"Brilliant" Al Mohler sets Evolution "straight"

[johnfariss]

T.D.,

I did not say that strawmen arguments were the exclusive property of one "side" or the other, nor did I imply such. I simply gave an example. I am sure one can find plenty of examples from liberals, conservatives, moderates, and folks with no discernable position of their own. I really don't have time to get into a debate over the nature of Scripture and revelation just now; let us simply say that we somewhat disagree over both the interpretation of pertinent texts in the Bible and the evidence at hand, i.e., surviving manuscript examples and how to characterize what they show. Oddly enough, we probably would agree at least 80, maybe 90% of the time or more, but disagree over the significance of that remainder and what it does to both our pet positions. Which then should be focus on: the small areas that separate us, or the large ones that can unite us?

John

[T. D. Webb]

[Gene Scarborough]

[Gene Scarborough]

Big, dumb Al is lighting up the fires in Baptist Press as the new SBC Knight in shining armor:

Posted on Jan 26, 2011 | by Erin Roach
LOUISVILLE, Ky. (BP)--R. Albert Mohler Jr. believes the theory of evolution "represents one of the greatest challenges to Christian faith and faithfulness in our times," and he has found himself at the center of a controversy over the compatibility of evolution and Christian theology.

The dialogue began last summer when Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, delivered an address titled "Why Does the Universe Look So Old?" at the Ligonier Ministries 2010 National Conference, during which he mentioned The BioLogos Foundation, a movement founded by Francis Collins, director of the National Institutes of Health.

"Francis Collins makes the point made by so many others that we will actually lose credibility sharing the Gospel of Christ if we do not shed ourselves of the anti-intellectualism which is judged to be ours by the elite if we do not accept the theory of evolution," Mohler said.

What is most lacking in the evangelical movement today, Mohler said in the address, is a consideration of the theological cost of holding to an old earth position. The position, he said, seems to be at an "insoluble collision with the redemptive historical narrative of the Gospel."

"The cost to the Christian church, in terms of ignoring this question or abandoning the discussion, is just too high. The cost of confronting this question is also costly," Mohler said. "It can be very expensive because it can create intensity and conflict and controversy, but I would suggest that the avoidance of this will be at the cost of our own credibility."

Mohler said the universe could appear old because the creator made it whole, just as when He created Adam, Adam was a man and not a fetus. It also could appear old because it bears testimony to the effects of sin, he said.

"... In our effort to be most faithful to the Scriptures and most accountable to the grand narrative of the Gospel, an understanding of creation in terms of 24-hour calendar days and a young earth entails far fewer complications, far fewer theological problems and actually is the most straightforward and uncomplicated reading of the text as we come to understand God telling us how the universe came to be and what it means and why it matters," Mohler said.

BioLogos, meanwhile, exists so that the evangelical church "can come to peace with the scientific data which shows unequivocally that the universe is very old and that all of life, including humankind, has been created through a gradual process that has been taking place over the past few billion years." BioLogos is funded by a grant from the John Templeton Foundation.

Karl Giberson, a senior fellow at BioLogos, wrote a response to Mohler's address, asking, "Is it not possible that you are simply caught in our current culture war, and have joined the 'anti-evolution' cause, mistakenly thinking you were defending the faith?"

"In the big picture, though, I just cannot see why this is so important," Giberson wrote. "You are asking Christians to reject modern science and alienate themselves from the educated world for a doctrine that seems so secondary."

Peter Enns, also a senior fellow at BioLogos, asked Mohler in a blog post, "Why make a theological mountain out of an exegetical molehill?"

"The Bible is made up of all sorts of ways of communicating truth, and literalness is one of them and should not be brushed aside," Enns wrote. "We are not suggesting such a thing. But the Bible also speaks in metaphors and symbols. Often times those metaphors and symbols reflect the worldview of the ancient context of the Bible. I strongly believe that taking all of this into account is more faithful to the Bible than insisting on a literal interpretation."

Enns wanted to know why Mohler would allow some scientific evidence, such as that the earth orbits around the sun, to adjust his understanding of the Bible and not others, and he requested that Mohler not make the days of creation a matter of orthodoxy but leave it open to individual conscience.

