TalkOrigins
(TO) is an online resource whose subtitle describes itself as
“exploring
the creation/evolution controversy.”
That may sound neutral to a casual clicker but the site is squarely
pro-evolution. It's a sort of apologetics site for evolutionists.
Anyway,
in their archive is an article titled, FABNAQ
(Frequently Asked But Never Answered Questions). I've said
before how titles like this annoy me. It's not quite as bad as
saying, “Questions
no creationist can answer,”
but it's certainly disingenuous because I guarantee you there are at
least a dozen rebuttals to this very article posted elsewhere online.
Many of these questions were asked an answered hundreds of times
even before TO wrote its article. In other words, all of these
questions have been asked and answered so there's nothing sensational
about them. Headlines like this are a cheap gimmick used to make the
article seem to have more weight than it truly does. Now, even
though these questions have been answered over and over, they are
still being asked. And since I need something to blog about, I
thought I'd write a series giving my own responses.
Before
getting into the list, let me preface my response with a few points.
Truth is not affected by my understanding of it. If something is
true, then it's true whether or not I believe it. It's true whether
or not I understand it. And my ability or inability to answer a
question on a subject has no bearing on whether or not the subject is
true. Some subjects are complicated and no one is an expert in
everything so if an unbeliever asks a believer a question he can't
answer, it's not necessarily evidence of anything.
Having
said that, I wonder what is the point of TO asking these questions?
They don't really say. I guess they intend them to have a “gotcha”
effect on creationists but, as I've said, we shouldn't feel defeated
if we can't answer every one of them. However, what happens if I do
answer them? I mean, I intend to answer all of them in my series
and, if I do, does it mean creation is true? Will the people at TO
become creationists? Obviously, that wouldn't be the case. TO isn't
sincerely looking for answers to these questions. Rather, they're
trying to embarrass creationists. They want us to be uncomfortable
and perhaps begin to doubt some of the things we believe. Like I
said, it's a gimmick.
There
are 12 questions in the article. Further, several of the questions
have sub-questions. It's kind of odd because, in some cases, the
sub-questions seem unrelated to the main question; why didn't they
just make those a separate question? Regardless, I'd like to cover
2-3 questions per post so as to not make this too long of a series.
The first question has five sub-questions, making six questions in
all. Considering I've already devoted a few paragraphs to my opening
remarks, I'll only Question #1 and its sub-questions in this post.
It's still going to be a bit long so I apologize in advance.
Without
further ado, let's get started.
1.
Is there any reason to believe in your theory rather than some other
version of creationism?
As I read this question, I took special note that TO is asking why one version of creationism (presumably, young earth creationism) should be believed over any other version. Since we're only comparing versions of creationism, I understand that to mean why should a Christian believe my interpretation over some other interpretation (like the Gap theory or Day Age theory).
Biblically speaking, I believe the young-earth position is the most obvious meaning of the text. The “days” consisting of “evening and morning” in Genesis 1, the “six days” of creation mentioned in Exodus 20:11, the numerous and detailed genealogies throughout the Old and New Testaments, all attest to a sudden, recent creation. II Peter 1:20 says, “Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.” In other words, there is no “hidden meaning” to the Bible. The plain meaning is usually the intended meaning. So when Exodus says, “in six days the LORD created the heavens and the earth,” there should be no twisting of the words to explain why “six days” really means “billions of years.”
Further reading:
Does “And God Said” Mean God Didn't Do?
How Long Were the Days in Genesis?
Five Reasons Why I Reject Theistic Evolution: Part 1
1a. If you believe that some animals -- for example, dinosaurs -- were not saved on the Ark, explain why you believe the Bible is incorrect.
This is an example of what I was saying – some of the sub-questions seem unrelated to the main question. //RKBentley scratches his head// I personally don't believe there were any terrestrial kinds omitted from representation on the Ark so maybe I don't have to answer this question. But how boring would that be?
