Can We Not Agree That Someone Is Being Foolish?


(Mike Gantt) #1

Either the man who denies evolution is a fool in the sight of God because he is denying the evidence God has provided through nature (Rom 1:20)…or…the man who denies a six-day creation is a fool in the sight of God because he is denying the testimony God has put in the Bible (1 Cor 1:20) . In other words, either the man who rails against evolution is a fool in the sight of God…or…those who rail against him are fools in the sight of God.

Regardless of which side of the debate we take our stand, can we not agree that some of us - whichever side it is - are being foolish in God’s sight?


(John Dalton) #2

One thing occurs to me–God has not chosen to spell it out in terms that make it explicitly clear to very sincere, dedicated and faithful people. In that light, I would say, no.


(Laura) #3

I suppose so if this is simply between those who make a mission of debating the topic. If it’s more broad, then I’m not sure, since not everyone “rails.” I was surprised, after being raised with AIG values, to find that there existed YECers who would affirm a six-day creation but were actually rather averse to debates or young earth “apologetics,” feeling that it lowered faith into something that could be proven or disproven.


(Mervin Bitikofer) #4

If I’m not mistaken, 1 Corinthians 1:20 catches us all in its net does it not? It is a contrast between the best the world has to offer and what God has to offer; not a comparison between one group who chose a wrong position and another group who chose a right one.

Is Christ divided? That is the context for the Corinthians message and it appears to me to answer that question negatively.


(Curtis Henderson) #5

I think that determination is possibly too harsh. As much as I question the motives of some prominent individuals involved in the YEC movement, there are a good number of genuine, truth-seeking individuals that love the Lord just as much as I do that believe absolutely in YEC. They stand firmly on their belief of their interpretation of the creation account in Genesis. I stand firmly on my observation of God’s revelation through His creation (science) to take a different interpretation. As long as both “camps” focus on Jesus Christ, I certainly don’t think either side is “foolish”.

This brings to mind a passage of the Bible I have often found life-directing:

13 When Joshua was by Jericho, he lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold, a man was standing before him with his drawn sword in his hand. And Joshua went to him and said to him, “Are you for us, or for our adversaries?” 14 And he said, “No; but I am the commander of the army of the Lord. Now I have come.” And Joshua fell on his face to the earth and worshiped[c] and said to him, “What does my lord say to his servant?” 15 And the commander of the Lord’s army said to Joshua, “Take off your sandals from your feet, for the place where you are standing is holy.” And Joshua did so. (Joshua 5:13-15, ESV)

I love the response to “Are you for us, or for our adversaries?” – “No”. The response completely dismisses the question! I think “Is YEC or EC the correct model?” is just as meaningless in the grand scheme of things compared to whether or not we are doing our best to serve the Lord.


(Phil) #6

That statement cuts to the real issue. Great insight.


#7

Even Jesus taught using parables.


#8

I can agree with that.


(Benjamin Kirk) #9

and:

Yet, elsewhere you claim:

Which is it? Debate or learning?


(Mike Gantt) #10

In Defense of Science

Learning.

Ben, your recurring theme to me seems to be that I have dishonored science or scientists, that I have not given them the appropriate respect. That I have mislabeled their role and mischaracterized their methods.
Though I’ve said it before, let me say it again emphatically: It is my respect for science and scientists that brought me to BioLogos. This is why I keep telling people that I did not come here to hear the scientific arguments for evolution (and age of the earth, and attendant issues). I know the evidence is strong - very strong. I know that I stand in the minority of educated people in withholding, to this point in my life, acceptance of these things.

Were I disrespectful of science or cavalier about its findings, I would never have put myself through coming here. It has been fatiguing, and so far, it has not yielded the biblical solution I have sought.

I shouldn’t have to keep praising science and scientists. My extended presence here is driven almost exclusively by my unwillingness to ignore their testimony. I certainly haven’t stayed here this long because I’ve been treated so well.

Please put this matter to rest: I respect science and scientists. Just because I do not use vocabulary in the way you want me to when mentioning science or scientists does not mean I lack the proper respect. If I were more fluent in science, I would be more fluent in describing their activities. Alas, I am a below-average layman. And I know you and others want me to learn more science, but that’s not going to solve the problem I came here to solve. I trust science and scientists all the time. It’s only the Bible that stands between me and trusting them about evolution, etc.


