The most dangerous shyster is the one who has convinced himself to believe his own pitch.

Over at The Creation of an Evolutionist, Mike is continuing to blog through his weekly viewing of The Truth Project. He just completed Lesson Five. More so than the previous lessons, Lesson 5 focused on a critique of mainstream science, and evolution in particular. Bear in mind that Mike is about as fair-minded as they come, but he is shocked by Del Tackett’s blatant misrepresentations of clear facts and doesn’t hold anything back in his detailed analysis. Make sure you check it out, especially if you’ve seen TTP and didn’t notice anything wrong!

(Thinking about what Mike has told us about Lesson 5 has really gotten my dander up. You’ve been warned.)

In all honesty, it moves me to disgust to think of all the churches that purchase and publicize viewings of The Truth [sic] Project. I can just picture the viewers congregating, hoping to see the scientific disciplines and those who accept their consensus belittled in favor of their own half-baked, long since outdated, and yet completely unquestionable alternatives. I see them in my head, looking just like so many similar audiences of which I’ve been a part: sighing in relief at their growing confidence in their preset beliefs, grinning at one another as Tackett mocks his opposition with convenient lies and half-truths, laughing at all those simpleton atheistic outsiders as though their ears were being tickled with a feather reminiscent of his arguments’ combined intellectual weight.

This is what gets me: so many of these truly precious people live lives of humility and self-sacrifice out of genuine love for one another and for others in need, and yet here, in contradictory condescension, they accept wholesale dismissals of the virtual entirety of the scientific community and those convinced by their arguments.

Christians, self-professing lovers of truth, do you think “the church” is all about getting together to reaffirm your consensus just-so stories that you somehow suppose to be more valid because non-Christians cite actual evidence to the contrary? Despite the fact that hosts of other honest, truth-loving Christians acknowledge that evidence? Do you judge what’s true by what bolsters your inspired, inerrant, and infallible views on Scripture? Is it too much to ask that you examine all things to see if they are true?

I can understand believing in something despite a lack of evidence, something we all do in one way or another, believer and unbeliever alike. But it’s another thing entirely to invite people like Tackett into your churches and to uncritically accept all of his convenient “evidence” and characterizations of the opposition, disregarding even the mere possibility of actual contradictory evidence. Even if your predetermined conclusions are actually accurate, do you want to believe the right things for the wrong reasons? You can’t assume what these guys say is true any more than the Bereans blindly accepted what Paul said was true. This goes for much more than creationism/ID/evolutionism — it goes for anything your Christian teachers tell you. If you’re not going to fact check what they tell you, at least don’t dishonor the truth by gleefully accepting only what jibes with what you already believe and then feeling more enlightened than those who don’t.

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • Delicious
  • PrintFriendly
  • Share/Bookmark

Related posts:

  1. Thinking “Outside the Box” about the Bible My friend Cliff Martin has written one of the best, most concise descriptions of the nature and purpose of the Bible that I have ever...
  2. The return of the evolutionist — for real this time! My friend Mike Beidler‘s not busy enough being a military diplomat in the Middle East right now. You know, things going so swimmingly, he doesn’t...
  3. When Christianity undervalues truth Using an analogy especially interesting to me as an historical linguist, Sabio Lantz at Triangulations reminds us of the power of understanding that the Christian...
  4. The place of fear in our bibliology The other night, a friend and I reiterated our independent observations that, despite all nuances, what ultimately stands behind most of American Christianity’s implacable dedication to...
  5. The place of God’s providence in my theology I have been musing lately about how my stance on the creation/evolution controversy would impact other areas of theology if applied consistently. The stance I’m...
  • Mr. Bradford,

    If you believe that in the beginning God created . . . and that on the sixth day he created man in his own image, chances are, you will reject evolutionary biology, to the extent that it holds man evolved from a common ancestor with lower forms of life.

    For me, this was true. Within my young-earth creationist paradigm, I couldn't exegete evolution out of Genesis 1 legitimately. Eisegesis didn't work either.

    On the other hand, if you are passionate in your view that we evolved from something that does not resemble a human, then chances are you will reject the Genesis view of creation.

    This, however, was not true for me. In fact, it was quite the opposite. My understanding of God's creative acts in Genesis 1 changed first. It was only when I felt that I had arrived at a superior reading/understanding of Genesis 1 that I became open to examining the scientific evidence for biological evolution and common descent.
    .-= Mike Beidler´s last blog ..An Evolutionary Creationist's Declaration of Independence (Apologies to Mr. Jefferson) =-.
  • Uh oh! Yet another blog for me to follow. So many blogs. So little time. To me, there is no conflict between faith in science. There is, however, a conflict between faith and evolutionary biology. There is a big difference.

    If you believe that in the beginning God created . . . and that on the sixth day he created man in his own image, chances are, you will reject evolutionary biology, to the extent that it holds man evolved from a common ancestor with lower forms of life.

    On the other hand, if you are passionate in your view that we evolved from something that does not resemble a human, then chances are you will reject the Genesis view of creation.

    I have a hard time finding an honest meeting in the middle of the two views.
    .-= R Bradford´s last blog ..He Makes All Things New =-.
blog comments powered by Disqus