Even Less Respect for AiG and ICR

[Willtor]

Wow! What can I say? I just read an article from each on the interpretations of Genesis by the Church fathers (Links here). I've read some of these patristic writings but I haven't read others. AiG and ICR have totally misunderstood not only evolution (not such a big deal, to my mind; I've come to accept it) but have misunderstood the works that I've read (a very very big deal). Frankly, I find it upsetting. We're not even talking about the particulars, anymore. Now we're talking about twisting orthodoxy for their purposes.

I really dislike these organizations. How can we combat such blatant dishonesty?

Afterthought: You are all probably familiar with all of this. But I didn't realize the degree to which this was actually occurring.

 

[chaoschristian]

Yech, you know its bad when the abstract is a load of tripe.

Thanks for re-directing me to those articles, Willtor.

 

[shernren]

To be quite honest, I think that this whole YEC thing is nothing more (and nothing less) than consumeristic theology. It represents the widely growing trend in the church today to cater to human needs. I have already outlined why I believe this elsewhere: YECism promotes a startling degree of individualism in assessing the Bible's claims. AiG has a pretty impressive disclaimer list given that they're a ministry based on "Biblical" teaching:

Because Answers in Genesis is a non-denominational ministry reaching out to multitudes of churches and various denominations, we do not have an official position on many important doctrinal issues such as modes of baptism, eschatology, signs and wonders, tongues, the Sabbath, etc. We refrain from taking an official ministry position because clarification on these issues is not the thrust of this ministry. The main focus of Answers in Genesis must be the authority of the 66 books of the Bible, especially about creation by the Triune God as reported plainly in Genesis.

Oh, the irony in my added emphasis.

So the Bible is crystal-clear about how the universe started and yet vague and ambiguous about how it will end? So the Bible is crystal-clear that miracles happened at the start of all time and yet vague and ambiguous about whether they happen today?

To be honest, I personally suspect that YECism is really nothing more than a fashionable way to be different. Perhaps people have an inbuilt need to be slightly un-boring by being eccentric, and better to be eccentric by illogically defying the corpus of mainstream science than, say, being a serial rapist-killer. YECism is a fashionable and "sophisticated" way to be weird and happening without actually having to live a different life.

Anyway. I was quite surprised that AiG had a Q&A section on cloning, and that their fundamental opposition to cloning is this:

Cloning is in opposition to the Biblical institution of the family. Because a manufactured human clone could never have two parents, the process of cloning would go against the doctrine of the family (i.e. a father and mother) as ordained by God in the Book of Genesis.

from http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2001/1127cloning.asp

This is a breathtaking leap of illogicality, even for AiG. I can accept the argument that cloning is unethical since it involves killing embryos (in fact I find that I agree with them on that) but besides that I don't see any problem with the theoretical possibility of genetically identical humans. It requires only a moment's thought to realize that a cloned human shares the genetic parenthood of the original, and will have the social parenthood of whichever couple brings him/her up. You might as well argue that adoption destroys the traditional family structure.

But to be frank, sometimes I come to doubt if what I am doing here really has any purpose. As Athene said, a lot of people have a lot of faith tied up in YECism, and any attack on YECism genuinely sounds like an attack on their faith. Remember Buho's replies on the "Gospel and TE" thread? While I don't mean to hold them against him, I think they are representative of the wider YEC view. YECs mostly think that TEs are really atheist Bible-burners who happen to look orthodox because they know how to behave in church. If you believe in evolution, you had better get your relationship right with God; if you support Darwin you must be in the pay of the Devil.

And of course, if a YEC becomes a TE, s/he has then backslidden. I think that in their vehemence against evolutionism that is the subconscious fear driving them forward. I must fight the infidels to show that I am not like them.

Sometimes I wonder if there's a kernel of truth in that illogical statement ... what if there are people who would never believe in evolutionism unless as an atheist? What if there are people out there who cannot logically assent to Christianity without also assenting to YECism?

