We have come to another of James McGrath’s posts on creation and his hatred for the YEC position. You can read in detail his comments at the following link:
We are just going to take select quotes and address the ideas presented in those quotes.
Yesterday’s Bizarro comic highlighted the absurdity of the Noah’s ark story when taken literally. One has to either have the Earth so completely changed and reshaped that it would involve a greater cataclysm than anything the Bible explicitly states or the geological record bears witness to…
If you look at the cartoon it is funny but it is what is absurd not the literal reading of Genesis. Why? First, llamas can’t send telegrams, notes, letters, e-mails and texts or other forms of written communication. And yes we are being as absurd as that cartoon and the person who used it to criticize the YEC position. second, we know that the world changed geographically. We have the physical evidence to show that the post-flood world is different from the pre-flood one. There is no question about this alteration.
Third, the geological record bears no witness to anything other than what genesis says. Any alternative is read into the record by those who have rejected the truth and are looking at geology with deceived eyes.The fact that those geologists and scholars do not recognize that deception doesn’t change the that truth. When one rejects part of the historical data in their analysis then it is impossible for them to come to the true answer of what the geological evidence is saying.
one has to imagine other people in other parts of the world sending messages to Noah asking him to pick up species from their part of the world (but not themselves as humans), unless you think the llamas sent the message, which again involves positing things that are implausible (even those who believe in talking snakes don’t think they could write, do they?)
Why would other people in the world send messages to Noah to save their animals when they did not have the decency to implore him to save their children? The absurdity of those who argue against a YEC position knows no boundaries and leaves them with no foundation to accuse those who adopt a YEC position as absurd.
Then if people would read scripture they will see that Noah and his family did not search for the animals God wanted on the ark:
Ge 7:8 Pairs of clean and unclean r animals, of birds and of all creatures that move along the ground,
Ge 7:9 male and female, came to Noah and entered the ark, as God had commanded Noah
So messages were not needed. This act tells us that God selected the animals which he wanted on the ark and their selection was not up to Noah. No genetic information was lost that God wanted to keep for those animals’ descendants. This means that the variety that was on earth in those pre-flood years would come back in the post-flood generations. No evolution was needed.
Those who insist on the literal factuality of the story in Genesis claim to be defending Scripture, and yet in order to adopt that stance they must ignore much that Genesis says,
This is the important quote for it undermines McGrath’s position completely. No YEC is ignoring what Genesis says that we know of. The people who ignore what Genesis says are those like McGrath who add in the geological record and other alternatives to what actually is recorded in Genesis 6-9. Those chapters do not state that its readers are to follow the geological record to know the truth. That is just omission which renders a non-YEC position moot and inaccurate.
McGrath wants it both ways here. he wants people to read the Genesis account and go by what it says while trying to include items like the geological record which is not in that book. he can’t have both. Not only is the book of Genesis absent of instructions to follow the geological record but so is every other book of the Bible. There is not one biblical command or instruction that tells a believer to use the geological record as proof for or against the flood. So where is he getting this instruction to use the geological record? It certainly is not from God.
Those who insist on the literal factuality of the story in Genesis claim to be defending Scripture, and yet in order to adopt that stance they must ignore much that Genesis says, claim that it says much that it does not, and deny the Creator by insisting that the testimony of rocks and fossils leads the majority of scientists astray
It is the underlined words that we are focused on here but we needed to re-quote the previous words from McGrath to keep the context. How can we deny the Creator when we stick by his words and instructions? We are not saying that the rocks and fossils are leading scientists astray, we are saying that scientists are not reading the rocks and fossils correctly thus they are being led astray by evil. Big difference and McGrath’s, and others like him , rejection of the existence of evil and how evil works leads them to this mistake-filled train of thought.
McGrath also forgets that assumption, conjecture and other speculative tools lead scientists astray because they are looking for alternatives instead of for the truth. People’s bias play a large role in their deception.
Why not accept instead the Bible’s own testimony and evidence which reveals that its authors were not God but fallible humans?
The Bible’s testimony points to divine not human authorship. Yes humans were used to pen God’s words but only shows the validity of the fact that God uses people instead of just speaking the Bible into existence and have it appear magically. if God has done that then the accusations of magic and sorcery would arise and lead many people away from the truth that the Bible is divine not earthly.
Many scholars complain that most of the books of the Bible are anonymous so why would McGrath think that the Bible’s testimony speaks of human authorship? There is little credit given to humans in the Bible. Then we usually read throughout the prophets and the Pentateuch the words “God spoke to…’ or ‘the word of the Lord came to…’ The evidence points to divine authorship not human.
Why not accept the evidence from outside the Bible that indicates that the Genesis flood story is itself an adaptation of an earlier tale?
If we accept evidence from outside of the Bible then we are not reading and accepting what Genesis says but reading and accepting what Genesis does NOT say. Then the supposed evidence from outside of the Bible is generally not evidence but the weird theories of those who cannot verify their ideas nor present any real physical evidence to back up their claims.
Then there is no evidence that Genesis is an ‘adaption of an earlier tale’. That idea is read into the evidence simply because the unbeliever does not accept the actual chronology of life and thinks that the earliest record discovered is actually the original. They use partial data to come to this conclusion. There is no evidence that any of the alternative accounts are older than the Bible. What these people do is look at when the Bible was put together and claim that is the date of authorship when in reality, authorship came far earlier than they claim.
Or they dismiss the fact that Noah and his family came before those records and then subsequently lied about what took place in their lives. They would have Noah violate his righteousness and disobey God which is absurd.
Because it is easier to make fidelity to God about believing the absurd, than to make it about what the Bible says it is about, namely radical compassion, love, giving, and self-sacrifice.
What is absurd is that McGrath and others are believing alternatives which have NO divine authorship and are purely fallible human assumptions which have no hope of being proven true. Do you see the hypocrisy here and possibly the irony? He criticizes YEC people for believing Genesis as true even though he says it was written by fallible humans YET he accepts theories, assumptions, speculation and conjecture that we know are authored without a shadow of a doubt by fallible humans.
Why should anyone the change from believing Genesis if both it and the alternatives come from the same source? What would be gained from the switch? Nothing for those who believe Genesis, though they would lose a lot. But McGrath and company would gain not having to hear the truth and be spared those feelings that they are wrong and headed to hell. In other words, McGrath wants everyone to switch so he doe snot have to think about the reality of his life and where he is headed.
That is absurd. It is also absurd to think that the Bible is filled with false tales and that believing the Genesis as written is not what the Bible is all about. McGrath forgets that love is about believing all things and one cannot love God if they say they do not believe what he wrote in Genesis. The idea of ‘radical’ is a fallible human idea not a divine one so McGrath is again pointing people to erroneous fallible human teachings instead of the truth.