Inspiring Philosophy vs AiG Debate : Is evolution compatible with Genesis?

Not sure if anyone caught the latest:

1 Like

Do you have any specific points or sections you think are worth discussing? I’m not too interested in such debates since I don’t really think there’s anything to debate here.

5 Likes

Is electromagnetism comparable with the Bhagavad Gita?

1 Like

The two are most certainly NOT compatible.

To insist that Genesis is not compatible with evolution is to insist that Genesis is not compatible with reality. Does AIG stand for Atheists Interpreting Genesis or something?

“The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.” — George Orwell, 1984

4 Likes

Shhh … it’s a secret.

5 Likes

I thought it was interesting when they discussed the teledoth there in Genesis 2, and if it suggested that Genesis 2 was a continuation of Genesis 1.

In Genesis 1, mankind if created on day 6 after plants and animals, then in Genesis 2 Adam is there at the beginning of the story, created before plants and animals.

And with that, it almost sounds like either Genesis 2 is a continuation of Genesis 1 with a focus on the garden, which would imply that God made humanity and then later made Adam.

Or Alternatively they could be two separate creation stories.

The young earth view sounded almost like Genesis 2 was some kind of detailed repetition of Genesis 1, but because mankind came on day 6 after plants and animals, but then in Genesis 2 Adam came before plants and animals, I’m not sure that the AiG argument really adds up in comparison to the two prior options.

As an additional thought, I would have liked to have seen more focus put on Genesis 1:2 with the firmament. I saw Inspiring Philosophy note Ben Stanhope on his list of references during the discussion, but he didn’t reference his materials beyond that. I think there is a convincing case to be made for the ANE dome topic.

When I check the Hebrew translations of Genesis 1 and Genesis 2, I can’t help but say that Inspiring Philosophy’s position, it is compelling. And the video above I think just paints such a clear picture, that when we read about God placing the stars in the firmament, it no longer makes sense for the waters above to be clouds. Or when birds are said to fly across the face of the raqia, with Hebrew language used similar to the holy spirit hovering across the abyss, we find that the birds are not in the raqia but rather are flying in front of it.

Little things like this, and reading the Hebrew for verses on the windows of the firmament that open and later close back up, also translated as flood gates.

I’m not sure that there is any way to respond to all of this, especially when we see these historical positions all laid out. Rather, the ANE position, it seems, in my opinion, blatantly superior to the YEC position.

Though AiG seems to be a financial powerhouse with a large following and the ANE holders appear to almost be like underdogs against this financial Goliath that is answers in Genesis, I’m not sure I can see how AiG will survive hermeneutical pressures from within the church on one side, with the world’s scientific community on the other.

It’s interesting watching it play out.

1 Like

The opening statement from TEism view…

Sin entered the world when the covenant was broken…it was a spiritual death that Adam and Eve experienced…then he goes on to say we are to receive new physical bodies.
Um…hello does anyone see a problem here???

Fundamental academic cockup right there.

Well it’s interesting that Adam and Eve didn’t physically die in the day that they ate of the fruit and were removed from the garden.

but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you shall surely die.”
Genesis 2:17

Not sure what people think of this. Feels kind of ad hoc if we redefined the meaning of “day” to make this verse into something that means a physical death. And so if Adam and Eve didn’t actually physically die in the day in which they are of the fruit, it would beg the question of what kind of death they experienced.

Not that it’s necessary to read too much into this to begin with. From the onset we see that Genesis 1 and 2 right out the gate just aren’t scientific texts, in which case, the question of if science is compatible with the Bible and all conflict between the two just kind of evaporates because the two are speaking two completely different languages.

Genesis 1 is compatible with anything in reality because it’s fiction. It’s not a nonfiction text. It’s like asking is the story of Santa’s flying deer compatible with arronautics. The question is a bad question because Santa is fiction, and so magic making deer fly does not support or undermine reality.

I can’t take something like a parable by Jesus saying humans are like seeds, and then ask what’s the botanical nature of humans? It’s just not a good question because it’s a question formed out of misunderstanding the subject.

So genesis 1 and 2 are not pro or anti science because it’s purpose is unrelated to science.

I think the debate pretty clearly was a walkover by YEC Dr Ross.
To be honest, it wasn’t a fair matchup as Jones clearly hasn’t put together a consistent and concise biblical argument.

It was always going to difficult to debate a YEC with a doctorate of paelontolgy and a strong theological foundation.

Jones got creamed on virtually every point.
Joines did not demonstrate as good understanding of how biblical doctrine is determined. His arguments were not good in this regard

Question: I posted the following in the “Are humans more than animals?” thread; should it be here or there?

  • My biological parents were Deaf, from infancy. My step-mother was also Deaf. When someone-- probably her Baptist preacher, first told her and other Deaf members of his congregation about evolution and the “evil, scientific belief” that “humans are animals”, she became angry.
  • To her, that belief was an idea that some Hearing person or people came up with in order to justify “treating Deaf People like animals”.
  • My step-mother, blessed be her memory, died in 1973, at the age of 87 years old, … still believing that the “belief that humans are animals” was wrong, a sin against God, and an excuse to discriminate against Deaf people. I never tried to change her mind.
  • My father by adoption, however, was a Hearing person. He learned about evolution in school, became a Lutheran minister, and eventually believed that humans are animals, if he ever did not always believe that. I never tried to change his mind.
  • If I believe that humans are animals, do I believe that my step-mother was wrong and that my father by adoption was right? If I do not believe that humans are animals, do I believe that my step-mother was right and that my father by adoption was wrong?
  • Does Jesus care?

