I Was the 16-Year-Old Godfather of “Answers in Genesis”


(Matthew Pevarnik) #21

Sadly this reminds me of this youtube video from this atheist channel:


(Andrew M. Wolfe) #22

Well, not everybody. Some people are linking Nazis with the communist Punctuation Marx.


(Jonathan) #23

@jpm
And that he redirected that zeal toward a totally different cause.
If anyone was ashamed of his younger self, it would probably be Paul…


(Jonathan) #24

Anyhow, I shall post this famous cartoon for the gratification of all. On a different thread, I said that I would post cartoons in the plural, not singular. So I have now fulfilled that ;).

Jesting aside, this cartoon is one thing that has rather stuck in my mind since the beginning of my participation here. Now that it is posted on the forum, what are people’s thoughts on it?


(Christy Hemphill) #25

The interesting thing is how the cartoon has evolved over the years. Did you see Ted Davis’ post on that?


#26

We can remove the balloons over the purple castle since that has nothing to do with the topic. It’s a rather obvious attempt to smear the reputation of those who accept evolution.

I also think it the height of hubris on the part of AiG to think that their interpretation of scripture is synonymous with the words of God. The foundation of their castle should be “AiG’s literal interpretation of Genesis”, and it should be made of sand (to use another biblical parable). There is no better way of disproving the Bible than insisting on a YEC interpretation of Genesis, at least in my humble opinion. Of all the groups out there, AiG is the greatest threat to the Bible because they insist on an interpretation of the Bible that makes the Bible false.

I know your opinions may differ greatly from mine, and you have shown much grace and understanding in voicing those opinions. However, that’s just the way I see it. It still baffles me that Christians would insist on an interpretation of the Bible that utterly destroys any authority it may have. If a religious text said that the Earth was square, would you think that religious text was inspired by the deity who created the Earth? I sure wouldn’t. The same applies to YEC and the Bible.


(Phil) #27

I had not seen that post, but very interesting evolution of the cartoon…


(Andrew M. Wolfe) #28
  1. This could very easily devolve into a political discussion, which would be against the rules of engagement for the Forum. Suffice it to say, I find it interesting that Ham pretends to be shooting down racism from his castle. Conservative Evangelicalism hasn’t been doing a particularly good job shooting down that balloon over the past year or so. But I digress.

  2. It’s no wonder our conversations with YEC folks are so combative if this cartoon is allowed to set the tone for all discussions. I feel as if this cartoon itself needs to be deconstructed (or torn down, to use the lingo of idolatry) before we can even begin to have a productive conversation with our YEC brethren (and sistren). Otherwise we’ve already lost before we even begin, because a defend-the-castle-at-all-costs-from-the-infidels tone has been set by this metaphoric context.

Overall, my reaction is one of grieving for the body of Christ for the wounds that have, ironically, been inflicted upon it by this warfare image.


(Jonathan) #29

@AMWolfe
Look at the bright side, you figure into the “good guy” castle! [quote=“AMWolfe, post:28, topic:37070”]
It’s no wonder our conversations with YEC folks are so combative if this cartoon is allowed to set the tone for all discussions.
[/quote]

I kind of see what you mean…


(Andrew M. Wolfe) #30

I don’t belong in either of those castles. I reject (as an insidious lie) the notion that the world might be only “thousands of years” old, so I’m clearly not in the castle to the right. I also don’t believe that man gets to decide on his own what truth is, so I’m not in the castle to the left. So please don’t try to put me in those castles. I’m the guy on the island between and beyond these two — the one that you can’t see through all the explosions. We have our little sign posted on the rocky sand that’s inviting folks from both sides to come join us there. There’s no castle to protect us, but there is an enormous, welcoming dinner table…


(Jonathan) #31

@AMWolfe
I mean, as far as the AIG illustration goes, you figure as the guy in the “good guy” castle that is blasting away at his own foundation (the word of god) (it’s a little small to see…). That is where on this diagram I have seen AIG classify BioLogos…But I hadn’t brought it up yet, because I didn’t want to offend anyone. Needless to say, that is not my intention. I simply wish to see how BioLogos would respond to such an accusation.


