t f p g+ YouTube icon

BioLogos and the June 2011 “Christianity Today” Editorial

Bookmark and Share

June 6, 2011 Tags: Human Origins

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

BioLogos and the June 2011 “Christianity Today” Editorial

In a one page editorial entitled "No Adam, No Eve, No Gospel" (Christianity Today, June 2011, p. 61), Christianity Today (C.T.) draws the line. It is foundational to hold onto the view, the editorial states, that there were two real people named Adam and Eve. Given what else is said in the editorial, regardless of whether they are correct on the historicity question, I heartily applaud the article.

As I wrote last week, the data are clear that humans have been created through an evolutionary process and there was never a time when there was a single first couple, two people who were the progenitors of the entire human race. Within that framework, BioLogos does not take a position on the existence, in history, of two unique individuals, Adam and Eve. This is a theological question, not a scientific one. We recognize that now that the scientific consensus is clear, having become substantiated even further through genetics, there will be many fine theological minds on both sides of the historicity question. Our task is to help the Church come to appreciate that mainstream science and Christianity can co-exist in harmony. We’re happy to stand back and watch as the theologians work through the historicity question. Indeed, some of that conversation may well take place on these pages.

What pleases me most about the C.T. editorial is that it shows the willingness of the C.T. editorial staff to pay close attention to scientific consensus. Look at what they say:

Sometimes, Christian ways of thinking must adjust. Two famous names—Copernicus and Galileo—tell that tale. Other times Christian thinkers adopt some of what scientific research suggests, but hold firm on key aspects of biblical knowledge. The name B.B. Warfield tells that tale…

As the article goes on, the editors also make this statement:

Now we come to another great moment of tension between Christian readings of Scripture and science…

Christians have already drawn the line: there must be an original pair of humans endowed with soul—that is, the spiritual capacity to relate to God in the special way Genesis describes.

Having explained why the line must be drawn at a first couple, the editorial goes on to briefly discuss ways of bringing harmony between the science and traditional Christianity:

Hebrew thought offers one clue to resolving this tension: The corporate nature of humanity. Scripture often calls groups of people by the name of their historical head. Israel is an obvious example. So are Canaan and Cush.

At times, Scripture also holds groups of people morally responsible for the actions of some of their members.

Thus some have suggested—as does John Collins in “Did Adam and Eve Really Exist?” (Crossway, 2011)—that if both biblical and scientific clues suggest a larger population contemporary with Adam and Eve (Whom did Cain marry? Whom did God protect him from?), we can still conceive of Adam and Eve as leaders of that original population. That suggestion has the virtue of embracing both a prehistoric couple and a prehistoric population.

Finally, and all importantly:

At this juncture we counsel patience. We don’t need another fundamentalist reaction against science. We need instead a positive interdisciplinary engagement that recognizes the good will of all involved and that creative thinking takes time. In the long run, it may be the humility of our scholars as much as their technical expertise that will bring us to deeper knowledge of the truth.

The C.T. editorial, in other words, has shown that in their view mainstream evangelical Christianity and mainstream science can co-exist in harmony. There are still many details to be worked out and much conversation lies ahead, but there is reason for optimism. The findings of science and the evangelical approach to Christianity need not be at dead end anymore, and we are thankful that the editorial staff of “Christianity Today” is clearing away the barriers and beginning to pave the way.

As we move forward, the conversation ought to focus on matters about which we can all agree. This is part of the reason that BioLogos has begun a Saturday sermon series, which currently focuses on a set of sermons delivered by Pastor Tim Keller of Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New York City. I have now listened to the second sermon in this series four times and every time I hear it, I glean some new truth that leaves me in complete awe of our Creator and the never-ending depth of a theology thoroughly grounded in Genesis. Each week we post a four minute excerpt, a brief summary, and then a link to download the entire sermon. We are encouraging people to come back after listening to the whole sermon to “talk” about it if they so desire. So far, it has largely been the atheists who have been chomping at the bit to enter into conversation. That’s not what we want though, especially when I suspect that they have not even listened to the sermon. We hope that a large group of fellow believers will listen to these sermons together as we are all drawn into a spirit of celebration for the beauty of the creation story as fully revealed in Genesis, Romans and Revelation.

