The Butler Staff and Faculty Ministry at Butler University plans to have Terry Mortenson from Answers in Genesis speak at an April 11th event. James McGrath, a professor at Butler University, does not think Mortenson should be permitted to speak at Butler.
In a letter to the Butler Staff and Faculty Ministry McGrath wrote:
I would like to express my dismay that BSFM has chosen to invite a representative of an organization opposed to not only the mission of Butler University, but also the historic Christian faith and respect for the Bible, to our campus. Answers in Genesis promotes views which are at odds with both the scientific evidence and what the Bible says.
I have blogged more than once about Terry Mortenson’s previous visit to campus. Here is a link to one example.
I wonder what motivates the invitation of someone who represents an organization that brings the Christian faith into disrepute. Those who make false claims, and who maintain that the making of such claims is what it means to be a Christian, do only harm to the faith. That is what Answers in Genesis does. They persuade many people that they have to choose between what science concludes and Christianity, and in a self-fulfilling prophecy, many people who then discover the weight and extent of the scientific evidence then leave their faith.
Why not invite someone like Francis Collins, an Evangelical Christian who headed up the Human Genome Project and who is now director of the NIH? Someone who actually knows about the relevant scientific information and can talk about it from a Christian perspective? Why not invite a Christian like John Walton who is also a Biblical scholar and can talk honestly and accurately about the creation accounts in Genesis? Why invite self-proclaimed experts without relevant expertise who deceive the gullible and drive people away from the faith?
I am very disappointed with BSFM. I am not sure who is responsible for the invitation, but I hope that you will forward my e-mail to them. I do not know whether there is any hope that the invitation extended to Answers in Genesis could be reconsidered, but it ought to be.
McGrath’s posting of his letter has elicited almost 300 comments on his blog. Defenders of Terry Mortenson, Answers in Genesis, and young earth creationism, quickly found out about McGrath’s post and left comments objecting to McGrath’s letter.
The discussion quickly turned to a creationism vs. evolution debate. The debate went like these debates ALWAYS go…nowhere. While I totally agree with James McGrath on Butler University giving Mortenson a platform to spread the creationist religion (in the name of science), I do wonder why people like McGrath continue to engage creationists in discussions.
Several times I tried to point out that the issue was not one of science. My comments were ignored. I suspect McGrath enjoys talking about science like I enjoy talking about theology. It is easy to get involved in discussions that ultimately are a waste of time. The reason is simple.
McGrath and others wrongly assume that if they show the creationist the science that they will see the error of their way. This wrong assumption results in long drawn out discussions about science and totally misses what the real issue is.
The real issue is the Bible and the authority the Evangelical grants the Bible. Evangelicals are literalists who believe the sixty-six books of the Christian Bible are the inspired, inerrant, infallible word of God. According to the Evangelical, God spoke through human writers to write the Bible. As such, the Bible is different from any other book ever written. It is a divine text, ultimately written by God himself.
When the Evangelical reads Genesis 1-3 they read it literally. The Bible is clear. God created the world in six days and this is how he did it. The findings of modern science, and not so modern science, directly conflict with what the Bible says. What is the Evangelical to do? He will always reject the science. When he ceases to reject the science he ceases to be an Evangelical. (with rare exception)
So arguing with an Evangelical about matters of science is a waste of time. The only matter for the Evangelical is what God said in his Word. The Evangelicals sees the debate as one of authority. They reject the authority of science over the Bible and contend that evolutionary science is nothing more than a religion built upon faith assumptions.
I am of the opinion that the best way to reach an Evangelical is by embracing their viewpoint and then trying to poke holes in their interpretation of the Bible. To reach the Evangelical, their belief that the Bible is the authoritative Word of God must be challenged and eroded. Like Satan in the Garden of Eden, they must be brought to the place where they are willing to say, Yea hath God said? Get an Evangelical to question the authority of the Bible and you have a good chance to change what he thinks is true.
I realize that scientists are not trained in theology and often have a poor understanding of church history. As an atheist, I am often embarrassed when some of the leading scientists wander off into discussions about theology, the Bible, and church history. I wish they would leave the theological debates to those of us who have experience with Biblical issues.
I am no scientist and I have no problem deferring to people like Steven Hawking, Richard Dawkins, PZ Myers, Jerry Coyne, or Lawrence Krauss. They have spent their entire lives studying science and I trust their expertise in their respective fields. I just wish they would do the same when it comes to matters of theology. Like the scientist, those of us who know the Bible and theology well, have given our entire lives to understanding these things.
