A Geological Response to the Movie “Is Genesis History?”

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 !! :smiley:

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:

Please take a look at Todd Wood’s (a YEC) response.

I think he deserves a careful response. IMHO, I do not think he is fairly characterizing this article, but he does deserve to be taken seriously.

@davidson @Joel_Duff

I’ve been following Todd’s writing about his role in the movie. I think he is quite fair and makes some good points other than characterizing BioLogos as playing the “outrage card.” I didn’t see outrage just frustration that so many misconceptions that we have carefully pointed out over and over again are propagated as if they had never heard the dissenting opinion. But Todd is right that our natural inclinations are to create dichotomies. I didn’t expect the movie to give both sides - ah there I go creating a dichotomy - equal time. I just expect that if one side is presented it is only fair to their audience that they are sure they are presenting facts accurately and honestly.

2 Likes

I like some of Todd’s stuff, but goodness…he is totally missing the point here. Sure, we all create dichotomies, but not all dichotomies are alike. Of course we think we are right and others are wrong. But we try our best to characterize other perspectives in accurate and gracious terms. We don’t call everyone other than us “stupid anti-science idiots.” We’ve funded a number of inter-organization, inter-position dialogues out of our own pocket (can AiG or Core Academy really say the same?). And we expect that others will portray us in accurate terms in return, and are consistently disappointed when young-earth creationists (like the ones in the movie) fail to do so. The “dichotomies” ascribed to us by Todd aren’t even remotely accurate.

4 Likes

I agree, but given our history with him, a kind clarifying response might be in order.

In particular, the claim we make in this article is that there is demonstrably false information presented in the film. That is not the same thing as making a grand dicotomy as he assert. Rather. It is a specific claim about the evidence that is well defined. We should avoid the “us them” mentality, but I don’t think that is what characterizes this article.

Joshua - thanks for the prompt. After reading Todd’s blog, I reached out to him with a personal email note - mostly conciliatory. We’ll see what comes of it.

2 Likes

I agree here, and I was disappointed that he didn’t seem to realise that was the problem, not only with the film, but the problem that I guess most of us have with YEC in general — the information they are giving out is demonstrably false and/or misleading.

Then again, I can’t help getting the impression that most YECs don’t even realise that there is such a problem. There’s a bizarre kind of everything-is-an-interpretation attitude in YEC-dom that doesn’t seem to be even aware that it’s possible to do things like point to a clearly fractured rock layer and say “this rock layer has been bent without fracturing” for example.

Having said that I did find this particular paragraph quite interesting, since it gives quite a percptive take on how the different “sides” of the debate think:

It seems to me that we should think more carefully about the genesis of our dichotomous thinking. I see fear at the root of these dichotomies. The BioLogos crowd seems to fear slipping into anti-intellectual chaos. RTB fears majoring on the minors and thereby ruining the effectiveness of their witness. Young-age creationists fear losing the very identity of Christianity over time. Behind these fears are genuinely precious things worth valuing: Intellectual honesty and humility, maintaining a good witness and testimony before the world, and the beautiful and rich heritage of Christian theology and exegesis.

3 Likes

The BioLogos crowd seems to fear slipping into anti-intellectual chaos.

I do not agree. I am not driven by fear, and do not think that most BioLogos people are either.

At our worst, we are driven by a sense of injury and anger. Speaking for myself (whether or not it is true), I feel I was lied to as a child, and am angry when others are lied to also. In my worst moments, this anger is directed at YEC, ID and the New Atheists. Old earth creationists, for the most part, get a pass from me =).

At our best, we are driven by a sense of compassion and duty. I see the gifting God has given me in science and as a pastor. With a great sense of duty that is driven by passion, I want to help the Church come to terms with realities of living in a scientific age.

Fear? There is longer any fear here for me. Fear left me when I left YEC and ID and became a EC/TE. I do not see fear driving most in BioLogos. In this, I really think he is wrong.

4 Likes

Well said, and I would add that my concern is for the effect it has on the gospel message to be associated with demonstrably false assertions. As Paul said in 1 Timothy 1: … so that you may command certain people not to teach false doctrines any longer or to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies. Such things promote controversial speculations rather than advancing God’s work—which is by faith.

Certainly, the context was different, but the principle is the same.

5 Likes

Indeed, and it is quite ironic. I think YEC’s see themselves as critical realists in defense of the faith, but in their heavy reliance on such arguments as “we agree on the facts, just not the interpretations” and “it all depends on what presuppositions you bring”, they really sound quite postmodern. They would probably be mortified to hear it, but in such moments I think they bear more resemblance to postmodern deconstructionists of the left-leaning academy.

9 Likes

Absolutely right. I’ve tried to express this thought and had it censored, so I’ll try to phrase it carefully enough to escape the ax this time. In any case, the fundamentalist shepherds in the war on “atheistic” evolution have been crying “Bias!” about the scientific method for so long that the sheep think they cannot trust any other sources besides the shepherds themselves. The same thing has happened across the board in all walks of life. Every source of information is biased, so the truth is in disrepute, and the sheep wander without a shepherd. As Amos, the shepherd, said,

"Therefore at such a time the prudent person keeps silent, for it is an evil time.

Seek good and not evil, that you may live;
And thus may the Lord God of hosts be with you,
Just as you have said!
Hate evil, love good,
And establish justice in the gate!
Perhaps the Lord God of hosts
May be gracious to the remnant of Joseph."