Today, we’re going to take a close look at an anti-theistic-evolution blog post. But not just any anti-theistic-evolution blog post; this one’s from one of my biggest critics.
His name is Steve Risner, and he’s a writer who tragically never learned what a paragraph is. He’s part of a blogging collective known as the Worldview Warriors. Their name tells you all you need to know about their theology.
Whereas most reasonable Christians see the culture wars as a hindrance to the gospel, created by the shrill voices at the most extreme ends of contentious issues, for the Worldview Warriors, the culture wars are where. It’s. At.
If you found a group of sports bloggers who wrote exclusively about how steroids are a great thing for Major League Baseball, and you made them super-fundamentalist Christians instead, you’d have the Worldview Warriors.
Anyway, since July, Risner has been writing a series on me. He supposedly set out to address my “10 theological questions no young-earth creationist can answer” … but he’s written 27 posts and made it only about three sentences into that article.
Which is a little crazy, right? If my wife were half as interested in my work I’d be telling our marriage counselor I need space.
I have pretty much ignored him since then, but it’s recently come to my attention that Risner and the rest of his legion of … um, “warriors,” I guess, like to brag to their mothers and the handful of other folks who follow their blog that their critiques have “completely destroyed” my position, hence, my lack of reply.
I should probably just ignore that too, but alas, I made the mistake of reading a couple of his posts. And, as it turns out, they’re textbook examples of a mindset that really needs to die, because it’s toxic to the church.
If you have any familiarity with the evolution-creationism debate at all, you have no doubt encountered it: the anti-theistic-evolutionist bully — a deliberately uninformed misanthrope, who labors under the delusion that those who take a different view of Genesis aren’t real Christians and prides himself on misrepresenting them any way he can.
These are the guys who are making bright, reasonable people, who value discussion and tolerance and open-mindedness, want nothing to do with the church. Couple that with the fact that, apparently, part of Risner’s regular duties as a Warrior is to talk to young people about Jesus.
So yeah, much as I might like to, I feel I can’t just ignore folks like Risner and their terribleness, especially when it’s being spewed all over my doorstep.
This is also going to be useful as a case study, though, because Risner is not an anymore imaginative writer than he is an economical one. So the points he tries to make are basically the same ones you’d encounter in any Christian critique of theistic evolution/evolutionary creationism. Which is handy for me, since I can cover a lot of ground simply by pointing out all of the fallacies and misleading half-truths in one of his posts.
Now, in the interest of full disclosure, I’m going to be a little snarky here (especially near the end because, come on, I’m only human). But I’m mostly playing it straight, because I don’t want Risner and the rest of his gang to be able to discount everything I say on account of what a big meanie I am.
And just so this is a fair fight, I’m going to copy Risner’s style in my response. Which means I’m going to respond to every. Single. Sentence.
The only difference (as you’ll see) is that I’m actually going to address Risner’s content instead of just using three random words from it as a jumping-off point for an unrelated rant.
OK, let’s get started.
I began by Googling “Tyler Francke Steve Risner” and picking a link at random. As we get into it, you’ll see how little it matters, since all of his posts are just the same list of five or six reasons he hates people who disagree with him about Genesis, very loosely organized around a sentence or two from the blog he’s ostensibly responding to. “Twilight” is more faithful to Bram Stoker than Risner’s critiques are to his source material.
The one I found is from a few weeks ago, and it’s called “Love of the Bible, Part 2.” Everything the guy has ever written about me is “Part X” of something because he is incapable of seeing an embedded text link, shrugging, and continuing with his original train of thought.
Let me explain something to you. When I embed a link in one of my posts, it is typically because I want to give readers five extra seconds of background information that I’d rather not get into here, and sometimes it’s because funny. But for Eh! Steve!, every link is a personal affront to him, and must become the subject of his next four blog posts.
Here’s how he opens LotB, part deux.
This is part 2 of “Love of the Bible.” I encourage you to read part 1 before getting into this one. Moving on, we find that Tyler is, again, bashing Ken Ham. It’s getting a little creepy. He’s a bit obsessed, I guess.
