We have been exploring inconsistencies in William Lane Craig’s comments on Genesis. Recall that Craig had attempted to reclassify Genesis 1-11 as myth by claiming it had similarities to Ancient Near Eastern origins stories. We found this claim to be false. Craig then equivocated on the meaning of the word ‘myth’ in order to convince his followers that Genesis is not literal history. This is a bait-and-switch fallacy. In fact, Craig did not present any evidence that Genesis should be taken as anything but literal history. His rejection of a literal Genesis does not stem from an exegetical reading of the text, or proper reasoning from Scripture, but rather from his acceptance of the secular stories of deep time, Darwinian evolution, and the big bang.

Every year, citizens of the United States celebrate Independence Day on July 4. But why? Suppose someone answered, “That is the date in which the fictional characters Steve Miller and David Levinson saved the world from invading extraterrestrials, as shown in the sci-fi movie Independence Day. That is why we celebrate on the 4th of July.” That would be absurd because the reality of our independence cannot be based on fictional events in a movie.

We have been examining the claims of William Lane Craig regarding the historicity of Genesis 1-11. Craig argued that there is similarity between the creation account in Genesis and creation myths of the ancient Near East (ANE). But we found that this is not the case, in that ANE creation myths are always polytheistic, and generally involve a chaos monster that is defeated in order to produce the good earth we have today. However, Genesis is the opposite in starting with one all-powerful God who created a very good earth, and in which humans introduced chaos/death by rebelling against that God.

William Lane Craig is a professor of philosophy at Houston Baptist University. Although he is known as an apologist, his approach is based on man-centered philosophy rather than biblical authority. As such, Craig rejects the history recorded in Genesis. He instead embraces the secular story of origins, including its timescale of billions of years. So, his latest article arguing against the literal history in Genesis came as no surprise. In his article, Craig attempts to persuade his readers that Genesis is a myth – a story that contains elements of truth but which is not to be understood literally. This is a significant departure from the faith once and for all delivered to the saints (Jude 3). So, let’s examine the more pertinent parts of Craig’s article and see if his reasoning is sound.

We have been examining the recent discoveries of extrasolar planets – those planets that orbit a star other than the sun. Several thousand exoplanets have been discovered. In many instances, we know only the orbital period and minimum mass of the planet. In cases where the planet passes directly in front of its star, we are also able to estimate the size of the planet, its true mass, and therefore its density. But through some careful measurements and ingenious reasoning, there is additional information we can learn about exoplanets. And these new discoveries challenge the secular view of origins.

We have been examining extrasolar planets – planets that orbit a star other than the sun. The first exoplanets were discovered by measuring the slight wobble their gravity induces on their star. Amazingly, and despite the challenges involved, around 50 exoplanets have now been directly observed using powerful telescopes. But the majority of exoplanets have been discovered using the transit method. This technique, along with the others, has allowed us to discover nearly 5000 extrasolar planets.