t f p g+ YouTube icon

A Response to Mr. Ham’s Video: “The Anti-biblical Teachings of BioLogos”

Bookmark and Share

September 27, 2011 Tags: Christian Unity
A Response to Mr. Ham’s Video: “The Anti-biblical Teachings of BioLogos”

Today's entry was written by Darrel Falk. You can read more about what we believe here.

Answers in Genesis has posted a 21 minute video of a live talk given by Ken Ham called “Anti-biblical Teachings of BioLogos.” The approach Mr. Ham has taken is quite interesting. He shows clips from about 10 videos featuring BioLogos leaders and supporters, most about 15 to 20 seconds long. After each one, Mr. Ham makes a particular point about how he thinks the BioLogos view leads to the erosion of biblical authority or some related topic.

We have been tempted not to respond to this video. The people in his huge audience— those who are laughing at his remarks and applauding his words—are not going to be swayed into changing their opinion by anything we would say. There are millions in that audience and for them the choice is simple: what is most trustworthy—God’s written Word or as Mr. Ham terms it, “man’s historical science?” Mr. Ham is adept at speaking to the heart of their concerns. He also knows exactly which 15-second clips to use from the vast collection of BioLogos videos to make a strong rhetorical point.

As most of Ken Ham’s followers have already made up their minds—and are not following our blog anyway—we do not write to defend ourselves or even point out how he may have misled them. He has likely made errors in judgment, but we are aware that we have made errors too. There are many people, however, who may see Mr. Ham’s video and suspect that they are not hearing the whole story. They may be sympathetic to Mr. Ham’s message, but they may genuinely want to learn more. Just what are these BioLogos people really saying, they may ask? With that group of people in mind, here is one thing we can do. We can provide the links (we also offer a PDF version to view alongside the video) to those videos that have been commissioned by us or which represent the BioLogos view, so that people can see for themselves the full context of the message we are trying to convey.

I watched Mr. Ham’s video the day after I wrote my blog about the discovery and sequencing of the genome of a second non-human hominid species (Neanderthals are the first) that co-inhabited the planet with modern humans 30,000 years ago. That blog and the reading I had done in preparation for it were fresh on my mind as I watched Mr. Ham stir up fear in the hearts of people. As I’ve written before, I love the people in Mr. Ham’s audiences, and I love being with them. In so many ways, they have their fingers on the pulse of God. They are careful thinkers and they are dedicated followers of Jesus. Above all, they want to protect their children and grandchildren, the persons they love most in life; they want to be sure there is a safety net in place as those children grow up and venture out on their own.

Just think of it, however. We have the instruction books on how to build two different non-human beings, Neanderthals and Denisovans, whose lineage separated from our own 800,000 years ago! Geneticists are already examining them gene-by-gene. It’s not just transitional fossils anymore. We have the genomes! Once civilization has those (the genome sequences), it is not beyond the realm of possibility (heaven forbid) that in coming decades someone somewhere would put these instructions into a human egg, then after implanting into a surrogate mother, bring these beings to life again.

So many of my Christian brothers and sisters keep saying that they know God didn’t create through a gradual process because there are no transitional species. This is not true. Hardly a month goes by when there is not some fossil specimen discovered which fills in one more gap (see here for a recent example discussed on our site). The gaps get smaller and smaller. But now, not only do we have the bones of ancient species, we have the DNA too—in this case, of our closest cousins1 who also arose through this evolutionary process by which God has chosen to create us.

Scientific knowledge is accumulating at lightning speed and we are in need of Christians who understand it and put it into the light of Christian ethics, morality, and a clearly articulated view of the God who loves us and cares for us more than we can imagine. This is the community we are trying to build here at BioLogos. Unfortunately, instead of being the much-needed salt and light in the scientific world and broader culture, too many Christians have removed themselves from the discussion. Too many have hunkered down, hiding their wonderful light under a bushel, when our culture needs them to help put the rapidly accumulating information into a Christ-centered context.

If you choose to watch the linked videos, you’ll probably do so in an individual context—by yourself. However, we also encourage you to view them with friends in discussion groups in your homes and churches. Be careful though. Discussion is healthy, but argument seldom is. Romans 14 reminds us of the importance of respecting those who think differently, and our highest priority is to patiently let each person work through the issues in a manner that is best for them. We mustn’t be the cause of others stumbling. (The Joel Hunter video in the associated set of links does a great job of emphasizing this.) Still, we are a community of loving believers and discussion, well-grounded in a deep sense of care for each other and for the Church, is wholesome and thoroughly biblical.

