What Casper said.
1 Like
Daniel, the question arises, how should we as Christian brothers and sisters respond to incorrect or demonstrably false information given by other Christians? True much is opinion, and can be argued as such, but in the case of the movie, some of the geology is arguably misrepresented, and in some eyes, that sullies the gospel witness.
It seems that we have done a poor job of correcting ourselves in the Christian community, whether it be leadership with financial or sexual misconduct or other failures. I am not sure I know the answer, as we believe in grace and redemption, yet must hold ourselves accountable as a community of believers.
3 Likes
I also know Karl very well and have corresponded with him for more than 20 years.
I think the passage @Daniel_Mann has in mind is found in a blog Karl wrote last year: http://www.beaconbroadside.com/broadside/2016/07/noahs-ark-park-keeping-christians-in-the-eighteenth-century.html
Here’s the full paragraph containing the part that @Daniel_Mann apparently has in mind:
“Noah’s story, as a tale for children, has a certain adventurous charm, and I was fascinated by it as a kid in Sunday School. Much of that adventure came back to me when I visited Ham’s other project, the Creation Museum, a story I recount in Saving the Original Sinner. But I have to confess that I am horrified by the story as an adult and wonder why it took me so long to see just how horrifying the story is. Taken literally—the entire point of Ham’s new park—the story suggests that God drowned all the children on the planet for their parents’ sins. Even if we assume that all adults outside of Noah’s family were terrible sinners deserving to be drowned, the collateral damage in the deaths of innocent children and animals dwarfs every major genocide in history combined. If Noah’s story is literally true, God is a monster.”
This is a long way from saying that God is a genocidal maniac. Indeed, Karl’s point is that, since (I assume based on this paragraph) he cannot believe that God is a monster, he can’t take the Noah story literally. In other words, Karl does what all theologians do at one time or another, regardless of whether they are biblical “literalists.” He’s interpreting a biblical text in light of his theological convictions–and his convictions (in this instance) seem to be the same as yours, @Daniel_Mann. He doesn’t believe God is a monster, and I gather you don’t either. However, Karl’s idea of what would qualify as monstrous is apparently different from yours, since the wholesale destruction of the living world (including “innocent children and animals”) obviously qualifies as monstrous for Karl, whereas it apparently doesn’t for you, @Daniel_Mann.
If I’ve assumed too much about your position, @Daniel_Mann, then please correct my mistaken impression.
3 Likes
I have already provided the link above.
I guess you have read Giberson’s “Saving Darwin,” where he 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. Dennett’s universal 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.” (Saving Darwin, 9-10)
Actually, I appreciate his transparent confession about the effects of the belief in evolution, even though I find it tragic.
And it predictably got worse: http://biologos.org/blog/exposing-the-straw-men-of-new-atheism-part-five/
@Daniel_Mann, I think you missed the point I was making. I was responding only to that part of your comment about depicting God as a “genocidal maniac.” What I wanted you to see is the context in which he said that, in which Karl clearly (IMO) implies that he does NOT believe that God is like that.
Yes, I own Karl’s book, “Saving Darwin”; he sent me a copy. It’s already been pointed out to you that, immediately after the sentences you quoted, Karl denies that the “acid” has eaten away his core Christian beliefs, including the Resurrection (which is at the top of my own set of core beliefs). You quoted him fairly, but you extrapolated unfairly beyond that by not quoting him further.
I wrote a column touching on related matters a few years ago, but that server is down at the moment so I can’t link it. Maybe I can do that later.
1 Like
Hi Daniel,
That quotation of Karl Giberson is misleading. That’s what we call quote-mining. Please read this:
2 Likes
And of course the whole issue of false or misleading claims is what this thread is all about in the first place.
@Daniel_Mann, please be careful.
3 Likes
I understand your concerns. I suppose I should first note that I do not blame the sheep, but the shepherds. Regarding those with scientific training, I have seen too many shenanigans to write off. Disregarding evidence. Distorting evidence. Ignoring evidence. Refusing to retract disproven theories. Personal attacks on the faithfulness of other Christians who disagree. The list goes on.
No, I don’t blame the sheep, but I think the time has come (or is long past) to blame the shepherds who are actively engaged in erecting stumbling blocks to the faith of many, and vigorously attacking those who labor to remove those same stumbling blocks.
2 Likes
I see that Biologos has just taken down the link I had provided. However, quoting Richard Dawkins affirmatively, here is what Giberson had written about the Old Testament God:
• “tyrannical anthropomorphic deity,” “commanded the Jews to go on genocidal rampages…but who believes in this [OT] deity any more, besides those same fundamentalists who think the earth is 10,000 years old? Modern theology has moved past this view of God.” http://biologos.org/blog/exposing-the-straw-men-of-new-atheism-part-five/
This statement clearly demonstrates that Giberson had been on the slippery-slope of evolution’s embrace. Clearly, the acid hadn’t stopped with “Saving Darwin.”
How dishonest of you, charging me with dishonesty, after you have removed the evidence! I am finished here!
Daniel, the whole website is down. We didn’t delete anything. Take a couple of deep breaths.
EDIT: Looks like it just came back online. Including the Giberson link.
2 Likes
It’s not my place to speak for Karl, but he has been crudely misquoted here, and smeared with a casual viciousness that is a far more effective rebuttal to “the faith” than any experiment or any rock or any quote from Dawkins or Darwin. It matters that decent people have attempted to correct @Daniel_Mann, but unfortunately it also matters that his behavior is not unusual and is validated by religious habits and themes that are centuries old.