In August, Giberson posted another open letter to Mohler at The Huffington Post, asserting that Mohler "does not seem to care about the truth and seems quite content to simply make stuff up when it serves his purpose." Giberson said Mohler had misrepresented Charles Darwin and his views during his Ligonier address and must not have read Giberson's book "Saving Darwin."

Mohler, on his blog a few days later, responded to Giberson's public letter by assuring Giberson that he had read Saving Darwin "quite thoroughly and more than once," and he did not "cherry-pick" ideas from the book during his address.

"You are straightforward in your celebration of evolution, and you utterly fail to demonstrate how an embrace of evolution can be reconciled with biblical Christianity," Mohler wrote. "Your rejection of an historical Adam and Eve is one precise point at which the Gospel of Christ is undermined, and your proposed 'new and better way to understand the origins of sin' is incompatible with the Bible's clear teaching."

The theory of evolution, Mohler said, is incompatible with the Gospel of Jesus Christ "even as it is in direct conflict with any faithful reading of the Scriptures."

"If your intention in Saving Darwin is to show 'how to be a Christian and believe in evolution,' what you have actually succeeded in doing is to show how much doctrine Christianity has to surrender in order to accommodate itself to evolution," Mohler wrote. "In doing this, you and your colleagues at BioLogos are actually doing us all a great service. You are showing us what the acceptance of evolution actually costs, in terms of theological concessions."

In September, Rachel Held Evans, author of "Evolving in Monkey Town," criticized Mohler for presenting the theory of evolution as inherently contradictory to Scripture.

"What leaders like Mohler fail to realize is that they are setting young Christians up for failure. They are inadvertently orchestrating the very exodus that they fear," Evans wrote for The Washington Post. "In presenting faith and science as a choice, the Baptists have essentially conceded that the atheists are right after all, and as a result they are losing some of the brightest young minds in Christendom to a false dichotomy."

In response, Mohler wrote, "Most of those who urge a reconciliation of evolution and the Christian faith do so at the most superficial level, without ever acknowledging the near-total transformation of Christian theology that must result if serious minds ask the serious questions and do the serious work of actually thinking seriously."

One of Mohler's main concerns with an acceptance of evolution is how believers then can reconcile the absence of a historical Adam with the Apostle Paul's clear affirmation in Romans of Adam's headship and its centrality to the Gospel.

"The age of the earth is not the central question, though it is an unavoidable and important question," he wrote.

In the same thread of commentary, Darrel Falk, president of BioLogos, wrote that Mohler represents a surge of fundamentalism within mainstream evangelicalism.

"We'll exist within the tent together for awhile," Falk wrote. "Eventually, I think even the fundamentalists will come to see that they need to allow science books in their library and fundamentalism will undergo its own evolution."

In a five-part series at BioLogos last fall, Giberson wrote that "science does indeed trump religious truth about the natural world."

Mohler responded on his blog, "In the economy of a few words, Giberson throws the Bible under the scientific bus. We should be thankful that his argument is so clear, for it puts the case for theistic evolution in its proper light -- as a direct attack upon biblical authority."

In November, Mohler wrote that BioLogos cannot have a pass from theological scrutiny.

"Virtually every form of theological liberalism arises from an attempt to rescue Christian theology from what is perceived to be an intellectual embarrassment -- whether the virgin conception of Christ, the historicity of the miracles recorded in the Bible, or, in our immediate context, the inerrancy of Scripture and the Bible's account of creation," Mohler wrote.

In response, BioLogos posted a notice affirming that "we do not think that evangelicals must relinquish inerrancy, believe that Paul was wrong about Adam, or believe that the Fall was not historical in order to accept the BioLogos model. A careful reading of the BioLogos site should make it clear that these traditional evangelical views are also represented and defended."

In a blog post Jan. 5, Mohler wrote, "Articles at BioLogos go so far as to suggest that the Apostle Paul was simply wrong to believe that Adam was an historical person. A recent BioLogos essay argues that Adam and Eve were likely 'a couple of Neolithic farmers in the Near East' to whom God revealed Himself 'in a special way.'

"There is a consistent denial of any possibility that Adam and Eve are the genetic parents of the entire human race. The BioLogos approach also denies the historical nature of the Fall, with all of its cosmic consequences. BioLogos has published explicit calls to deny the inerrancy of the Bible. The concerns do not stop here," Mohler wrote.