And, given all that is being discovered in science today, it is also much needed.

1. Neanderthals and Denisovans are not direct ancestors of humans. As cousins, we all, through God’s process, stem from a common ancestral species that existed about 800,000 years ago.

Darrel Falk is former president of BioLogos and currently serves as BioLogos' Senior Advisor for Dialog. He is Professor of Biology, Emeritus at Point Loma Nazarene University and serves as Senior Fellow at The Colossian Forum. Falk is the author of Coming to Peace with Science.

View the archived discussion of this post

This article is now closed for new comments. The archived comments are shown below.

Page 1 of 1   1
Dancing From Genesis - #65107

September 27th 2011

In calling your supposed missing links genus homo, you’re admitting they are of the human syngameon, the human kind, within which have been some variations of course by natural selection because of environmental considerations, yet humans all, as you are admitting that they are of the genus homo.

Species is actually a meaningless term, and so, the achilles heal of the old earthers’ darwinian paradigm, still embraced ‘though by some in christendom, intimidated by their bibliophobic peers in the sciences, and by some others, who perhaps are wolves in sheeps clothing.

Jimpithecus - #65111

September 27th 2011

“Species” is not a meaningless term.  It has a long and illustrious history.  There are reproductive barriers between species.  House cats cannot mate with lynxes or bobcats.  We cannot mate with Chimpanzees.

Dancing From Genesis - #65130

September 28th 2011

So-called species of a genus (by definition) are always interfertile, and some up to even the family level, so there need have been only about 20,000 syngameons of animals on Noah’s Ark, the millions of “species” naturally selected thereafter all within those syngameons.  

Is there much literature about syngameons and hybridization potentials in the literature which you read, no?  I wonder why?

Ashe - #65112

September 27th 2011

What I find amusing is that the speech could’ve been given by Jerry Coyne, it would’ve been essentially the same. 

Advocate - #65117

September 27th 2011

Jerry Coyne is a self-proclaimed atheist and thus, would NOT be giving a response as Dr. Falk has given, particular the exhortation for Christians to be salt and light in the scientific community.

Ashe - #65118

September 27th 2011

I wasn’t talking about Falk, I was talking about Ken Ham. His speech is here by the way:

Papalinton - #65128

September 28th 2011


I watched the video.
This was one export from Australia that seems to have worked.  There are many more opportunities and bucket-loads more gullible sheeple in the US that Ham is able to fleece with impunity.  He would have had a snowflake’s chance in hell of spinning this sort of nonsense in Australia.  Hardly anyone would have bought it here.

As they say, and as Ham practices it, ‘never give a sucker an even break’.  And that auditorium was packed to the rafters with suckers.
Dancing From Genesis - #65129

September 28th 2011

Ham has his problems for sure, such as professional jealousy, for if he would incorporate the material which I have compiled, even the stodgy Aussies would come around, yet coming around they are in fact doing, I get many visits to my websites from Aussie land, so if Ham would get over his jealousy, he would have a whole new arsenal of convincing evidence.

Syngameons anyone (species is a meaningless term)?  Submerged bronze age ruins (since end of ice age) ever discussed here or with Ham?  What caused the ice age (geothermally heated ocean), what do you think?  Why is the Great Pyramid aligned exactly to true north (accurate time measure required)?  

Hello Ken, get over it please.    

freetoken1 - #65133

September 28th 2011

Um… this isn’t an archeology site, nor a climatology site.

BTW, the last glaciation ended well before the “bronze age” as that last term is usually used.
Dancing From Genesis - #65134

September 28th 2011

Then explain the ruins of Heraklion and Menouthis, and Kususthali, and the ruins off Yonaguni, off Mahabalipuram, many off Greece (such as off Psathoura and Pavlopetri), and what of Plato’s statement that much of ancient Greece, with its buildings, were consumed by the sea (actually the flood of Ogyges)?

Dancing From Genesis - #65227

September 29th 2011

Can any of you theistic darwinian evolutionists explain the submerged megalithic ruins found in hundreds of locations around the world?  How do you rationalize that the ice age ended supposedly circa 10000 b.c (your timeline), yet such megalithic building did not begin ‘til circa 2500 b.c.?