This conversation very effectively illustrates why many people (and I’m one of them) leave Christianity. It has nothing to do with evolution. It has everything to do with basic and universal norms of human decency. The “acid” of scientific facts of natural history can easily dissolve many central aspects of conservative Christian belief. But it takes the conservative Christian himself to kill faith. Karl’s faith, I think, withstood that assault. Mine didn’t.
3 Likes
Daniel,
I see that Brad has already explained the problem on our site that you misunderstood. If you notice my comment above from earlier this morning, I also found the site down so I couldn’t link something I had wanted to link.
@Daniel_Mann, I never accused you of any dishonesty at all. Nor do I do so now. What did I say to give you that impression? I was simply saying that you quoted someone partially–and accurately as far as that passage went. There’s no dishonesty there. I simply pointed out that Giberson then said some things that aren’t consistent with the larger conclusion you were drawing. That’s about interpretation and full accuracy, not dishonesty.
1 Like
That is true. I noticed that the website was down earlier this morning.
@Daniel_Mann, now that our site is working again, I can provide the link to the column I wrote partly about the issue you’ve quite properly raised about evolution and the loss of faith. Please take a look at this column: http://biologos.org/blogs/ted-davis-reading-the-book-of-nature/science-and-the-bible-theistic-evolution-part-5
Now perhaps you will still conclude (as is your prerogative) that Polkinghorne and others who think as he does (a group that includes me) have indeed abandoned their Christian faith b/c of science. IMO, such a conclusion would be unwarranted: there are enormous differences between someone like Polkinghorne vis-a-vis someone like Shailer Mathews. If you want to say that science and other parts of modern knowledge led Mathews to abandon his Christian faith, I would agree with you; but not so for someone like Polkinghorne. In other words, there are more than the two possibilities you’ve presented. It’s not just (a) reject evolution and keep genuine Christian faith; or (b) embrace evolution and abandon genuine Christian faith. I agree with you that some people conform to (b), but often they are people who began in (a). There is also (c) embrace both, since there is nothing in evolution that contradicts the ecumenical creeds.
At least, that’s what I offer for your consideration.
Now that the site is working again, I hope you’ll reconsider your decision to exit in some anger–anger that would have been justified, if we’d removed the column you wanted to link, but we didn’t.
A technical note to all: you can use Google search to find the URL of a web page when a web server is temporarily down. Like this:
It’s the first hit! Click on the green arrow to the right of the link, and you find a link to the cached page on Google’s servers. I have highlighted the link in yellow:
Click on that link, and Google will provide you with the URL and the page as it was cached recently on Google’s servers.
HTH,
Chris Falter
1 Like
@nobodyyouknow This is a truly awesome reflection, stated with admirable humility and circumspection. What you have said about “not looking forward to that day” for mistakes made applies to all of us for things far beyond the particular subject of this discussion. But I take great joy in God’s promise to remove my sins as far as the east is from the west, and Paul’s admonition to not dwell on the past, but to press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus (Phil 3).
Given your circumstances, I totally understand your decision to write anonymously. If you ever decide to make a more public statement (i.e. attach your name), we would love to see your story included among the testimonials. I have copied your comment into my archives of great quotes - for the moment as an “anonymous pastor at a YEC church.”
5 Likes
Great article, guys. Thank you for your ongoing exercise of your geological expertise for the benefit of the rest of us. It is grievous to see the same falsehoods recycled again by young earth creationists, after these claims have been refuted many times, most recently in your book The Grand Canyon, Monument to an Ancient Earth, but also accessible on line with the links given above. I made my own stab at addressing these Grand Canyon geological young/old issues like bent rocks, anomalous radioactive dates, etc. here: Grand_Canyon_Creation | Letters to Creationists .
I agree with the very first comment here, by Bill_Hankel, that it would be great to have a movie showing the glories of the Grand Canyon and describing all the features which demonstrate its actual age. I think it could be produced to be of usefulness to general secular classrooms as well as religious audiences. I mean, it could address the general questions brought up by YE creationists (many of which start out as legitimate questions, like “How did those solid rocks get bent?” or “Why do you think there is a multimillion year gap between these two seemingly flat adjacent rock layers?”), without specifically citing YE creationist movies or articles. That could pack a lot of geological teachings into an entertaining format. I’ll even propose a title for this film: “Deep Time in the Grand Canyon”.
2 Likes
@davidson, It is good to know that you are keeping such an “archive”!!!
I am not 100% certain, but I think BioLogos administration (generically collective!) are keeping one as well !! 
I think we’re getting off topic here by discussing whether we should treat Genesis 1-11 as history or as something else. The subject of this thread was actually about the need for honest and accurate information in how we handle the physical evidence.
The YEC organisations are not merely attempting to read Genesis 1-11 as literal history; they are trying to show that their particular reading of it as such is supported by physical, extra-Biblical evidence. Unfortunately, as the article illustrates, their approach to doing so features numerous claims about both the evidence itself and how it is interpreted that are simply not true.
Unfortunately, since they are tying the authority and reliability of the Bible to demonstrable falsehoods, they are undermining it while giving the superficial appearance of upholding it.
4 Likes
The original blog post A Geological Response to “Is Genesis History” focuses on scientific evidence.
Posts focusing solely on the literary genre of Genesis were therefore split-off into another topic. Please continue discussions on biblical interpretation there: