I’ve watched this documentary a few times, and I love it. Your response leaves me scratching my head. It is not my intent to be argumentative or combative, but I would like to point out some issues I have with the BioLogos Forum response to this documentary.
“It would take a book to flesh out all the false assertions…” reminds of someone saying “no offense” right before they say something offensive - as if that gives them a free pass. While I agree that it might take a significant amount of verbiage to rebut the movie, you don’t even come close. Not even considering the “so we’ll confine this review to a few illustrative examples” qualifier.
The article mentions ‘young earth’ Christian scientists as a tiny minority. A. Why does the number of them have any bearing on their interpretation of the data? B. Especially considering that non-atheist scientists themselves are a minority. Truth is not a democratic response and this notion in the article is flawed logic. The critique is given that “Dr. Tackett does not consult any Christian scientists who could point out errors in the arguments of his exclusively young-earth counselors”. If he had included them, should he also have included scientists who could point out those scientists errors? What about scientists to rebut those scientists? NEWS FLASH: ALL scientists get it wrong more often than they get it right! I deliberately used the absolute “all” in that statement, but I do not currently have supporting data. I consider it intuitive.
“The truth of an earth of recent creation and violent history need to be propped up on a tangled web of misrepresentations, half-truths, and concealed data”. This cannot be said for the theory of Evolution? I believe this statement MORE appropriately references Evolutionary theory.
The article tries to discredit this film because it does not show ‘alternative theory’. This is just ridiculous. Adjectives like ‘highly respected church fathers’ is a literary game - some refer to this as the power of suggestion. Putting the HRCF tag on dissenters is a common ploy to support a weak argument with ‘group think’. If CS Lewis were to jump off of a cliff…?
Your statement that there is “it doesn’t take much digging to discover that evidence of erosion between layers in the Grand Canyon is abundant” is either false, misleading or you’re using a non-standard definition of the word ‘abundant’. I’ve been to the bottom of the Grand Canyon numerous times. I’ve traversed it’s length in a boat. The “perfectly flat” layers are “abundant”. The word you should use “anomaly” in your statement not abundant. As far as the layers of rock below the Great Unconformity - one of the author’s attempts at a “GOTCHA” - the film never suggests how the GU got there, and what is under it. In fact, one could hardly draw the conclusion the film maker is suggesting below the GU is asthenosphere. Could these referenced formations been formed when God created the earth? The Bible DOES suggest the waters gathered together so that dry land appeared. That’s just a speculation, but a completely feasible explanation your article chooses to omit. They do say in the film ‘there are still questions to be answered’. (That’s a trait of a good scientist, IMO.)
“And perhaps worst of all… …they conveniently leave out the fact that in a vertical mile of catastrophically deposited sediments, there is not a single fossilized bird, mammal, dinosaur, flowering plant, or even a grain of flowering plant pollen. This looks remarkably like evidence of rising and falling oceans at a time when birds, mammals, dinosaurs, and flowering plants did not yet exist.” This is a complete assumption of something you cannot possibly know as a fact. I’m not saying that these fossils DO exist, but you cannot say that they don’t. Given the comparatively minute area of fossil digs relative to the entire surface of the planet, it is possible they have not yet been discovered.
“Similar examples and explanations can be made about each section of the film.” Yet, you fail to present ANY of them. This is a much bigger reach than what you are accusing of Dr. Tackett. The article reprise’s the "lack of counter-thought’ as “evidence” the movie’s claims are false - a ridiculous suggestion. Given some of the accusations this article claims to make, I’m wondering if it was penned by someone who is completely unwilling to (as the article challenges the film) consider alternative ideas. That, or a 3rd grader who’s best response is “I know you are, but what am I?” [PeeWee Herman joke ]
I found the film enlightening and faith building. The film actually increased my love for God and humbled by his Majesty. Personally, I don’t believe in evolution. Not even the notion that God made the Big Bang happen, and guided it to where we are today. The evidence against evolution by far outweighs the ideas presented in this film. I am sure you’ve heard this anology: evolution is like taking apart a Rolex, removing a few springs, putting the remaining parts in a box and shaking it until it remakes the missing parts, reassembles itself and sets itself to the current date and time. Sorry, but not once is 4.5 billion years is that ever going to happen. Fun question: why did the apple tree decide to become an orange?
PS. All of this ‘common DNA’ is more hoo-hah… our DNA is 98% chimpanzee…sounds like a ‘virtual match’ until you say it like this: there are 64 million differences between human and (our “CLOSEST relative”) the chimpanzee. 64 mil is a LOT.
Y’all have a great day and I hope that you don’t take my little post in the wrong light. I love you, I really do. But I also love some people who are Philadelphia Eagles fans! Go Cowboys!