That’s over 7,000 years of missing megalithic building history which you need to rationalize, any takers?

Dancing From Genesis - #65135

September 28th 2011

If this is not a site about archaeology and climatology, then you eschew many evidences and influences on the progression of mankind.  Isn’t that called shuttering yourself, intellectual dishonesty? 

Larry Barber - #65144

September 28th 2011

You don’t need any kind of time measurement to determine true north, all you need is some string and sticks. From a fixed location, mark the place where a star appears over the horizon in the evening and again where it disappears in the morning. Bisect the resulting angle. If you desire more accuracy construct an artificial horizon (requires more string and the use of a plumb bob). 

Why is it I suspect your other “facts” are similarly screwy?

Argon - #65145

September 28th 2011

“Then explain the ruins of…”

The end of a glaciation doesn’t mean that sea levels won’t continue to rise. There’s still slow, tectonic response plus continued melting and draining from terrestrial reserves. And changes in sea currents that affect polar ice levels.

Most ruins are above an 8m depth. Those depths seem to correspond with separately determined levels of the seas for those periods.
Argon - #65147

September 28th 2011

Two minutes with Google:


No precise timepiece required, just geometry.
Dancing From Genesis - #65228

September 29th 2011

Hahahaha, then why was “the first man to measure the earth,” Eratosthenes, only able to achieve precision of 5% measuring the earth, while the Great Pyramid of Giza is aligned to true north with precision of 0.5%, please try to enlighten us Larry. 

Argon - #65239

September 29th 2011

True north is easier. Given that the Earth is approximately an oblate spheroid, measuring the radii from the center to the surface or a circumference is a different proposition. Eratosthenes also relied on long distance measurements (approximately the N/S borders of the Egyptian empire?).

BTW - 0.5% is 1.8 deg. That corresponds to a chord of 3 cm per meter of radius. Giza’s base is about 230m along an edge. So being off by 1.8 deg results in an error of about 7m. Contrast this to the construction of the pyramid with its corners squared to a mean of less than 0.004 deg. That’s an error of less than 1cm over a base of 230m.

So, discuss why Egyptian survey methods couldn’t measure the angles between the maximum travel of circumpolar stars or the lengths of shadows from a plum line, or the rise and set locations of the sun  & starts relative to a horizon set by a pool of still water, and then simply bisect the angles to determine North? Why assume Egyptians used the most challenging method and likely unavailable technology (at the time) when simpler techniques in which they were well-versed would have sufficed (surveying and—they didn’t even need to quantify an angle, just bisect it)?
Dancing From Genesis - #65241

September 29th 2011

The base perimeter length of the Great Pyramid is 1/7,200th (within 0.5%) of the radius length of earth, your proposed method is not capable of anything close to that, and since the Dixon Relicts discovered in the Great Pyramid were pieces of a device such as the Celtic Cross, Maui’s Tanawa, and the Mayan Staff of Power, the method of measuring the earth to such accuracy by its wobble rate was lost, now refound.

The base six (hexagon) hindu yugas of time are rooted in this ancient methodology, and the numbers of astrology, also the mayan tuns, baktuns, and katuns of time, all of the base six numbers of precession measures, not to mention the babylonian base six number system, all which you must now try to explain away, good luck.

Argon - #65247

September 29th 2011

I thought we were discussing the ability of the Egyptians to align the pyramid within 0.5% of true north. In what way would their basic surveying capabilities not suffice? They could survey and lay the corners of a square 230.4M on a side within about 0.001%. (~0.004 deg). That’s almost 500x greater than what you say is the alignment to True North. BTW - Where did you get the 0.5% figure?

We can discuss your claim about the figure—pyramid base perimeter x 7200—being within 0.5% the radius of the Earth afterward.
Dancing From Genesis - #65249

September 29th 2011

That the Great Pyramid’s base perimeter length is within 0.5% of the earth’s radius is a fact, measured by the same method used for the ancient source maps for the medieval maps discussed in Charles Hapgood’s book Maps of Ancient Sea Kings, the accuracy and scope of those maps a mystery to him, and to you no doubt until now if you understand how they did it, by the wobble rate of the earth’s axis, 72 years/ degree, the origin of the babylonian number system too.

Argon - #65262

September 29th 2011

Again, we can discuss your claim about the figure—pyramid base perimeter x 7200—being within 0.5% the radius of the Earth afterward.

