We found this one at the website of the Institute for Creation Research — (ICR) — the granddaddy of all creationist outfits, the fountainhead of young-earth creationist wisdom. Their post is titled Biblical Creation and Intellectual Foolishness, and it was written by one of ICR’s top creation scientists — .Jake Hebert. They say he has a Ph.D. in physics, and joined ICR as a research associate the same year that degree was awarded. Here are some excerpts from Jake’s post, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:
In a recent interview discussing his new book In Quest of the Historical Adam, philosopher and Christian apologist William Lane Craig acknowledged his biased assumptions when interpreting how the words of the Bible should be understood.
Here’s his write-up in Wikipedia: William Lane Craig. They say he’s a Discoveroid fellow, so you know what we’re dealing with. Jake says:
What prejudices his interpretation of words contrary to their plain and normal meaning is his longstanding “great fear” that young-earth creationists are correct that the book of Genesis should be understood as real history. Dr. Craig is concerned that this would require a wholesale challenge to all of modern science. [It certainly would!] However, during the interview Dr. Craig made numerous revealing claims that show that science has nothing to do with why he rejects a historical Genesis.
He rejects Genesis? How is that possible? Jake tells us:
He ridiculed clear biblical narratives that Eve was beguiled by a real “talking snake” and the “anthropomorphic” idea that God walked and talked with Adam and Eve as stories akin to ancient mythology. [Gasp!] It is important to realize that these objections have nothing to do with modern science — science cannot inform us whether God would, or wouldn’t, walk with Adam and Eve. Nor can we scientifically test the ability of Satan to possess an animal and speak through it.
Jake is correct — science is worthless in such matters. He continues:
These are philosophical objections to a literal Genesis, not scientific ones. [Science is useless in such matters!] So, it cannot be the science per se that has Craig worried. However, affirming a literal Genesis does offend modern sensibilities that consider biblical truths to be foolish (1 Corinthians 2:14). Like the Corinthian Christians, we all need to guard against the fear of appearing foolish in the eyes of the world.
Yes, a creationist would never never want to appear foolish! Let’s read on:
It’s Craig’s biases that he brings to the Bible — not anything in the Bible itself — that underlie his attack on biblical clarity, which undermines not just the first 11 chapters of Genesis but the entire Bible. [All of it?] If Craig rejects the normal meaning of Genesis 3 as real history because God walked and talked with Adam and Eve, then what does he do with Genesis 18, where God and two angelic visitors talk — and even eat — with Abraham? And what of Numbers 22:28-30 and 2 Peter 2:16, both of which affirm that the prophet Balaam was rebuked by his donkey?
Jeepers — Jake is right! If you reject one part of the bible because it doesn’t make sense, then what about all the rest of it? Here’s another excerpt:
Biblical creation has always seemed foolish in the world’s eyes, but this is not because evidence for creation is lacking. [Really?] The ranks of biblical creationists include researchers recognized as world-class scientists. [Hee hee!] Scientific and historical evidence for even the earliest chapters of Genesis are abundant [What?], and the creation-Flood model of the Ice Age is vastly superior to anything proposed by the Creator-denying scientists to which Craig eagerly conforms his understanding of Genesis 1–11.
Amazing, isn’t it? Wait ’til you see what’s coming next:
Moreover, creation researchers have published scientific evidence refuting iconic arguments for evolution and an old earth [BWAHAHAHAHAHA!], and, like evolutionists, Craig fails to engage this primary literature. Evidence for biblical creation is not getting weaker over time, it is getting stronger.
Getting stronger! And now we come to the end:
Is it really science that is keeping so many Christians from embracing a straightforward understanding of Genesis, or is it something else? [What else could it be?] Every Christian needs to guard against the sin of intellectual pride.
Jake ends with some scripture quotes warning about pride, and that’s certainly worth reading. Don’t let pride keep you from being a creationist, dear reader! That’s a mistake with eternal consequences.
Copyright © 2021. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.