(Benjamin Kirk) #11

[quote=“Mike_Gantt, post:10, topic:36395”]
Learning.[/quote]
Then why are you literally framing it as a debate?

False.

True. Relentlessly.

Yet you keep bringing up science.

[quote]I know the evidence is strong - very strong. I know that I stand in the minority of educated people in withholding, to this point in my life, acceptance of these things.

I shouldn’t have to keep praising science and scientists.[/quote]
I don’t expect praise. I expect accuracy.

There you go again. It’s about the evidence, not anyone’s testimony.

I think you’ve been treated extremely well.

This has nothing to do with respect nor vocabulary. It is conceptual.

Or you could just refrain from doing so, and learn that the fundamental activity of science is attempting to empirically falsify one’s own hypotheses.


(Jonathan) #12

@Mike_Gantt
I could definitely agree to that. The only possible conclusions that we can come to from these debates are:
1.That one of the sides is right, and the other wrong, or
2.That both sides are pretty much wrong.[quote=“cwhenderson, post:5, topic:36395”]
As long as both “camps” focus on Jesus Christ, I certainly don’t think either side is “foolish”.
[/quote]

This is also a good point. So I would then counter: Could it be plausible that whichever side diverts more focus AWAY from Christ, and onto something else (e.g: science)…is wrong?
@cwhenderson


(Curtis Henderson) #13

If the BioLogos position diverted focus from Jesus Christ, I would have nothing to do with it. An overly-brief summary would be that Christ created, using evolution as His tool.


(Benjamin Kirk) #14

As long as we can agree that focusing on an interpretation of a small part of the OT that is neither shared by most theologians, nor most Christians in the world today, nor most Christians over history, clearly constitutes diverting the focus AWAY from Christ.


(Peaceful Science) #15

I think we can all agree that there are fools all around. Of course you cannot mean that all those that affirm evolution are fools. Nor are they fools who deny six-day creation based on their honest understanding of Scripture.

So I do agree that some of us are fools. I do not think that this has anything to do with which side of the debate we are. There are fools and wise people on both sides.


(Jonathan) #16

@Benkirk @cwhenderson
Does it ever strike you that AIG seems to be always careful to point to Christ?
It seems to me that BIoLogos encourages the idolization of science?[quote=“Swamidass, post:15, topic:36395”]
So I do agree that some of us are fools. I do not think that this has anything to do with which side of the debate we are. There are fools and wise people on both sides.
[/quote]

I would also agree with this.


(Peaceful Science) #17

I am a BioLogos speaker and I am always careful to point to Christ. Jesus is the Lord of all things, including science. Whether or not evolution is true, I follow him because He rose from the dead. He is beautiful and He is good.

I resist any attempt to present a fragile Jesus that is threatened by our human debates about evolution. Nothing here threatens Him. Jesus is not a helpless bystander threatened by our disagreements about the distant past. He does not need creation science or any other human effort to protect him. So yes, AiG does point to Jesus often, but usually to claim he is threatened by evolution. There has to be a better way forward than that.


(Jonathan) #18

@Swamidass
You make many good points. Now that I am in a better understanding of the BioLogos (or at least your specific) stance, I shall talk about the AIG one.

I would vehemently disagree that AIG points to Jesus USUALLY to claim that he is threatened by evolution. If you have been to the Creation Museum, you have probably noticed that they share the Gospel very often through their exhibits…usually WITHOUT reference to evolution. This actually used to bother me about AIG (particularly in the Ham v. Nye debate), but I have recently come to the conclusion that that is actually a better thing, and that AIG is right to put precedence on the Gospel.


(Curtis Henderson) #19

At the front page of biologos.org website, you will find this quote:

“BioLogos invites the church and the world to see the harmony between science and biblical faith as we present an evolutionary understanding of God’s creation.”

The organization itself and the forum participants (generally) affirm this approach. Although it is certainly possible to idolize science, it would conclude it is both unfair and inaccurate to say that BioLogos encourages it.


(Jonathan) #20

I would now agree, considering what you yourself and @Swamidass have brought to light. (Also note the question mark after my assertion [a punctuation I often use when I desire enumeration or correction on a statement]).
@cwhenderson