AiG - not scientific after all!

[Omega Red]

Dr Monty White (AiG CE of UK/Europe) gave a talk on evolution and creation in Brighton this evening. His starting point was that as a Christian we have to pre-suppose that the Bible is correct and contrast this point to the evolutionist who would say that science is correct. These 2 view lead to opposition.

He described AiG as “a ministry not a scientific organisation”. Apparently AiG “doesn’t do scientific talks”. Then proceeded to expound point after point where science had shown some erroneous results which are supposed to demolish any reliability and credibility of science. Mainly it was for cheap rhetoric ably assisted with the usual cartoons from AiG.

There were a lot of red herrings thrown out along the way: mori polls, ultimate origin questions, and an ex-church turned into an off-licence, but points of interest were -

Big Bang: all evolutionists say that the universe came from nothing. Nothing existed before the Big Bang and therefore nothing exploded to produce the universe.

Darwinism: Darwinism (i.e. evolution) rejects the need for God. It shows that everything could happen without him.

Mount St. Helens: young rock samples give erroneous readings, therefore all radiometric dating is invalid.

Geomorphology: Isle of Surtsey produced a wide variety of geological structures, therefore all landmass morphology can be derived from volcanic activity.

Canyons: can form in a matter of days. Diverted water sources have been shown to cut through hard rock and the Grand Canyon can be expained by a lot of water over a couple of days, i.e. the global flood.

Population: from an evolution point of view the population would be 10^100 by now.

Other Biblical reference to Genesis: Basically it reports God saying “this is how I did it, take my word for it”.

Afterwards I questioned him about misrepresenting all evolutionists as being blinkered in their thinking and demonstrate atheistic attitudes I was shocked at his response. It turns out that science can be legitimately used to disprove science where appropriate, but any and all science is subservient to the Bible. Whilst methodological naturalism may come from God, all interpretation of facts are subjective and wrong when they conflict with the Bible. Genesis 1-2 is entirely prose; there is absolutely no proof that it is poetic and must be taken literally.

He has spoken to one atheist astronomer who said that nothing was prior to the beginning of the Big Bang and this was an accurate reflection of all evolutionists who believe in the big bang, for he had asked several others too.

He agreed that another pre-supposition could be that God exists. It follows that God brings about the Universe, that God created methodological naturalism and gave us scripture. I asked him if there was anywhere in the Bible that showed God to be a deceiver, he said no. I asked about the supernova (SN1987A) and he said that any interpretation must be in-line with the Bible (literal interpretation) and that Humphries was already dealing with that. I asked him to show me any proof the Humphries models might be correct: any interpretation must be in-line with the Bible (literal interpretation).

Asked about radiometric dating conducted by Austin: any interpretation must be in-line with the Bible (literal interpretation).

And again about Darwinism displacing God: any interpretation must be in-line with the Bible (literal interpretation).

Perhaps it was unfair of me to be persistent in asking questions.

His closing remarks “I could spend hours going through all the research, but there isn’t the time. We’ll just have to agree that we have different and views.”

I may be wrong. This is a possibility that I can accept if someone were to show me where I went wrong in my thinking. I just found it incredulous that Monty could handwave all science out the window when it suited his pre-supposition.

If God created the universe according to a particular route, why give us the ability to reason, experiment and question if the data indicates something different to what might be described in Genesis? Did I miss the passage in the Bible that says "you must believe everything in Genesis, word for word"? Monty didn't.

Frustration was that a lot of (church) people seemed non-plussed by the talk and others thought it was the best bit of reasoning they had heard in a long time.

[shunyadragon]

Dr Monty White (AiG CE of UK/Europe) gave a talk on evolution and creation in Brighton this evening. His starting point was that as a Christian we have to pre-suppose that the Bible is correct and contrast this point to the evolutionist who would say that science is correct. These 2 view lead to opposition.

He described AiG as “a ministry not a scientific organisation”. Apparently AiG “doesn’t do scientific talks”. Then proceeded to expound point after point where science had shown some erroneous results which are supposed to demolish any reliability and credibility of science. Mainly it was for cheap rhetoric ably assisted with the usual cartoons from AiG.

There were a lot of red herrings thrown out along the way: mori polls, ultimate origin questions, and an ex-church turned into an off-licence, but points of interest were -

Big Bang: all evolutionists say that the universe came from nothing. Nothing existed before the Big Bang and therefore nothing exploded to produce the universe.

Darwinism: Darwinism (i.e. evolution) rejects the need for God. It shows that everything could happen without him.

Mount St. Helens: young rock samples give erroneous readings, therefore all radiometric dating is invalid.

Geomorphology: Isle of Surtsey produced a wide variety of geological structures, therefore all landmass morphology can be derived from volcanic activity.

Canyons: can form in a matter of days. Diverted water sources have been shown to cut through hard rock and the Grand Canyon can be expained by a lot of water over a couple of days, i.e. the global flood.

Population: from an evolution point of view the population would be 10^100 by now.

Other Biblical reference to Genesis: Basically it reports God saying “this is how I did it, take my word for it”.

Afterwards I questioned him about misrepresenting all evolutionists as being blinkered in their thinking and demonstrate atheistic attitudes I was shocked at his response. It turns out that science can be legitimately used to disprove science where appropriate, but any and all science is subservient to the Bible. Whilst methodological naturalism may come from God, all interpretation of facts are subjective and wrong when they conflict with the Bible. Genesis 1-2 is entirely prose; there is absolutely no proof that it is poetic and must be taken literally.

