Thoughts in the Dark

Trying to Bring Ideas into the Light

Tag: evolution

AiG Responds to Peter Enns

Which means that I owe an apology to the staff at Answers in Genesis for a comment that I made in a previous post. I said the following:

“I would not be surprised, unfortunately, if Ken Ham and the rest of the guys at Answers in Genesis ignore this criticism and refuse to engage with any ideas outside of their own minority view.”

And I was wrong. As Mark Looy, staff member at AiG, informed me, a response was written and posted to Enns’ blog post. In the spirit of full disclosure, I read AiG’s response, and I disagree with both their premises and their conclusions. I will also leave it up to you, the reader, as to whether this is a “critical engagement” or not (giving a response the title, “Mutilating God’s Word,” doesn’t quite ring of responsible, critical engagement).

What they did do, however, is respond, and that means that I was wrong. I made an unfair comment, and for that I am sorry. I wonder if Dr. Peter Enns will respond in turn?


Great Example of Critical Engagement

Shortly after I posted this morning about Fundamentals and Liberals and their lack of engagement with each other (or anyone), Peter Enns posted a great blog entry wherein he critically engaged some of Answers In Genesis’ fundamentalist propaganda.

Enns (if I were a fan of labels, I’d plop him down somewhere on the conservative side of moderate) does a great job of critically engaging the arguments put forth on a a poster available for sale on Answers in Genesis. The poster represents basic fundamentalist tactics to avoid biblical arguments and instead, as Enns puts it, tells “us how Ham reads Genesis having already assumed the point that has to be argued.” Enns moves through the first major points of the poster to show his audience how these arguments do not hold water and engages them without being belittling or rude. I would not be surprised, unfortunately, if Ken Ham and the rest of the guys at Answers in Genesis ignore this criticism and refuse to engage with any ideas outside of their own minority view.

More on the Origin Debate

I know this is a topic that I’ve covered many times, but it just appears to be a very popular subject right now. Christianity Today has published another article recently about the origins of humankind and the literal readings of Genesis. I recently finished reading and reviewing Peter Enns’ “The Evolution of Adam: What the Bible Does and Doesn’t Say about Human Origins” for Reviews in Religion and Theology (I think that it will be published in their first issue of 2013).

I want to know this – if Adam doesn’t exist, what do we lose? Enns discusses the Adam found in Genesis versus the Adam found in Paul’s writings, and it is pretty clear that Paul is using extra-biblical sources to create his understanding of Adam. In addition, the inclusion of Adam in Paul’s writings does not affect his main argument; getting rid of Adam does not get rid of original sin. Original sin is an obvious part of the world around us, and Paul’s argument concerns God’s answer to the problem of original sin (Jesus!), and whether or not sin originated in Adam does not change that fact.

So, what is lost if Adam didn’t exist? Is it simply that people don’t want to admit that Paul was a fallible human being, like everyone else?

Let’s discuss this! What do you think? 

Evolution, Intelligent Design, Creationism, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, and Obama

I found a very interesting and informative piece on the evolution debates going on in various state legislatures as well as among the GOP candidates.

This place in to a bit of what we’ve talked about here on this blog lately, namely the historicity of the Genesis story.

I would ask that you all would read this piece about the evolution debates and come back there. There are many of you who disagree with me on the historicity of Genesis. I do not take science into account in my reasoning about Genesis, but many other people do, arguing that evolution disproves the Genesis narrative.

After you read this article and come back, I want you to post your response in comments; do you agree with the legislation that is attempting to get intelligent design taught next to evolution in public schools? How about those states that are attempting to get the extremely non-scientific creationism taught in schools? What do you think?