Adam, Eve and a therapod dinosaur in the garden of Eden (Gen 1.24-30)
Having just dealt with similar issues in the previous article on Hugh Ross’ mis-directions, I felt a twinge of déjà vu as I read through an “A Minimal-Facts Case for Genesis”[1]. The author appears to have a problem with the teachings of origins as laid out in Genesis. He summarizes the main points of the Biblical origin account as:
1. God created the universe, Earth, and all life in six 24-hour days.
2. The Earth is only 6000 years old.
3. Common descent (i.e. “evolution”) is false.
4. Humans coexisted with dinosaurs.
5. Noah fit the ancestors of all present-day animals on the Ark.
6. The Flood covered the entire Earth, killing all other humans and land animals.[2]
That’s a fair summary. I could quibble over some points[3], but overall that is a fair summary. But immediately we can tell from his tone, he doesn’t agree with the Bible’s straightforward presentation of those facts. His disagreement is confirmed when he wants to present “… the main points of Genesis–taking a 10,000-foot view …” In other words, he doesn’t want to try to deal with, or account for, the details in the biblical account that disagree with his approach. What is his approach? Clearly, his approach views science as primary and foundational truth, and the Bible must conform to our current understanding of applicable scientific theories.
That is where the fallacy rears its ugly head. The minimalist fallacy does not accept the Bible as wholly true; it assumes that whatever approach the reader wants to take–which is typically a modern scientific approach–is correct and true. Therefore, the Bible must conform to that approach and whatever that worldview claims as true, regardless of what the Bible says. Thus, if the Bible is in disagreement with the reader’s worldview, the minimalist approach says the Bible is incorrect, and that part of the Bible must be thrown out. That is essentially the effect when you take a “10,000 foot view.” In doing so, you compromise the teaching of the Bible in order to make it look like it agrees with what your non-biblical worldview tells you is true. Further, inherent in limiting your view to that of a high level, “10,000 foot view”, is a denial of the Christian doctrine of inspiration which, as the Chicago statement on Biblical inerrancy indicates, inspiration extends down to the very words of scripture. So scriptural inspiration does not apply just to general themes and teachings, but to the details as well. But in discarding the clear teaching of scripture, you have begun a departure from “the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints.” (Jude 1.3) With this I hope to correct that departure.
So the minimalist approach is really just another way to deny what the Bible teaches, while trying to claim you fundamentally agree with the Bible, even though you have changed or outright denied what the Bible clearly states and teaches. Ironically, those taking a minimalist approach likely do not realize that by accepting scientific “fact” as true, they have rejected out of hand any teaching of the Bible that contradicts the scientific consensus. An example is the fact that humans lived with dinosaurs, which seems to be a problem for our author who uses the minimalist approach. This relegation of the Bible to a non-authoritative text from which you can pick and choose what you want to believe is perhaps the biggest problem with the minimalist approach. You are never challenged to believe what the Bible clearly teachers if science disagrees. Instead, you’re always trying to make the Bible fit into what you already believe to be true from other sources. I’m reminded of a story told by a preacher about a gangster who “converted” and became a Christian. He did so thinking he didn’t have to stop being one who lied, stole, beat and killed people. “Since you can be a Christian doctor, lawyer, teacher or athlete, why can’t you become a Christian gangster?” he reasoned to himself. He didn’t understand that becoming a Christian requires a fundamental transformation. As the Apostle Paul put it:
You were taught, with regard to your former way of life, to put off your old self, which is being corrupted by its deceitful desires; 23 to be made new in the attitude of your minds; 24 and to put on the new self, created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness.
Eph 4.22-24
In like manner, becoming a Christian requires a fundamental change in “the attitude of your minds”, including changing your basis for foundational truth. For the Christian, God is the basis of all truth, as revealed in his word, the Bible. It is neither man nor science that stands as the ultimate authority. God is. This is not to say Christians cannot agree with science or use science to the benefit of humanity. However, science, like everything else in creation, must take its proper place. This means science is to be applied in service to God, to give glory to God by showing forth God’s wisdom and knowledge and to benefit mankind, who is the pinnacle of God’s creation, by revealing the riches and secrets with which God has imbued that creation.
“It is the glory of God to conceal a matter; to search out a matter is the glory of kings.”