For now, let’s keep discussion focused on the ability of the Egyptians to align the pyramid within 0.5% of true north. In what way would their basic surveying capabilities not suffice?
Dancing From Genesis - #65251

September 29th 2011

This ancient mapping method which I have rediscovered, according to the rate of the precession of the earth’s axis, is a great proof of the “fine-tuning” of the universe by the benevolent creator God, so I’d think you’d try to understand it and then use it as another proof of God’s intelligent design.

But then again, considering Hapgood’s book Maps of the Ancient Sea Kings, proving that there were sophisticated navigators sailing to Antarctica even early in the ice age, I can see why you might gag on the notion, you being a theistic darwinian evolutionist. 

Argon - #65309

October 1st 2011

Well, the conversation was cut short but I wondered about the claim that the perimeter of the Giza pyramid multiplied by 7200 was within 0.5% or the Earth’s radius.

In Wikipedia the base sides of the Great Pyramid of Giza (aka Pyramid of Kufu) are listed as 230.4m in length which would yield a perimeter of 921.6m (Wikipedia page: Great Pyamid of Giza). Another reference (http://www.repertorium.net/rostau/measures.html) yields a figure of 921.25m for the perimeter. Multiple these figures by 7200 and you get 6635.52km and 6633.00km, respectively.

The Earth is not a perfect sphere and its radius covers a range of 6353km to 6384km. The mean radius is 6371km (Wikipedia page: Earth radius).

The figures for pyramid perimeter x 7200 are 4% greater than the figures for the radius of the Earth.

The second pyramid reference has a figure for the current length of a side (227.29m). That multiplied by 7200 is 6545.95km. Closer, but still about 2.7% greater that the Earth’s radii.

Or, to work this from the other direction, for the 7200 multiplier to work out, each base of the pyramid would have to be 222.2m in length or about 8.2m shorter.

Basically, 0.5% <> 4%.
crawfish - #65120

September 27th 2011

Honestly, you’ve doubled his credibility by just mentioning his name here.

Ronnie - #65151

September 28th 2011

Mr. Ham is right. All the clips he showed had one common theme…the evolutionary scenario must take precedence over Gods Word. Man knows more than God. He is right to warn his audience of the dangers of this compromise.

In the clip of Francis Collins, regarding the “book of Gods works”, does he say nature can be worshipped? Here is a transcript of what he said in the video:

”...the other book God gave us, the book of Gods works, nature, which science allows us to uncover, is also an opportunity to learn about the nature of God, to worship if you will, what God has given us and to get a glimpse of Gods mind when you discover something new about the universe…”

I’m sure it was a slip of the tongue or a poor choice of words but it gives the impression that nature can be on a level equal to Gods Word (2 books…Gods Word & Gods works). Romans 1:20 does say we can see Gods invisible qualities and divine nature in the things that are made, but when nature is taken as superior to Gods Word then it becomes something akin to nature worship (Romans 1:25).

JonPS - #65154

September 28th 2011

Failure to see the point:
The real issue is that this isn’t science vs God’s word. It’s science vs. our misinterpretation of  scripture.
If we’re looking at the writing in scripture at face value, we are both missing what is truly important behind the words and also doing ourselves a disservice by forcing ourselves to believe something that wasn’t meant to be taken that way.

There are Psalms that speak of the earth being held up by pillars or being unmovable in space with the sun going around it. And yet we can read that as poetry and no christian in their right mind today would condemn another christian for not believing that the Earth is the center of the universe.

To say more, your idea of idolatry to nature can be turned against you. Many christians are guilty of idolotry to the Bible. The Bible is not God. Nor is is the only way God speaks to us. We tend to use our it to make God tiny and easy to understand, instead of truly taking in the incalculable wonder that God really is and how much we can learn of His love and ourselves within the plethora of other channels through which God speaks to us and makes Himself known to us.

I set myself to seek real truth. To seek the real God. I am not afraid of truth that conflicts with my original preconceptions. God is grander than all that. We could loose every last copy of the Bible tomorrow and God’s splendor would shine no less nor would we be at a loss to understand Him and His good will for us.

Dancing From Genesis - #65157

September 28th 2011

JohnPS, where do you think accurate history begins to be reported in the Bible? 

JonPS - #65164

September 28th 2011

Wrong person to be asking. That’s not my area of expertise. But then, is that question really that important to begin with? I do not need to know the answer to it to be able live right with God as a person or as a christian.

