Things are getting wild out there in Creationland. First there was the debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo). Afterwards, we made a few posts about the reactions. Ol’ Hambo claims he did great, and a few recent items at his website have echoed that spin.
But the fun part has been the reaction of other creationists. We told you how ICR Reacts to the Bill Nye-Ken Ham Debate (they claimed Nye was illogical), and also Egnor’s View on the Bill Nye-Ken Ham Debate (he supported ol’ Hambo’s positions), although the Discoveroids had previously posted In the Ham-Nye Debate, Not So Much as a Glove Was Laid on Intelligent Design (true, but the debaters didn’t lay a glove on the Tooth Fairy either).
Our favorite reaction was one showing sharp discord in the religious community — that was Pat Robertson Reacts to Ken Ham’s Performance. Robertson, apparently an old-Earth theistic evolutionist, said of Hambo’s arguments: “Let’s not make a joke of ourselves.”
That was the best, because we’ve always said that the so-called Controversy between evolution and creationism is a one-sided fiction. There isn’t a science controversy, and the actual debate should be conducted among the various religious denominations, some of which accept science (see the National Center for Science Education’s list of Statements from Religious Organizations supporting evolution), while others insist as an article of faith that science must be rejected.
Today the denominational discord is very apparent. Look what we found at the flamingly far-right website, RenewAmerica: Robertson: Ham’s contentions no ‘joke’. It’s written by Rev. Mark H. Creech, described as a Southern Baptist who is “Executive Director of the Christian Action League of North Carolina, Inc.” The rev supports ol’ Hambo, and he unleashes fire and brimstone on Pat Robertson. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us:
Last week approximately 3 million people tuned into to watch the debate on evolution between Bill Nye, “The Science Guy,” and Ken Ham of the Creation Museum. Ham did a stupendous job articulating the creationist view and contributed greatly to raising awareness to the legitimacy of its claims regarding origins.
Yes, a stupendous job. However:
Enter Pat Robertson via his appearance on the 700 Club television program. During a recent broadcast, Robertson attacked Ham’s assertions regarding a Young Earth, more specifically, that the world is approximately 6000 years old. Robertson concluded the view makes a “joke” of Christians.
Gasp — that’s outrageous! Let’s read on:
One can appreciate Robertson’s acknowledgement of God’s sovereignty in the earth’s beginnings. But as I once contended in an interview with [some magazine], “Clergy…those that have given away a portion of the truth in order to defend the rest of it – are no real friends to true religion or the Bible.” Robertson’s remarks represent a concession to evolution that has profound negative ramifications for sound theology.
Egad — “profound negative ramifications for sound theology.” The rev’s first reason for saying that is the best, and we’ll quote it all:
First, the concession indicts the goodness of God. Modern science asserts that the geological ages are predicated on the fossil record, and these fossils speak to us of suffering and death millions of years before Adam and Eve – before the creation of man. That’s a direction contradiction of the Bible’s teaching that pain, anguish; travail, death and the dysfunctions of nature are a direct result of divine judgment because of man’s sin. If there was a primeval prevalence of these things before the fall of man, then that would leave only God himself responsible for such menace and mayhem. The very notion a God of love and order would work arbitrarily and brutally as suggested in evolution’s old earth hypothesis – a way so contrary to his own nature – carries with it an implication blasphemy.
Yes, it’s blasphemy! God is a God of love. Death and suffering are man’s fault! The reason why the whole Earth was flooded, killing almost everything that lived, is because of God’s love. If you don’t believe that, then you’re a blasphemer, and you deserve to spend eternity in the Lake of Fire! Mmrruuuhahahahaha!
The rev’s next objection to Robertson’s position is that the concession he made (old Earth, etc.) “assails the authority of the Word of God.” He lists several ways that the theory of evolution contradicts the bible. If you need a handy catalog of such items, you can click over to the rev’s article. We’ll skip that and move to the rev’s next point, which is that Robertson’s concession to science “undermines the story of redemption.” We’re told:
If evolution is true, if the inference of an old earth is correct, then what are we to think of Adam and Eve? Were they pre-hominids or hominids? Did Adam stoop and his knuckles drag the ground when he walked with God in the garden? Did Eve grunt when God asked her what she had done when she ate from the forbidden tree? If the first couple were just early advanced forms of primate, how responsible for their actions could they possibly be? The whole concept is rift [sic] with foolish suppositions and ridiculous inquiry. Is this what it means to be made in the image of God? Surely not!
We see the rev’s problem — if one part of Genesis is only myth, then where does it all end? It’s theological chaos! He continues:
[F]rom the biblical record, it becomes impossible to set the date for creation much earlier than 10,000 years. And theological disaster ensues when the speculations of men, no matter how seemingly convincing, supplant God’s special revelation – His Word.
Robertson is inviting “theological disaster”! Here’s more:
God is the one who established all scientific laws, and good science will always point to Him. That’s why we need not fear there will ever be a discovery of some scientific fact that contradicts the Bible properly interpreted.
Yes, “properly interpreted.” The rev finishes with one final slam at Robertson, which is clumsily punctuated:
Therefore, if Robertson believes that Ham’s literal interpretation of the biblical creation account is a “joke.” Then I suggest Robertson’s remarks make him a ham.
Strong words indeed! Hey — what we really need is a debate between Hambo and Robertson. We might even pay to watch that!
Copyright © 2014. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.