“Also, they’ve got an ideological basis for rejecting it. It’s the same thing with the gang at Answers in Genesis who insist that we have to interpret every word in the Bible literally because if there’s one word of Genesis wrong, then the whole story of Jesus must be false and there’s no salvation and we’re all going to go to hell, or there is no hell and no heaven. They just see it as a row of dominoes; if you knock one down, the whole thing goes down. So, you know, I suspect it’s the same sort of thing there [as geocentrists]. They have such a strong commitment to certain ideological principles that they cannot tolerate any questioning of even the most trivial details” [src: http://www.cultureshocks.com/shows/2011/07/12/p-z-myers/ 18:18 to 18:55].
Before I point out the obvious [that evos like PZ also have an ideological basis for rejecting Biblical Creationism], I’d like to point out that PZ is dead-on right that it’s easy to dismiss what you don’t understand… and he clearly doesn’t understand Creationism.
I don’t get it, but evos as a rule simply disagree with Creationism without bothering to find out specifically what they’re disagreeing over. They don’t know what Creationists believe. They simply disagree with us because it’s not evolution.
For example, PZ claims that Answers in Genesis insists that we have to interpret every word in the Bible literally. If you go over to his blogsite, you’ll note that he’s made several posts criticizing AiG and Ken Ham in particular. So we could assume that PZ knows what AiG does and does not believe, right? Apparently not.
Answers in Genesis has consistently refuted the notion that they are telling anyone to take every word in the Bible literally(for example, this article by Bodie Hodge). Creationists take the Bible in context, but we affirm that the context of Genesis and other passages relevant to the origins issue make it clear that Genesis was meant as literal history. The Bible contains round numbers, figures of speech and poetry in addition to prophecy, doctrine and history. Context is as important in Bible interpretation as it is in everyday speech.
So it doesn’t matter so much whether one word of Genesis is wrong [and I've no reason to think so], so much as if Genesis isn’t literal history then there is no foundational basis for the Gospel. PZ should be aware that even atheists have pointed this out. As I noted in Ex-Christians: The Evolution Factor, atheist Frank Zindler made the following assessment:
“The most devastating thing though that biology did to Christianity was the discovery of biological evolution. Now that we know that Adam and Eve never were real people the central myth of Christianity is destroyed. If there never was an Adam and Eve there never was an original sin. If there never was an original sin there is no need of salvation. If there is no need of salvation there is no need of a Savior. And I submit that puts Jesus, historical or otherwise, into the ranks of the unemployed. I think that evolution is absolutely the death knell of Christianity.”–[Frank Zindler, debate with William Craig, Atheism vs Christianity video, Zondervan, 1996.]
G. Richard Bozarth chimes in similarly:
“Christianity has fought, still fights, and will fight science to the desperate end over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus’ earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the son of God. If Jesus was not the redeemer who died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing.” — quoted from The American Atheist, September 1978, p. 30.
In that article, I also noted that “those who embraced evolutionism as fact rejected Christianity wholesale, recognizing that what was being presented as scientific truth completely contradicted what they’d been taught as religious truth.
- The claim that the Earth and universe are billions of years old and man’s existence represents only the tiniest tail-end of that history contradicts Christ Jesus’ affirmation that God created man, male and female, “from the beginning” [Matt 19:4; Mark 10:6] and the Bible’s clear testimony that the Earth and the universe was created in 6 literal days. [Exodus 20:11]
- The claim that Man is the product of evolution, an endless cycle of death and mutation contradicts the Apostle Paul’s authority for he said “by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin” [Rom.5:12; also 1 Cor. 15:22].
- As noted, the claim that Adam & Eve is only a teaching myth undermines the foundational basis of the Gospel, for if the literal First Adam did not literally Fall there is no need for literal sin debt to be paid by a literal Savior. [1 Cor 15:45]
- The claim that the Noachian Flood was local rather than global contradicts the testimony of the Apostle Peter [2 Pet 3:6] and makes God a liar since He promised never to destroy all flesh by water again [Gen 9:12] — yet local floods abound!
Of course, PZ pretends as if evolutionists are free from ideological commitments, yet it is undeniably the evolutionists who “have such a strong commitment to certain ideological principles that they cannot tolerate any questioning of even the most trivial details.” Evolutionists fight tooth and nail to keep teachers from being able... [not because there are no weaknesses, PZ] because that might open the door to the question of God’s agency in our origins, because that might expose the house of cards evolutionists have been stacking all these years and have been maintaining by an artificial High Wall of protection which insulates it from criticism rather than exposing it to the self-correcting mechanisms of real science. Oh, and by indoctrinating our kids into belief in evolution as immutable fact.
I covered most of this in Darwin’s Glass Chin.
The sad fact is that PZ has been convicted of his own words. It’s easy to dismiss what you don’t understand, PZ. Like most evolutionists, he has a ideological basis for rejecting the Creation and Catastrophism model and has such a strong commitment to said ideological principles that he cannot tolerate any questioning of even the most trivial details of his prefered model of origins.
-Rev Tony Breeden