Blog

by Steve Risner

[This blog post is part of a series. The previous one is here, and the next one is here.]

This week we will be taking a look at the second “really” in the long list of links in Tyler Francke’s blog titled “10 Theological Questions No Young-earth Creationist Can Answer.” The point in going through his blog post is to expose what I feel are glaring inconsistencies in his theology, as well as his logic in general.

Although I feel this blog post can stand on its own, you can get caught up in our journey by going here, then here, here and here. The link found with this particular “really” takes us to an opinion piece on something that came about almost exactly a year ago when Christian musician Michael Gungor made some comments about his rethinking how he perceived the book of Genesis—more precisely how he viewed the creation account and the Flood. Personally, although I find his conclusions regrettable, I didn’t really pay that much attention, until the band further came out and made some fairly uncalled for remarks concerning adherence to Scripture as inspired and true. It’s difficult to find what Gungor said exactly, because he has removed the piece that includes his further comments. We can put pieces of it together to see what he said, but I was not able to find the full article. My intent with today’s post was going to be to counter Mr. Francke point by point. However, I found that dull and a bit of an argument rather than simply exposing his inconsistencies, which is what this series is designed to do. He rails on Ken Ham for having an opinion and while “exposing” the hatefulness that is Ken Ham, one can practically hear him seething as he blows this thing out of proportion. The short response would be that it appears Tyler Francke hates Ken Ham and everything Ham says. He especially hates it when Ham uses the Bible to defend his position, particularly when that position is counter to Tyler’s. I will just touch on a few things so we can move on. However, due to the length of Tyler’s blog post, this will, again, be a 2-part blog post.

I’ll begin by saying that Michael Gungor is very talented and has created some excellent music. He’s been blessed by his Maker with some extraordinary skills and he’s using them for the glory of God. That is commendable. I do believe, however, that he should have stuck with music. As Ken Ham points out, Gungor is neither a scientist nor a Bible scholar—both of which Ham can at least say he’s dabbled in with the 5 degrees he holds.

I found it unfortunate that when pressed, Gungor felt the need to belittle his Christian brothers and sisters—those who are Biblical creationists and trust God and take Him at His Word. He said things like, “No reasonable person takes the entire Bible literally.” That is true, actually, but not the way he meant it. No one takes the Bible ALL literally. We allow the context to tell us how to read it. Doesn’t that make sense? Tyler actually holds to this position—that Biblical creationists demand ALL of Scripture be taken literally. No one does this. It’s a strawman. Genesis is written as an historical account. Hence, we should take it as such. He further said that the reason he doesn’t adhere to a Genesis account for creation and the Flood is “science and rational thought.” Again, a very poor choice of words, especially when it seems he doesn’t really know the topic.

He also presents for us a few complaints about believing the Bible to be true. He provides some strawman arguments for us to consider. These include things like there wasn’t enough room in the ark, and the animals couldn’t get from the ark to the rest of the world after the Flood. He mocks Biblical creationists and says that Noah must have built a thousand little boats for the animals to reach the far away islands and places you can only get to by water, or that God transported them there similar to the way Captain Kirk was beamed aboard on Star Trek. Again, this is unnecessary and a little distasteful even though I love Star Trek. But that’s my opinion. You can read a terrific amount of work that has been done concerning the plausibility of the ark. Check this and this out and this and this concerning Gungor’s issues. You will likely quickly see that not only have his concerns been answered, they were answered a long time ago. Keep in mind, however, that where I do believe many plausible answers to these questions have been submitted, we don’t know. No one does. All we can do is put together our best guess. If evidence suggests otherwise, my opinion on these theories may change. But I’ll always stand on the authority of God’s Word.

Further into the blog post, Tyler quotes Ham in an effort to support his claim that Ham is angry, aggressive, and hateful. I didn’t find anything like that in Ham’s blog, which you’re welcome to look at here. I found most of the complaints about Ham’s concerns a little exaggerated. But that’s okay. We all get a little worked up at times. Tyler actually calls Gungor’s position a “contradiction,” which I found amusing since Tyler himself holds the same view. I believe Ham makes some very valid points as to why reading Genesis as a “myth” (Gungor’s words) means the Gospel, too, is a myth. And to suggest that Christianity is nothing more than living right is a dreadful concern to me. Christianity is about surrendering your life to Christ, freeing you to live your life for the glory of an awesome and powerful God who demands holiness and righteousness but is full of love and mercy if we receive it. It’s about the Creator of all providing a way of salvation so man, in his fallen state, can have a relationship with his Maker. It’s not a relationship based on works and performance, but on trusting in the grace and mercy of a God of love and patience.

He also uses vulgar terminology, which is more of a side note than anything else. Perhaps he feels vulgar words are edifying. I disagree and, personally, would never use them in a blog post... or really at all.

That will have to conclude this week’s entry. Next week we will wrap up this particular idea. I’m looking forward to it, as I don’t like this type of thing. But in an effort to be consistent and follow through, we’re working through Tyler’s blog post bit by bit. Thanks for staying with us.

This forum is meant to foster discussion and allow for differing viewpoints to be explored with equal and respectful consideration.  All comments are moderated and any foul language or threatening/abusive comments will not be approved.  Users who engage in threatening or abusive comments which are physically harmful in nature will be reported to the authorities.