And this is why scientists need to listen to us when it comes to creationism. The creationist will never be won over by scientific evidence. It has NEVER been about the science. In McGrath’s case, his area of expertise is religion and philosophy. While not a trained scientist, he does have a good understanding of science. (far superior to yours truly) I just wish, in the most recent discussion on his blog, McGrath would have attacked the foundation of the creationists, the Bible and their interpretations of the Bible, rather than engaging in a log, drawn out debate about science. (and numerous commenters did this)
When it comes to what creationists believe it is never about the science.
It’s about the money trail. “Sucker born every minute,” P. T. Barnum.
Bruce,
I know one thing that shocked me was when I read a book which showed how Bible writers thought of heaven, hell, earth, the firmament. It was thought of like a three-layered cake. This was an eye-opening way of reading the Bible. And it seemed to be a correct interpretation of what Bible writers thought.
I think pointing this out could have an eye-opening effect on others also.
Not only is it all about the Bible, but those Christians are taught that if they don’t believe that the Bible is literally true then they are doomed to hell.
Yes, any movement away from the Bible is literally true is a move towards apostasy For many years, I thought that most other Christian sects, churches, and pastors were deluded. If they just read and understood the Bible like I did…all would be well.
Bruce, my man, don’t get me started. I am completely baffled by the arguments that some prominent and scientifically minded atheists resort to when they attempt to refute evangelical/fundamentalist Christianity. People like P.Z. Myers rightly boast when they expose pseudo-science such as creationism, but then they laud and promote pseudo history such as the idea that there was no historical Jesus.
Just last week, I witnessed a debate between an atheist and a Christian. It was obvious that the atheist Knew almost NOTHING about the Bible and theology. He also tried to promote the non-existence of Jesus. Did the atheist make some good points? Sure, but I think he made an ass out of himself. Knowing more about the Bible and theology and not promoting bullshit theories such as the Christ myth theory would have made the atheist’s performance more effective. I think this is a prescription for nonbelievers in general, when attempting to refute evangelical/fundamentalist christianity.
Bruce, I know people will respond to us by saying something to the effect of, “You guys are committing the fallacy of implying that someone should be an expert on a subject before they can criticize or refute it. ” This is not what I’m saying. However, I do think people should know SOMETHING about a subject before they criticize or refute it, and it’s very obvious that many atheists know almost nothing about the Bible and theology, so they end up talking out of their ass and making stupid, bullshit arguments.
OK, venting over.
I agree. Scientists are trained in their respective fields and generally should be listened to with a proper deference. After all, most of us are not trained scientists and most of us couldn’t give a complex, cohesive explanation of biological evolution if we had to. While I am not ignorant of science, I know my limitations. Like all of us, I have certain experts I trust when I need a definitive answer about something.
But when it comes to religion and Bible? Everyone is an expert and everyone has an opinion. I suppose this is due to the emotional aspect of religion. However, when non-theologically trained scientists talk about religion they far too often show their ignorance about religion and the Bible.I wish they would vet their statements with someone who actually has studied the Bible before they open their mouth. Unfortunately, this doesn’t seem to happen very often.
Mika’il,
Calling the Christ myth theory “bullshit” is not a very good critique or a refutation. You just haven’t read enough on it yet–some of the recent scholarship on it is very good, and answers a lot of questions. Don’t be too hasty just because some atheist debaters aren’t very good.
Some of the mythicists can be quite dismissive of people don’t see things their way. I know this from personal experience. While I think they do bring some new information to the table, it is not enough for me to say that Jesus did not exist. I think Bart Ehrman does a decent job in answering their objections in his latest book.
My position is simple. There was a man names Jesus who lived and died in Palestine during the first century. He was likely a rabbi, a teacher of some sort. He lived, died. No virgin birth, no miracle working, and no resurrection from the dead.
Mike and I talked privately about the debate. Here’s the problem I have with atheist debaters playing the Jesus is a myth card. When they play this card people stop listening to them. Any hope they had of reaching someone ended as soon as they said Jesus never existed.To the Christian, the evidence is overwhelming that Jesus existed. So, pragmatically speaking, is it really best to talk about Jesus not existing? (especially since the vast majority of scholars reject the mythicist view)
I am of the opinion that the mythicist view makes it easy for people to dismiss Christianity out of hand. Jesus didn’t exist…end of story. But…2,000 years later, over a billion people say, I am a Christian. So, whether Jesus existed or not, really doesn’t matter. A billion people think he does exist. What is the best way to reach them?