Yeah, thanks for that analysis, Dr. Phil, but seeing as how you’ve spent the last six months deconstructing the first paragraph of one of my articles, I think I’ll get a second opinion.
He oddly remarks that he’s going to get into a 15-year-old article written by Ham. He seems to think 15 years is old and that for some reason evolutionists don’t hang on to old things.
For the record, and this will be a recurring theme, I didn’t actually say any of that.
He (Tyler) believes in a “scientific” idea debunked by Redi and Pasteur hundreds of years ago, so who’s behind here?
That’s cute. Francesco Redi was an Italian physician, naturalist, biologist and poet, who is remembered as the “founder of experimental biology” and the “father of modern parasitology.” He died about 150 years before the development of the theory Risner thinks he debunked.
Louis Pasteur was a French chemist and microbiologist renowned for his discoveries of the principles of vaccination, microbial fermentation and a process that I believe is referred to in technical scientific literature as “milk safety-ization.” He, at least, was alive during a time period in which evolution was a thing, but Risner’s use of his work here is just a less elegant form of the peanut butter argument.
But he then quotes Ken Ham writing something that is spot on. My paraphrase: Can you use the Bible alone and come up with millions of years? Absolutely not.
It’s baffling to me that Risner possesses an absolutely functional working knowledge of what the word “paraphrase” means, and how to do it, and yet is unable to respond to one blog post on the Internet without writing a book.
I guess this is one of those “old” arguments that just won’t go away… because it’s right.
Huh. And here I thought it was just Flat Earth Society members who said that.
The truth doesn’t have an expiration date.
Hmm… You know, this might just be another Pasteur reference. I’ll have to get back to you on that.
Genesis is written in a form that requires it to be read as historical.
The language is clear. There is no reason or way to make it say something other than what it says.
Exactly! This is why I get so frustrated with young-earthers who say the firmament isn’t really the firmament.
Tyler has first bought secularism and its ideas and has secondly tried to misrepresent the teachings of Scripture in a biased and slanted way to fit into the secular ideas he’s apparently bonded with.
This is a key point, so let’s spend a little time here.
First, take note of the fact that we’re two or three of Risner’s monster-sized paragraphs into his “response” to me, and the only actual point of mine that he’s brought up is my offhand remark about an article by Ken Ham being 15 years old. When Risner’s wife tries to tell him about her day, he replies with, “Hey, when you mentioned you went to the grocery store, that reminds me… I’ll bet theistic evolutionists go to grocery stores, too. Boy, those theistic evolutionists really burn me up. Did you know they don’t read the Genesis creation accounts as literal history?” Then he talks non-stop for 12 more hours.
He abuses my work the same way young-earth creationists like him abuse science: by starting with his conclusion, finding a few points that might sort-of fit with that conclusion, and blocking out everything else. In this case, he decided before he read my first word that I’m a biblically illiterate atheist-lover who doesn’t know the first thing about Jesus, so he’s physically incapable of finding anything in my writing other than that which supports his presupposition.
I guess that explains why his “responses” to me contain almost nothing that I actually wrote. And remember: This is a guy who travels the country (or claims to) teaching students to think and “live like Jesus.” Some role model.
Second, on that non-existent basis of nothingness, Risner proceeds to describe my position in terms that are pretty much the exact opposite of what I believe. It’s easily the laziest straw man argument I’ve seen in my entire life (and I read an awful lot of young-earth creationist material).
Most bad bloggers, when they set out to misrepresent someone, they at least make some pretense of understanding their opponent’s position (quoting them out of context, misleading paraphrases, etc.). Risner doesn’t bother with any of that nonsense. “His position is whatever I darn well say it is,” Eh! Steve! growls.
Again, this is very typical of anti-TE bloggers in general. They never honestly engage with our actual arguments because if they did, they’d be forced to admit that the way we look at Genesis makes at least as much sense as theirs does.
Since that’s completely unacceptable to them, their only alternative is to ignore anything of substance we’ve ever said and go to war with straw armies of their own devising.