(Prov 25:2)
The Devil Is In The Details
Science is wonderful when it reveals truth. But what if it gets things wrong, particularly when it can be proven wrong and untrue? At that point, when known falsehoods are pushed as truth, science serves as a conduit for false religions. In such cases where science claims as true what is known to be false, it exploits the respect given science in order to inspire belief and faithfulness among adherents in spite of biblical truth. So science that contradicts the Bible is typically used as a tool of deception by the father of lies. Just as Eve likely did not know she was conversing with the father of lies in the Garden of Eden[4], people pushing the lies of evolution and the big bang likely don’t know they’re promoting lies of Satan. This is likely true of the author of the article currently under consideration. As usual, the devil is in the details. The author, who is taking this “minimal-facts” approach to Genesis in his article, does not appear to realize that his prioritizing science over the Bible has led him to reject biblical truth which contradicts the current scientific consensus in all of the propositions that he makes. This demonstrates both the fallacy of the “minimal facts” approach and why such an approach should not be used. As is typical of misdirections, some of them are subtle, so let me point them out.
Genesis Minimalist-Facts Misdirections
1. The universe was created from nothing and had a beginning
The basis of his amazement here is that the big bang agrees with the Bible in that the universe had a “discrete origin.” His support of the big bang is clear as he writes:
“Nevertheless, evidence supporting the Big Bang theory, which posits a singular origin for all matter and energy, continued to mount until it became the dominant view.”
The big bang origin for the universe may be the dominant view in scientific circles but it is not the biblical view and, thus, not the correct view. As cosmologist John Hartnett wryly notes, “The Big Bang is not a Reason to Believe!” In other words, there is no point to be made here if the big bang model is not true. If you want to stick strictly to the science, the big bang model is not science (science being knowledge gained by the scientific method) because it is not true. (Logically, you cannot know something that is not true. For example, you cannot know 1 + 1 = 5) Here are ten[5] of the many problems with the Big Bang Theory.
2. The early Earth changed from uninhabitable to habitable
Once again he compares the biblical Account to the fictional big bang account:
“Soon after formation, the Earth was bombarded by asteroids and comets left over from the scraps of the solar nebula. After the molten surface cooled sufficiently, the thick atmosphere was able to condense, … “
Here he accepts the big bang model of planet formation–called the nebular hypothesis or theory–which involves creating the stars first, then waiting (millions of years) until they go supernova to generate the materials from which the planet will form. The rocks and other material accrete over millions of years, coalescing to form the planet. The whole process takes billions of years as this (modified) NASA graphic shows. The Bible clearly states the Earth was created on day 1 of creation week (Gen 1.2), and was created out of water (2 Pe 3.5), not rocks. The minimalist explanation here is sort of like trying to validate the giving of gifts at Christmastime using the “proof” that Santa Claus also gives gifts at Christmas time. It is a bad practice to use a falsehood to try to support something that’s true.
3. Life on Earth progresses from simple to complex
Here he follows lock, stock and barrel the evolutionary storytelling:
“Based on the fossil record, scientists have shown that simpler organisms predate more complex organisms. This progression is derived from examination of rock layers (strata), where newer deposits are found on top of older deposits.”
In trying to apply the evolutionary model to the Bible, not only does he simplify the evolutionary process to try to make a “fit”, but he also misses how the Bible refutes the evolutionary model. For example:
- He misses the point that the fossils and strata were created by the global flood, not over millions of years
- He misses that the fossils are a record of the order of death of creatures during the global flood, not an order of evolutionary development over millions of years
- By supporting evolutionary “simpler to complex” storytelling he affirms millions of years and common descent and, therefore, denies creation over six days and creatures created uniquely and reproducing according to their kind, not descendants of a single common ancestor.
4. New life forms appeared suddenly
This is commonly mentioned in reference to the Cambrian explosion, where there is an “explosion” of highly complex life found at the lower, Cambrian layers. Preceding these layers there is essentially no complex life. This is only remarkable if you’re expecting the evolutionary “slow and gradual” storytelling to be true. From a biblical point of view, the fossils are due to creatures that were buried during the flood of Noah, when the fountains of the great deep broke open (Gen 7.11), caused great underwater upheaval and buried first the sea creatures. Here the supposed correlation comes with an element of surprise. This is like being surprised that the Bible correctly teaches the Earth is round (Is 40.22) because you (incorrectly) thought all ancient people believed in a flat Earth.
5. Humans appeared late in the history of life
Here he seems to make the same illogical argument that Hugh Ross makes about the sixth and seven day of creation. Still worse, he gives a big bang timeline to defend it:
“Although this timeline is still hotly debated, man has only been present for about 0.007% of the Earth’s 4.5-billion-year history.”
When you look over the entire history of the creation, you get two different views of when man was created based on your worldview. According to the biblical view, man was created at the beginning of creation, which Jesus affirms (Matt 19.4). From a big bang/evolutionary perspective, man doesn’t appear in the 13.8 billion year history of the universe until the last 200-300,000 years, which is at the end. Once again, it is clear he has rejected clear biblical teaching in favor of the big bang/evolutionary storytelling.