(Jonathan) #32

Now that that’s out of the bag (see disclaimers in my previous post). I will note my observation that the “old version” of the cartoon does not have the little guy blasting away at his own foundation, which makes me speculate that that element of the cartoon was not added until the launch of BioLogos…Interesting…


(Brad Kramer) #33

Don’t worry about that, we’re fully aware that AiG sees us in those terms. [quote=“J.E.S, post:31, topic:37070”]
I simply wish to see how BioLogos would respond to such an accusation.
[/quote]

If was being sarcastic, I would say our whole website is a response to that accusation. They have certain presuppositions that make it inevitable that they would see us as a threat to “true Christianity,” but it is our mission to show that this isn’t so.

Perhaps one place to start is the dozens and dozens of stories we’ve published of people who have found a deeper faith in Christ through our perspective.


(Jonathan) #34

@BradKramer
Even as we speak, I am writing an article on the implications of evolution for my website (it may even mention Hitler!)…Any BioLogos articles you know of that may have interesting insights on this topic?


(Andrew M. Wolfe) #35

Well, “BioLogos” doesn’t respond to much. But here on the Forum, you can see how people who generally believe in evolutionary creationism would respond.

How nice of him to include us! =p

I mean, if I have to inhabit this illustration, I’ll make it fun…

See, I’m still back on my island that you can’t see behind the smoke. Ken Ham, meanwhile, is busy firing away at the evolution castle. Then one day when he needs a break, he decides to come over and visit the guy that he thinks is firing away at his own foundations. When he does that, he discovers that it’s actually not someone from BioLogos at all, but rather a robotic scarecrow (kinda like a “straw man,” but if I called it that it would be too obvious) that somebody in his own organization set up to frame BioLogos! Sadly, the cannonballs that the scarecrow is firing are all too real…


(Brad Kramer) #36

You’ll have to be more specific, I’m afraid.

Our new search engine is top notch. Please give that a spin: http://biologos.org/search/


(Jonathan) #37

I didn’t want to be…I feared I had said to much with:

Search engine would be a good idea…I just wanted to ask if you know of any outstanding ones…


#38

It isn’t a Biologos article, but it was written by one of the founders of Biologos:

Faith and the Human Genome, by Dr. Francis Collins

Dr. Collins is currently the head of the National Institutes of Health, formerly head of the NIH Human Genome project, and devout Christian. I agree with a lot of what he says, minus the whole “God exists” thing ;). If you want a Christian perspective from one of the nation’s top scientists, I can’t think of a better person.


(Mervin Bitikofer) #39

You say it has nothing to do with the topic (and I may agree); but the cartoon communicates very effectively and clearly the mindsets of those who see things in those terms. And those balloons have everything to do with the topic as far as they are concerned. They are the symptoms that reveal the nature of the underlying foundation: which is taken to be a godless and evil evolutionary world view. To not see the significance of those balloons (as portrayed in their relative “insignificance” compared with the foundation from which they spring) is to fail to understand the mindset of those you disagree with.

If we were to remove the anti-evolutionary falsehoods on the godless side and replace that caption with other things; could that cartoon begin to capture anybody’s sympathy as more reflective of reality in spiritual terms? We could even leave the “Man decides truth” there or say more starkly “Man sets himself up as God”. Then what do people think of it?

Added edit: And just for extra measure: Replace the foundation of the “good side” with Jesus Christ so as to remove any implications that it is Genesis, or even worse, certain limited interpretations of Genesis that are counting as “God’s Word”.


(Christy Hemphill) #40

To the privileging Man’s word over God’s word, there is this response: http://biologos.org/common-questions/biblical-interpretation/scripture-interpretation/

This article has some good stuff in it:

And this one:

http://biologos.org/blogs/archive/misconceptions-about-evolution-part-2

About the tone of creationist rhetoric exemplified by the cartoon: