A Question I Was Asked:
“When Will You Creationists Wake Up From Your Ignorance?”
Just recently I received a really long, insulting (and somewhat abusive), e mail from an admirer of Darwin, and this particular Darwinist is (apparently) a supporter of Liberal Anglican/Episcopalian Christianity.
Here is just a small part of his unpleasant and offensive e mail:
“It is obvious that the creation account is just an allegory – nothing more. It is plain boneheaded to refuse to read Genesis in this way because of some prior ideological view of inspiration, inerrancy and literal truth, and this refusal leads to gross error.
Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams has just given an interview in the course of which he described creationism as a category mistake. Discuss it by all means, he said, but it should not be taught as an alternative theory to evolution, because it isn’t. The Archbishop has a finer mind than yours or mine. Pity he’s going to hell, isn’t it?
Robin, do wake up. Creationism is a cancer in the body of Christ, which must be removed and flung into the outer darkness of ignorance from which it came. Like a cancer, it is diverting energy away from issues that actually matter, wasting scientists’ and theologians’ time alike....”
This is only a small part of a distinctly insulting – to say nothing of inaccurate, and quite often illogical – e mail. Actually, it was not a question; the man thought he had all the answers, he detests Creationism and wanted to attack an anti-evolution article which I had written.
But he does raise one or two points which I want to tackle:
First of all, he says, '... It is plain boneheaded to refuse to read Genesis in this way (that is, to refuse to read it as an allegory) because of some prior ideological view of inspiration, inerrancy and literal truth, and this refusal leads to gross error.'
Hmmm. I can, of course, immediately throw this back at the writer! I could say,
'It is plain boneheaded to read Genesis in this way (interpreting it through Darwinist lenses) because of some ideological (or, philosophical) view which must deny inspiration, must support a mere unprovable theory and denies a truth which is evidentially quite strong, and this refusal leads to gross error!
Is the Creation story as related in Genesis simply an allegory? Is it simply a story with profound meaning - but not literally true? Some do think this, including perhaps the majority of Liberal Christianity. If this man wants to reason in this way that is his decision. But there is a major problem with this line of reasoning and it is this: Those of us who have committed ourselves to the Lord Jesus Christ must be guided by Jesus and by the Apostles and it is quite obvious from several New Testament texts that Jesus and the Apostles accepted the biblical Creation account as literally true! Oh, it certainly has great meaning and maybe God is beginning to work with some people who presently see it merely as an allegory, but in the process of time, if the Holy Spirit is indeed opening the minds of a few such people, they will surely come to agree with Jesus and the Apostles that the Creation account of Genesis is rather more than an allegory – it actually happened.
The man who e mailed me thinks that is absurd since he has placed all his faith in the conclusions of scientists. So he too has 'faith' but he places his faith in Darwin and I place mine in the Lord Jesus. I might add that I always support good empirical science – that is, science which is actually science – but I must reject “science” which is not that at all, but is philosophical theory masquerading as science which immediately paints all available evidence in a certain philosophical colour!
He then quotes the Archbishop of Canterbury (Dr Rowan Williams), at me. I do not know if Dr Williams actually said that Creationism should not be seen as an “alternative theory to evolution.” If he said that, that is his opinion - but I would hardly expect a biblical opinion to come from the liberal wing of Anglicanism (Episcopalianism) which Dr Williams clearly represents! But if the Dr had to face Jesus tomorrow, would he seriously tell him to His face that Creationism should not be seen as an “alternative theory to evolution”? (Because, that is, biblical creation is merely an allegory whereas evolution is “good science” - which is presumably what Dr Williams meant – that is, if the quote is accurate). I do not think that the archbishop would dare make such a comment in such company!
writer of the e mail then sarcastically says of the archbishop, “Pity
he's going to hell isn't it?” - by this comment he infers
that I would say that that is where he will go, but I have no idea
what the good Lord will do with heretical bishops or priests –
that is His area to decide – not mine! However, if he
knew my writings a little better he would know that I always refuse
to say that specific individuals are going to hell – following
the Bible example, which lists many individuals who are clearly saved
but never mentions specific people as being bound for hell (except
the 'rich man' in the parable of Lazarous – and that is a
parable – and the 'beast' and 'false prophet' who are unnamed
Finally, in the section of comments which I am tackling from this e mail, the writer states,
'....Creationism is a cancer in the body of Christ, which must be removed and flung into the outer darkness of ignorance from which it came. Like a cancer, it is diverting energy away from issues that actually matter, wasting scientists’ and theologians’ time alike....”
Again, these comments can just as easily be made of the writer's own position. With perfect logical consistency I could say,
'Darwinism (or, Neo-Darwinism – take your choice) is a cancer within modern science which must be removed and flung into the outer darkness of ignorance from which it came. Like a cancer, it is diverting energy away from issues that actually matter, wasting scientists and theologians time alike.'
My, how true are those comments of Darwinist theory. Just think how science has been held back by its reliance on a theory which is not only unprovable but not even demonstrated in the considerable evidence now available. Such evidence has – for a very long time – pointed toward Creation as being a more consistent and believable theory than Darwinism (as even many scientists – and an increasing number every year) admit.
Robin A. Brace, 2006.
This site contains many articles on evolution showing how it is already a failed theory even though it still stands (albeit somewhat unsteadily) and is still taught in every school, college and university. The best way to pull together all our articles would probably be to go to our homepage (link follows), find 'Search' in the column on the right and type in 'evolution.'