Really Really Really Really Bad - Part 2

Posted by Worldview Warriors On Thursday, August 13, 2015 0 comments

by Steve Risner

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

This is part 4 in a series of blog posts responding to Tyler Francke’s blog called “Ten Theological Questions No Young-earth Creationist Can Answer.” Near the end of the introduction to that post, Tyler has a series of links found in the phrase “really really really really bad.” Today’s post is part 2 in response to the first “really” where we can find a blog called, “3 seriously bad theological implications of young-earth creationism.” Take a look if you need to at the first portion of “Really Really Really Really Bad - Part 1” where I worked through his introduction and his first “seriously bad implication” for Biblical creationists. We found it didn’t actually have much to do with theology at all but was simply an anti-biblical interpretation of some scientific facts. He found it a theologically bad implication that God seemed to have lied with nature but didn’t find it a theologically bad implication for him that his stance is that God was not accurate in His Word on history (or science). Not being accurate when you’re all knowing and all powerful means you’re lying, does it not? Do you see the double standard? The primary problem, as I see it, with many theistic evolutionists is they prefer to use the currently popular, ever changing opinion of “scientists” as a guide for Biblical interpretation rather than using God’s Word to be the lens by which we view the world. So let’s continue.

Tyler’s second “theologically bad implication” for me is that Biblical creation makes faith useless. He actually seems to advocate for blind faith. He says, “Creationism teaches that there is no reason to have faith, and here’s why: If the scientific evidence, objectively observed, really does point to the entire universe arising in a single creative event no more than 10,000 years ago, as YECs claim, then that means those who wrote the Bible undeniably had knowledge that they couldn’t have had without the touch of God. Thus, the case is closed. God is real, the Bible is inspired and perfect — no further discussion necessary.” Honestly, I’m having trouble connecting his point with that statement. I believe the scientific evidence can easily support my beliefs as based on the creation account in the Bible. I do believe the men who wrote the Bible were inspired by God, who had a lot more knowledge on the subjects written on than the authors themselves. That seems pretty obvious. Doesn’t every believer think that God gave special information to the writers of the Bible? How could they have written much of the Word at all without this special revelation? Tyler seems to be advocating for blind faith. That’s simply not a good position at all to take. Christianity is not mere blind faith. As emphasized by theologian D. James Kennedy, the claim that belief in Christianity produces an irrational, uneducated, unintelligent, or unintellectual view of life is completely false. Blind faith is faith without evidence, which would be superstition. The Bible does not call us to blind faith. The Bible calls us to faith in evidence. We submit that various truth claims, including Christianity, should be evaluated on the evidence. Yes, there will always be a step of faith for the Christian. But that step doesn't require a person to leave his brains at the church door. I may be misreading Tyler’s statements, but it seems he’s pushing for a faith not described in the Bible. In fact, Tyler’s faith in the “science” he uses to interpret the Bible is no different than the faith we have in the Bible to interpret science. Thus far we have God being a liar because He made the earth look old when it’s not. Then we have God being a liar because He had the Bible written in such a way that was inaccurate (although this time it was okay to lie). Then we have the idea that we are supposed to have blind faith in God even if it does seem like He lied to us. He advocates for faith in facts when it comes to science but also for blind faith in what he seems to call nonsensical when it comes to the Bible. I can’t make it sound any better than that.

So he concludes his “theologically bad implications” for Bible believers with an obviously incorrect statement: we are to avoid unbelievers. What nonsense! Where does this come from? How is this some form of Christianity? We can cite numerous references to the contrary here.

He states, “When I engage with other Christians who disagree with me on evolution, I have never sensed in them much of a longing for nonbelievers to experience the joy and salvation of knowing Jesus.” This is so far from the truth I don’t know what to say. Nearly all, if not all, of the Biblical creationist organizations I know of, including Worldview Warriors, ONLY care about the issue of origins because we want people to find Jesus Christ. That’s the whole point! AiG’s mission statement includes “…to deliver the message of the gospel, individually and collectively.” has as their vision, “To see the Lord Jesus Christ honoured as Creator and Saviour of the world.” It’s hard to even find a statement of faith on the God of Evolution website, but “young-earth creationists” don’t care about unbelievers. I fight for the souls of our kids all the time—it’s the reason I’m in this discussion at all. It almost seems like Tyler feels he should be treated like a lost soul when talking with a Biblical creationist. I agree with him that it’s difficult to find a theistic evolutionist that is an authentic believer. It’s possible, but difficult. Perhaps he feels other believers should preach the Gospel to him. I assume he has already heard it, but that could be my mistake. He says, “I more often tend to encounter a deep animosity and mistrust, especially toward scientists.” This isn’t true, either. I’m finding it difficult to take anything from this site seriously. Biblical creationists mistrust men and women who put on the guise of a scientist so they can acquire converts to their religion—a false religion heaped in humanism. Many great scientists are or were believers and creationists at that. The entire point of the debate is helping people find the truth—the truth that Jesus Christ is the Way, the Truth, and the Life (John 14:6). The number of theistic evolutionists that do not believe that is alarming.

He goes on to say, “Creationism proponents say that is because of the deleterious effects of something called ‘evolutionary philosophy’.” It’s pretty clear that the philosophy or worldview that upholds evolution from a single common ancestor is destructive to belief in the God of the Bible for many if not most who accept it. It hasn’t “shaken” his faith in God, he claims. But the number of theistic evolutionists who seem to accept any religious belief as legitimate (except Biblical creation) and have a very watery version of Christianity that they adhere to is enough to make me concerned that belief in Darwinism causes decay and eroded the foundation for the entire love story we call the Gospel. He goes on to imply that compromising our faith to win the atheist scientists is a good idea. I’m not sure what example in Scripture he’s using for that model of missionary work.

Every one of these 3 “theologically bad implications” of young earth creation is a sham. None holds water and the last problem he outlines for us is the exact opposite of what my experience is. And he calls for compromise to reach the lost. He says Paul supports this but misreads Paul’s instructions in 1 Corinthians 9:19-23. I believe he doesn’t seem to understand what science is and he has a very strange and inconsistent view of what the Bible teaches 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.