Back at you:

Why are we singling out the Bible as the only reference guide? So many books that could have been part of it didn’t become part of it. Originally only the Gospel of Mark was accepted. So then, when Christians never seemed to really agree with each other back then on the subject matter, without science calling anything into question, what makes us think we’ll agree now?

There is more I have to say, but I’ll save it for another time. Peace.

Dancing From Genesis - #65166

September 28th 2011

What other books would you wish to add after the book of Revelation, now the end of the Bible, the Origin of Species perhaps?

Dancing From Genesis - #65159

September 28th 2011

Since you say the Bible (the Word) is not God, then why does the Bible say that the Word (Jesus) became flesh and dwelt amoung us?

Those  preconceptions of which you speak were having to do with young earth creationism, right?  So how does a kid get rid of those preconceptions too after having read what’s clearly reported in Genesis?  According to you, by listening to the darwinists (that goo morphed into you) to not believe what is written in the earlier portions of the Word, so now then where do you believe real history begins to be reported in the Bible, what do you say to the kiddies?

JonPS - #65196

September 28th 2011

By the snark of those words, I can see there’s no getting an honest discussion going with you.

The concept of having both faith


science is lost on you.
Also, it seems the concept of showing compassion, love, and understanding to a fellow believer and human being also is.

Thank you for being the example of everything I believe to be wrong with the church today.
Thank you for not listening or bothering to try to understand.
Thank you for condemning me in a way Christ never would have.
Thank you for being that cause that is driving away christians like myself, whom God blessed with an intelligent mind, away from the church.
And thank you for pushing more people away   Christ than you ever will draw to.

If nothing else gets your attention, let that be it.

Unless I see a change of tone to one worthy of someone who calls himself a follower of a Jesus, I won’t waste any more words on you. God have mercy for those around you.
Take care, brother.

Dancing From Genesis - #65198

September 28th 2011

If you are actually born again, then it’s impossible for you to leave the church (the body of Christ).

beaglelady - #65202

September 28th 2011


“Dancing” has issues. Lots of them.  He believes in Atlantis, for one thing.

Norman - #65212

September 28th 2011

Beagle Lady, you are cracking me up.

Note to self: never enter dialogue with Beagle Lady concerning “Atlantis” fantasies.

beaglelady - #65213

September 28th 2011

Run and find some dry pants!

Dancing From Genesis - #65221

September 29th 2011

Haha, so the Atlantic ocean and the Atlas mountains were named by the egyptian priests of Sais circa 600 b.c.?

G8torBrent - #65240

September 29th 2011

Seriously, are you a troll? That would explain a lot.

I wonder if you’ve ever studied the Scripture to see what the text itself is referring to when it uses the term or phrase “word of God,” or “word of the LORD,” or “the Word.” Let me bring you up to speed: It means the heart/mind/intention/message/promise/character/expectation/will of God. The Word of God is not a what, but a who—Jesus. The words of the Bible do a great job of bringing us face to face with the Word. But if we don’t recognize that we are dealing with language (a limitation) and translations (a limitation) and styles of literature (a limitation) different from what we is common to us, we are in danger of equating the God we see “through a glass darkly”—the God of our flawed understanding—with God as He actually is. And that’s idolatry.

“clearly reported in Genesis” You mean the way evening and morning existed before sun and moon? You mean the way Cain and Seth had no women to take as wives? (Oh…you got me there; that’s not IN Genesis, but it is something to think about.) Or how about how Cain is afraid that whoever finds him will kill him? Does he mean his sisters (wait, there are no sisters; that’s not clearly reported in Scripture)? Or does he mean Adam and Eve? Or are you talking about how God creates plant life then man, no wait, in chapter two, He fashions man before He makes plants? What? He didn’t create seed-bearing plants (for food) until after creating Adam and Eve? Well that’s not clearly reported in Scripture? And what about God resting from His creation? Or for that matter, how clear can it be when one account takes six days and another account speaks of “the day the LORD God created?”

Don’t act like a literal historical/chronological approach to the text is without any problems from WITHIN Scripture. 
Dancing From Genesis - #65244

September 29th 2011

Haha, nice meltdown, but anyway, could God have provided a little light without the sun for a few days by a diffenet means?  And why should God have mentioned all the progeny after Adam and Even, doesn’t that seem a little silly, do you think God really thinks you’re incapable of grasping this? 

