They basically spell out the reason they are trying to tear evolution to the ground (and doing a bad job I am afraid).
Note: For those of you who seem to think so, I am attacking Answers In Genesis, I am not quarrelling over an unimportant issue. I am correcting AiG in a realm I think they are clearly mistaken.
Well lets get right into it. The first problem involves the common misconception among young earth creationists that theistic evolutionists somehow devalue God, or say that he is not as powerful. It is also based on the "no death before sin" argument for young teaching in the bible;
Danger no. 1: Misrepresentation of the nature of
The Bible reveals God to us as our Father in Heaven, who is absolutely
5:48), holy (Isaiah
6:3), and omnipotent (Jeremiah
32:17). The Apostle John tells us that ‘God is love’, ‘light’, and
John 4:16; 1:5; 1:1-2).
When this God creates something, His work is described as ‘very good’ (Genesis
1:31) and ‘perfect’ (Deuteronomy
Theistic evolution gives a false representation of the
nature of God because death and ghastliness are ascribed to the Creator as
principles of creation. (Progressive creationism, likewise, allows for millions
of years of death and horror before sin.)
Well, young earth creationists have a problem with animal death. According to their idea of God animal death is evil so God is evil. This is not a biblical teaching, I have talked about this before.
Only human death is evil, it is talking about spiritual death not physical death. God is still love. Besides I do not believe God is directly guiding natural selection, more he was guiding the force which influence natural selection. The next objection is not much stronger;
Danger no. 2: God becomes a God of gaps
At first this seems like the most ironic hypocritical statement I have heard coming from AiG, well lets look at their reasons, is it?
The Bible states that God is the Prime Cause of all things. ‘But to us there
is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things … and one Lord Jesus Christ,
by whom are all things, and we by Him’ (1
However, in theistic evolution the only
workspace allotted to God is that part of nature which evolution cannot
‘explain’ with the means presently at its disposal. In this way He is reduced to
being a ‘god of the gaps’ for those phenomena about which there are doubts. This
leads to the view that ‘God is therefore not absolute, but He Himself has
evolved—He is evolution
And somehow God is not the prime cause of all things according to theistic evolution (sigh). I could do nothing but shake my head when they said that it means God is evolution. No, no, no Mr. Gitt (the name of the person writing this) according to Theistic Evolution God guides evolution he is by no means the process itself, you are the only one who is claiming such a thing. Neither does Theistic Evolution imply God is evolving, and of course according to Theistic Evolution God is the cause of all things, ever heard of the Big Bang (yes there are some who disagree I am simply making a point)? And young earth creationists seem to have a much larger problem with "gods of gaps" since they evoke God directly right and left as the with virtually everything, if you do that if a natural explanation is found you are going to create an environment where your religion contracts every time science expands, that is a religion killer.
Danger no. 3: Denial of Central Biblical
The entire Bible bears witness that we are dealing with a source of
truth authored by God (2
Timothy 3:16), with the Old Testament as the indispensable ‘ramp’
leading to the New Testament, like an access road leads to a motor freeway
5:39). The biblical creation account should not be regarded as a
myth, a parable, or an allegory, but as a historical report, because:
Before I let them continue I agree that the Old Testament cannot be discarded or ignored, only liberal Christians say that and I am conservative. I agree that it is the key to understanding the New Testament. And I agree that it is more then a myth, parable or allegory. This is another widespread young earth misconception. Now that we go that over with lets go on to why they think this.
--Biological, astronomical and anthropological facts are given in didactic [teaching] form.
...Yes, they are, very good...Genesis 1 however is not, and besides there are times when a day doesn't always mean a day
--In the Ten Commandments God bases the six working days and one day of rest on the sametime-span as described in the creation account (Exodus 20:8-11).
And this is a good reason to interpret the word yom as day because...Anyway why could God really mean six ages and still give us the layout for a week?
--In the New Testament Jesus referred to facts of the creation (e.g. Matthew 19:4-5).
That could have just as easily been referring to the beginning of mankind and yes I agree, Man And woman evolved (or I'll say were made) both male and female.
--Nowhere in the Bible are there any indications that the creation account should be understood in any other way than as a factual report.
2 Peter 3:8? And The bible has lots of facts and lots of allegory and we should be able to distinguish it using out reason, apparently you don't.
Well I was only able to make it through three of the dangers. So I don't make an inconventiently long article I am going to save the other seven for another post. There are a lot of other things to be covered. Until then, God bless. I mean that both to my fellow Christians( both theistic evolutionists, old earth creationists, and AiG fans) and atheists.