In that case, my “brother” in Christ, who are the “godless people” in your reference to Augustine? Scientists? I have met many here who do not fit your description. BioLogos? I have conversed with their staffers and observed their Christian character over and over. The rest of us who hang around here for the purpose of “expertly and fluently” deceiving the sheep? Yes, that must be it. I personally receive a great deal of prestige and monetary reward for spending time speaking to “brothers” like you who come here and call good evil and evil good. But if being slandered and hated and looked down upon by those who claim to be our brothers and sisters in the Lord is our fate, then we shall put up with it as Paul did:
3 We put no stumbling block in anyone’s path, so that our ministry will not be discredited. 4 Rather, as servants of God we commend ourselves in every way: in great endurance; in troubles, hardships and distresses; 5 in beatings, imprisonments and riots; in hard work, sleepless nights and hunger; 6 in purity, understanding, patience and kindness; in the Holy Spirit and in sincere love; 7 in truthful speech and in the power of God; with weapons of righteousness in the right hand and in the left; 8 through glory and dishonor, bad report and good report; genuine, yet regarded as impostors; 9 known, yet regarded as unknown; dying, and yet we live on; beaten, and yet not killed; 10 sorrowful, yet always rejoicing; poor, yet making many rich; having nothing, and yet possessing everything.
“This film will undoubtedly make its way into church libraries, homeschooling and Christian school curriculums, and youth group movie nights, convincing Christian youth that they can safely reject “secular” notions of deep time and evolution. When they go to college or start investigating the evidence themselves and discover they have been misled, the natural tendency is to assume that it is Christianity itself that has failed them.”
The phrase “discover they have been misled” is of course confirmation bias as it assumes that “clearly the science is settled”. They would only “discover they have been misled” if they decide to buy into the opposing worldview preached from their secular professors, teachers, and most confusing of all, the occasional Christian mentor/leader. If your faith is destroyed because a fickle and naturalistic explanation does not fit an immutable and supernatural event then your faith was founded on something other than a God who works wonders beyond our ability to categorize, postulate, experiment, and apply the scientific method. Put another way, science is utterly incapable of proving or disproving Genesis, the Flood, Christ’s miracles, or the Resurrection. These things are, by nature, articles of faith and beyond the narrow scope that observable science (assuming of course that the science is being truthful and unbiased) offers. It would therefore be wrong to assume that Christianity or even fellow Christians have “failed” anyone because they didn’t offer the secular world’s naturalistic explanation of a supernatural event.
I would like to see a history of how the Bible went from having been inspired by God to having been dictated word for word by God, (in King James English, no less.)
No one had any reason to question any part of the Genesis account of creation until scientific study of geology in the early 19th century suggested that the earth was far more than 6,00 years old. The idea that the earth orbited the sun was denounced because the Bible said the earth could not move, but it was only 400 years ago that any claim of the Bible had been questioned at all, based on science. The church came to accept a heliocentric solar system, and many Christian denominations have accepted evolution also as not invalidating the message of the Bible.
Concentrating on whether Genesis is history or allegory ignores the profound truths of Genesis-- that a single God created the world, and that humans acquired a knowledge of good and evil, and left to themselves, will choose evil.
Jay, How have I slandered you or hated you? While I do hate the way TEs abuse Scripture, I have come in love. I pray that you all might come to repentance. You have judged me incorrectly.
Jay, You have appropriated for yourself what Paul had written: “We put no stumbling block in anyone’s path.”
However, this is precisely the problem I have with Biologos, who have taught the naive that what seems to be the most straightforward biblical interpretation - that Genesis is teaching history - just isn’t so. By doing this, Biologos has not only overthrown the message of Genesis but also all subsequent references to it as history and the foundational theology of the Bible.
You will have to substantiate this. What major Christian doctrine has BioLogos specifically denied? Where is their theology unorthodox? Where have they ever downplayed the message of Genesis? We may disagree as to what exactly the message of Genesis is, but you cannot accuse us of glibly passing the message by as if we simply ignore what Genesis is teaching us.
Daniel, to get back to the original post, how do you explain or justify the use of misleading and false information as presented in the movie and similar projects? Or do you find that the movie correctly presents scientific conclusions that only a very small minority of scientists hold as correct, and who are almost all financially dependent on having that viewpoint?
I truly hope that everyone appreciates the delicious irony of all this. I’ve always said that our God is the God of irony, and here is just one more example.
A film produced by someone’s Minister of Truth is filled with distortions and falsehoods that purportedly defend the truthfulness of the Word of God. When the distortions and falsehoods are pointed out, those who took note of them are labelled as liars and traitors to the cause of Christ, who is the way, the truth, and the life.
The eye is the lamp of your body; when your eye is clear, your whole body also is full of light; but when it is bad, your body also is full of darkness. Then watch out that the light in you is not darkness.
I don’t think you quite appreciate what exactly is meant by “discover they have been misled” here. Re-read the article carefully.