Since the early portions of Genesis freak you out so bad, please tell us where do you (a theistic darwinian evolutinist) say literal history begins to be recorded in Genesis, obviously not at Noah’s Flood, so where?  If there was no genetic bottleneck at Noah’s Flood, as you insist, then why did God bother with the Table of Nations in Genesis 10?      

beaglelady - #65261

September 29th 2011

Haha, nice meltdown, but anyway, could God have provided a little light without the sun for a few days by a diffenet means?

Sure, he could have used a flashlight.

G8torBrent - #65287

September 30th 2011

You characterize very real questions, questions anyone seriously trying to interpret the text should ask, as eliciting a “freak…out.” You refer to my measured response as a “meltdown.” 

Nice job of avoiding the issues raised.

As to the few issues you mentioned, light is created before the sun and moon because, as we’ll both agree, God is light. I think light appears before the sun because the stories God inspired and guided to end up in our canon competed with alternative stories that gave created things like the sun and moon a much higher status, even eliciting false worship. The point I was making is that the Scriptures we’re both seeking to understand use the phrase “evening and morning”, not just yom, as in, not just a 24-period; there is evening—darkness—and morning—light. Why, before the sun and moon are created? I’d suggest it is a literary device not meant to be taken literally.

And what are you saying about progeny after Adam and Eve? That God created others? Or that you don’t find it inconsistent that God would be okay with incest in once circumstance but not another? Serious question.

By the way, you seem intent on discovering when people think actual history began. I’ll tell you my take. Not everyone on this site will agree. I think pretty most stories in Genesis 1-11 had a basis in real events. My take is that they are like movies “based on a true story” that alter the details to improve the storytelling. They tell the Truth, but aren’t necessarily concerned with the details.

The Creation of Man:
Surely, at some point in evolutionary history, God chooses mankind (elects?) to relate to in a special way. He endows a human with something more than just a muscle in his chest and an organic computer in his head—the Breath of Life. He “makes man in His own image. “Some human, Adam, is the first of all humans alive at that moment, to have the opportunity to have intimate, permanent fellowship with God. 

The Fall:
Alas, as goes with everyone of us, Adam is not content to be liked by God and wants to be like God. Whatever the source of the temptation, Adam makes a definitive decision that alters the world in that it introduces spiritual death—the eternal separation from God and not just the snuffing out of animal life.

The Flood:
There is no evidence for a global flood (and the term global would have been nonsense to the early audience to these stories) but there is strong evidence of a regional flood. In fact, it surely had to be known across the region as other cultures have flood myths. I don’t know why I shouldn’t believe that God elected (there’s that word again) one person and his family to avoid the catastrophe that faced everyone else in the region, i.e., in the world known to the readers. It is a valuable lesson about the consequences of sin and God’s ongoing work in saving a remnant.

The Tower of Babel:
This is one I don’t take literally, for sure. A tower that can reach to heaven? Heaven!? I rather think this is a parable about mankind’s tendency to try to reach God WITHOUT God. God won’t have anything to do with that, so He, (either directly or through the way He has “wired” the material world), has made communication difficult and conflict inevitable. In other words, He is reminding us we need Him.

The “sons of God” intermarrying with the sons of men:
“Sons of God” and “Nephilim” I take to be the same. I think it likely, based on recent scientific findings, that this was a race similar to humans who were interbreeding, as creepy as that sounds. The jury is still out on the details, IMO.

Genealogies, Etc.
I’m not sure any of us properly understands some of the earlier lists of people in these chapters. I know the hyperbolically long lives are similar to other literature of the same time and I suspect they are meant to communicate the relative importance of the characters, not offer a real age. As for the genealogies in chapter 11, I think they bring us from one real family (Noah) to another (Abram) compressing and truncating the timeline along the way.

Ronnie - #65163

September 28th 2011

More like our misinterpretation of (historical) science vs. scripture.

KevinR - #65226

September 29th 2011

We can only know directly about the God we worship THRU the bible. Using anything else is second guessing. Even Nature.

I see you specifically put science, i.e. human beings understanding of nature, above the word of God: “It’s science vs. our misinterpretation of  scripture.” So now you are in effect saying that men’s faulty interpretation of the natural order is so much more superior to your own straightforward reading and understanding of Genesis 1. Everyday we get reports about how a new scientific fact overrides what had gone before - meaning that the previous interpretation was WRONG but just happened to work in its situation. Your trust in science over the word of God is akin to idolatory.

