The Case of the Phantom Menace

[Vance]

It seems to me that the majority of the Creationist platform is based on the fear of a Phantom Menace. So often, when a topic is raised, whether it be interpretation of Scripture, the Fall of Man, a literal Adam, etc, etc, the argument that Creationists will eventually fall back on a slippery slope/phantom menace position. They will acknowledge that a belief in evolution, or figurative Adam, etc, is not itself a "salvation" issue, but soon we see this "menace" argument come out.

I will give some examples and in each, consider X something that is not a "salvation" issue in and of itself (an old earth, evolution itself, a figurative Adam, no global flood, etc), but Y *is* a salvation issue. Here is what we end up hearing:

"Well, if you don't believe X, then how can you believe Y?" [or even, "you can't possibly believe Y."]

"A belief in X means you reject A and B, which means, ultimately, that you reject Y".

"You can't truly have faith in the truth of Y if you believe X".

"A belief in X will lead to a disbelief in Y"

"The whole concept of X does away with the need for Y".

And numerous other variations on this theme. Not only does this rely on a slippery slope (which ends up being not as slippery as they think), the entire "menace" is a PHANTOM menace, since all of these statements are almost immediately falsified. It is shown over and over that those who DO believe X almost always still believe Y. Just because a given Creationist can't imagine how someone can accept Y when they also accept X doesn't mean a thing. The facts are the facts.

Those Christians who accept all those X's tend to believe (and believe just as strongly) in every orthodox essential for salvation. Their belief in evolution, or a figurative reading of Genesis, or a typological Adam, does not seem to do ANY damage, whatsoever, to their faith in anything essential for salvation at all. Yes, there have always been those within Christianity who hold unorthodox beliefs, as much before the advent of this debate as now. But the fact that millions of Christians entirely accept evolution and have NONE of their essential Christian beliefs undermined is a plain and simple falsification of the phantom menace.

The bottom line is that any rejection of an idea or concept based on "what the effect will be on other beliefs", is only a valid objection to the extent that effect actually is observable. In the case of Creationist arguments, it is NOT observable. We are still Christians, and devout, committed, Bible-believing, Spirit-filled Christians at that!

 

[Assyrian]

In any other context if you saw a movement and their particular interpretation of scripture was constantly reinforced by fear, fear that if they compromise on the the 'true' interpretation, they will be on this slippery slope, fear of joining the ranks of people they have been told are idolaters, people who deny the gospel, fear than if this one part of the bible is a metaphor, the whole book will lose all meaning.

In any other context you might think you were dealing with a cult. But that is ridiculous. Isn't it?

 

[shernren]

Or: "If you believed Jesus, you would be a YEC" - the modus tollens negation "If you are not a YEC, you do not believe Jesus" is subtle but unavoidable. But the fact that the modus tollens fails should cast doubt on the original assertion. Are YECs really YECs because they are Christian? Or, more likely, because they are anti-evolutionist?

 

[juvenissun]

Or: "If you believed Jesus, you would be a YEC" - the modus tollens negation "If you are not a YEC, you do not believe Jesus" is subtle but unavoidable. But the fact that the modus tollens fails should cast doubt on the original assertion. Are YECs really YECs because they are Christian? Or, more likely, because they are anti-evolutionist?

The above is a meaningless mess because the first statement is an over simplified false.

 

[MrSnow]

The above is a meaningless mess because the first statement is an over simplified false.

I'm sure that if shernren didn't encounter this, he wouldn't know to write it. In my own experience I have come across this very thing: "Jesus was a YEC, and if you claim to believe Jesus then you must accept the YEC position." So I don't see how it's oversimplified. That is what I have directly observed. Not from everyone, but from a few.

 

[Vance]

I think the point is that people get to that false dichotomy by one of the lines of reasoning I lay out above. It goes something like "if you don't accept that Genesis is literal history, then you must/will doubt that Gospels are literal, which means you will doubt the resurrection, which means you will doubt Jesus' salvation role, which means you don't believe in Jesus."

As with anything that has so many steps, it is inevitable that it will fall apart somewhere. In this case, it happens to fall apart at the very first step removed for most. The vast majority of Christians who think Genesis 1 is figurative do NOT end up doubting the historical validity of the Gospels.

 

[juvenissun]

I'm sure that if shernren didn't encounter this, he wouldn't know to write it. In my own experience I have come across this very thing: "Jesus was a YEC, and if you claim to believe Jesus then you must accept the YEC position." So I don't see how it's oversimplified. That is what I have directly observed. Not from everyone, but from a few.

Different people has different level of understanding and different strength of faith. Some statements work for someone, but is not enough for someone else. It all depends on who do you talk to. For example, if you talk to theIdiot, even some "obvious mistakes" in the Scripture is also acceptable.

These are all fine. As long as we believe, everyone will end in the Heaven. However, the difference begins after we arrived there.

 

[busterdog]

I'm sure that if shernren didn't encounter this, he wouldn't know to write it. In my own experience I have come across this very thing: "Jesus was a YEC, and if you claim to believe Jesus then you must accept the YEC position." So I don't see how it's oversimplified. That is what I have directly observed. Not from everyone, but from a few.

