for those who want a C scheme, an 8th C -- Covenant, between Confusion and Christ, and that the scripture associated with this be taken from Genesis 12 through Malachi. Captivity would also fit in.

There is, no doubt, some value in the 7 C's scheme, even if one doesn't agree with the dates put forth by Answers in Genesis, or their ideas on the geographic extent of the Flood. But there's a lot of God's revelation left out.

On January 25, 2022, I added this:

Not only does the 7 C's scheme leave out some important scriptures and people, but it includes a minor story, that of the tower of Babel. That story occurs in only one chapter of Genesis, and, so far as I can determine, is not referred to anywhere else in the Bible.

Thanks for reading! (The title was revised on May 31, 2022)

The Amazing Spiderman - comic book science

My wife and I recently saw The Amazing Spiderman. (Wikipedia article here, official website here.)

The film stars Andrew Garfield as high school nerd Peter Parker, whose parents died in an accident, apparently soon after they left young Peter Parker to live with his aunt and uncle. (Well-played by Sally Field and Martin Sheen, with some good lines, especially for Sheen.) Emma Stone plays Gwen Stacy, his high school classmate, who becomes his best friend. Garfield and Stone are both a little old for high school, but why not? I think they both did a good job as actors.

I don't wish to give away the plot, but will mention a few aspects of the film.

Parker/Spiderman is portrayed as on the side of good -- he wants to fight criminals. But his morals are not always perfect. In a glaring example, he takes an identification badge for a special science internship, which belongs to another student, from a table. When the other student arrives, he is forcibly escorted from the building. Parker shows no remorse, and pays no penalty. Presumably, his action might have cost the other boy a college scholarship. I was reminded of incidents in the Harry Potter books, where Harry, Hermione and Ron often break all sorts of rules, because they think they have to, to do what they want. Sometimes what they are doing is to help them defeat Voldemort. Sometimes it's just to have fun, or to get something they want.

The science in the film is comic book science -- impossible things, like regenerating a limb in a matter of minutes, take place. This is not surprising, since the movie is based on comic books. But we should be careful of comic book science.

I know, no one with any sense is going to consciously judge the scientific enterprise by what they read in comic books, or see in movies based on them. But, still, our mythology becomes part of us, whether we realize it or not, and whether or not it makes sense. Some aspects of comic book science are partly true, but mostly not so. The first is that a single scientist can produce a significant breakthrough in any field of science in a relatively short period. Most significant discoveries are made by teams, or made in more than one place at the same time. The second is that lots of beakers, retorts, tubing, and the like are needed to produce scientific breakthroughs. Sometimes, in some fields. But not in astronomy, or in much of ecology, for example. Third is the myth of the mad scientist. There are some scientists who have done some bad things, or want to do them, but scientists are no more likely to want to deliberately release evil upon humankind than, say, park rangers or kindergarten teachers. Most scientists are simply trying to do their job as best they can, and when ethical issues come up, I don't think they are more (or less) likely to make mistakes than anybody else.

Perhaps we should have more movies about mad bankers, or mad real estate tycoons.

One more aspect. There is a large tower, home of Osco, a bioengineering company, in the middle of Manhattan. Much of the action takes place there. According to the Wikipedia article, the director, Marc Webb, thought of this tower as a modern-day Tower of Babel.

Thanks for reading!