The reason that I am advocating Pastor Keller’s messages as the rallying point around which we can all gather is that as one listens to what he has to say, there is very little with which any of us Christians would disagree, regardless of our perspective on details. As I listened again to last Saturday’s sermon, The First Word, I thought to myself that if I were a young earth creationist, I could embrace almost everything he said and grow richly closer to God in the process. However, that would be equally true if I was a Reasons to Believe, old earth creationist, or a William Dembski I.D. theorist, or, of course, a BioLogos evolutionary creationist. The fact is that we are all one. We can all rally around the Word as expounded by pastors such as Dr. Keller. Sure we’ll look at some parts differently—but when we are all hearing the Word together, we can all celebrate its message as it speaks to the heart and soul of who we are as Christians. As we do that—together—we will all, with one voice be able to cry out in unison—“Christ in you—the hope of Glory!” The atheists will look on and wonder what is happening, but what they will see as we all celebrate and worship together is the radiant face of Jesus—the Body of Christ in unison celebrating the beauty of the Creation story as it is completely fulfilled in our Lord.

Editor's Note: Please see Darrel's follow up comment below (#62248) for some clarification on the piece and BioLogos' position on Adam and Eve. Also the first two sentences of the second paragraph have been modified slightly to ensure that the BioLogos position is clear.

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 2 of 2   « 1 2
Nancy R. - #62330

June 8th 2011

Dr. Falk, at #62313 I posed a general question but I’d be interested in hearing the official BioLogos position. I am assume that anyone who accepts that Genesis 2-3 describe an actual, historic couple would also accept that Genesis 6-9 describe actual, historic events as well. So I assume that the BioLogos position on an historic flood is neutral - meaning that it is a plausible event that could have happened, and that happened in a way that is consistent with an honest reading of scripture. While the historicity of Adam may be a matter of theology and not of science, the same cannot be said of the flood. What is the BioLogos position on the flood, and how is that position supported by the scientific and archeological evidence? Thanks in advance for your reply.

Darrel F - #62336

June 8th 2011

beaglelady - #62338

June 8th 2011

Please excuse me for jumping in here!  Dr. Falk, do you accept a literal Noah, along with a flood and an ark filled with animals? 

Darrel F - #62340

June 8th 2011

Hi Beaglelady,

Our FAQ answers your question quite thoroughly I think (link above).  It is clear there was no  global flood and that there was no recent bottleneck which resulted in all animals on earth being derived from  single pairs or even several pairs.

Having said that, Beaglelady, and as a constant admirer of your comments at BioLogos for the past two years, I  want to ask you a question.  I would love to know what you (as a layperson) think is the theological significance of the flood story.  To me that’s a much more interesting question, and I would love to see you expound on that.  We’ll give you more space if you need it.

beaglelady - #62342

June 8th 2011

I saw the article, but I was wondering about your personal beliefs concerning a literal Noah, flood, and ark.

Darrel F - #62348

June 9th 2011


The second sentence in my comment above represents my own personal view.  


beaglelady - #62365

June 9th 2011

Does that mean that you believe that the story of Noah is completely unhistorical? In other words, Noah never existed?

Darrel F - #62373

June 9th 2011


I knew that would be your next question, of course, but it is your turn to answer mine, and I am truly interested in your thoughts about this.


beaglelady - #62379

June 9th 2011

No, actually we are still on the first question I asked you (comment 62338), and you seem very reluctant to answer it. Why not just answer it?

Nancy R. - #62380

June 9th 2011

Thank you Darrel. The BioLogos position appears to be that the flood was
an actual, historical event, although local rather than global. Unless I
somehow missed it, the essay did not develop the possibility that the
Genesis description of the flood is myth rather than fact. I also did
not note any discussion of shortcomings of the local flood hypothesis.

The reason I asked about the flood is because this event, even more than
Adam, shows the difficulties involved in the assertion that the events
described in Genesis 1-10 are actual events about real people. I
can’t for the life of me figure out how to reconcile a local flood with
the clear intent of the scriptural message. If the flood was local, why
was the ark necessary? Why didn’t God just tell Noah to pack up his
family and move? If God could warn him a year in advance in order to
give him time to build an ark, he could have saved him a lot of trouble
and just redirected him to safe ground. And why save the animals? The
animals in non-flooded areas would have survived and their descendants
would soon populate the area affected by the flood. Was God deceiving
Noah in allowing him to think the entire world was being destroyed?

