BioLogos: House of Heresy & False Teaching (AiG says the nicest things about us)

Faith & Science Conversation
137

They sure want to get a lot of “false teaching organization” mileage out of one article BioLogos posted as part of a series intentionally commissioned to explore differing views on the atonement. (All having to do with the gospel, by the way, which allegedly BioLogos doesn’t talk about.) It’s right there at the top of the article "Part 2 of 7 in Atonement and Evolution: A BioLogos Conversation

Conversation is what gets promoted here, not indoctrination. I can understand that if all of your existence is wrapped up in a world dedicated to protecting boundaries and declaring people in or out of your group, then the idea of conversation about different ways of processing theological ideas would be intimidating. If you don’t have the critical thinking skills to evaluate other people’s different perspectives, then by all means, stick with groups that are only ever going to tell you what you already think and believe. I personally believe in a substitutionary atonement. But I don’t think it harms my walk with God to read an article that views God’s work through Jesus on the cross through a different lens. At the end of the day, Jesus is still glorified as Lord and humans are still in need of redemption through Christ, no matter which perspective you look at the atonement from.

In that same series, there were articles explaining other views of the atonement, like the one by Tim Keller. Tim Keller on Original Sin, Atonement, and Evolution - Article - BioLogos

It appears to me that the situation is that AIG cannot effectively deal with the evidence from science or Bible scholarship that indicates that the arguments they are promoting are not compelling. So the only tool they have left is trying to convince the people already in their tribe not to engage with compelling arguments by relying on fear-mongering and misrepresentation. They can say, “Ignore the people over at BioLogos or your soul is in peril” all they want. That doesn’t really constitute “an argument” that deserves a response, or make what they are selling more attractive to the people who haven’t already bought it.

12 Likes
138

The problem is, well, there are many problems; one of which is that there is no chance that organizations such as AiG or CMI will ever agree to the facts of science, and the alternative is to agree to absurdities such a a six thousand year earth. Even were agreement were reached for a young earth, the fact would remain that the earth is on the order of four and a half billion years old.

There are Christians who believe on the basis of scripture that the world is flat, enough that Danny Faulkner of AiG has written the occasional article addressing them. You can argue about their interpretation, but the point is that whether the flat earth exegesis is right or wrong has no bearing on the actual shape of the planet. It is a sphere regardless of what anyone thinks, and it is billions of years old regardless of any agreement otherwise.

Interpretation of scientific data is not unconstrained and infinitely malleable. As @jammycakes correctly points out, careful and objective measurement, calibrated and controlled is the backbone of science. Generally, this leads to a conclusion which is a plain and simple outcome of that measurement. Put another way, Occam’s razor dictates that explanations based on processes we understand and expect are preferred to superfluous, arbitrary, or mystical ones.

For a simple example, consider tree rings. If I am a forester and core trees as they grow, over my career I will note that every year, exactly one ring is added, and that characteristics of the annual ring will vary with seasonal weather. The lumber in your house will follow that pattern. That observation has developed into the discipline of dendrochronology, which incorporates a great deal of advanced analysis and instrumentation to measure and extract detailed information, but underpinning it all is something anyone can understand - simple counting of rings. This has been very useful in archeology. Keep counting and the age of timbers in medieval building can be identified. Nobody disputes this. Keep counting and you go back to the times of ancient history. Keep counting. Nothing changes when you hit ring 4500. All is as regular as ever. Just keep counting. 6000. Steady as she goes. The continuous tree ring record goes back over 12,000 years. Yes, there is overlap matching that is involved. But tree cores do overlap, and they do match, and it really is that simple. The simple act of ring counting is also verified by advanced technologies such as radiometric measurement, and that measurement is exacting. Counting and measurement yield an inescapable conclusion that forests have been growing continuous and uninterrupted for over twelve thousand years.