The bottom line is this a fideist approach, and of course not science as you say.

[Mark F]

A fideistic approach is not a priori fallacious, from a biblical viewpoint. But I agree that one should be consistent in one's attitude towards science.

I asked him if there was anywhere in the Bible that showed God to be a deceiver, he said no.

Strictly speaking, he was right - the Bible doesn't call God a deceiver. However, there's Thess 2:11-12 (describing an event at the end of ages):

And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

So, if God gives up on people who have embraced unrighteousness with no repentance, He may use a deception to utterly condemn them. The first chapter of Romans speaks about this, too.

[Omega Red]

Strictly speaking, he was right - the Bible doesn't call God a deceiver. However, there's Thess 2:11-12 (describing an event at the end of ages):

And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

I think we agreed that God wouldn't use an illusion at the beginning, but Monty took the line that science must be wrong and reinterpreted in line with literal Genesis (e.g. Humphrey's model). Do you have any leads on scripture saying that Gensis 1-3 must be read literally?

Now that I've got some rest after the talk, I hope to find out whether his pre-supposition is correct or a good starting point.

[Mark F]

Do you have any leads on scripture saying that Gensis 1-3 must be read literally?

There's a verse, in Numbers I think, which reiterates that God created the world in six days and rested on the seventh day; this is used as a model for six working days and the sabbath. However, that is not necessarily a statement for a literal creation week; the act of creation may just have been presented as six days to stress the point.

So far, for me, the framework interpretation (debated in a topic below) seems to be the best way to go if one wants to integrate the creation chapters as they are into a generally accepted scientific paradigm.

[Omega Red]

There's a verse, in Numbers I think, which reiterates that God created the world in six days and rested on the seventh day; this is used as a model for six working days and the sabbath. However, that is not necessarily a statement for a literal creation week; the act of creation may just have been presented as six days to stress the point.

So far, for me, the framework interpretation (debated in a topic below) seems to be the best way to go if one wants to integrate the creation chapters as they are into a generally accepted scientific paradigm.

Hi Mark

There's also John 5:16-17 “So, because Jesus was doing these things on the Sabbath, the Jews persecuted him. Jesus said to them, "My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I, too, am working."”

A straight forward literal reading here causes a problem. Somone will have to explain by inference.

[Mark F]

Yeah, a lot of passages become absurd if we take them in the elementary literal sense. Generally speaking, quality literature makes use of symbols and metaphorical language alongside straightforward literal expressions, and the Bible is no exception.

The question is then, where do we draw the line between historically precise narrative and spiritual/metaphorical/poetic narrative? If the creation account is not a primarily scientific report, what "deeper" meaning(s) does it attempt to convey? This is a difficult issue, but there are some pretty apt answers out there.

[kuboes1831]

What do you expect of Monty Pythonn?

Take his age of the earth book. It is full of pork pies from Leicester. He is very norty in the way he misquotes. I heard him in blackpool last year, same old tripe. All with evangelsitic emotionalism and all went "AHHHH!" No questions allowed though

[Dee Dee Warren]

Leave it to kuboes to moon the crowd in a polite and interesting conversation

[Dave G]

Leave it to kuboes to moon the crowd in a polite and interesting conversation

[Raptor]

[Omega Red]

Yeah, a lot of passages become absurd if we take them in the elementary literal sense. Generally speaking, quality literature makes use of symbols and metaphorical language alongside straightforward literal expressions, and the Bible is no exception.

The question is then, where do we draw the line between historically precise narrative and spiritual/metaphorical/poetic narrative? If the creation account is not a primarily scientific report, what "deeper" meaning(s) does it attempt to convey? This is a difficult issue, but there are some pretty apt answers out there.

I agree, but how do you engage someone like Monty is such a discussion? There seemed to be a real fingers in his ear and sream 'you believe what you want to believe'. Whilst I expected some arguments based on science, I wasn't really prepared for a 'heap scorn and run' approach, based on questionable argument from authority. This I felt was a major disservice to Christians and to a number of non-Christians there.

[Assyrian]

There's a verse, in Numbers I think, which reiterates that God created the world in six days and rested on the seventh day; this is used as a model for six working days and the sabbath. However, that is not necessarily a statement for a literal creation week; the act of creation may just have been presented as six days to stress the point.

That would be Exodus 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

And Exodus 31:17 It is a sign forever between me and the people of Israel that in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed.

As far as I know those are the only places in the entire bible that say God created the world in six days. Interestingly they contain an anthropomorphism of God resting and being refreshed like a human labourer recovering on the Sabbath.

What do people make of
Psalm 78:2 I will open my mouth in a parable; I will utter dark sayings from of old,
3 things that we have heard and known, that our fathers have told us.

Blessings Assyrian

[kuboes1831]

Leave it to kuboes to moon the crowd in a polite and interesting conversation

So you think it is in accord with the ninth Commandment to misrepresent and distort what others say. All this has been publicised loads of times and AIG wont change/repent

I thought Christians were supposed to be honest. Do you disagree with that?

[Dee Dee Warren]

Yep, my decision to keep you on my ignore list is a good thing - I read a few posts to see if it was time to take you off. Nope.