Does telling them how the world really work then amount to attacking their faith?

 

[chaoschristian]

How can we combat such blatant dishonesty?

Well the hard thing to do is to write a comprehensive refutation of each article that you could post here (rather than linking to TO).

You're articulate, well reasoned and demonstrably familiar with the works of the early church fathers.

Do it.

 

[chaoschristian]

But to be frank, sometimes I come to doubt if what I am doing here really has any purpose.

Chin up. If nothing else you are providing well reasoned, articulate and sometimes humourous lines of thought for your fellow TEs to ingest and mull on.

And remember, the neo-creationists who you actually encounter in debate probably never will change their position. They've taken on the role of the pugilist and will fight to the death. But the folks in the wings, the lookers on, the ones who sit on the fence, or are seeking to get what this whole debate is about, are the ones to whom you really speak.

And to them you speak well and good.

 

[Willtor]

I totally agree with ChaosChristian, here, Shernren. We are all profoundly appreciative of your writing. Even if we didn't find it edifying (and we certainly do), what about the lurkers? What about all the people on the fence?

I was at fellowship (not college fellowship, out-of-college fellowship) and I mentioned my views on Genesis. Now, before that moment I didn't realize how many people in my Church leaned YEC. But there was one guy who, in private, told me how grateful and relieved he was to hear me say the things I said. He was willing to believe anything that was contingent upon the cross of Christ. But hearing Athanasius' views on Genesis really helped bring things into focus (rather than obscuring everything opposed to YECism). He had to differentiate what he observed in the lab from his realization of grace. It had been no end of turmoil disbelieving his eyes and reason, just because he had been taught that they were necessarily opposed to the gospel.

You never know who's helped by the things you say.

 

[jereth]

I really dislike these organizations. How can we combat such blatant dishonesty?

I've put some thought into this over the last few months. Here are some ideas I've had.

1. Pray. No human being can overcome error, only God can. If you truly believe that AiG is in error and damaging to Christians, ask God to frustrate their work.
2. Be patient. All heresies eventually come to an end. It may take many years, perhaps long beyond our lifetimes, but if YECism is really wrong, then eventually this will become clear to the Church as a whole. (Back in the time of Athanasius, it probably seemed like Arianism would continue forever! But look where it is today -- only in the fringe sects and cults.)
3. Keep refining your theological position and your arguments. You never know when you'll get an opportunity to state them. (This forum is a great place for all of us to collectively share and improve our thinking about these issues.)

And here's the big one:

4. Perhaps some TEs could get together and form an organisation that is, in some ways, a "mirror image" of AiG. This would be very difficult for many reasons, but possibly worthwhile.

What gives AiG its power is that it is a unified, monolithic, monumental force. As we have observed time and again, TEs are not a uniform group -- we differ in our opinions on many things. But the thing is, YECs also disagree about many things (as we have likewise observed), yet they have banded together to form this organisation because they share an agenda (which they hold to with religious fervor). And this has been immensely effective for them.

What would such a TE organisation look like? It wouldn't build a museum, that's for sure! But it could have a website and a regular magazine -- these would be the essentials. It would present theological and scientific arguments that cut down YEC ideas without the dishonesty and hatred found in AiG publications. It would invite articles from prominent Christian scientists and theologians. The most important thing is that it would appeal to the simple, ordinary man in the pew. In other words, the same type of people that AiG appeals to.

Yes, it would be very difficult to actually form such an organisation. But I think it's worth thinking, discussing and praying about. I find it frustrating that YECs have AiG and OECs have RTB, but it seems TEs have nothing.

Mmmm. What do you think?

 

[shernren]

We need authoritative people to start flooding them with feedback. They love publishing replies they can refute, let's throw at them some replies they can't ...

 

[jereth]

To be quite honest, I think that this whole YEC thing is nothing more (and nothing less) than consumeristic theology. It represents the widely growing trend in the church today to cater to human needs.
...
To be honest, I personally suspect that YECism is really nothing more than a fashionable way to be different.