The only TRUE way of learning about God is in the statement God makes about himself and about “for so God loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son..” No other channel will give it to you that way. The only way to God is through His Son, Jesus the messiah. No other way will do. Which means you cannot go thru Budda, Mohammed or Evolution.

Either believe ALL of the bible, including Genesis or simply drop it all because you’ll struggle to make things hang together consistently if you don’t.

Dancing From Genesis - #65236

September 29th 2011

Well said KevinR, as without the reports of real history in the Bible, modern mainstream scientists would really have free reign to claim that there is no righteous creator God to whom we must answer.

And regarding Noah’s Flood as a side-note, the theistic darwinian evolutionists must explain-away the hundreds of ancient tribal legends from around the world that a catastrophic flood did indeed engulf the entire planet, those tribes having descended from the survivors, any takers?

eddy - #65252

September 29th 2011

Ah, you have just said something I haven’t had time to think about it but as soon as you said it rings very true.

 ”....as without the reports of real history in the Bible, modern mainstream
scientists would really have free reign to claim that there is no
righteous creator God to whom we must answer.”

Somebody above said that he didn’t need to have the bible in order to know and worship God. Now the man is Christian and I will take it that was a very poor choice of words on his part. But if he really believe it and stand by his words, that’s one more vindication that evolution and Christianity cannot intellectually go together. And Ken Ham is right.

Peter Hickman - #65266

September 29th 2011

To the three main points you have made, I respond:
1. Anyone who has read Romans 1 should realise that ignorance of the Bible is no excuse for ignorance of our creator God. Nobody has ‘free reign’ to claim anything.
2. It would appear from Acts 12 that it is possible to know and worship God without having a Bible. It was certainly the case for Old Testament saints.
3. I find evolution and Christianity both intellectually satisfying and compatible, as do many others.

Dancing From Genesis - #65267

September 29th 2011

Darwinian evolution or evolution per se (natural selection within created gene pools)?

Peter Hickman - #65273

September 30th 2011

I am not concerned with whether a particular scientific approach is consistent with a particular interpretation of Biblical kinds (“miyn”).

G8torBrent - #65237

September 29th 2011


Dancing From Genesis - #65238

September 29th 2011

Smart guy.

Peter Hickman - #65253

September 29th 2011

KevinR and Dancing: We can only know directly about the God we worship THRU the bible. Using anything else is second guessing. Even Nature.”

My Bible says that the agency of the Holy Spirit is required for me to know the truth. My Bible does not say that the Bible is the only means by which I may know the truth (in fact, it indicates the contrary).
If the Bible is right, your interpretation of the Bible could be just as faulty as a scientist’s interpretation of the natural order. Indeed, it is possible that you do not have a Spirit-inspired revelation of the Bible and that a scientist does have a Spirit-inspired revelation of the natural order [Note: I said that this is possible - not that is the case]. If so, then of course the scientist would know the truth and you would not.
Why do I make this point? Because in this and other threads you write as if you had some superior source of authority, one that trumps all scientific theory (theory in the scientific sense of the word). But quoting the Bible gives you no more authority than anyone else. You could know the Bible backwards and understand nothing.
Gary Clements - #69754

May 8th 2012

I refuse to allow YEC’s to drive me away. They have painted themselves into a corner. The truth is that they don’t trust their own faith. They are worried that if they move away from their stance, their own faith with wane. How sad.

YEC’s are missing a golden opportunity to grow our base because they permitted atheist to frame this argument.

Stay patient fellow BioLogos Brothers & Sisters. Time has a way of solving so much.

Gary Clements - #69758

May 8th 2012

Found this quote from Richard Dawkins

“I think the evangelical Christians have really sort of got it right in a way, in seeing evolution as the enemy. Whereas the more, what shall we say, sophisticated theologians are quite happy to live with evolution, I think they’re deluded. I think the evangelicals have got it right, in that there really is a deep incompatibility between evolution and Christianity … ”

YECs…can you not see what he is trying to do? He wants you in the corner he put you in so that he can laugh at you! As soon as Christians see the clear compatibility of Evolution & Christianity…...all of Dawkins power is gone! The only way he keeps his power is for YECs to stick to their guns.

Wake up!




Page 1 of 1   1