It is an inescapable conclusion that one group of us are going to have "less" Jesus because we are wrong. We can't all be right here. Some of us are believing less in Jesus.

But, salvation is by grace, not relative merit.

I think Shernren has encountered the argument that he believes less in Jesus. Some of us certainly will have to suffer that judgment, absent grace. Who is it? That is less important than the fact that criticism is valid and not off limits per se.

 

[shernren]

It is an inescapable conclusion that one group of us are going to have "less" Jesus because we are wrong. We can't all be right here. Some of us are believing less in Jesus.

But, salvation is by grace, not relative merit.

I think Shernren has encountered the argument that he believes less in Jesus. Some of us certainly will have to suffer that judgment, absent grace. Who is it? That is less important than the fact that criticism is valid and not off limits per se.

Essentially, "if you believed Jesus more, you would be a YEC". But I don't see why that would be the case.

I trust that God is honest, and that nature reflects this honesty. I believe that God made nature essentially intelligible. (By contrast, why should a God who lies to Geiger counters feel obliged to tell the truth to Bible readers?)

I trust that the same God made both nature and the Bible, and therefore that true knowledge of nature should be reconcilable with true knowledge of the Bible. (By contrast, many creationists have decided a priori that evolution and the Bible are simply irreconcilable; and if it should turn out that evolution is true, what would that make of the Bible?)

I trust that God can communicate perfectly to any individual in any age, regardless of scientific background; therefore the science that the writers of the Bible held must be immaterial to its truth and relevance for my life. (By contrast, creationists will bend over backwards to insist that the Bible is reconcilable with heliocentrism, ignoring traditions far older and holier than their own, and then whine about the fact that [they think] you would have to bend over backwards to insist that the Bible is reconcilable with evolution.)

I trust that God uses flawed and frail people, and therefore that God can and has used me regardless of whether or not my position on evolution is right or wrong. (By contrast, AiG commonly and consistently launches scathing attacks on Christian colleges that teach evolution, Christian creationist ministries that accept evolution or an old earth, and Christian churches that accept evolution.)

I'll reiterate my stance: I don't believe that creationists are creationists because they are more Christian (nor necessarily because they are less), but simply because they are more anti-evolutionist.

 

[Vance]

I would agree with the general proposition that some Christians have stronger faith than others, that is a given. But that "strength of faith" issue has absolutely nothing to do with this issue of a person's position on origins. As I point out in the OP, there is absolutely no evidence of it.

In fact, one could argue (if one were so inclined), that the faith of the YEC is more likely to be weak, brittle and likely to fail. I once asked the question here "what would happen if you found out, without a possibility of doubt, that Mankind DID evolve over billions of years from earlier life forms? How would it effect your faith?" The answers from the TE's were "not at all, my faith would be as strong as always". The answers from many of the YEC's were that they would have to abandon their faith since it would prove that the Bible was not true. Dangerous stuff.

 

[busterdog]

Essentially, "if you believed Jesus more, you would be a YEC". But I don't see why that would be the case.

Would such a conclusion be "out of bounds?"

Essentially, we dispute which of us believes most faithfully in scripture as intended. Believing in scripture is pretty much "believing in Jesus", no?

 

[juvenissun]

I would agree with the general proposition that some Christians have stronger faith than others, that is a given. But that "strength of faith" issue has absolutely nothing to do with this issue of a person's position on origins. As I point out in the OP, there is absolutely no evidence of it.

In fact, one could argue (if one were so inclined), that the faith of the YEC is more likely to be weak, brittle and likely to fail. I once asked the question here "what would happen if you found out, without a possibility of doubt, that Mankind DID evolve over billions of years from earlier life forms? How would it effect your faith?" The answers from the TE's were "not at all, my faith would be as strong as always". The answers from many of the YEC's were that they would have to abandon their faith since it would prove that the Bible was not true. Dangerous stuff.

So, go ahead and screen every verse of the Bible with your "intelligence". I bet you can find 100+ errors in there.

Enjoy your "faith".

 

[Vance]

Would such a conclusion be "out of bounds?"

Essentially, we dispute which of us believes most faithfully in scripture as intended. Believing in scripture is pretty much "believing in Jesus", no?

It is not so much out of bounds as just not making any sense. As you say, both sides believe that they are fully trusting in Scripture, so no degree of "believing in Jesus more" is going to change that part of the equation. It is not as if I any TE is sitting here saying "hey, I would trust Scripture more, but the scientific evidence is just too strong." Sometimes I suspect that this is where YEC's actually think TE's are coming from.

juvenisson, that is the point, I don't find ANY errors in Scripture, I believe the Bible is inerrant and infallible. I think that in every place where it is actually making a strict scientific or historical claim, then it is reliable. I just don't think it is making those claims nearly as often as a YEC does.

 

[juvenissun]

It is not so much out of bounds as just not making any sense. As you say, both sides believe that they are fully trusting in Scripture, so no degree of "believing in Jesus more" is going to change that part of the equation. It is not as if I any TE is sitting here saying "hey, I would trust Scripture more, but the scientific evidence is just too strong." Sometimes I suspect that this is where YEC's actually think TE's are coming from.

juvenisson, that is the point, I don't find ANY errors in Scripture, I believe the Bible is inerrant and infallible. I think that in every place where it is actually making a strict scientific or historical claim, then it is reliable. I just don't think it is making those claims nearly as often as a YEC does.

You simply think too much and too fast. Take one case at a time, and explore it. It won't take you long before you discovered that all of those so-called errors are at least arguable. It is meaningless to make any general assessment here. You have to build the sense of "every place" from one, and two, and ...

If you have any particular one in your mind, I would like to know. I just learned one today by knowing that snake DOES taste dust all the time. So, one more "error" is crossed out.

 

[Assyrian]

That's great to know. I'll just go and change my bible from 'eat' to 'taste' then.

 

[Vance]

You simply think too much and too fast. Take one case at a time, and explore it. It won't take you long before you discovered that all of those so-called errors are at least arguable. It is meaningless to make any general assessment here. You have to build the sense of "every place" from one, and two, and ...

If you have any particular one in your mind, I would like to know. I just learned one today by knowing that snake DOES taste dust all the time. So, one more "error" is crossed out.

No, you are missing the point. It is not some collection of perceived "errors" that has somehow caused me to choose to read the text differently. I can assure you that over my 42 years I have researched and studied this subject more than just about anyone here (not to mention prayed and sought guidance from the Spirit). This is by no means a case of rushing to judgment or thinking too fast.

I reached my conclusions about how Genesis should be read simply by learning to read the text the way an ancient Israelite would have. If they would not have read it as strict literal narrative history, why should we? That makes no sense.

Again, you seemed to miss the point where I said I don't think the Bible makes any errors. I review each text in this anthology of writings, covering 1000 years and numerous writers and determine how that particular text was meant to be read. The degree of perceived "errors" does not dictate that decision.

 

[busterdog]

It is not so much out of bounds as just not making any sense. As you say, both sides believe that they are fully trusting in Scripture, so no degree of "believing in Jesus more" is going to change that part of the equation. It is not as if I any TE is sitting here saying "hey, I would trust Scripture more, but the scientific evidence is just too strong." Sometimes I suspect that this is where YEC's actually think TE's are coming from.

juvenisson, that is the point, I don't find ANY errors in Scripture, I believe the Bible is inerrant and infallible. I think that in every place where it is actually making a strict scientific or historical claim, then it is reliable. I just don't think it is making those claims nearly as often as a YEC does.

OK. I don't think the argument is an enormous amount of help. I think if the guy makes it, well, its not crazy, but its usually doesn't add any force to what is already on the table.

Interesting point about "inerrancy." I didn't know there was such a position. I would like to watch you argue the point with some of the evolutionists so that I could understand the two different positions a little better.

And, I think many of your suspicions are valid. But, when push comes to shove, there is probably less bite and more bark in the YECs on that point. I'd say, let them remain suspicions, not convictions.

 

[gluadys]

OK.
Interesting point about "inerrancy." I didn't know there was such a position. I would like to watch you argue the point with some of the evolutionists so that I could understand the two different positions a little better.

I don't think you will see much argument. Most of us agree with Vance on this point.

Obviously there are shades and nuances of opinion. I personally would not use the term "inerrancy" in this context, but I appreciate why Vance does, and I usually agree with his reading of the text. So any differences of vocabulary are largely semantic. It is not really a question of two contrasting positions.

 

[Mallon]

I don't think you will see much argument. Most of us agree with Vance on this point.

Obviously there are shades and nuances of opinion. I personally would not use the term "inerrancy" in this context, but I appreciate why Vance does, and I usually agree with his reading of the text. So any differences of vocabulary are largely semantic. It is not really a question of two contrasting positions.

Ditto. The Bible is only errant if you hold to the idea that it was written to teach science. Most evolutionary creationists don't feel that way.

 

[Vance]

Right, my idea of inerrancy would not satisfy many YEC's, but I still hold to the term because I feel that it expresses my view that the Bible is not "false" or "in error" in the most important senses of those terms.

Let's take Job, for example. Conservative commentators from Calvin to C.S. Lewis believed that it was not meant to be read as literal history, and I really don't take a stand on that point. But, assume for a second that they are right. If there was something in the text that was simply contrary to historical reality (although I know of no such instance), I would not say that was an error since the text was not attempting to present literal history.

When Jesus says that the mustard seed is the smallest seed, I do not take this as an error (it is not the smallest seed), since I don't think Jesus was intending to make a scientific statement, but was making a theological point.

As someone with a degree in ancient history and pretty familiar with ancient literature, I recognize that people wrote about their past differently at different times. The general time is toward greater attempts at strict literal historical narrative as time goes by. It was not even really attempted in the early ANE, for example. There is a reason Herodotus was called the "Father of History". I think we can see this progression toward stricter historicity in Scripture as time goes by. So, I don't expect the same degree of historical accuracy from early Genesis as from the later histories, and not as much there as from, say, Luke.