I think you're spot on, shernren. YECism (in the form promoted by AiG & co.) is up there with Hillsong, Prosperity gospel, Left Behind, The Prayer of Jabez, "pop Christian psychology", Christian self-help, and the latest church growth techniques.

But to be frank, sometimes I come to doubt if what I am doing here really has any purpose.

I have felt the same way. It's probably quite unlikely that many people will change their mind as a result of an internet chat forum. I suspect that in order to really listen to someone, you need to trust them, and to trust them you need to have a real-life human relationship with them. The internet is no substitute.

But I add my voice to chaoschristian and Willtor - you never know if there are some fence-sitters etc. who really take in what you say, and are affected by it. And it is really refreshing for me as another TE to read the intelligent things you and others have to say. It helps me feel less bothered by the veritable tsunami that is directed against us day by day from AiG & co.

 

[jereth]

We need authoritative people to start flooding them with feedback. They love publishing replies they can refute, let's throw at them some replies they can't ...

Unfortunately, they manage to refute just about everything -- at least superficially.

Having said that, it is very interesting that AiG devotes volumes to refuting OEC/Hugh Ross, Day-Age and the Gap Theory. But when it comes to the framework/literary interpretation of Genesis 1 (which most of us appear to hold), they have very little -- almost nothing, in fact -- to say. I think they know that it's an unassailable position.

 

[Willtor]

Yeah, it would be cool to have a TE magazine or newsletter. I'm also kind of frustrated by the willingness to accept LaHaye and Jenkins and the hesitance even to read Athanasius. That's broader than just YEC and TE, but it certainly pertains to it. The problem is exacerbated when people "don't do theology" but still feel qualified to glean doctrine from Scripture. Very unhealthy stuff.

Coming back to the topic of a newsletter (in a round-about way) I really liked when somebody on these forums provided a link to Christians in Science which doesn't take an official position on evolution, though I think it's run by people who think it's a solid theory.

 

[shernren]

We could, we could. And you know what I'd call it? I'd call it:

Why?

inspired by chaoschristian's posting here: http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=24207840&postcount=17

why is it important to view scripture, especially new Testament scripture as historical?

I think modern Christianity is shallow at the popular level not because the concepts are beyond their understanding (hey, they think they can understand E=mc2, right? XD) but because not enough "why"s are being asked. Why questions expose our worldview which connects the thinking process between what we observe in the real world and what our aesthetic, moral, and spiritual responses are. Answers to "why" questions like this are revealing:

Why does the Bible have to be historical?
Why is the anti-Christ a specific person?
Why is it good to be happy?
Why is Jesus Christ the only way?
Why is the Bible important?

Why is it considered "low-faith" to ask questions?

The concepts we question may or may not be true, and our asking "why" does not undermine them ... but it does bring out interestingly our worldviews and the assumptions which build them.

 

[jereth]

I think modern Christianity is shallow at the popular level not because the concepts are beyond their understanding (hey, they think they can understand E=mc2, right? XD) but because not enough "why"s are being asked.

In turn, I feel that this is because of an underlying insecurity which seeks to keep things as simple as possible (so that even the proverbial child can understand). Such people become anxious at the prospect of a more complex Christianity which they feel cannot withstand the assault of the unbelieving world.

In a way I sympathise with this. It is, in some way, easier to defend a simple "1+1=2" faith. But the problem I have with it is that the Scriptures themselves do not present to us a "1+1=2" faith, but rather a faith that is at times rather incomprehensible.

 

[jereth]

Yeah, it would be cool to have a TE magazine or newsletter. I'm also kind of frustrated by the willingness to accept LaHaye and Jenkins and the hesitance even to read Athanasius. That's broader than just YEC and TE, but it certainly pertains to it. The problem is exacerbated when people "don't do theology" but still feel qualified to glean doctrine from Scripture. Very unhealthy stuff.