Strict YEC cannot abide that result, so they a forced to invent another interpretation. So they come up with the idea that extra false rings lead to an overcount of years. Even though the application to archeology has been successful and the concept is child’s play. False rings is not a problem for millennia, and as soon as you go as far back as Noah, arbitrarily and without any reason from the scientific data, trees are held to produce dozens of rings each year. That is not an interpretation suggested by the data; that is a fabrication imposed by a rigid dogmatic commitment, which has nothing to do with the data. YEC is fond of saying that scientific data can be interpreted with a creationist lens, and that interpretation is a matter of worldview, but that is not true at all. It is a false equivalence. Interpretations of the scientific data by YEC lead to irrational absurdities such a speeded up radioactivity, dinosaurs descending off the ark, hyper evolution of kinds, and tectonic plates breaking speed limits, none of which are supported by scientific data, or found in the Bible for that matter.

5 Likes
139

Well, we have this open forum and we welcome civil conversations with YECs.

Some may recall that when Deb Haarsma suggested sitting down with Ken Ham over dinner, he scoffed at the notion and compared her to “Sanballat, Tobiah, Geshem the Arab, and the rest of our enemies” and compared himself to Nehemiah, saying, “I am doing a great work, so that I cannot come down. Why should the work cease while I leave it and go down to you?”

Pretty clear the leadership isn’t really interested in unity, dialogue, or even extending basic Christian civility and grace to people they have decided are false teachers.

9 Likes
140

And for all the claiming that AIG never makes Genesis interpretation a “salvation issue,” in that very article defending why people shouldn’t even talk to Christians affiliated with BioLogos, Ken Ham says:

We have written a number of articles on the AiG website to warn people that compromising God’s Word in Genesis is an authority issue, a gospel issue, and, indirectly, a salvation issue.

6 Likes
142

You nailed it, Christy.

2 Likes
143

I’m just gonna leave this here: AIG’s resident astronomer Danny Faulkner wrote a critique of flat-earthers that equally applied to Young Earth Creationists.

6 Likes
144

Wonderful – bookmarked it. :slightly_smiling_face: The “find/replace” is perfect.

(edited by mod)

1 Like
145

I think the author of the article you quote for AiG makes a great point about flat earthers, quite funny but a great point nevertheless…
“Therefore, I congratulate flat-earthers in raising a good epistemological question. The drawback is that upon raising that excellent question, they proceed to drive the question off a cliff.”

Anyway, your comment about it being a salvation issue…I would agree wholeheartedly with AiG’s view on this. Absolutely it’s a salvation issue how can it not be! As Dr Kurt Wise himself explained, cut out all the texts in the Bible that conflict with evolution and you are left with a book that is rent in two!
It [the Genesis account] is vital to salvation…it directly narrates the reason for our saviour dying on the cross! Take out creation and the fall of man and we have no reason for the crucifixion.

If there is an logical and consistent alternative biblical reason, I’m all ears.

146

Then how come YECs like Calvin Smith keep insisting they never say that? Either Christians can disagree and have different interpretations on peripheral issues, or they can’t and everyone who disagrees should be shunned as a heretic, but you can’t have it both ways at the same time. Pick a lane. From his recent article:

Let’s face it; many sincere and God-fearing believers have come to many different conclusions about certain doctrines—baptism, eschatology, and observance of days, to name a few. But mature Christians in various camps still break bread with one another in Christian unity because they know that their differing beliefs are rooted in a sincere reverence for God’s Word.

They are arguing over what Scripture means in context. Calling someone a heretic or false teacher because they have a different conclusion regarding doctrine is a dangerous proposition because sincere believers can simply be sincerely wrong.

We do not consider those who have accepted Christ as their Savior but do not hold to biblical creation to be apostate.

And this is why Answers in Genesis has always been very clear that we do not consider those who have accepted Christ as their Savior but do not hold to biblical creation to be apostate or suggest they be “cast from the kingdom,” so to speak.

Although we have been continuously accused of that over the years, whenever we have challenged those who have leveled this accusation to provide a written statement, article, or presentation from AiG staff making that declaration, they have always been unable to produce one. We have gone out of our way to repeatedly say, on record, that we do not assert that belief in a “literal” (we prefer the term plain or straightforward ) reading of Genesis is a salvation issue.
https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/calvin-smith/2022/01/24/biologos-heresy-and-false-teaching-part-2/

6 Likes
147

Are we arguing doctrine here or biblical history?
The Debate of the Genesis account is not a traditional doctrinal one. It is the TE movement that published that construct because they first place authority in science and then mould religious belief around that theory. It is just a theory…the Bible is not considered theory by Christians.