Though Falk, the BioLogos president, wrote that Mohler was a theological giant swatting at BioLogos as if it were "a buzzing little fly," Mohler said he does not believe the theistic evolution movement is so harmless.

"To the contrary, I believe that it represents a very significant challenge to the integrity of Christian theology and the church's understanding of everything from the authority and truthfulness of the Bible to the meaning of the Gospel," Mohler wrote. "A buzzing little fly is only a nuisance. The theory of evolution is no mere nuisance -- it represents one of the greatest challenges to Christian faith and faithfulness in our times."

To buttress the importance of the matter, the Winter 2011 issue of the Southern Seminary magazine is titled "Ex Nihilo" and features five articles on the subject.

In the article "The New Atheism and the Dogma of Darwinism," Mohler explains that when the word "atheist" arose during the reign of Queen Elizabeth I, the earliest atheists had trouble gaining traction because they could not explain how life began. When Darwin's theories surfaced, they gained the explanation they sought and began to grow in number.

"The New Atheists would have no coherent worldview without the dogma of Darwin," Mohler wrote. "With it, they intend to malign belief in God and to marginalize Christians and Christian arguments. Thus, we can draw a straight line from the emergence of evolutionary theory to the resurgence of atheism in our times."
--30--
Erin Roach is an assistant editor of Baptist Press.



[/quote]

[Dave Roberts]

That article alone definitely proves that BP is only an opinion piece, not a news service.

[Jim]

The arguments concerning the origins are fascinating not so much regarding answers as in remarking the various approaches. The fundamentalist has no problem accepting a 24-hour, 6-day time-frame while the mod/lib insists on everything from maybe 100 million years (or billions…who’s counting?) to the evolution of the humanoid from a one-celled organism to an absolute insistence on a scientific explanation for everything. For instance, since demons and evil spirits can’t be quantified or qualified scientifically (or even found), the Gadarene demoniac was a mental case and the pigs didn’t exist or were simply stampeded through sheer horror perpetrated by maybe a pack of dogs (or democrats).

I go with the “day is as a thousand years” allowance biblically but have no problem with the so-called “flat-earthers.” God could have done the creation deed the way they claim, making the earth into something the scientists use all kinds of instruments and theories to prove evolved or developed through mega-millennia, perhaps laughing divinely at the process. He might have put the Grand Canyon in place spontaneously, notwithstanding any scientific efforts to prove how it was carved out by erosion, earthquakes, meteorites or whatever. I draw the line at the being made in his image, no matter when. That was a spontaneous creation of the human being, fully developed. I suspect all the animals, fowls, etc., were, too, and not some sort of creatures evolved from something else.

No one now or in thousands of years past has/had any idea of what happened in a certain time-frame 6,000 or more years ago. In fact, if a day with God could be as a thousand years, a year with God might be as gazillions of eons. Who knows or, for that matter, who cares? I don’t.

[Stephen Fox]

[Gene Scarborough]

Which is easier---
Snap a finger and put a waffer in space with nothing to keep mankind from falling off
To create basic elements from atoms and have them coalesce into stars and planets ever expanding into infinity
On those planets---to have more atoms capable of forming living beings in all shapes and forms

We have never created something out of nothing as mankind. We discover every day more things which we must attempt to figure out and use for good. We did no invent them--just discovered them. We discovered the atom and turned it into a bomb first. Now it can be harnassed and used for good in so many ways.



Somehow I find him to be more a Pope in the Middle Ages saying, "If he doesn't follow our dogma we will send him to the Inquisitor for torture until he either dies in pain and agony of bows at our feet!"

It didn't stop the quest for truth and reason then----it won't stop it now!!!!

[Ed Pettibone]

Ed: Gene when you say of Mohler "He claims to have once been an 'liberal' and reformed from such to be an advocate for Inerrancy."

Where have you found Al claiming "to have once been a liberal and reformed from such to be an advocate for Inerrancy ." You follow him a lot more closely than I do so may I assume you do have a source for that quote, would you share it? In the three years that we where on Campus while Trudy was a student at the new SBTS but with a number of the same professors that I had and several that Al had. I never heard him referred to by any of his former professors or himself as a Liberal. In fact the only SBTS former professor I ever heard refer to himself as a liberal was Henlee Barnette who defined the word in its most positive aspects ie; Generous and Compassionate and open-minded . Henlee also said he made at lest one mistake in his life and that was providing a reference for Al, to his first and only Church he served as pastor. Al did serve under a female asst professor of theology as a grader, her name was Molly T. Marshall. BTW I have heard Henlee and Molly as well as Wayne Ward all refer to Al as as having been a brilliant student. And who is too say that knowing upon which side your bread is buttered isn't smart? Now let me add I have read Al where he says something to the effect that while at the Index he had something of an epiphany wherein he began a process of re examining his personal theology thus adopting the reformed framework. I could have been OK with that, had he returned to Louisville on the other side of Lexington Ave over at the Presbyterian Seminary.