I've read second hand quotes of Christians supposedly saying that dinosaurs are extinct because they were too big to fit on the Ark. However, it's only from critics that I hear quotes like these. I can't find any sources of creationists making such a claim. Maybe some exist (it's a big world wide web and I haven't gotten to it all yet) but they must be such a tiny minority that I would call them, “fringe.” I suspect, instead, that this is a straw man – fictitious comments invented by skeptics and attributed to creationists in order to make them sound foolish.
There were dinosaur kinds on the Ark. Full stop.
Related articles:
Were there Fish on the Ark?Could All of the Animals Fit on the Ark?
Koalas on the Ark
1b. Why are many Christians evolutionists?
This is such an irrelevant question that I wonder why it would be included in a list of frequently asked questions. I could ask why some people believe in a flat earth but what would it prove? It's as I've already said: if something is true, it's true regardless of whoever believes it. Suggesting that evolution might be true because some Christians believe it has about the same merit of me suggesting creation is true because Newton believed it.
Yet even so, I'll tell you why there are many Christians who are evolutionists: They've been told over and over again that “evolution is a fact.” They've been told lies like, “every field of science supports evolution” or “nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.” We have an entire generation of people taught in public schools where evolution is presented as the only, scientific model and teachers are prohibited by court decision from even telling kids to be open minded about it. Creationists are mocked and ridiculed by academia, the scientific community, celebrities, and the media. We are called, “science deniers,” “flat-earthers,” “scientifically illiterate,” and many other names too impolite to print here.
So, yes, some people have been shamed or indoctrinated into believing evolution. It doesn't mean anything.
Related articles:
Evolution and Christianity make strange bedfellowsDo the Heavens Declare His Glory?
Why I Say Evolution is Not Compatible with the Bible
1c. If you are a young-earth creationist: Why are many creationists old-earth creationists?
1d. If you are a young-life creationist: Why are many creationists old-life creationists?
My answers to both of these points are essentially the same so I'll answer them both at once. The questions are completely irrelevant to the debate. Again, I could ask, “If you believe the earth is a globe, why do other people believe the earth is flat?” Does it prove anything? Is it evidence of either theory?
The reasons some Christians believe in an old earth/life are the same reasons some Christians believe in evolution. They've been told the “science is settled.” They've been convinced that the things they were told in school must be true so they ignore the plain meaning of the Bible and twist the words to make them mean something completely different.
Well meaning Christians invent fanciful interpretations of Scripture in an attempt to make the Bible seem compatible with “science.” It's bad hermeneutics being used to agree with a bad theory.
Related articles:
Augustine was a Young-Earth Creationist!Is God a Deceiver?
1e. Some people say that scientific creationism does a disservice to Christianity by holding Christianity up to ridicule. How would you answer that charge?
I've
been told this personally, many times. I'm not sure what answer the
critics are expecting. If creation is true, then what else am I to
do? I will speak the truth and bear the ridicule, taking comfort in
the knowledge that the same One who spoke the universe into existence
has also promised me an eternal reward if I am persecuted for His
sake (Matthew 5:11-12)
John 6:60,66-68 says, Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?... From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him. Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away? Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.
John 6:60,66-68 says, Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?... From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him. Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away? Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.
The
truth is the truth and sometimes people don't want to hear it. Jesus
spoke the truth and some people stopped following Him because of it.
What is the solution? Do I tell a lie so that my message sounds more
appealing? Do I replace the God of the Bible with a moron of a god
who is indistinguishable from dumb luck? Should the gospel be that
you don't have to believe the Bible – just believe in Jesus? No
thank you. No thank you. And again, no thank you.
Related
articles:
II Peter 1:20 says, “Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.” In other words, there is no “hidden meaning” to the Bible.
ReplyDeleteThat is not the usual, er, interpretation of this verse; in conjunction with the next verse, it asserts that scriptures do not represent the private opinions of their authors, but the decrees of God. Whether scriptures are of divine or human authorship is a separate question from whether they mean what they literally say or have hidden meanings.
So when Exodus says, “in six days the LORD created the heavens and the earth,” there should be no twisting of the words to explain why “six days” really means “billions of years.”
