Positive
Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

Right or Wrong in the Creation/Evolution Debate [Spirituality & Religion]

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.
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
spjennifer · 56-60, T
🥱 Zzzzzzzzzzzzz...
GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M
@spjennifer [quote]Zzzzzzzzzzzzz...[/quote]

Something tells me you did a lot of that in school which explains a lot of your posts.
spjennifer · 56-60, T
@GodSpeed63 You really should go back to reading your BuyBull because you certainly aren't following the tenets laid out in it, Leviticus 19:18 might ring a bell?
GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M
@spjennifer [quote]You really should go back to reading your BuyBull because you certainly aren't following the tenets laid out in it, Leviticus 19:18 might ring a bell?[/quote]

I don't have a buybull, but I'll look that verse up in the Word of God.
spjennifer · 56-60, T
@GodSpeed63

[quote]I don't have a buybull, but I'll look that verse up in the Word of God.[/quote]

Interesting that a Godbot like you doesn't know his BuyBull front to back, word for word or are you trying to read it upside down?
LordShadowfire · 46-50, M
@spjennifer I know for a fact he skipped the part about loving your neighbor.
spjennifer · 56-60, T
@LordShadowfire Precisely my point, they are not willing to listen to any reasonable questions yet they do seem capable of reading, somewhat, they should read their holy book some more!