Spirituality & Religion
Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join Similar Worlds today »

Right or Wrong in the Creation/Evolution Debate

There is a mindset within mainstream Evangelicalism that it doesn’t matter who is right, so long as everyone treats everyone well and that we all agree on essentials. In fact, some people go so far as to argue that when person X and person Y hold contradictory positions on an issue, both positions must be accepted as orthodox, unless they are “essential” issues. This mindset has even crept into the creationist camp, with one recent book arguing that we should “play for a draw” with the old earth compromisers.1 While this would be the easier path for Christians, Jesus does not call his followers to an easy path.
In the creation/evolution debate, only one group can be right. The literal Bible and evolution are fundamentally incompatible, no matter what compromised groups such as BioLogos attempt to argue. It therefore logically follows that if only one answer is right, the others are wrong. Yet Wheaton professor and BioLogos contributor John Walton fails to acknowledge this principle. Regarding a colleague who disagreed, Walton wrote, "Rather than suggest that my colleague was wrong, I would assert that while both positions were logical and sought to be faithful to Scripture, I considered my view to offer a preferable interpretation that enjoyed the support of a preponderance of the evidence. In my mind that did not make his view wrong, only less probable. Consequently, I would not suggest that someone holding his view should be considered unfaithful to the Word, heretical in their conclusions, or un-Christian, and thus excluded from the fellowship of the church. Yet those are exactly the sorts of things that people holding a view like his (though not he himself) would say about me and others who hold views similar to mine. I do not attack them as wrong; yet they don’t hesitate to label me that way. There is a difference between being wrong and holding mutually exclusive possible interpretations."
Dr. Walton gives a lot away in this section of the paper. He paints himself and his view as being unfairly labeled wrong. And there is a kernel of truth here. Sometimes there can be multiple ways to understand passages that are orthodox. Eschatology is such an example: there are multiple ways of understanding the same eschatological passages, comparing Scripture with Scripture. However, Genesis is different. Walton is drawing a false equivalence because the origins question is never settled among the compromisers by an appeal to the text. Instead, it is almost invariably settled by appealing to something outside the text, usually either science or ancient near eastern literature. Scripture is thus subjected, and we might add subjugated, to outside sources. It is hardly surprising to see Walton doing this. His Lost World series of books consistently subjects Genesis (and other Old Testament books) to the literature of the ancient near east.3 However, the important thing to note in his argument is his statements about right and wrong. He believes that there is no “right” answer to the origins question, only the most probable one. In other words, the Bible is insufficient to address the origins question. We must instead make decisions on origins based on “preponderance of the evidence.”
Unfortunately, Walton is just wrong Scripturally. Second Peter 1:20 tells us that there is only one correct interpretation of Scripture in context. Some issues can be viewed differently when comparing Scripture with Scripture, but since Walton does not build his case on Scripture, he cannot argue the origins issue is one of these issues. There is a right answer to origins. Since that is the case, it behooves us to determine what it is and then defend it.
Walton does recognize at the end of his article that there are absolute rights and wrongs but then undercuts the claim: “Ultimately, it is true that one view is right and others are wrong, but such absolute vision is not always available.”8 What Walton does not say, or perhaps is unwilling to accept, is that we do have absolute vision on the origins question. The Bible tells us specifically what God did, how he did it, and how long it took—and it is incompatible with any other interpretation out there that invokes an old earth and death before sin. So incompatible, in fact, that it undermines the central theme of Scripture and Christianity itself: the gospel message of Adam’s sin causing death, separation from God, and a groaning creation, all of which only the second Adam can fix. These questions are not up for debate unless you are willing to undermine biblical authority—and ultimately the gospel. The origins question has a right answer, and the Bible tells us exactly what that answer is. God created everything in six literal twenty-four hour days and rested the seventh day roughly six thousand years ago.

Answers in Genesis.
Oldest First | Newest First | Top
There are stars that are more than 7 thousand light years away. If the Earth is only 6000 years old how would we see the light from them? Unless we're going down the path that stars aren't real and the Earth is flat then yeah there's no way to reconcile that.
[@733370,GodSpeed63] You claimed several things that you refuse to back up. Here's a list of unsupported claims you've made:

1. That there is a god.
2. That said god created the universe.
3. That said god is the god of Christianity, and that the other thousands of gods are lying, assuming they exist.
4. That the earth is only six thousand years old.
Sharon · F
[@764286,Bushranger] [quote]He's got nothing [/quote]
He has a few silly insults for those who fail to believe everything he claims.
Sharon · F
[@764286,Bushranger] [quote]See, he used it again.[/quote]
Right on cue. He's so predictable.
DocSavage · 18-21, M
The world currently runs on fossil fuels. Which would take a lot more than 6,000 years to form. Creation is not just an insult to human intelligence, it is a denial of reality. Which will ultimately destroy the religion it try’s to defend. The debate is not between evolution and creationism. It between truth and willful ignorance trying to pass itself off as faith. Truth will win out in the end, because you can’t hide from reality forever.
lol Christians have a martyr complex even among other Christians.😂
I love how this guy complains about Walton applying actual historical, anthropological scholarship to the bible as some kind of crime and his acknowledgement of contradictory science as naïve.