There are no Biblical, theological arguments against science, nature, reality. Anymore than there are Bhagavad Gita or Noddy in Toyland ones. Neither is any other work of fiction, whether Genesis or YEC, an argument for science, apart from when fully disinterestedly deconstructed.

3 Likes

They are very effective at it. They exploit hermeneutics by tying the Gospel to belief in YEC, and thus condemned the rest of us. This is their control. Believe this way, or be damned.

The usefulness and explanatory power of consensus science is no match to the fear of eternal damnation for oneself or those whom one evangelizes in AIGism.

The mechanism is already in place and humming along nicely. AIGism is a new, better organized cultic sect of christianity that has infected doctrinally-conservative, missions-minded evangelical churches all over the United States, which have long bee deeply invested in spreading the Gospel. Now its a different gospel enhanced with and undergirded by pseudoscience. I hear tell of elsewhere as well.

AIG has MUCH to answer for.

6 Likes

Not in this life, any more than the NRA and Big Oil and their puppet party have,

Hmmmm. The damage is happening now. But of course the dis/proof is in the pudding, and the ultimate proof of AIG’s claims do come after. Is that what you mean?
I would gladly see NARA’s and Oil’s come to courtrooms near me the sooner the better, but that may likely be waiting for the Karma Credit Plan to take effect.

1 Like

I too enjoy having impossibly high standards for people I already disagree with and low bars for those who agree with something I reinforce mentally on a daily basis.

That was something that is baked into the YEC worldview, that every little piece fits neatly into a single young earth interpretive framework of the text. But that isn’t even true as there is a lot of interpreting and disagreement about all the details of the text among YEC adherents. Just ask someone what the waters above the firmament are.

That’s how I rate every debate I slam through my confirmation bias. It’s kind of like watching my favorite sports team.

Do you want to discuss any specific examples or just go with a “my team is so smart and Christians who are evolutionists are dumb?”

5 Likes

I’ve browsed their website here and there on the rare occasion, at least years ago, haven’t looked much since. But I recall things that were pretty blatantly incorrect about the sciences. Though, without being a scientist, I imagine most wouldn’t be able to see these things.

But sometimes I wonder how much of this is on the average Joe, moreso than AiG. Let’s say I grew up, maybe I’m not a biologist or geologist or astronomer. So maybe I don’t have awareness to access things like pubmed, or the geologic bulletin or Google scholar and ebscohost, nor might I even be able to translate works of scientists. Because let’s be honest, even as a scientist myself it’s like decoding the Rosetta stone working through technical papers, let alone could I even scratch the surface as a non scientist. Which is kind of the nature of the game and is a problem scientists have to deal with in regards to needing science educators and all.

But let’s say I’m not a scientist. And so on one side of the table you have a single AiG paleontologist apologist, and though he has no significant published material, we cant see that from outside of the science world,. On the other side of the table, you have thousands of paleontologists and other scientists, and dozens of scientific papers pumping out evidence every quarterly journal that we very well may be completely unaware of. And so the two sides of scientists may appear to be equally credentialed and credible.

But even beyond this, what incentive would someone have for even investigating a science if it’s something that maybe they don’t perceive as playing much of a role in their life? If I were raised to believe earth was 6,000 years old, maybe it’s what I learned in Sunday school or in youth ministries. Maybe a pastor who inspired me in life taught me this idea. Maybe it was my parents or an aunt or uncle or other caretaker. Maybe I’ve even taught my children these ideas as well.

What incentive would there really be for me to go through the painstaking process of learning the sciences to determine which side of the table were correct? And the painstaking process of having my entire worldview turned on its head in combination with second guessing the credibility of all those who raised me, inspired me etc. or even the credibility that my own children see in me?

It would have to be an incredibly enormous stumbling block or hurdle to pass. And without it really being a “salvation issue” or something that my salvation depends upon, it becomes even less of interest to dive into.

Just a thought.

Personally, I grew up attending sunday school and the occasional youth ministry class in addition to periodic yet inconsistent church attendence, and I remember learning science being quite difficult for my faith walk, though I was much more toward the secular spectrum of things. Let alone could I begin to imagine what the experience would be for those perhaps more exposed to young earth views, who did not simultaneously have any exposure to the sciences growing up, who may have invested more time and effort into such YEC views.

Is AiG really to blame? Though I’m sure things like AiG VBS studies wouldn’t help. Or is it something deep seated in our own hearts that prevents us from receiving creation as it is? Our own personal stumbling blocks.

4 Likes

I think you are on the right track, as there is a lot that motivates us to hold our positions other than facts and truth. You mentioned your youth group, pastor, mentors, maybe parents and friends who are important in your life and your faith beliefs. They are a huge influence as when confronted with something that might alienate them or exclude you from their group, we are going to go with our tribe the vast majority of the time, no matter how true it is or how wrong our tribe is. The few that buck the trend suffer pain and rejection, and while some, like Martin Luther become iconic figures, a lot like John Brown wind up dead, literally or figuratively. Some like Martin Luther King wind up both iconic and dead. (Probably some better examples, but that is what popped to mind.).
So, I do think AIG does shoulder the blame for much of the division, the pain of individuals, the schism in the American church and elsewhere over this issue for its part in promoting the conflict narrative. Your point that individuals are ultimately responsible is true as well, but institutions and communities are also held responsible by God for their actions.

4 Likes

The Flat Earth community is fascinating to watch, and I think there are a lot of parallels with the YEC movement. In the end, it is much more about human psychology than it is about either theology or science.

7 Likes

“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6

This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.