A folk observation, which isn’t always correct, isn’t the same as forecasting the high and low temperatures tomorrow and getting it right, most of the time. Much less explaining why the folk observation is correct. That is the difference I was pointing out.
1 Like
I’m sure YEC advocates believe they are doing exactly what you propose already. But that overlooks the need to understand the ancient texts of the Bible. To read the English translation literally as if it were written for the day this audience would receive it is naive and gives encouragement to those who make no real effort to understand the Bible for what is and has to say for us.
3 Likes
That approach assumes that the disagreement is over evidence. As Ken Ham admitted during his debate with Bill Nye, no amount of evidence will change his mind, and I suspect that is true for many creationists. The analogy that comes to my mind is a defendant’s mother who will claim her son is innocent no matter what evidence is brought to light. At a minimum, perhaps there could be a push for honesty when discussing the science.
8 Likes
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
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
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
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
You nailed it, Christy.
2 Likes
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
Wonderful – bookmarked it. 
The “find/replace” is perfect.
(edited by mod)
1 Like
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.
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
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!
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
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
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)
I would hope that you would discuss the evidence in your own words instead of just posting a video.
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
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
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?