Is it any wonder that young earth creationism is a fading fringe belief even amongst Christians...
I love how [@733370,GodSpeed63] insults people when outwitted.
Bushranger · 61-69, M
[@1201381,LordShadowfireTheSarcastic] It's his default response.
Sharon · F
[@1201381,LordShadowfireTheSarcastic] That's all he has to support his arguments. Other christians here use the same debating technique, it must be part of their training.
I think evangelicals have bigger problems with QAnon creeping in than not being able to be an a**hat to people that disagree with them on science matters.

Evangelicals and qhristians are possessed of evil and worship evil. That is why they are racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, Islamophobic, pedos, greedy, idol worshipers, anti-science, anti-vaxxers, anti-maskers, pro-diease, pro-death penalty yet "pro-birth", tell people they are going to hell, try to put curses on people, abuse the vunerable and sick, steal, hypocrites, think they are magical, want to live in a civilization but don't want to contribute anything to it, want to overthrow the government and reinstate old testament law, are pro-slavery, are pro-israel only because they need it for their Apocalypse, are white supremacists, etc...

Even their own God, the Bible says you with know a tree by the fruit it bears. And to look after the beam in your own eye first. And he who is perfect cast the first stone.

Get your own house in line first and produce something of tangible substance to progress society instead of trying to drag it backward. THEN maybe people would be receptive to a conversation.

Otherwise evangelicals and qhristians are the same as the Pharisees and Sadducees.
Tsondru · M
At least you are honest in your view that anyone who doesn't believe in a young earth is incapable of being a Christian.
Tsondru · M
[@733370,GodSpeed63] That is exactly the implication of your OP and your other posts on young earth creationism.
GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M
[@925332,Tsondru] [quote]That is exactly the implication of your OP and your other posts on young earth creationism.[/quote]

Your reasoning is twisted, that is not the message that video is sending out.
Tsondru · M
[@733370,GodSpeed63] That is exactly the message [i]you[/i] are broadcasting load and clear with all of these “young earth creationism” posts.

You are basically saying justification by faith [i]alone[/i] is not sufficient. It must include a specific scientific perspective.
"If the history-deniers who doubt the fact of evolution are ignorant of biology, those who think the world began less than ten thousand years ago are worse than ignorant, they are deluded to the point of perversity. They are denying not only the facts of biology but those of physics, geology, cosmology, archaeology, history and chemistry as well.”
― Richard Dawkins, The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution
GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M
[@1200996,BlueSkyKing] [quote]He’s a biologist. Are you saying that isn’t a true science?[/quote]

No, I'm saying that Dawkins may know something about biology but he doesn't understand it.
[quote] No, I'm saying that Dawkins may know something about biology but he doesn't understand it.[/quote]
An irrational statement. Know anyone that’s a married bachelor?
GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M
[@1200996,BlueSkyKing] [quote]An irrational statement. Know anyone that’s a married bachelor?[/quote]

Yes. Do you?
I absolutely agree that a literal reading of Genesis is completely incompatible with reality.
newjaninev2 · 51-55, F
There is no ‘evolution/creationism debate’

What pretentious nonsense!

Evolution is a robust, widely-accepted, scientific Theory developed from demonstrable evidence.

Creationism is faery tales based on no evidence whatsoever.

There is no debate, because creationism brings [b]nothing[/b] to the table
Sharon · F
[@46009,newjaninev2] A bot or a troll. His/Its comments display about the same level of intelligence as a bot.
Bushranger · 61-69, M
[@379861,Sharon] You may be giving too much credit here. I mean, bots have a reasonable level of intelligence.
Sharon · F
[@764286,Bushranger] You could be right.
spjennifer · 56-60, T
🥱 Zzzzzzzzzzzzz...

 
Post Comment  
 
12414 people following
Spirituality & Religion
Personal Stories, Advice, and Support
New Post
Group Members