All part of "pop-Christianity". Left Behind, The Prayer of Jabez, and a subscription to Creation Magazine.

Coming back to the topic of a newsletter (in a round-about way) I really liked when somebody on these forums provided a link to Christians in Science which doesn't take an official position on evolution, though I think it's run by people who think it's a solid theory.

CIS is good if you're British, and ASA is good for Yanks. There's also a good Aussie organisation called ISCAST (www.iscast.org.au) which is overtly TE and has some great articles. Only problem is, all these organisations are very intellectual/academic. Even Hugh Ross/RTB is quite high brow.

Hence my suggestion that someone needs to create a TE organisation for the "I'm a simple Christian who believes the simple gospel" layperson. That's the secret to AiG's success IMO.

 

[shernren]

Hence my suggestion that someone needs to create a TE organisation for the "I'm a simple Christian who believes the simple gospel" layperson. That's the secret to AiG's success IMO.

That's precisely my issue, what if there are people who cannot find faith in Christ through any other form of the gospel? What if there are people for whom it's either the simple gospel or simple atheism? Are there such people - is it qualitatively impossible for some people to believe in evolution and Christianity simultaneously - or is there always some pathway from which a Christian can be weaned off YECism into TEism without losing his or her faith?

I doubt that a "simple Christian" TE organization would really work, it would just be fodder for AiG, because it wouldn't be able to properly represent TEism. When assessing the claims of TEism one of the most important and crucial skills is the ability to recognize worldviews and consider alternative worldviews. This is NOT something YECism has to do - it employs the same worldview system as atheism with different presuppositional inputs, and so in attacking atheism YECists do not need to look outside their worldview, an atheist really has the same materialist worldview on a different side of the Biblical historicity fence. And so it is easy to understand YECism - "Bad atheists say Bible not true! Me say Bible true!" - but without breaking out of the historicity <-> truth worldview it is extremely difficult to make any sense of TE arguments. TE arguments when seen through YEC worldviews do indeed self-contradict, it is only with a lot of groundwork on loosening the truth-historicity bonds and overcoming the Quranic inspiration and God-of-the-gaps models that TE really becomes worth believing in as a thought system.

And people are at their most defensive when their worldviews are challenged, make no mistake about it.

 

[Willtor]

I think there is one simple conclusion one can draw from all of Shernren's Myth thread (not to oversimplify). That is that YEC's have at least as subtle and nuanced a view as we do, though. If it is "low brow" (not to be too condescending) it is because it has not been examined. Of course, the underlying understandings are strictly in line with the overall society's understandings. Shernren has drawn a very meaningful parallel between YECism and Secular Humanism.

Frankly I think it's a testament to the strength of the core gospel that it has survived such a paradigm shift. That's not to justify the present paradigm. But the core gospel really is available to the simplest mind; even the mind that cannot question the paradigm, itself. Even if someone wishes to define each word, consistently, in the Bible (thereby introducing a contradiction between Paul and James in the area of "faith") it does not prohibit someone from having Paul's sort of non-propositional faith.

The danger is that the seminaries are teaching some of these things. If those who are able to understand more are receiving less, this does not bode well for the Church.

 

[shernren]

That is that YEC's have at least as subtle and nuanced a view as we do, though. If it is "low brow" (not to be too condescending) it is because it has not been examined.

At a folk level YECism is complicated just as any other folk-view is complicated: the less comfortably things fit, the more sticky-tape you need to hold them together. We saw this with the phlogiston theory, with Descartes' vortices, with Aristotelian mechanics, with practically every other pseudo-science, proto-science, and even many legitimate scientific theories that have evolved down the centuries: start with a few observations which lend themselves to a simple catchy hypothesis, add in kaboodles of observations which need countless objections and qualifications and counter-explanations and modifications to the original hypothesis, watch everything become so complicated until it undergoes intellectual self-collapse, turning into a scientific black hole from which no new useful information can be determined.