The “Is Genesis history” movie claims that there is no evidence of erosion in the Grand Canyon anywhere above the Grand Unconformity. The article states that there is lots of evidence of erosion above the Grand Unconformity. These are not things that are based on opposing worldviews; they are demonstrable facts. The technical term for making demonstrably false claims about demonstrable facts is “lying.”
Unfortunately it’s not the only example I can give of YEC dishonesty. Quote mining is another one. Take a look at this article on one creationist website for example, which a YEC friend posted on Facebook back in September. It claims that scientists are having to conclude that there was never an upward progression of life and all the different animals arrived on the earth at the same time. In support of this claim, it cites an article which it refers to as “Fossil recount limits diversity.” Science, 25 May 2001, page 1481. I took the liberty of Googling for this particular article and I found this copy of it here. As you will see, it says absolutely nothing whatsoever about all the animals appearing at once. In fact, the entire basis of the study was that they didn’t. Again: demonstrable facts; demonstrable untruths. The technical term for citing a paper as saying the exact opposite of what it actually says is, again, “lying.”
“What major Christian doctrine has BioLogos specifically denied?”
In “Saving Darwin: How to be a Christian and Believe in Evolution,” former co-head of Biologos, Karl Giberson, wrote:
“Acid is an appropriate metaphor for the erosion of my fundamentalism, as I slowly lost confidence in the Genesis story of creation and the scientific creationism that placed this ancient story within the framework of modern science….[Darwin’s] acid dissolved Adam and Eve; it ate through the Garden of Eden; it destroyed the historicity of the events of creation week. It etched holes in those parts of Christianity connected to the stories—the fall, “Christ as the second Adam,” the origins of sin, and nearly everything else that I counted sacred.” (9-10)
I’ll make you a deal, Daniel: I won’t judge all Young Earth Creationists on the basis of Kurt Hovind’s personal journey, and you don’t judge all Evolutionary Creationists on the basis of Giberson’s.
I also think you greatly misunderstand Giberson, particularly because the ellipses in your quote leave out some key information. But I’d rather just have this understanding of how we should deal with one another.
I struggle with this rhetoric. Many (most?) YECs including those with scientific training are not exactly “lying”, as if they know they are saying falsehood. Most of them really appear to believe what they are teaching. The issue here is not so much intentional deceit (though that may occur at times). It is something else.
Likewise, I understand your objection to the word “misled”, which might imply intentional deceit.
But as pointed out already, the issue is not about intent but about the demonstrable evidence that shows they are wrong in how they describe the world. Even if young earth creationism is correct, one can go see for oneself in the Grand Canyon (and pictures of the Grand Canyon too) that many claims the make are false. It matters not their intent, they are just wrong on the basic facts, so this raise a great deal of doubt for most people about their subsequent conclusions.
[quote=“jammycakes, post:34, topic:35243”]
The “Is Genesis history” movie claims that there is no evidence of erosion in the Grand Canyon anywhere above the Grand Unconformity. The article states that there is lots of evidence of erosion above the Grand Unconformity. These are not things that are based on opposing worldviews; they are demonstrable facts. [/quote]
As a computational biologist, we see similar falsehoods promoted too. I’m always amazed when I see people claiming that human and chimp genomes are less than 90% similar (they are really much closer to 98%). Nowadays, it is easy for a high schooler to download the free data and free software to check this themselves. We can all see the evidence for ourselves if we so choose.
Whatever one’s motivations are for putting forward a false number, whether or not it is intentional or not, this really reduces one’s credibility. And injuring trust this way (regardless of the intentions) does significant injury to people.
And Karl Giberson is not one and the same as BioLogos. That is like taking an Al Mohler or Russell Moore quote out of context and then attributing the viewpoint to all Southern Baptists. Worse actually, since Karl Giberson is as you said, a former contributor and no longer publishes here.
Your brother in Christ went on to write this about my friend Karl: “Later, he entirely rejected the God of the Old Testament.” Does anyone want to comment on that? Or just delete it? I wonder if you all can tell just how damning this kind of thing actually is. @Jay313 talks of “irony,” but that word might not be quite enough for what is happening in this whole thread.
By making this assertion, you seem to be deliberately avoiding my question. In other words, your assertion seems to take for granted that your hermeneutical method is so obviously correct that you don’t need to answer any questions. I suspect, however, that you just overlooked my question. I don’t want readers of the thread to think you are afraid of answering a question, or are unable to, when in fact you just missed it in the buzz of the conversation. So here you go: another chance to answer my question:
Chris, You might have a very sincere faith. However, I am deeply troubled by the influence of theistic evolution. I fear that if their influence continues in your life, your faith will suffer.
You are correct that I did cut off Giberson’s quote. After this quote, he insisted that Darwin’s acid would burn no further. However, a few years later, he demonstrated that the acid had continued to dissolve his faith. He now describes the god of the OT as a “genocidal” maniac, insisting that theology has long past discarded such a god.
I know Karl very well. I’ve never heard him refer to the god of the OT as a genocidal maniac. (I would be proud of him if he did, since it’s true, but I digress.) Please be so kind as to provide a citation to Karl writing (or saying) this. You can contact me by personal message.