Well, I’d like to hear how the theory of the local flood can be
reconciled with an honest reading of Genesis 6-9. But so far, I can only
see that there are two scripturally sound ways to read these chapters:
as a literal history of a global flood, or as divinely-directed myth in
which God is using stories of ancient floods to explain his ways to his
people - explaining spiritual realities using concrete stories that his
people had the capacity to understand.

Norman - #62332

June 8th 2011


Babel, the Flood and the Adam and Eve story seem to represent actual historical nation building, catastrophic events and the establishment of a Historical people groups. They just flavor the story up somewhat to make it useful for theological purposes as well as establishing historic roots. Not much different than what we had done with events and figure from our frontier West mythological stories.

Embellished ANE narrative written in a genre that is much different than ours doesn’t automatically rule it out as not historically based to some extent. WE have evidence of an Adam like individual called Adapa and there was a great Mesopotamian flood event around 2900BC. The ANE Nations did develop from tribal separation in which there were often individual heads attributed to their origins. Again I remind of the Romulus and Remus account of Rome and that City State which eventually became the fourth Beast from Daniel and Revelation.

KevinR - #62356

June 9th 2011

“As I wrote last week,
the data are clear that humans have been created through an
evolutionary process and there was never a time when there was a single
first couple, two people who were the progenitors of the entire human

One should remember/take into account that the evidence was interpreted within the framework of an atheistic belief system - based on the assumption that there is no God. So while the data is clear from that perspective, it doesn’t mean that the interpretation is in any way the truth.

ALL the evidence can also be interpreted based on the biblical statements that God exists and that HE created things within six literal days. One cannot exclude this interpretation of the evidence except on philosophical grounds.
Furthermore, on a purely logical and physical basis, in evolutionary terms, there MUST have been a first male and female evolvement that occurred. Problem for evolutionists is how to explain that differentiation of the sexes. How did it happen that both the male parts and the female parts “evolved” to such perfection that they could actually get together to produce offspring? Given the time that such would be required to evolve, how did the intermediates procreate and where is the overwhelming, abundant evidence that should be available to show that such intermediaries existed. There is none whatsoever.

Instead what we do find from a purely physical evidence point of view is that the same rocks/grounds that contain dinosaurs also contain birds of numerous kinds. It also contains all kinds of other animals and plants which really shouldn’t be in the same fossil bed from an evolutionary time point of view. In  other words those dinosaur fossil beds really support multiple simultaneous creation rather than evolution. These other animals and birds do not get displayed and trumpeted by the researhers or the museums. Instead a specific story gets built up to support evolution whilst hiding the fact that other organisms co-existed with the dinos when they should not have.
So much for the evidence for evolution being clear.

Ronnie - #62363

June 9th 2011

Well said Kevin, you are absolutely right. Ones worldview influences their belief. If the six day creation, Adam & Eve, sin, the Flood and Babel can be explained away, so can the virgin birth of Christ, His deity, His death on the cross and resurrection… and maybe even our salvation?

To all here on this site who agree with BL, be very careful where your theology is leading you, it may not be where you think.

R Hampton - #62398

June 9th 2011

I don’t care for your implication that Christian theologies that are tolerant/accepting of  Evolutionary theory - like Catholicism - are in some way dangerous.

Ronnie - #62414

June 10th 2011

R Hampton:

The danger is when the words of man are placed above the words of God. Evolutionary theory are the words of man and are used as the standard by which Gods Word is measured against here on BL. How backwards is that?

There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.

Be very careful.

penman - #62431

June 10th 2011

Nancy R. #62380
“I can only see that there are two scripturally sound ways to
read these chapters: as a literal history of a global flood, or as
divinely-directed myth in which God is using stories of ancient floods to
explain his ways to his people - explaining spiritual realities using concrete
stories that his people had the capacity to understand.”

I stubbornly
adhere to my scripturally unsound view that it was a local flood.

are several SCRIPTURAL problems with treating it as a myth in the “bad” sense
(i.e. simply gutting it of historicity). The main one is that Noah is regarded
as a historical person throughout scripture, not just in Gen.6-9. In the New
Testament he appears as a historical figure in the recorded teaching of Jesus in
Matt.24:37-8, Luke 17:26-in 7, the genealogy of Luke 3:36, in Heb.11:7 (one of
the heroes of faith), & in 1 Pet.3:20 & 2 Pet.2:5.