Look carefully and you'll see the cracks in YECism. AiG can't hold an official position on the Sabbath. It says the ultimate creationist understanding is that of a battle of presuppositions, yet feature mere evidence in 90% of their articles. (Were they forced to retract the Hovind rebuttal? One wonders.) Meanwhile they fight mercilessly with the OECs, both sides claiming to have the "plain and simple" reading and accusing the other side of reading their views into Scripture, and on the sidelines the geocentrists and flat-earthers remind them that there is really no Scriptural boundary between them and the Solid Atmosphere Theory on one side - and the Scriptural boundaries they construct against TEism on the other side aren't really strong enough.

At the deepest level I'm starting to see a conflict between the supernaturalist mode of thinking, which is vital to the Christian faith, and the naturalist underpinnings of the objective/absolute historical method. Messy.

But YECism has one big thing going for it ... the whole works are done within the context of merely one overarching thought system, and a pretty simple one at that (which is easy to arbitrarily repair - wrapped in lots of sticky-tape will do), whereas the TE thought system is quite a leap from it and slightly unfamiliar in today's world.

 

[jereth]

That's precisely my issue, what if there are people who cannot find faith in Christ through any other form of the gospel? What if there are people for whom it's either the simple gospel or simple atheism? Are there such people - is it qualitatively impossible for some people to believe in evolution and Christianity simultaneously - or is there always some pathway from which a Christian can be weaned off YECism into TEism without losing his or her faith?

If there are such people, they are very much in the minority. In my experience, most YECists have a form of "learned simplicity" rather than "inherent simplicity". It is possible for them to "unlearn what they have learned" (thanks Master Yoda) so long as they are willing to take that step and challenge their own thinking.

Look at AiG -- the arguments they make are as sophisticated as you can find anywhere. Men such as Carl Wieland and Jonathan Sarfati -- even Ken Ham -- are definitely intelligent. I'm willing to bet that most of their readers are just as intelligent as them. It's just that they limit their own intelligence by a self-imposed restriction -- namely, the literalist interpretation of Genesis 1 which must overrule everything else in heaven or on earth which says otherwise.

Having said that, I do worry too that there are some people whose faith would be destroyed if YECism is discredited. This is because their leaders have taught them to equate YECism with Christianity, and so they cannot and will not believe otherwise. What is sad is that we have a "weakest link" situation: when you break YECism, Christianity breaks with it. This is an utter tragedy, because we on the other side of the fence know very well that Christianity is supremely powerful and will remain standing when all the artificial structures which men have built around it (YECism, prosperity gospel, dispensationalism, etc.) have collapsed.

Perhaps our task -- even our duty towards our fellow brothers and sisters -- is to help them see just how powerful the Christian gospel is. Despite the claims of YECism, it is not threatened by such trivial nonsense as animal mortality, predation, or a billion-year-old earth.

If anyone has attacked the gospel, it is AiG & co., who teach that the gospel is so weak that it falls in a heap once we allow animal death into a good world, and so on, thus creating the aforementioned "weakest link" situation.

 

[Willtor]

Chesterton talks about the orthodoxy in this way (in "Orthodoxy," where else?) pointing out that it has become tied to every age and when the age fails, everyone predicts that orthodoxy will fail with it. But after the fail of the age the Church emerges anew and shows that it was not, in fact, so tied to the previous age. This age of disdain for truth presented in a figurative way will pass away, but I don't think the Church will go with it. Certainly, we can expect, "the wisdom of God is foolishness to men," interpreted as a call to ignorance, to go with it.

 

[Redneck Crow]

AiG. Gosh, what can I say about them that hasn't already been said a million times?

Personally, I find observing their efforts akin to observing a man trying to whitewash his fence with dung. I can still see the fence, and I can sure smell the dung. It's his fence and his dung, but I'm not going to do it to my fence nor pretend I appreciate the effect when he inquires as to my opinion.