Some of the problem is who the spokesmen are for the mythicist view. There seems to be concentration of arrogance in the mythicist camp and, even for people like me, it is quite irritating and disturbing. (and why I quit reading Richard Carrier)
Scott, you said, “Calling the Christ myth theory “bullshit” is not a very good critique or a refutation.”
Fair enough. You’re right. It’s not a good critique or refutation. I just don’t feel like going into an exhaustive critique of the christ myth theory here, so please forgive me. It’s just that from the research I’ve done and from considering the facts available to me, it seems totally implausible that there was no historical Jesus. I also get frustrated because there are so many other and better arguments that refute evangelical/fundamentalist Christianity than the Christ myth theory….and yet lately it seems many atheists are trying to promote this and by doing this, they are losing their credibility.
Here’s my impression, and I could be wrong. Many atheists like to pride themselves on being free thinkers and being skeptical, so they’re more than willing to accept the view that Jesus didn’t exist, even though they’re promoting a view that not one mainstream scholar believes and teaches. Would they take the same attitude towards scientific matters? I think not.
Hi Bruce,
A former church that I regularly attended, I quickly discovered, was a hotbed of Young Earth Creationism. i noticed that when any scientific information was presented that contradicted YEC that they would reject it, based on their literal-historical interpretation of the bible.
Although some admitted gaps in the genealogies (and one person was prepared to admit that the Table of nations in Genesis 10 might push back time somewhat), their usual ploy was to refer me to the genealogy of Jesus in Luke’s gospel which goes back to Adam. They would say that this proves that humans are some 6000 – 10000 years old, not 2 billion (homo erectus) or not some 150,000 – 200,000 years old (homo sapiens).
Their infallible literal-historical interpretation of an infallible bible written by God through human beings would, for them, trump all science and the science would have to be made to FIT their view of the bible. And here is why Answers in Genesis and Creation Ministries International are so significant for them. They have to find ways in which to bend science to their view of the bible Hence, i think it is futile to argue with them. They will say that you are not a real Christian or you are a bible denier.
Nevertheless, I think it is important to argue against their view because they are brainwashing so many people to reject empirical science.They are trying to get their Fundamentalist religious dogmas into the science class-rooms under the idea of presenting their pseudo-science as another genuine option.
Shalom,
John Arthur
I think I would respect them more if they just said, I believe what God said in the Bible is true…end of story. Instead, they try to give the appearance that they are being scientific and this is what drives me crazy. Especially since the Bible clearly states that believing God created the world is a matter of faith.
This is why I think it is better to engage creationists on theological grounds rather than scientific grounds. If I can poke a hole in their literalistic belief system, I think they might see they folly of their unscientific claims for Genesis.
Hey Bruce,
I’m one of those involved in the quixotic attempt to talk some sense into these creationists. :]
I’m glad you blogged about this, because when I saw one of your posts I was meaning to ask you what you thought the best way to engage with them would be.
James has engaged them on Biblical grounds, though. My impression is that he does this more than engaging them on scientific grounds. There may be more posts in terms of number where he says ‘the evidence is clear’, but in terms of word-count, those tend to be pretty short and he doesn’t go into detail.
There’s been quite a lot of discussion about how there’s plenty of descriptions of the cosmos etc. which creationists read figuratively.
The debate goes nowhere, yes. But this is hardly limited to debates with creationists. I basically just expect debates about anything meaningful which people actually care about to not go very far.
So why bother?
Well, because you can’t very easily tell what is being achieved in the debate. People really hate admitting that they’re wrong, even to themselves, but they can and do concede ground in their head, after they’ve cooled down.
Also, I agree that very often the arguments given have very little to do with why the person actually believes what they do. So I do like the idea that we should try to address the underlying problem.
Unfortunately, it’s not always clear what the underlying problem is, and the person often isn’t aware themselves. You’ve identified the fact that they are committed to reading the first verses of Genesis literally. I’m not sure that’s the only thing going on, though. For example, it seems to me that often they really enjoy the security and certainty and feeling of knowing the truth and understanding completely about the origin of things. Trading that for an uncertain, always-changing, complex and difficult to understand story that science offers isn’t going to be an attractive bargain.
Then there are the social pressures. I think most people can subconsciously detect when a path is going to drive a wedge between them and their community, and they instinctively drive away from going down that path.
I don’t know what to do about those things. I have no idea of how to encourage someone to be comfortable with not knowing. One answer to the second is ‘get new friends’, but obviously I’m not in a position to make that happen.
The final reason I’m a bit uncomfortable about going for the real issues is that it’s a bit disingenuous. The creationist might feel that we were ignoring their arguments about evolution, and changing the subject, and attacking their faith — and they’d be right about all of that. We don’t like it when they do that kind of thing to us.