Finally, and to the claim itself, uh, it’s not true. I mean, I’m not entirely clear how one might “buy secularism” in the context of interpreting the Bible, but I am sure that’s not what I did. Because folks like Risner can’t (or more likely, won’t) see how any non-literal view of Genesis is valid, they assume that Christians who accept those views only get there by starting with science and working backward.
For the moment, let’s set aside that this is exactly what the church did in the 1600s, when we had to reinterpret passages like 1 Chronicles 16:30, Joshua 10:12-13 and Ecclesiastes 1:5 in light (heh) of the fact that the sun doesn’t move around the earth like we’d always thought it did (based on the Bible).
But ignoring that, the implication — that no serious Christians would have ever held non-literal interpretations of Genesis before the “secularists” came along and started making us — is patently false. Unfortunately for Risner, church fathers and theologians have been reading Genesis as something other than a history textbook since Origen in the third century.
And Origen — like everyone else 1,800 years ago — thought the earth was young. His reasoning for not reading Genesis literally wasn’t because of some uncomfortable discovery of science; it was because the texts don’t make sense or hold up to close scrutiny if you read them that way.
All right. Back to the madness.
Now this is where the smoke and mirrors are thrown in to dazzle you and make you believe that the Bible is anti-science.
Risner gives me far too much credit. My post contains no smoke, and hardly any mirrors.
The Bible doesn’t tell us about earth’s orbit (although it does tell us it’s suspended on nothing and is a sphere).
Here, Risner drags out two tired old fundamentalist canards. While it’s true that Job 26:7 says the earth and sky are hung on nothing, the author explains elsewhere that that’s only because they’re both set firmly on pillars. That Risner would no doubt say Job 26:7 is obviously literal while Job 26:11 is obviously metaphor only shows how ridiculous his à la carte method of biblical interpretation is to begin with.
Steve, I believe the Bible is divinely inspired, too, but saying things about it that are demonstrably false doesn’t really do our faith much credit.
The Bible can’t be used to make a microwave oven, a satellite dish, or do heart transplants.
An astute and relevant observation.
But the origins topic isn’t any of these things.
Wow, this guy’s on fire! Now I know that the topic of universal origins is not a microwave. Thanks, Steve.
The origins topic is a topic very specifically talked about in Genesis, Exodus, many of the Psalms and prophets, as well as in the New Testament.
So is the topic of the flatness of the earth, and the topic of its geocentricity. The relevant point here is that on the rare occasions that other biblical authors directly reference the creation accounts, it’s almost always in a symbolic context, a theological context or in some other context that does not suffer from taking its source material as inspired and true, but not necessarily literal.
But he uses very common atheist arguments against the Bible’s reading (his friend, mind you) to make his point.
Even if that were true, Risner’s understanding of the Bible — that it’s incompatible with mainstream science — is identical to Richard Dawkins’. Given the choice, I’d rather share atheists’ arguments than their theology.
The Bible doesn’t necessarily say the earth is flat.
I can agree with that. Thing is, my original contention was not that the Bible says the earth is flat, it was that it doesn’t say the earth is round. What we know is that the prevailing view in the time the Bible was written was that the earth was flat, and we have no evidence from scripture that its authors thought otherwise, even though that belief was entirely wrong.
This raises the question of why the Holy Spirit would be so intent on conveying a painstakingly accurate history of the origins of the universe to a tribe of ancient nomads, but would somehow fail to clarify something as basic as the shape of the planet they live on.
It does use terms that seem to indicate the sun rises and sets, however.
It does a lot more than that, like its repeated references to the “corners,” “ends” and “edges” of the earth, all aspects of geometry that do not typically apply to spheres. There are also passages like Daniel 4:11 and Matthew 4:8, which discuss things being in view of all people at the same time (scenarios that wouldn’t be possible on a spherical earth).
