AiG's latest newsletter

[rmwilliamsll]

Q: How can the average Christian know how to debate with knowledgeable evolutionists?

A: Many people think they can’t say much about creation—or oppose evolution—because they’re not scientists. But the good news is that one doesn’t have to be an expert to oppose evolution and defend the Book of Genesis.



Really, the main arguments are quite simple. Yes, it’s true that you’ll need to do some reading on the subject, but you don’t have to be intimidated by someone who says they’re a research scientist and an evolutionist.

For instance, the question God asked Job was, “Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?” In other words, God really asked Job—“Were you there?” This is one of the questions we teach children to ask whenever someone says they believe in millions of years. And … it works!

A friend of Ken Ham’s told of how he once was arguing with an evolutionary geologist. This evolutionist went on and on for ages about the layers of rocks and millions of years. Finally, he just said to the man, “Were you there?” The geologist was dumbfounded.

Don’t be afraid to defend the Book of Genesis.

it confirms my belief that the modern evangelical church is in the midst of a changing epistemology. This proposes a radical solipsism that makes knowledge completely subjective and limited only to what an individual has experienced. The underlying idea is that somehow Christians can experience God's truth in the Scriptures in such a personal way that information is gained that 'trumps' all other epistemological concerns. But it is this call to experience that bothers me most. For it makes not just theology private knowledge and accessible only through 'personal experience' but it makes the interpretation of the 'book of nature' equally radically subjective. Despite the uniform witness of modern science to the ancientness of the universe, the YECist proposes that his/her experience of the Scriptures must 'win out epistemologically', thus making the basis of their science fully subjective and private.

That has been the amazing thing about modern science, it doesn't rely on personalities or private access to knowledge. The YECist would propose the we fracture science in the same matter as we have fractured theology, little groups not just fighting over the big ideas but over basic data itself. Science has it's problems, but this proposal that 'you need to be there to have justified true knowledge' is a blind alley in the maze of epistemological thinking.

 

[gluadys]

For it makes not just theology private knowledge and accessible only through 'personal experience' but it makes the interpretation of the 'book of nature' equally radically subjective. Despite the uniform witness of modern science to the ancientness of the universe, the YECist proposes that his/her experience of the Scriptures must 'win out epistemologically', thus making the basis of their science fully subjective and private.

Not only that, it undercuts the foundation of Christian belief as well. If "were you there?" is a valid argument for denying geology, it is an equally valid argument for denying the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ.

 

[Vance]

Besides just being a ridiculous argument. As williams pointed out elsewhere, I was "not there" for a lot of historical events, but it is perfectly reasonable to accept what the historians/scientists conclude about that event, even if on a tentative basis depending on the strength of the evidence and open to the possibility of further evidence altering the details to some degree.

I accept that Lincoln was shot. I even accept that John Wilkes Booth was the one that shot him.

I accept that Richard III was King of England, but I can only accept the idea that he killed the princes in the Tower tentatively, and to a given degree of certainty.

I accept that there was an ice age. Many ice ages, in fact, although the exact durations are exact extent can only be held with degrees of certainty based on the available evidence. The likelihood of evidence coming along, through better techniques, etc, which provides better information about the details is very high. The likelihood that evidence will come along which shows that no ice age ever happened is very, very low. So, the best position is (by far) that an ice age happened.

To say that we should refuse to come to conclusions on these points because we "weren't there" is just amazing. The fact that AiG presents this as a VALID argument, even a preferred argument, just goes to show where they are coming from.

 

[Stinker]

I remember that the Biology books back in school taught that we evolved from a simple cell.....and every few years the earth gets hundreds of millions of years older! They can't even tell the weather a few days from today accurately, let alone deal with all the variables involved in trying to date the earth!



It was just quicker to say what they did in the AiG newsletter.

 

[Vance]

But this entire approach is saying that since we don't know EVERYTHING and are not ALWAYS correct, we can not given an credence whatsoever to ANY conclusions of science. This IS a ridiculous argument because those very YEC's making those statement rely heavily on scientists' actually knowing and understanding things all the time. In hundreds of ways every day, in MAJOR ways throughout your life.

No, it is just a very, very bad argument, even for AiG.

 

[Maccie]

What does Aig stand for?

 

[Vance]

Answers in Genesis, a Creationist "ministry" with a website. Probably the most influential of all the Young Earth Creationist groups.

 

[Dark_Lite]

I remember that the Biology books back in school taught that we evolved from a simple cell.....and every few years the earth gets hundreds of millions of years older! They can't even tell the weather a few days from today accurately, let alone deal with all the variables involved in trying to date the earth.

Yes... It is called... "science discovers new things."

Not... "scientists have no idea what they're doing."

 

[1denomination]

Yes... It is called... "science discovers new things."

Not... "scientists have no idea what they're doing."

So why would we base our theology on something that is going to change?

 

[Vance]

You DON'T base your theology on science. You base your theology on the ultimate truths from Scripture. We all basically agree about these truths whether we believe they are expressed via literal historical narrative or figurative presentations. I think this is one of the most disturbing aspects of YEC'ism, that they tie their theological beliefs to their view of origins, the HOW and WHEN of God's Creation effort. So, if and when these origin approaches are challenged, they feel a challenge to their theology as well.

I would bet that you and I both have very, very similar theological approaches DESPITE our differing interpretations of Genesis 1 and 2 and viewpoints regarding origins.

So what does this tell you about the importance of a view of origins to that theology?

God is the same yesterday, today and forever. What we know about HOW God created is growing and developing, just as our understanding of how His creation works today.

 

[Dark_Lite]

So why would we base our theology on something that is going to change?

What does how this world got here have to do with your theological viewpoint minus Adam and Eve and sin and such?

There was Adam and Eve.

There was a fall.

There is original sin.

Yay!

Science can fit in there somewhere I think.

 

[tryptophan]

The argument also undercuts a lot of other scientific fields. I wasn't there when Northern Missouri was covered in glaciers, and this is an event that happened in the past 6,000 years, but still has much evidence.

Not to mention that it can be turned around and used against Christians. What are you going to say when an atheist says "Were you there?" in regard to the resurrection of Christ?