[Gene Scarborough]

Ed--

The "having been a moderate with respect to inerrency" statement was within the last couple of years on his blog. He said he spent his first student earlier years in the modrate camp until having a question asked to him by a famous conservative celebrity he hosted as a student representative of SBTS. I can't cite the exact date, but he was trying to give reason as to why he changed from "moderate" to "conservative."

I don't buy his reasoning, as you might guess. His brilliance as a student does not make him an "brilliant scholar" worthy of his position to me. In my opinion, an education at a graduate level requires anyone undertaking it to give acknowledgement that there are 2 or more sides to most theological debates. At SEBTS (1967-70) I was required to have a working knowledge of all sides and to reach a conclusion in my ending of that paper as to why I settle on one side or the other---or somewhere in between.

That is certainly NOT the approach being taken today in any of our Seminaries---and that is a shame and disgrace for me. It turns education into indoctrination.

[Ed Pettibone]

[Gene Scarborough]

Ed--

Interesting how your wife had a course under Mohler. Was it a Course on Calvinism/Armenianism?

What is also interesting is why the point of such a course over a historical review of all religions of the time? Here is where I see the slant and indoctrination thing coming in. Each of the Sminaries sets it own curriculum. By doing so they can address or ignore those things they choose.

The SEBTS students I encounter have a severely reduced wider understanding of Christianity and Baptists in particular. I have encountered Nathan Finn, their Church History young professor. I find in what he writes much redaction and slant. He addressed the very church I served, N. Rocky Mount, as if their famous court case of the 1950's were a violation of autonomy. He said absolutely nothing about the basic issue of an Independent Baptist-minded pastor coning his way into the pulpit / violating standard church procedures / virtually stealing that church from the SBC fold. Perhaps that kind of approach is a little too close to home to current events.

Dr. Finn is now teaching from the perspective of skewing Baptist church history and that of SEBTS to "prove" his kind of Baptist is the "real Baptist." The church court case showed EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE! No student has any basis of evaluation because only 1 view is presented there. To me, this is Indoctrination over Education.

[Neil Heath]

I read a quote from Sophocles today that made me think of Mohler:

"It is terrible to speak well and be wrong."

[Gene Scarborough]

Forgive me for the earthy Eastern NC take on Mohler but----"The higher the monkey climbs the tree--the more you see his tail!"

[T. D. Webb]

[Gene Scarborough]

T.D.--

I have yet to see Mohler's "receptive side." Sorry. If you can show me some examples, I'm open to hearing them.

Sorry about the error as to whether Cathey is alive of dead. Even monkeys make mistakes.

[T. D. Webb]

[Gene Scarborough]

TD--

You, my brother, said a mouth full!!!

If Mohler were as receptive to those he calls "moderates" as he was to Ed's wife, would we have this problem to begin with??????

[Ed Pettibone]

[Gene Scarborough]

Ed--

If Mohler were as smart as you claim, he would see clearly that those who bow down at the feet of Patterson, et al are the ones who get the plumb assignments. He is smart enough to pick the "winner" and that's all. The SBC has become a strictly hierarchical organization with little or no place for an independent thinker. Mohler saw his opportunity to rise in the ranks and paid the price to conform.

Part of the problem with CBF and the world of the moderates is that those involved do not have the spirit for lock-step conformity. For this reason, the political efforts of the moderates has been too weak to stop the takeover.

I have been on the front lines of this mess with SEBTS in 1987. In fact, I just reviewed and consolidated my materials when they took over SEBTS. The first move of the new majority was to destroy the smooth transition of Trustee Officers. Over and over were documents showing the Trustees were single-minded terrorists with a mission to dictate. They could care less about procedures and roles as Trustees to be helpful and supportive to the institution they were elected to help administer. When a winsome person like Randall Lolley could not build personal relationships and convey the goal to produce well-rounded graduates with a servant minister outlook, it is impossible to do other than what the Conservative Resurgence dictated.