Risner’s point is that these particular verses aren’t meant to be read literally, even when they appear in unequivocally historical contexts, and that’s fine. What’s fundamentally inconsistent about his hermeneutic is how easily he chalks these things up to metaphor, but refuses to concede that even more obvious literary devices (like the talking snake, magic trees and poetic, day-by-day structure of the creation accounts) just might be symbolic as well.
But don’t we, the uber smart people of the 21st century, do the same thing?
We talk like the earth is flat and like the sun comes up and goes down every day. So what? He’s using a bait and switch type argument here and it’s not very classy.
I’m sorry, Steve. I guess I didn’t realize how uber smart you were.
He goes on about the Bible not giving us the diameter of the universe (which, uh, we don’t know), black holes, and a bunch of other totally unrelated things.
As to the size of the observable universe, we have some pretty good estimates. The point was that the author of Genesis gives no hint of the cosmos containing anything other than what’s visible to the naked eye, and being no larger than the earth, the sun, moon and stars and the firmament to which they’re affixed, and yet Risner wants us all to believe he had information about the age of the universe that should take precedence over everything we’ve learned about God’s creation in the past 2,000 years.
The Bible doesn’t give us a recipe for rice crispy treats (unless, according to Tim Hawkins, you’re reading the Message Bible) or a good formula for high quality gasoline either.
All right! Eh! Steve! with the (five-year-old) Christian pop culture reference! But, regarding the gasoline, I think he needs to read The Message more closely:
However, this doesn’t do anything for Tyler’s argument.
Well, that would make sense, considering how my argument didn’t say anything about rice crispy treats or high-quality gasoline.
Why is he trying to associate whatever randomly pops into his head with the authority of Scripture?
This is an odd insult coming from Risner, since parents of ADHD kids look at him and feel blessed. He’ll never even make it to this point in this post, because the dozen or so links above have already taken him on rabbit trails far, far away from here.
I think Risner really is the worst anti-evolutionist blogger I’ve ever encountered, and I’m not just saying that because the guy doesn’t like me. He’s like the Kobe Bryant of anti-evolutionists; the team is better when he doesn’t play.
I think it’s because he’s trying to make it look like Biblical creationists are inconsistent
Yes, because it takes enormous amounts of trickery to make young-earth creationists appear inconsistent.
when, in fact, he is just nonsensical.
This coming from the guy whose most convincing point so far is that the “origins topic” is not a microwave.
He states the moon is not a light source—another atheist argument.
Just to reiterate, if I were Steve, I’d be more concerned about my theology and hermeneutic of Genesis being identical to those of atheists, rather than two groups who share a position (in this case, that young-earth creationism is wrong) having occasional overlapping similarities in some of their arguments.
To us, the moon does give light upon the Earth. The fact that it does so by reflection rather than emission is not relevant to the biblical passage.
It’s wonderful (for them) that YEC proponents think the Bible should be read literally except when they think it shouldn’t be, but the goal here is to arrive at a consistent means of interpreting scripture, which — ideally — does not require Steve Risner and his friends to be verse-by-verse arbiters.
The fact remains that the author of Genesis 1 called the sun the “greater” light, and the moon the “lesser” light, which would seem to imply he thought they were of identical substance and function, only one provided more light and one provided less. It would be like if you were out camping and told people your fire is a “greater light” and your belt buckle reflecting the fire is a “lesser light” as though they were basically the same thing.
By far, the most straightforward interpretation here is that the author thought the sun, moon and stars were all light-emitting sources. And that’s fine — you wouldn’t expect people living over 2,500 years ago to think otherwise. But it does cast doubt on the YEC claim that Genesis 1 is meant to be gleaned with an eye for scientifically relevant details.
And a study of the words used in the passage he’s talking about (Genesis 1:15) reveal the words used can mean to become light or to be lit up.
I hate to accuse a brother in Christ of lying…but I’m pretty sure Risner is lying. I can’t be certain, because he provides no sources for his claim. His only link goes to the NIV translation of Genesis 1:15, which is unhelpful.