Though when Genesis 7:11 states that the floodgates in the sky were opened to let the "waters above the sky" fall as rain, this is obviously figurative, not literal. And when Psalm 104 states that the Earth is set on its foundations so that it cannot be moved, it is not at all twisting scriptures to read that as compatible with heliocentrism (even though John Calvin, Martin Luther, and Pope Urban VIII all agreed that it clearly did teach geocentrism, as had centuries of Christians before them. The plain sense of scripture can get really tricky sometimes.
Yet even so, I'll tell you why there are many Christians who are evolutionists: They've been told over and over again that “evolution is a fact.”
Not one of them, you think, has ever examined the evidence for himself and decided that the evidence supports evolution? Do you seriously mean to argue that, e.g. Kenneth Miller wrote books adducing evidence in favor of evolution because he was brainwashed or bullied into blindly accepting that such evidence exists? Since you don't seem to appreciate the Talk.Origins archive, perhaps you should look at some of the articles on the theistic evolutionary website Naturalis Historia.
he reasons some Christians believe in an old earth/life are the same reasons some Christians believe in evolution. They've been told the “science is settled.” They've been convinced that the things they were told in school must be true so they ignore the plain meaning of the Bible and twist the words to make them mean something completely different.
I'd believe that of, say, Pat Robertson. I'm less inclined to accept that various Christian geologists accept an Old Earth merely from indoctrination rather than observing the evidence with their own eyes.
Again, you reject the plain sense of scripture, accepted by Christians for 15 centuries, that the Earth is immobile while the sun orbits it. You reject the plain sense of scripture that somewhere, there is a solid dome or sphere above, or surrounding, the Earth, with a supercelestial ocean beyond it (medieval and early modern Christians moved it far beyond the orbits of the sun and planets, but they kept in it their cosmology; modern creationists seem to have completely abandoned it for no apparent purely scriptural reason). Old-Earth creationists and theistic evolutionists are different from you not in modifying their interpretation to fit scientific discoveries; they just proceed a step or three further.
Steven J,
ReplyDeleteI believe the plain meaning of words only gets “tricky” if one starts with the premise that all the words must be literally true. Actually, I may have to come up with a different way to phrase that because, in today's vernacular, even “literally” doesn't mean “literally.” *Sigh* People don't usually have problems understanding other written works, but when it comes to the Bible, suddenly they regress to a 3rd grade reading comprehension.
Critics often cherry pick verses from the Bible and claim the Bible intends them “literally.” You cited Psalm 104, for example. Psalm 104:1 says, “O LORD my God, thou art very great; thou art clothed with honour and majesty.” So, do you think Yahweh's clothes are literally “honor and majesty”? I'm sure you don't. Yet a couple of verses later, when the Bible says He laid the foundation of the earth, then, yes, critics say it means it literally!
If Calvin and Luther misunderstood these verses, I would say it's probably because they started with the premise that every word of the Bible is literally true. I've said before that, if we insist every word of the Bible is “literally” true, we turn the plain meaning of the words into rubbish. Jesus commanded us to “eat His flesh and drink His blood.” He said, “I am the vine,” “I am the door,” and “I am the bread.” He said, “You are salt.” To say all of these things are “literal” means the Bible would be teaching nonsense.
You asked, “Not one of them, you think, has ever examined the evidence for himself and decided that the evidence supports evolution?”
I would say that more than 99% of the people who believe evolution have NEVER examined the evidence for themselves. I don't believe that I, personally, have ever laid eyes on an actual homo fossil, for example. The closest I've come is to see plaster reproductions in museums. Most people aren't scientists. Even most scientists are biologists. So the vast majority of people who believe evolution, have to rely on the explanations given by people who have seen the evidence. But even then, they are still receiving the information 2nd or 3rd hand. A scientist makes a discovery, he publishes a paper, the papers are compiled and cited in test books, and the text books are used by teachers (who aren't scientists) to teach kids that evolution is true.
Thanks for visiting and for your comments. God bless!!
RKBentley