The institution of American journalism has suffered a lot in recent years. Based on what I read from independent and conservative journalists, it seems that few major newspapers are worth the effort anymore. It should be no surprise that a small town paper publishes such poppycock at this:
The whole idea of this haunted garbage is just embarrassing. Get over it, Atchison. And while you’re at it, contact this professor’s institution to tell them you’re putting the quietus on your affirmation . . . and maybe they should reign in Fraulein Professor, too. (A therapist who runs a group “dedicated to . . . paranormal activity” should not be a thing, unless said therapist is debunking the whole dumpster full of nonsense.) The university could also try its hand at eradicating gender studies professorships and DEI departments. Too much? I guess so. But the whole world seems to subsist on poppycock.
Now for the preachments. What I heard last Sunday wasn’t exactly pulpit poppycock, but neither was it sound. It should not have been preached. Logical fallacies and other careless thoughts were in evidence as this preacher spoke of creation and science.
He presented “theistic evolution” as something illogical but did not expressly introduce the distinction between macro- and micro-evolution. On the surface, he allowed for disagreement and invited discussion, but who’s going to pursue this topic with him after a presentation like that? The chasm was simply too wide.
He did raise an interesting point or two—for example, how long could a flower survive without bees? And therefore, how long could it have been, given our current scientific knowledge, between “Day Three” and “Day Six” of creation?
One of the illogical, and most personally upsetting, assertions made went something like this:
- Revelation says it is symbolic and figurative.
- Genesis does not say that about itself.
- Therefore Genesis is nothing but entirely literal. (And you don’t believe God if you don’t “take Him at His word.”)
By and large, this presentation rested on unsound presumptions about the nature of the Genesis text, and the range of possibilities when one is responsible in his treatment of a text. We ought to be extremely careful not to come across as equating “what the Bible says” and “what the Lord says” with what we have laid on top of that.
My blood pressure rose probably 40 points on Sunday morning. The singing contained no worship, really, but it did have some provocative content that led to good things, despite being led poorly. None of that was very upsetting. It was all I could do not to walk out during the sermon.
It took me a solid 30 minutes to calm my soul and my circulatory system after my son and I drove away. His first utterance had been, “Is that guy just trying to create a bunch of agnostics?” In other words, my son understood that what was being said would not find a home in an active brain, really. A scientifically minded person might even be led into a state of disbelief I am proud that my son is holding onto faith in Creator God even as he learns some biology. And this is quite possible for all of us who believe in reason, if one regards Genesis appropriately!
(This is not to say that science is always right. Certainly not. The failings of some science, science institutions, and scientists is coming to be seen in sharp relief.)
Earnestly Speaking 