6. Humanity originated from the general vicinity of the Middle East
Here he supports the “Out of Africa” secular story of human origins:
“Secular anthropology proposes that homo sapiens originated from the Horn of Africa, in the far eastern portion of the continent. This widely accepted “Out of Africa” model…”
The “Out of Africa” model, which posits human origins 100-200,000 years ago from a group of people in Eastern Africa, has been thoroughly discredited as CMI points out here [6] and here.[7] This is reminiscent of how secularists treat the global flood on Earth and Mars. They deny a global flood on Earth even though 71% of the surface of the Earth is covered with water. They do so because the bible affirms a global flood. Mars is now barren with no water on it, but, because rovers have found evidence of sedimentary rock (which is formed in water) and flowing waters, secular scientists now believe Mars once had a global flood. That’s okay since the bible doesn’t speak of a flood on Mars. In the case of human origins, it’s okay to affirm humans out of Africa from a small original group hundreds of thousands of years ago since the Bible doesn’t speak of it, but don’t mention the possibility of humans further west in Asia 5-10,000 years ago from a single pair of people as current genetic evidence indicates. That sounds too biblical.
Bad Relationship Practices
Suppose a young man is trying to draw near to a young lady by impressing her about her much he knows about her: what she looks like and what she said. So he opens his mouth to speak of those things, but the only thing that comes out is the description of the young lady’s rival and everything that her rival had said. Would she be impressed? (For those who have not figured out relationships yet, the answer is a resounding no!)
Christianity is a relationship with God. It’s a relationship with the God of truth. (Is 65.16) It is a relationship with a jealous God (Ex 20.5) who won’t share his glory with another (Is 42.8). Do you think he will be impressed by your knowledge of secular lies? How do you think it makes him feel when you claim to love him but give all his glory to things like “evolution” and “mother nature” and “the big bang”? God is rightfully proud of his creation. He takes credit for it again and again. Consider the amazing features of the body like the ability to hear[8] and to see[9]. Once you understand the highly complex nature of the ear and eye and the clearly apparent design features, do you really want to maintain they evolved from mindless processes? God takes credit for those abilities:
“Ears that hear and eyes that see– the LORD has made them both.”
(Prov 20:12)
If you follow the minimalist approach, which is an evolutionary one, you must say that mindless, undirected forces brought about these wonders of creation. There is no middle ground. God claims authorship of the design of these abilities. Evolutionists claim evolutionary processes developed them over millions of years. There is no middle ground, no minimal-fact approach. You must choose. Is God correct, or are the theories of man correct?
Do you want to take a minimal-fact approach? Start with the facts of the Bible and you need go no further. You will have all the facts you need to know about origins, for scripture tells us:
The Earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it, the world, and all who live in it;
(Ps 24.1)
Further, we should give God the credit by recognizing that:
Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows.
(James 1:17)
The clearly designed good and wondrous things are not the result of accidents over millions of years or lucky mindless processes. They are gifts from God to give you life (Gen 2.7) and draw you near to him. (Rom 2.4) Those are the minimal facts you need to know.
Duane Caldwell | November 28, 2024 | Printer Friendly Version
Follow @rational_faith_
Notes
1. Brandon Aldinger “A Minimal-Facts Case for Genesis”, The Stream, Nov 12, 2024, https://stream.org/a-minimal-facts-case-for-genesis/
Back
2. Aldinger “A Minimal-Facts Case for Genesis”
Back
3. To be precise in his summary regarding items; 1. (all life on Earth); 2. Both the Earth (and universe is only 6000 yeas old) and 6. (all other humans – except his wife, sons, and daughters-in-law)
Back
4. For more on Eve’s deception in the Garden of Eden see the Rational Faith article: “A Talking Snake and the Alien Connection” https://rationalfaith.com/2015/09/a-talking-snake-and-the-alien-connection/
Back
5. Duane Caldwell “Problems With The Big Bang“, Rational Faith, Dec 17, 2018, https://rationalfaith.com/2018/12/problems-with-the-big-bang-theory/
Back
6. Peter Line, “‘Out of Africa’ On the Ropes“, CMI, Creation 41(2):22-25, April 2019, https://creation.com/out-of-africa-theory-wrong
Back
7 Jeff Tomkins, “Out of Babel – not Africa: genetic evidence for a biblical model of human origins“, CMI, Journal of Creation 34(1):79-85, April 2020, https://creation.com/genetics-supports-a-biblical-model-of-human-origins
Back
8. The Human Ear and the Creator, ICR, Science, Scripture & Salvation Vol 21 c. 2007
Back
9 The Human Ear and the Creator, ICR, Science, Scripture & Salvation Vol 21 c. 2007
Back
Image
Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden with a therapod dinosaur in the background. Scene in AIG’s Creation Museum, picture by Duane Caldwell