Maybe I don’t make the point well enough but let me try…

I observe, I construct a theory of that observation based on my knowledge. If I can repeat it, I claim it must be truth, therefore it becomes fact.

What if my original theory is wrong and in fact the are alternatives that also are repeatable and logical (such as a literal reading of creation and the flood) and that there is also an alternate way of explaining them using the same science…AiG!

148

We aren’t arguing about anything other than the idea that AIG presents a consistent message on whether interpretation of Genesis is a “salvation issue.” And for the record, the side arguing “they don’t” is winning and you are exhibit A.

2 Likes
149

The TE movement is based on observable facts. Until you address those facts you aren’t addressing TE.

It isn’t the authority of science. It is the authority of objective facts, reason, and logic.

“It vexes me when they would constrain science by the authority of the Scriptures, and yet do not consider themselves bound to answer reason and experiment.”–Galileo Galilei

2 Likes
150

How coincidental you post that…I just watched (last evening) an AiG video that looks at the human genome that trashes all over that possibility. I’ll dig it out and add it to this post when I get out of bed in a few hours)

151

I would hope that you would discuss the evidence in your own words instead of just posting a video.

152

This is a crude summary of the scientific method, but it has nothing to do with theology or Bible interpretation, which is the proper arena for a “literal reading of creation and the flood.” What AIG does is not science, it’s Bible interpretation.

I don’t think you are familiar enough with other Christians’ beliefs, motivations and Bible interpretations to make a remotely accurate assessment of the “TE movement.” What you describe is a strawman and it doesn’t engage with what evolutionary creation actually puts forward. It hopelessley conflates biblical hermeneutics and scientific investigation of the natural world. Those are two different endeavors. Neither “moulds” the other, and both can be sources of truth about reality that should harmonize if they are both making true statements.

3 Likes
153

OK let’s just take it from the top.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: a young earth is demonstrably, indisputably, empirically, verifiably, measurably untrue. Likewise non-evolution. If believing in a young earth and non-evolution is a salvation issue, then that means that in order to be saved, we must believe lies.

How on God’s green earth does that square with this?

But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death.” – Revelation 21:8

2 Likes
154

Ah…see now that is what I like to call, “the Jehovah’s Witness response”. I am a little more astute than that.

I would also interject…preaching fire and brimstone at apparent liars when theologically theistic evolution is a sham and is easily and irrefutably proven to be such, is a bit dismissive of the theology of the very scriptures being quoted.
For example, Moses story is a very extensive one. Count the writings attributed to Him…it’s quite evident that his entire narrative is a record of literal events. Yet somehow, TE’S decide to break apart his own account and claim part of it can’t be literal because secular science says so!
Christian scientists come out with great evidence in support of the literal narrative given by Moses…and TE’s trash them?
So you support secular science, but trash Christian science?

155

Asking for discussion in a discussion forum . . . how strange of me.

If you don’t understand the material or are unable to defend it then I don’t see why you would want to post the material in the first place.

Then refute it. Address the scientific facts and show how evolution is false. Just posting videos won’t do it. It’s the equivalent of scholastic diarrhea.

It’s because the facts say so. Until you address the facts you won’t make headway.

There is only science. People of all faiths and no faiths are scientists and they work just fine with one another.

What you appear to be afraid to address is the actual facts that have led scientists of all faiths and no faiths to the same conclusion. Instead, you just insult people by calling them heretics.

Do facts matter to you? Do you think Christians should abandon facts, reason, and logic in order to be Christians?

7 Likes
156

Sorry Adam, but theistic evolution is not a sham, and it is not “easily and irrefutably proven to be such.” It is a rock solid fact, and you know that as well as I do.

No, I support honest science. I support science that obeys these verses of Scripture, and I trash “science” that does not. “Secular science” has nothing to do with it:

¹³Do not have two differing weights in your bag — one heavy, one light. ¹⁴Do not have two differing measures in your house — one large, one small. ¹⁵You must have accurate and honest weights and measures, so that you may live long in the land the Lᴏʀᴅ your God is giving you. ¹⁶For the Lᴏʀᴅ your God detests anyone who does these things, anyone who deals dishonestly.

