Are Creationists Divisive? | The Institute for Creation Research
Are Creationists Divisive?

Recently I had the opportunity to speak at a Christian college where the majority of professors do not accept a literal Genesis.

After I had spoken, some of the students informed me that, on the day before, one the professors had tried to preempt my lecture by informing the students that creation ministries like the Institute for Creation Research are divisive—the implication being that those who accept a literal Genesis are divisive, but those who insist on other positions are not divisive.

The Creator of the world, the Lord Jesus Christ, during His earthly ministry, brought division: "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace: but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law" (Matthew 10:34,35). In Luke 12:51, we read, "Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: . . ."

And what happened as a result of Christ's ministry? "So there was a division among the people because of Him" (John 7:43). "There was a division therefore again among the Jews for these sayings" (John 10:19). I am sure that some of the religious leaders of the day accused Christ of being divisive.

The point is that the truth is divisive! Because Christ is the truth, His ministry was divisive.

Because the Institute for Creation Research speakers are insisting on the literal truth of Genesis (God's Word), then those Christians who have compromised with evolutionary ideas call us divisive.

Many people think that people like myself are biased and thus divisive, but that others are just neutral. However, it is important to understand that God's Word tells us there is no such thing as neutrality. We are told that we either walk in light or in darkness—no in-between. In Matthew 12:30, we read, "He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad."

Let me illustrate with an example: While in England last year, I had the opportunity to speak to a prestigious Christian group on the campus of Cambridge University. During my lecture on the importance of Genesis, a young man jumped up and blurted out, "But you are coming across as if what you are saying is true!" I replied, " I wouldn't be saying these things if I didn't believe them!"

I spent time discussing with this young man the problem he had with what I was saying. He wanted me to allow for other opinions, and not just sound as though what I was saying had to be the truth. He accused me of being narrow-minded and biased, while he claimed to be open minded, allowing for other opinions.

When I asked him if he was "open-minded" enough to allow for my opinion, which dictated that Genesis had to be taken literally, he realized we had reached an impasse. He was insisting that I allow for the possibility my position was not correct, and other opinions should be put on the same level. I asked him if he were open-minded enough to allow for my position, which stated that all other positions were wrong! My position was intolerant of his—but his position was also intolerant.

This reminds me of Christian colleges whose spokespersons state that they allow all views on Genesis. However, they refuse to allow the view that only those who take Genesis literally have the correct view! Such colleges, like the student above, have taken a dogmatic stand that does not allow for the position that one must take Genesis literally and that all other positions are wrong.

It is a sad situation when "a man's enemies are the men of his own house" (Micah 7:6).

As long as the creationist ministry exists in this world, it will be divisive. The truth always is! What about you? How "divisive" are you? How much does the light shine in the darkness as you stand for the Lord in this dark world? How sharp is the sword you wield? Or has it become dulled by compromise with the world for the sake of "peace"?

Cite this article: Kenneth Ham. 1991. Are Creationists Divisive?. Acts & Facts. 20 (12).

The Latest
Microraptor Ate Mammals But Was Not a Dinosaur
The recent claim of a nearly half-inch mammal foot in the stomach of a ‘dinosaur’ is tainted by evolutionary dogma.1 The fossil...

Dr. John Morris Is at Home with His Lord
Dr. John Morris passed peacefully away on January 29, 2023, at the age of 76. He was deeply respected and dearly loved by family, friends, and colleagues....

Scripture Memory & Archaeological Evidence | Creation.Live Podcast:...
"Your word I have hidden in my heart, that I might not sin against You" (Psalm 119:11 NKJV). Scripture memory was important thousands of years...

Webb Telescope Continues to Challenge Big Bang
Data obtained by the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) continue to challenge expectations of Big Bang proponents.1,2 The JWST is designed...

The Truth About the Chimp Genome (Humans & Chimps: Part 2) |...
Have scientists proven human evolution from a "common apelike ancestor," or are we being told a clever, confusing story filled with farcical...

World's Oldest Meal
The Ediacara biota is a sporadic faunal (animal) stage containing unique soft-bodied fossil creatures in sandstone from the Ediacaran System dating...

No Microbes on Mars
Mars is a lifeless world. But those holding to a naturalistic worldview continue to have hope—even faith—that the Red Planet was at...

Flood Explains Grouping of Ichthyosaurs
The discovery of dozens of ichthyosaur fossils in Nevada was announced in the journal Current Biology.1 Seven 50-foot long ichthyosaurs of...

Frog Stripe Evolution?
Color patterns in animals, whether vertebrates or invertebrates, are designed by the Creator for camouflage, warning, courtship, or, simply, for the...

They Lied to Us? (Humans & Chimps: Part 1) | The Creation Podcast:...
Back in the nineteenth century, Charles Darwin promoted the supposed similarity between humans and chimpanzees. Later DNA studies seemed to support...