So if we
“mythologize” him, we aren’t just treating Gen.6-9 as some non-historical
literary genre. We’re actually dehistoricizing the beliefs of the New Testament
writers. Some are happy to do that. I’m not. It leaves me wondering what the
actual criterion of our beliefs about salvation-history might be, if we’re happy
to say that various historical beliefs of the New Testament are false. The
criterion clearly isn’t the New Testament.

As for why God didn’t just
tell Noah to leave… Well, that’s actually discussed at length in the (fairly
voluminous) literature on the subject that takes a “local flood” view. I agree
with the view that says God chose Noah to be a prophetic witness to his own
people, those doomed to experience the flood. Both by his preaching (2 Pet.2:5)
& by his building the ark, he was a living testimony to the coming judgment
on the land. He couldn’t have fulfilled that function by running

The animal population of the ark also served a witness function
(among other things): God is going to judge the whole land, its entire living
landscape - all your livestock by which you live. A bit like when, in Israel’s
wars of conquest, they were commanded to kill not just idolatrous humans but
their livestock too.

Hope we’re not going madly off topic here….!

Nancy R. - #62439

June 10th 2011

Thanks for your thoughtful comments, penman, and for the scriptural references. Jesus is using the Noah story as an analogy; it works whether or not it was a real event, as it would have been understood by his hearers. I imagine Peter believed that the biblical account of Noah was true. Why wouldn’t he? I don’t expect that God gave the writers of the epistles special knowledge of topics that were not directly relevant to their central message. After all, he allowed the writers of the books of the Gospel to write somewhat contradictory accounts of the events of Easter morning; he didn’t miraculously correct their memories so that their accounts would align. 

Would the original audience of the Noah narrative assume that this was an account of a local flood, or a global one? If they (correctly, in your view) saw it as a local flood, how did the general interpretation change to that of a global flood over time? 

And I’m reading the NIV translation - do you consider it an accurate translation? It clearly describes the flood as global: Gen. 6:6-7, 6:12-13, 6:17, 7:4, 7:21-23. At least in this translation there’s absolutely no ambiguity.

Local floods can have a devastating impact, but they recede quickly. This flood covered the ground for a year, during which time Noah remained in the ark. It’s hard to imagine that even in the most devastating flood, that no dry land would be apparent for a year - especially when one is in a boat that can go across the entire flooded region.

In short, to me it looks like it’s a real stretch to read this as a local rather than a global flood - it’s a clear contradiction of the message of these chapters. It presents logical difficulties as well, as I’ve pointed out. To read this is a an account of a local rather than a global flood seems to require finding meaning that is not present in these chapters, and to claim that this important story is not really about what it appears to be, but describes something else entirely. I’m sorry, but I just don’t see how the local flood interpretation is a clear reading of scripture.

I’d still like to hear from Dr. Falk on this - why does BioLogos endorse this interpretation?

beaglelady - #62480

June 11th 2011

“As for why God didn’t just

tell Noah to leave… Well, that’s actually discussed at length in the (fairly

voluminous) literature on the subject that takes a “local flood” view.”

And jusut what do these authors say about this?

“The animal population of the ark also served a witness function

(among other things): God is going to judge the whole land, its entire living

landscape - all your livestock by which you live. A bit like when, in Israel’s

wars of conquest, they were commanded to kill not just idolatrous humans but

their livestock too.”

Were wild animals on the ark also? How big was the ark? How many animals were on it, would you say? 

R Hampton - #62435

June 10th 2011

what you have done, by elevating your understanding of Scripture, is denied that God’s Creation (Nature) is also his Word. Nature is as much the Word of God as is Scripture. That’s why the Catholic Church teaches that Nature and Scripture can never be in conflict.

The actual danger is the conflation of human reasoning/interpretation (Science & Theology) with God’s perfection. So your interpretation is best described as Man’s (flawed) understanding of God’s perfect Word, (which applies equal well to the Sciences.)

“Distinguished Academicians, I wish to conclude by recalling the words addressed to you by my predecessor Pope John Paul II in November 2003: ‘scientific truth, which is itself a participation in divine Truth, can help philosophy and theology to understand ever more fully the human person and God’s Revelation about man, a Revelation that is completed and perfected in Jesus Christ. For this important mutual enrichment in the search for the truth and the benefit of mankind, I am, with the whole Church, profoundly grateful.’”
- Pope Benedict XVI, October 31, 2008

Ronnie - #62450

June 10th 2011

R Hampton:

I’m sorry but nature is not the Word of God. According to John 1:1, the Word is Jesus, who created nature (the natural world). Now, we can understand Gods nature by studying the natural world (Romans 1:20), but the 2 (nature and the Word) are not the same. The created thing cannot, and should not be placed above, or even equal to, its Creator.