Maybe I haven’t made myself clear enough. If you want to see why young earth “creation science” does not obey those verses of Scripture, let me give some examples for you. Specifically, take a look at the “evidences for a young earth” that Answers in Genesis considers to be its best examples:

  1. Very little sediment on the sea floor
    The calculations are invalid: riverine sediment ends up on the continental shelf, while the existing deposits being measured were those on the deep ocean floor.
  2. Bent rock layers that are not fractured
    This claim is blatantly untrue, as can be seen by comparing the example given to higher-quality photographs of the same rock formation both by USGS and by Answers in Genesis themselves. Bent rock layers are fractured.
  3. Soft tissue in dinosaur fossils
    While these findings are surprising, they do not contradict anything that we know about how long soft tissue can last, and in any case they are too rare and too badly degraded to be consistent with a young earth. Furthermore, many YEC accounts exaggerate the state of preservation of what was found.
  4. The faint young sun paradox
    Although it does suggest fine tuning, this says nothing about the age of the earth.
  5. Earth’s magnetic field is rapidly decaying
    This is based on an invalid extrapolation that is contradicted not only by the data, but also by both young-earth and old-earth models of how the Earth’s magnetic field works.
  6. Too much helium in radioactive rocks
    This is a very complex (and therefore error-prone) claim that is compromised by numerous serious errors including sloppy experimental technique, invalid assumptions, fudged data, misidentified rock samples, and a refusal to submit to meaningful peer review.
  7. Carbon-14 in fossils, coals and diamonds
    The measured carbon-14 levels are consistent with known, measured, and well-studied contamination mechanisms.
  8. Short-lived comets
    This denies that the Oort Cloud exists, based on an unrealistic assumption that absence of evidence is evidence of absence. It also disregards calculations of the historic orbits of known comets showing them to have been slingshotted closer to the sun by planets such as Jupiter.
  9. Very little salt in the sea
    This is based on outdated and cherry-picked data, poorly known quantities with huge error bars, and a naive extrapolation of rates that can not realistically be expected to have been the same in the past as they are today. The most up to date research indicates that the amount of salt in the sea is approximately in a state of equilibrium, and that it therefore tells us nothing about the age of the earth.
  10. DNA in ancient bacteria
    This is based on a single disputed study. It has not been satisfactorily demonstrated that the salt deposits and the bacteria themselves were the same age, nor that the salt crystals were undisturbed since their original formation.

There’s something that you need to realise here, Adam. Honesty has rules. Refutation of scientific theories has rules. If you want to call a scientific theory a sham, and you don’t want to be called a sham yourself, you need to stick to them.

3 Likes
157

So are we now trying to play a game of intelligence cat and mouse? Is that how one determines these things?

The problem here is actually a very simple one…probably too simple actually…
TE’s follow secular science
This view very directly conflicts with the Bible.
The Bible even prophesied that this kind of thing will happen.
YEC’s, using the exact same observations as secular science, have taken the Bible account as authoritative, and genuinely searched for logical consistent and repeatable alternative theories remaining in harmony with the Bible account.

Strangely enough, when they do this, all of a sudden huge very obvious holes appear in the secular science…these are homes secular science has always been aware of but have conveniently ignored…indeed intentionally even swept under the carpet).

I would propose that the first issue with TEism is the big bang. You cannot possibly claim that the big bang is not intimately woven with evolution…both fundamentally relate to the same question…where did we come from. Both started with our current reality and worked backwards…I believe both explain the same reality from a position of “there is no God”.
I struggle to reconcile it’s [TEism] contrasting beliefs with the self evident doctrines of the Bible and those are particularly evident in the historical account Moses wrote. I’m sorry to be so blunt, but I have really dived headlong into apologetics and Bible history over the last two years of COVID…in that time I have come to the conclusion that any theories that are inconsistent with Bible doctrine and the historical account are very clearly wrong. Even individuals who claim to promote great theology can turn out to be black sheep (Ravi Zechariah comes to mind here) I am not blind to those people and their spots eventually begin to show.