What I do know is that the Hebrew word for “light” or “lights” used in reference to the heavenly bodies does not mean “to be lit up” in any of the 19 places it’s used in scripture. Almost all of the time, the word refers either to the sun, moon and/or stars, or to lamps, lanterns and candles (which are all “lights” — you know, unlike the moon).
Either way, it’s a terrible argument atheists use to discredit the Bible, and this is exactly what Tyler is doing.
The argument, which as I’ve shown, is valid, does not discredit the Bible. It discredits the ridiculous way Risner claims Christians should read the Bible.
I’m always a little uneasy about believers who join with atheists to fight against their fellow believers.
Sure you are, Steve. Oh, and for those of who keeping score at home, this is called an association fallacy.
In this case, he’s joining with atheists to not just bash a believer but to bash the Bible (his friend that he loves so much).
Man, I had no idea how much bashing I’ve been doing. I’m like a bashaholic.
But, seriously? Maybe Steve should work on his whole lying-about-the-Bible problem before he criticizes someone else for their interpretation of the Bible. You know, logs and splinters and all that.
Tyler gives several of these fallacious examples and then concludes “using the exact same argument” you can use the Bible to disprove anything.
That’s true: This was my conclusion. But don’t get too excited for Steve, since it was also the headline. I guess even he couldn’t have missed it.
The trouble is it’s not the exact same argument at all.
Yes it is.
We commonly see this type of argument from those who don’t believe the Bible.
Oh, for crying out loud. Come on, Steve, let’s give it a rest with the hey-look-he-said-something-similar-to-what-a-nonbeliever-said-one-time argument already. I swear, it’s like the guy just learned how to do picture matching in his pre-kindergarten class and is waaaay too excited about it.
It’s called equivocation. They love to do this with “evolution” and “science” as well as calling any sort of change in anything in biological “evolution” and then say this is the same as molecules to man evolution.
Steve, on behalf of my trade organization, Anti-YECS and Atheists Allied Against Risner’s Group of Haters (AAAARGH), we apologize for misleading you. Here’s the truth: Evolution is “change in the heritable traits of biological populations over successive generations.” Science is “the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.”
We’re sorry for telling you they were the same thing. Until today, we didn’t realize how good you were at telling when things are the same thing (like the sun and the moon) and when things are different things (like the universe’s origins and a microwave).
As far as the accusation of “calling any sort of change in anything in biological ‘evolution’ and then say this is the same as molecules to man evolution,” I’m afraid that sequence of words would have to vaguely resemble a coherent thought before I could craft an appropriate response. But this will probably do.
It’s a tactic of deceit.
He then states, “The problem is not in the interpretation of the science.” Sure it is.
As you know by now, Risner is not only the world’s greatest Bible commentator and foremost scholar of ancient Hebrew, he is also an expert on the scientific canon.
We have a Book that speaks fairly clearly on the subject.
Well, yeah, but you chuckleheads have no idea how to read it.
We have nature, often called a book, that we can also “read.”
Whoa. That’s deep, Steve.
One is clear and intended to give us direct communication. The other is not so clear and is often misunderstood. Tell me which one is more likely to be misinterpreted?
“Ooh! Ooh! I know this! The not-so-clear and often-misunderstood one! Right?!”
Seriously, though, this would be a great point, if, you know, any of it were true. But it’s not. The Bible is not that clear, which is why earnest, faithful and serious Christians have disagreed over its teachings for as long as we’ve had the Bible, and even before it was done being written.
That’s why we have about a million different churches, denominations and sects who all follow the exact same “Book.” Heck, the only time the church has ever sort of managed to stay unified is because lay people didn’t have access to the “Book”! When that happened, there was an immediate schism because everybody disagreed with how the Roman Catholic Church interpreted it.
As to his other point, YEC proponents often claim that the fact that scientists have to adjust their theories to accommodate new information shows the whole thing is bunk. That’s dumb. Being able to adapt to and incorporate new information is science’s greatest strength, and is, in many ways, the exact opposite of what young-earth creationism is about.
Ignoring new facts and findings in favor of your presuppositions does not make you smart or faithful or clever. It makes you bad at reality.