I’m not catholic and I don’t understand that line of thought, but it seems to me like a way to accommodate evolutionary ideas into scripture. If this is what the catholic church teaches, I have to be straightforward and say that its wrong.

Consider this:
Matt. 24:35 “Heaven and earth (nature, or the natural world) shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.”

Darrel F - #62447

June 10th 2011


I’ll try again, since apparently I have not been clear.   My personal view is that as the leader of BioLogos, it is my responsibility to represent the views of the organization.  I have summarized the BioLogos position. 

Darrel Falk,
President, The BioLogos Foundation 

beaglelady - #62449

June 10th 2011

Dr Falk,

Have you had media training?

Merv - #62466

June 11th 2011

Olavi, you wrote that creation science “isn’t science.”  I wasn’t defending it as such.  My point was that creation scientists think it is and are attempting to make it so—showing their tacit agreement that the “mantle of science” is perhaps *the* valuable asset to strive for in apologetics.  But while you & I may agree that YEC science isn’t what they want it to be, I certainly don’t resonate with your presumed belittling of their intelligence.  I know YEC people with levels of intellect and acumen that I respect very much.  Nor are you correct to think that secularists are without dogma.  They only fantasize about their own objectivity with respect to religious questions.  If asked, for example, what evidence they have to back up their claim that there is no God, they fall back on the same thing everybody else does who actually has not one whit of evidence to back it up:  they reply “well, you don’t have any evidence that there *is* a God.”  Which is also true—or at least true in the sense that no positive evidence for God’s existence would meet their criteria as empirical.  But the difference is that many thoughtful Christians aren’t trying to claim scientific evidence.  It’s the secular dogmatists (along with many—not all—YECs) who want to imagine that science is somehow on their side.  They confuse absence of evidence with evidence of absence.  So wrapped up are the outspoken secularists in their religious zeal on this that they can’t even recognize their own dependence on dogma.  What you referred to as “Biologos types” are probably closer to your $500 mark, and both the YECs and secularists come in below that except that YECs are a bit ahead of some secularists because the former have the sense to recognize their own dogma and embrace it as such.  We all have dogma which controls our interpretation of all evidence and even what evidence we allow as such in the first place.  Scientists (some of them) do a good job trying to minimize these subjective effects, and this is “easier” to do when your question is “does this medicine have its intended effect?” ... they can bring on the double-blind tests and large statistical sample groups, control groups, placebos, etc.  But for the harder questions:  “Did God do x, y, or z?”, their subjectivity becomes inescapable (just like the rest of us) because they have no tools to test such a thing.  So regarding those questions, they fall back on dogma.  Also, you use “dogma” as nothing but a dirty word, which I also dispute, but my post here is already too long.  Suffice it to say, since dogma is inevitable, better to choose it carefully than to try to pretend it doesn’t exist (which gives it un-checked power over your thoughts.  Some secularists rival the best of fanatical zealots in this regard.)


Olavi - #62499

June 12th 2011

Merv, I did not belittle anyone’s intelligence. I don’t know why you would accuse me of that. I also never said “BioLogos types”. There is a common problem running through your whole response: you have personalized everything; you are focused on ascribing generalities to groups of people; you are trying to deal with those generalities instead of dealing with arguments and positions.

I did not claim that “secularists” (I don’t even use the term) are without dogma. I placed the positions “total dogma”, “some dogma”, and “no dogma” on a spectrum and called them YEC-like, Biologos-like, and secular-like, respectively. The latter position, “no dogma”, just means to not accept propositions without good evidence.

Now there may be some people claiming to be skeptical while holding some kind of dogma. Who knows. I don’t control people and neither do you. You can save yourself an enormous amount of mental energy by not railing against generic groups of people to which you have ascribed some undesirable trait. Instead, focus on depersonalized arguments and positions.

Re: “Did God do x, y, or z?” Replace that with “Did the Flying Spaghetti Monster do x, y, or z?” and I think you’ll see the problem. We don’t have good evidence for the FSM so the question is moot. No additional tools are necessary.

