The Minimalist
Fallacy
|
|
|
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 straight forward 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. And 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. And that is where the fallacy rears its ugly head. The minimalist fallacy is that it 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. And thus 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 it's the Bible that is incorrect, and thus 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 as true scientific "fact", they have rejected out of hand any teaching of the Bible that contradicts the scientific consensus. So for example in this case: the fact that humans lived with dinosaurs, which seems to be a problem for our author with the minimalist approach. This delegation 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; and 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 of a gangster who "converted" and became a Christian and did so thinking he didn't have to stop being one who lied, stole, beat and killed people. "You can be a Christian doctor, lawyer, teacher or athelete, why not a Christian gangster?" he reasoned to himself. He likewise did not understand that becoming a Christian requires a fundamental transformation. As the Apostle Paul put it:
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, the basis of all truth is God, as revealed in his word, the Bible. It is neither man nor science that stands as the ultimate authority. It is God. This is not to say Christians cannot agree with science or use science to the benefit of humanity; but science, like everything else in creation, must take it's proper place: which is to be in service to God, to give glory to God by showing forth God's wisdom and knowledge, and to benefit man by revealing to man, who is the pinnacle of God's creation, the riches and secrets God has imbued in his creation. The Devil is In The Details Science is wonderful when it reveals truth. But what about when 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 draws from the respect given science to inspire belief and faithfulness among adherents in spite of biblical truth. And so it is that science that contradicts the Bible is typically used as a tool of deception by the father of lies. And even 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 pushing 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 taking this "minimal-facts" approach to Genesis 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 mis-directions, some of them are subtle, so let me point them out. Genesis Minimalist-Facts Mis-directions 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 "discreet origin." His support of the big bang is clear as he writes:
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. And 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:
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 the planet will form from. 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 Christmas time 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:
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:
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, where preceding them there is essentially no complex life. This is only remarkable if you're expecting the evolutionary "slow and gradual" story telling 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 under water upheaval and buried first the sea creatures. Here the supposed correlation comes with an element of surprise - sort of 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. Worse he gives a big bang timeline to defend it:
When you look over the entire history of the creation, you get two different views of when man was created based on your worldview. From 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 story telling. 6. Humanity Originated From the General Vicinity of the Middle East Here he supports the "Out of Africa" secular story of human origins:
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 on 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 are 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 it. Consider 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 clearly apparent design features, to you really think they evolved from mindless processes? God takes credit for those abilities:
Do you want to take a minimalist approach? Start with the simple fact that every part of creation you see, and even what you don't is all due our Creator God:
And give God the credit by recognizing that:
The clearly designed good things 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) |
|
|
Notes 2. Aldinger "A Minimal-Facts Case
for Genesis"
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/ 5. Duane
Caldwell "Problems With The Big Bang", Rational Faith, Dec
17, 2018,
https://rationalfaith.com/2018/12/problems-with-the-big-bang-theory/
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 9. The Human Ear and the Creator, ICR,
Science, Scripture & Salvation Vol 21 c. 2007 Image
| |
Rational Faith