The flip side to this is that I kind of think it’s perfectly reasonable and a genuine and even helpful way of interacting with people to, when someone says ‘well, but what about X?’ to say ‘well, X isn’t a problem because P, Q and R’.
Anyway, as I was saying, we can’t really tell what happens as a result of the debate. I’m sure in many cases it’s nothing much, but sometimes they’ll go away and think ‘actually, that arcseconds kind of had a point there. hum.’ Or maybe they have never really heard someone who knows anything about the topic defend it (there’s got to be a first time to argue with a science person for every creationist, after all), and if they’ve got a caricature in their head they may twig ‘gosh, this isn’t how this debate goes in my head whenever i have it against imaginary evolutionists!’. Or maybe some seeds of doubt get sown that get fertilized in another year or two, and eventually grow into full-blown doubts down the track. Or maybe they start to doubt for other reasons and think back and say ‘hmm… that puts those debates about evolution in a different light’.
Finally, there’s always the audience to consider. You might not have persuaded your interlocutor at all, but really opened the eyes of someone you didn’t even know was reading the conversation. On the other hand, what are people who are on the fence about evolution going to say if they see the evolution people never address objections?
Dammit, I have never been wrong!!
Welcome, and thank you for commenting.
When it comes to Evangelicalism, I think I understand Evangelical thinking better than McGrath and people like Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, etal. I am not saying I am intellectually superior to these men. I am not. I revere all of these men as gods.
But, having actually spent 50 years in Evangelicalism, 25 of those years as a pastor, I know how Evangelicals think. People like John Loftus and I know Evangelicalism from the inside. So when a Tim comes to a blog like he did here and at James McGrath’s blog, I already know how he thinks. Tim may talk endlessly about science, but the core issues for him are the existence of the Christian God and the authority of the Christian Bible. The science is secondary to the theological beliefs.
I don’t engage Evangelicals in discussions about science because, first, I am woefully ignorant about science, and second, I know that no Evangelical will be turned from his beliefs by a scientific argument alone. I must kick the props out from under his inerrant Bible before there is any hope of the Evangelical changing his beliefs. It is very hard to do…but it does happen. (as people like myself, Bart Ehrman, Jerry Dewitt, John Loftus, and an entire cast of atheist preachers at the clergy project can testify)
I totally agree with you on lurkers. I get tired of engaging Evangelicals on the same questions over and over and over and…..but I try to remember that on a day when 25-100 people leave a comment, 2 or 3 thousand people do not. I owe it to them to try and answer the objections that Evangelicals raise.
I appreciate your thoughtful comment.
Bruce
I think one issue is that the Christian feels God Himself is right there with them in the discussion, looking over their shoulder. They think God cares deeply about the subject they are arguing about. They feel they represent God in the argument.
What might change things is if they imagined the absence of God. What if God’s really NOT there? What if I just THINK he’s there, because I’ve been taught that? What if, in reality, I’m just one person arguing with another person? We both have opinions. We both are relying on our intelligence, education, etc.
It seems to me this issue is big. The atheist is just representing himself. He doesn’t have to please anybody. He can’t disappoint anybody. He’s not gonna go to hell if he changes his mind about something. The Christian, on the other hand, has lots more at stake. One side involves fear. The other side doesn’t. One side must stay within the parameters of the Bible. The other side is totally free.
I am going to agree with you on one of your major points here, Bruce. My deconversion centered around losing my faith in inerrancy. The scientific evidence in favor or evolution and the origin of our species was a factor, but if everything in the Bible had lined up and fit with the theory of being one continuous narrative from an infallible divine being, no other evidence would have swayed me. It was the internal contradictions, varying viewpoints, the evidence in support of the documentary hypothesis, and the messy road to achieve an organized canon of scripture that shattered my certainty.
A different Tim
Welcome. Nice to meet a Tim I can agree with!
Bruce
Hey Bruce.
I think you are right on in saying that “it” is not about science. I have tried to point this out to Evolutionists.
What is it about? It’s about faith.
I am not an “Evangelical”, but I do believe in the God of Genesis because I first believe in Jesus. I believe that Jesus created all things in heaven and earth in six days and rested on the 7th. It just makes sense to me in the world I see and live in. But again, it’s mainly about faith. By the faith in the Jesus Christ that was given to me I believe the written testimony of the Scriptures.
I know that this comment will go nowhere here, but I just had to leave it nonetheless after I stumbled across your blog when doing a search for Mortenson at Butler. By the way, he is an excellent speaker.
Another Tim
No, I said creationism is about faith. I would never make such a claim about science.