Most of you are familiar with the concept of Theistic Evolution. As Wikipedia explains it:
Theistic evolution … is a concept that asserts that classical religious teachings about God are compatible with the modern scientific understanding about biological evolution. … Evolution, according to this view, is simply a tool that God employed to develop human life.
Theistic evolution is not a scientific theory, but a particular view about how the science of evolution relates to religious belief and interpretation.
Theistic evolution is supported by BioLogos (they’re scientists) and opposed by creationists such as the Institute for Creation Research (see More Denominational Discord Over Evolution). It’s also opposed by the neo-theocrats at the Discovery Institute‘s creationist public relations and lobbying operation, the Center for Science and Culture (a/k/a the Discoveroids). See Discovery Institute Battles BioLogos.
More opposition comes from Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo), the Australian entrepreneur who brought you Answers in Genesis (AIG) and the infamous, mind-boggling Creation Museum (see Ken Ham Rants Against Reality). Hambo and AIG hate theistic evolution; they really hate it. Not because it’s theistic, of course, but because it accepts science, which AIG rejects absolutely — unless it’s their perverted “creation science” which is consistent with a literal reading of Genesis.
Today, dear reader, we have more on this subject from AIG. We refer you to their latest offering: Theistic Evolution. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us:
The debate is between those who reject the plain words of Scripture, particularly concerning creation and the age of the earth, and those who accept it. This is a battle of worldviews. Biblical creationists base their worldview on the unchanging and infallible Word of the omniscient Creator. Evolutionists (and adherents to every other worldview) base their thinking on the frequently changing words of fallible men who did not observe the beginning of our world.
That’s pretty much the whole argument. Let’s read on:
Christians who adopt evolution are inconsistent because they are accepting the foundation of the humanistic worldviews. Essentially, they are telling God that they believe Him when He told us about the Virgin Birth, Crucifixion, and Resurrection of Christ, but they do not trust Him when He tells us about how He created the world.
But AIG is just as unfaithful to scripture as those who accept evolution. As we’ve pointed out before, although Hambo tirelessly promotes young-earth creationism, claiming that it must be true because it’s scriptural, he inexplicably denies other biblical doctrines. Any creationist, whether young-earth or old, who piously claims to believe in the inerrancy of scripture, must also believe that the earth is flat, stationary, and rests on pillars while the sun, moon, and stars revolve around it. If a creationist rejects the bible’s clear teaching of a flat and stationary earth he’s a hypocrite, and by his own standard of truth he’s a blasphemer and a heretic. See The Earth Is Flat, and also The Earth Does Not Move.
We continue with AIG’s article:
Answers in Genesis has long made it clear that we do not make biblical creationism a litmus test for the Christian faith; nor do we question the sincerity or faith of professing Christians who believe in billions of years. What we question is the consistency of their thinking.
And your Curmudgeon, for the reasons aforesaid, questions the consistency of AIG’s thinking. Here’s more:
He said He made everything in six days, so teaching anything contrary to that is an attack on the truth of His Word.
Ditto for flat earth and the geocentric universe. Are you listening, Hambo? Moving along:
As stated earlier, belief in a young earth is not a litmus test to determine if one is a Christian or not. It is false to say that anyone who believes in evolution is automatically not a Christian. However, if evolution were true, then it absolutely would disprove the God described in Scripture.
Using Hambo’s logic, the same is true of the spherical earth and the solar system. Another excerpt:
“True science” is based on the biblical worldview. In His Word, God has revealed the basis for the preconditions of intelligibility, such as laws of logic, morality, and uniformity of nature.
Aristotelian logic is in the bible? And where does scripture say that the laws of nature are the same everywhere and always? We thought the sin of Adam & Eve caused the laws of nature to change. And AIG has previously argued that the principle of uniformitarianism is an unprovable assumption that leaves no room for intervention by a Creator (see Answers in Genesis and the Big Bang).
Oh well, that’s how it goes at AIG. This is a long article, so we’ll give you only one more excerpt:
We are not fueling the fire when we faithfully proclaim the truth of Scripture. Rather, those who believe in billions of years and encourage people to dismiss God’s Word on this topic are the ones who brought this division into the church. If it is divisive for us to proclaim God’s Word, then that simply illustrates how far removed from biblical authority the church has become.
Is AIG being divisive? We don’t really care, but they’re definitely being inconsistent. We say, if one is going to be true to scripture, then he should go all the way. Flat-earth, geocentric universe, and young-earth creationism. All or nothing. No compromises! Come on, Hambo, flat earth — love it or leave it!
Copyright © 2011. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.