He tries to say Biblical creationists read the Bible like a science book.
I didn’t “try to say” that, Steve; I did say that. Come on, man. Try to keep up.
That’s not really true. It’s not a science book. It’s a love letter generated by the mind of God. But found within it, we can trust whatever it says about history, science, psychology, society, human nature, etc.
…unless it talks about the firmament or the moon being a light. On a side note, I gather that Steve Risner has written his wife some pretty strange love letters over the years.
It’s a pretty remarkable Book, indeed.
This is a pretty pointless sentence, indeed.
He further states that we “…read the Bible in a way that it simply was not meant to be read.” This, to me, seems to assume a lot. Apparently, God has told him how He wanted the Bible to be read and we’re doing it improperly, although the message is clear.
No, Steve, I don’t pretend to speak for God. That’s you guys, remember? You may think it’s slightly ironic that Risner takes issue with my suggesting someone else is misusing the Bible — since, you know, that’s all he does — but what you don’t understand is that he, like many YEC proponents, believes himself to have been endowed with the unique ability to understand the precise meaning of every passage in the Bible — without interpreting it at all.
Um, they’re wrong about that, by the way.
I’ll just leave that statement of his for you to ponder.
What? Are you sure you don’t want to, like, point out how atheists make assumptions about the Bible, too? I mean, it has been at least four or five sentences since you last implied I don’t really believe in God or trust in Jesus.
So Tyler begins to wrap up his blog post
If you think this means Risner’s blog is also about to wrap up, you’d be WRONG.
by saying the Biblical authors didn’t know this or that about science (I would argue we still don’t know much about any of the things he’s listed)
I didn’t say we do know a lot about the things I listed (you can click over to the OP to see what they were, since Risner’s just going to pretend like I was talking about microwaves the whole time), but we do know that they exist, unlike the authors of the Bible.
and then tells us exactly why his entire argument is bogus: why would they? The Holy Spirit must not have felt they needed to know these things.
This is really confusing. Risner says he agrees with my argument, and that means it’s bogus.
Actually, now that I think about it…that does kinda make sense.
However, He did feel we needed to know a very detailed account of the creation event.
Two of them, actually.
Why doubt Him?
I don’t doubt God, Steve. But I’ll admit: I don’t have a ton of confidence in you guys.
Why not “take God at His Word” as Tyler mocked?
Steve, you don’t have a clue what that means.
In an unexpected turn, Tyler then laughably states that science tells us “how” these things (biological origins of man and so forth) happened! Can you believe it? They never tell you “how” any of this stuff happened.
When pressed, they generally tell you “why” it happened.
They have no idea how any of it came about. It’s one of the greatest examples of the emperor having no clothes in the history of science.
Let’s take a quick break from Steve Risner and hear from Todd C. Wood, a non-crazy, non-liar young-earth creationist: Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.
I wonder what kind of reward Steve Risner thinks he will get in heaven for his interminable arrogance and telling blatant lies in Jesus’ name. I bet he’s expecting something big.
Anyway, let’s jump back into the insanity and finish this puppy.
“It doesn’t take a ‘highly respected world-class Hebrew scholar’ to tell you which one is a proper use of the text, and which one isn’t.” Well, actually, sometimes it does.
The immediate context of this quote is that I was contrasting two different ways to approach scripture: one, with an eye to the deeper meaning of the text, which results in “a beautiful revelation of God’s love, grace and power that is incredibly profound and imminently relevant,” and the other, with a rigidly literal mindset, which results in this.
In Steve Risner’s brain, you need a world-class scholar to tell you which one of those is the proper use of the text and which one isn’t.
Of course, he doesn’t really know what he’s saying. He’s already spent his entire post arguing against the need for expert opinions in anything. Steve Risner doesn’t need no stinking scientists to explain to him what the evidence they spend their careers working with means! He knows that emperor has no clothes.
And he also ain’t got no interest in any of your fruity “alternative interpretations” of Genesis. He knows what Genesis means! All he hasta do is read the darn thing!