I am not using “dogma” as a dirty word. A dogma is a proposition given by some authority—whether that authority is a book, a tradition, or a pope. A dogma is believed because an authority tells us to believe it, not because it is supported by good evidence.

Dogmas are not inevitable. It is entirely possible to believe something without an authority compelling that belief. It seems that by dogmas you meant root axioms of some sort. The axioms we use are impossibly difficult to enumerate, as any AI researcher will tell you.

But I can identify at least one axiom that I hold. It is: “Do not accept a proposition without good evidence.”

Merv - #62520

June 12th 2011

You say you didn’t belittle anyone?  Some would interpret (and take) your picture analogy suggesting YECs are to real scientists what the group pictured was to aeronautical engineers as belittling.  (With much more respect due to aboriginal type peoples in such pictures who actually have survival intelligence much exceeding most of us).  But no such respect is given in the context of your comparison.  It will be taken as belittling, and difficult to believe your intent could have been otherwise.

Regarding the spaghetti monster, the problem with that comparison is that nobody actually believes the spaghetti monster exists.  It was made up solely for the purpose of belittling (there that word is again!) real beliefs that millions of real people have for real reasons.  So while the FSM question may be moot, discussion of God’s activity is not.  LaPlace may have “had no use for that [God] hypothesis”, but millions of others do have need of it and find God to be the best explanation for their changed lives.

Regarding your charge that I leap to generalities, I plead guilty.  I love jumping to conclusions too—- I probably burn many calories doing that!  I maintain there is some use and necessity for generalizing to make discussion even possible, but you are right that I should use more care.  Thanks for the discussion—I gotta go for the moment.  Perhaps I’ll check back here for any more replies when I’m back home.  Otherwise I’ll try to check in on some of the more recent threads here.  Thanks for your patient discussion.



Olavi - #62534

June 12th 2011

Merv, why did you assume that people in the picture—who are Papua New Guineans—are unintelligent? That is the only basis on which you could accuse me of belittling the intelligence of YECs.

Merv - #62562

June 13th 2011

I didn’t.  And I’m glad to hear, then, that you don’t either.
You should know, though, that in these kinds of contexts where such comparisons typically come up in a pejorative sense, that is how your post will be interpreted.  If you don’t mean it that way, better to use straight-forward language so that you don’t invite that interpretation.


Olavi - #62591

June 13th 2011

Merv, do you think it is appropriate to assume the people with whom you are conversing are racists?

Merv - #62604

June 14th 2011

If you’re still worried about how your message with the picture comparison with YECs can be interpreted, then don’t keep playing games here;  just say what you meant by it.  But I’ll try to assume less about you until you spell it out.  I don’t think you’re a racist.


Olavi - #62617

June 14th 2011

If I am not a racist and if I do not believe the people of the cargo cult are unintelligent, then how could I be belittling the intelligence of YECs?

Merv - #62467

June 11th 2011

Olavi, I wrote a lengthy reply but it ended up at the bottom of this thread; I must not have clicked on the ‘reply…’ like I thought I did.  Sorry.

Merv - #62468

June 11th 2011

Okay ... perhaps these threads aren’t working the same way they did at my last comment.  I’ll get this figured out again eventually.

Olavi - #62616

June 14th 2011

Merv, if I am not a racist and if I do not believe the people of the cargo cult are unintelligent, then how could I be belittling the intelligence of YECs?

Merv - #62619

June 14th 2011

Olavi, you and I both know an insult when we see one.  If you don’t want to be mistaken for a racist, then find different ways to point out the deficiencies of YEC science without pulling in aboriginals whose intelligence is culturally different from (not inferior to) that of our techie culture.

I started feeling silly that I was spending so much time on this a couple posts back, so I’m done here.  Please have the last word—- but you and I both have better things to move on to.

Olavi - #62620

June 14th 2011

Merv, the analogy was already explained and I was never worried about its interpretation. Creationists do not understand science; they create fake science. Cargo cults do not understand airplanes; they create fake airplanes.

There is no need for you to assume that I am a racist, that I am therefore belittling the intelligence of the cargo cult people, and that I am therefore belittling the intelligence of YECs.

All of that is baggage you have introduced on your own. I do not have to prove to you that I am not a racist. I do not have to prove to you that I am not belittling anyone’s intelligence.

If you continue making personal attacks then I will flag your comments to the moderator.

Page 2 of 2   « 1 2