Baptist = autonomy / CR = control. It's just like oil and water which do not mix. So why not realize the difference???

For me, a true thinker displays the quality of independence in the pursuit of truth. That kind of thinking should find commonality in the Bible and Science rather than make it an either/or decision. I value what I learned about archaeology and language which lets me shake hands with a good scientist. That is not taught at our seminaries these days. Mohler is clever and dedicated, but I would not call him "intelligent."

[Ed Pettibone]

"Gene Scarborough"Ed--

If Mohler were as smart as you claim, he would see clearly that those who bow down at the feet of Patterson, et al are the ones who get the plumb assignments.

Ed: Gene you don't consider the presidency of the SBC Flagship Seminary at the age of 33 to be a plumb assignment?

G.S.: He is smart enough to pick the "winner" and that's all. The SBC has become a strictly hierarchical organization with little or no place for an independent thinker. Mohler saw his opportunity to rise in the ranks and paid the price to conform.

Ed: I have said that for years. But note he did not pick the winner until the he has his Doctorate in hand and the official take over had been in place for at least 9 years. And he and Paige Patterson ( a major player in the take over) have some serious differences.
G.S.: Part of the problem with CBF and the world of the moderates is that those involved do not have the spirit for lock-step conformity. For this reason, the political efforts of the moderates has been too weak to stop the takeover.

Ed: Another way of saying that Is that the moderate didn't see the need to really get organized until it was too late AND for too long they discounted the the popularity and political acumen of the takeover leaders.

G.S.: I have been on the front lines of this mess with SEBTS in 1987. In fact, I just reviewed and consolidated my materials when they took over SEBTS. The first move of the new majority was to destroy the smooth transition of Trustee Officers. Over and over were documents showing the Trustees were single-minded terrorists with a mission to dictate. They could care less about procedures and roles as Trustees to be helpful and supportive to the institution they were elected to help administer. When a winsome person like Randall Lolley could not build personal relationships and convey the goal to produce well-rounded graduates with a servant minister outlook, it is impossible to do other than what the Conservative Resurgence dictated.

Ed: Again Gene you, are telling me nothing new . Except for your being there in 87. I saw a similar pattern at Southern in 90-92 And again in 95-98


G.S. Baptist = autonomy / CR = control. It's just like oil and water which do not mix. So why not realize the difference???

Ed: And again you re enforce the takeover crowd by using their CR Badge. and state the obvious.


G.S. For me, a true thinker displays the quality of independence in the pursuit of truth. That kind of thinking should find commonality in the Bible and Science rather than make it an either/or decision. I value what I learned about archaeology and language which lets me shake hands with a good scientist. That is not taught at our seminaries these days. Mohler is clever and dedicated, but I would not call him "intelligent."

Ed: Such under rating of the opposition is a large factor in why the takeover crowd now control of the SBC.

I also know or knew a number of the moderate leadership of the 70's, 80's and 90's at least. I have read and listened to their stories for over the past 30 years.
If you want more stories I recommend Carl Kell's EXILED , with forward by my friend Carolyn Crumpler, and introduction by Samuel S. Hill, The University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville, 2006 Here Dr. Kell has compiled the Stories of 29 women and men from many areas of the country and a wide assortment of Baptist experiences.
And yes, my copy of this one is also singed by the author, 6/27/06

[Neil Heath]

If only I could be paid to be an editor on these threads and correct the typos, etc. that abound!

I'd be able to live quite comfortably in my retirement.

Then there's always the job of fact-checker for all the claims made herein that won't stand too much scrutiny.

[Lamar Wadsworth]

[Ed Pettibone]

[Neil Heath]

Actually, Ed, I have very little need to join the fray or contribute. Feel free to continue typing as long as you like. The occasional typos make it worth perusing.

As for my contribution, I do believe in evolution. I think Al is wrong on this subject as on many others. He's very intellectual and he uses lots of big words to make false arguments. But I don't care to dissect or refute them.
I also think he changed theological horses when he saw which way the momentum was going, which told me much about his character. I have very little respect for him, grieve the deconstruction of a very good school under his leadership.

That about covers it for me. Carry on!