How insanely arrogant is this guy? I mean, what’s next? Saying the church should throw away thousands of years of tradition and scholarship because of what a kid thinks about Genesis?
But in the case of Genesis 1-8, my 10-year-old can tell you what the text says and likely why.
Gorram it, Steve.
Do you find it odd that Tyler hangs on the authority of scientists who clearly disagree with the Bible but when the authority of a scholar whose specialty is Hebrew is sought after for a clearer Biblical understanding, he’s opposed?
If you read my piece, and you — unlike Steve — are not determined to deliberately misunderstand it, then you’ll notice I did not disagree with the scholar’s opinion at all. I disagreed with the conclusions Ken Ham drew from it.
Why use a scientist to clarify the Bible for you when you can use a Hebrew scholar?
“Why use a Q-tip to clean your ears when a power drill works just as well?” Is also something Steve likes to ask, usually in the form of screaming at pigeons in the park.
Why accept what a scientist says first and then distort the Bible to fit that incorrect assessment of the data?
Why change your opinion of anything just because facts say you’re wrong?
The beauty we find in the creation account is that it tells us how God, in His majesty, created the universe and everything in it.
Actually, it doesn’t. The creation accounts — even if you read them literally — do not tell us “how” God created “the universe and everything in it.” Again, they don’t even mention most of the things that exist in the universe, from asteroids and other planets to tiny, microbial life forms.
But even for the things Genesis 1 does explicitly reference, the text doesn’t tell us “how” it was made. See for yourself: “Then God said, ‘Let there be light’; and there was light.” (Genesis 1:3)
Everything in the chapter is like that. God simply orders something to appear, and it does. The text says absolutely nothing about the mechanism of “how” all these things are made; it just says that they are.
Genesis 2 is no more specific, even in probably the most detailed sequence of either creation account: Genesis 2:7. Here, we’re told who did it (God) and the materials he used (the dust of the ground), but in terms of specifics, we get one verb: “formed.”
To me, this is no different than the beautiful poetic expressions elsewhere in scripture, of God “forming” and “knitting” us together in the womb — expressions that we know aren’t literal but nonetheless believe to be true.
But to Steve, these verses are somehow detailed how-to guides. I shudder to think of what his children look like.
But it also tells us why He did it.
Now that, Steve actually has right.
It tells of His indescribable glory, grace, love, and brilliance.
None of which is dependent upon reading the text literally.
Tyler thinks God’s love is demonstrated in Darwinian evolution.
I didn’t say that. This is how God demonstrated his love for us.
This is one of the most absurd things I’ve ever encountered.
Well, that’s strange, considering that you made it up, Steve. Was that the first time you had ever used your imagination?
God’s love is found in the creation of man and in the redemption of man.
Those two events are the single greatest demonstrations of love in the history of the universe (about 6000 years or so).
Love the parenthetical, Steve. (Just in case you were confused about how old this guy thinks the universe is.)
In short, don’t ever believe for a second that science and Christianity are at odds.
“And while we’re on the subject, hey — don’t ever believe for a second anything other than what I tell you to believe. Do you hear me?! Anything.”
They never have been and never will be. In fact, science has progressed as it has because of creationists, not in spite of them. There’s no way around this for the skeptic.
This is an incredible statement, considering how a significant portion of the scientific progress made over the past few millennia is fundamentally incompatible with the idea that the earth and the universe are only that old, and the rest of science is completely unrelated to it.
I would love to hear Steve explain, for example, how the invention of the Crookes tube, the development of the first polio vaccine and the discovery of the Higgs boson were all entirely dependent on the work of young-earth creationists.
This forum is meant to foster discussion and allow for differing viewpoints to be explored with equal and respectful consideration.
The fact that the Worldview Warriors post new articles daily but average about one comment every two weeks (and most of them are from one of the “Warriors”) suggests they are as good at “fostering discussion” as they are at fairly presenting the views of Christian theistic evolutionists.
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.
They would have to actually get comments for any of this disclaimer to matter.