In my final installment of analyzing Answers in Genesis’ review of Peter Enns’ book, The Bible Tells Me So, I will focus on the most obvious issue that concerns Answers in Genesis: Enns’ take on Genesis 1-11. Enns claims that Genesis 1-11 is meant to be seen as the “national myth” of Israel. In other words, they would have seen the story of their nation in the account of Genesis 1-11.
Think about it: God creates land out from the Sea of Chaos, then creates Adam and Eve and places them in His land where they can commune with Him, but they disobey and are cast out of God’s land, to the east, and eventually their descendants find themselves in the land of Shinar…Babel…Babylon—that’s Genesis 1-11.
Then think about the history of Israel in the Old Testament: God created Israel to be His people, he brought them out of Egypt, through the water of the Red Sea, to His land, where they could commune with Him, but they disobeyed Him and were cast out of His land, to the east, and ended up in bondage in Babylon. At the very least, one has to admit that Enns seems to be on to something. N.T. Wright has also noticed this similarity. It is a very interesting and profound insight into the meaning of Genesis 1-11 and how the Jewish exiles in Babylon would have related to it.
But to even admit to such a way of reading Genesis 1-11, Mitchell would have to acknowledge that perhaps, just perhaps, God wasn’t doing 21st century science in Genesis 1-11. And that would be a bridge too far, because for Answers in Genesis, the only kind of truth out there is scientific, historical facts…the kind that would make any Enlightenment thinker proud. And so, instead of at least acknowledging Enns’ literary insight into the text, Mitchell accuses him of “resorting to some literary tricks.” Yes, God cannot reveal His truth through literature; it can only come through cold, hard scientific and historical facts. (As an English major, I just cringed).
The Ancient Near Eastern Worldview
Mitchell also follows Ham’s lead by suddenly presenting evolution as a theory that (a) claims that life comes from non-life, and that (b) is unable to account for any new genetic information that would make it possible for anything to evolve. I’ve already touched upon both of these false characterizations in an earlier post. In any case, Mitchell claims that despite these two “facts,” Enns still “accepts evolution as fact and mocks the account in God’s Word.” What? How did Enns “mock” the account in God’s Word? Mitchell cites her example:
“The ‘science’ of the biblical writers was also ancient. Creatures didn’t evolve but were made by God as we see them, like a potter molding clay, in male and female pairs. The world was flat, probably a round disk, created by God a few short thousand years ago after holding at bay a watery chaos. Above the earth was a solid dome of some sort, held up by pillars (mountains), that held back the “waters above” (hence, the blue sky).”
Does any of that description of how the ancient world viewed creation around them sound like it is “mocking”? What Enns says is absolutely true. That was essentially the worldview of the ancient Near East, of which Israel was a part. Enns’ point, therefore, is that since this is the way the ancient world tended to view and understand creation around them, it would only make sense for God to use the images and concepts they were familiar with in order to reveal to them the truth about who He was, what creation was, and who mankind was in that creation.
There is absolutely nothing “mocking” in that description. It only comes across as “mocking” to those who are so entrenched in a false heresy that they get defensive and scared when anyone challenges what they claim. Mitchell is horrified that Enns could claim that there is literary creativity going on in the Bible, and then still claim it is God’s Word. For Mitchell, as also with Ham, “creative” evidently means “not true,” “mocking,” and “undermining God’s Word.” I find that highly ironic, given the fact that their entire organization is so focused on the creation account, that they take such a negative view on the creative artistry in the Bible.
Genesis 1-11 isn’t Science, but it is…
Mitchell then engages in the typical Hamite double-speak:
“Scientists who accept the young age of the Earth and the Bible’s accounts of Creation and the global Flood understand that, while the Bible is not a science textbook, all that it contains pertaining to history and science is a true and valid yardstick against which man’s ideas should be measured.”
Think about what she just said—it is pure double-speak: “The Bible isn’t a science textbook, but what it says about scientific stuff is true!” She is admitting her assumption is that the Bible is, in fact, making scientific claims according to 21st century scientific knowledge, yet somehow she still manages to say, “Oh but the Bible isn’t a science textbook…only where it talks about science…which is in Genesis 1-11, because I say I say it’s science…even though I cannot produce any evidence that verifies that claim, because you know, we’re talking about ‘historical science,’ which is the kind of science you can’t test, observe, or prove—you just have to take it on faith!”
Truly impressive and dizzying double-speak.
Mitchell’s Parting Blows
Mitchell ends her “critique” by expressing her horror and concern at how Enns has probably led young people astray with his lies: “I shudder to think of the damage Dr. Enns has done to the children and college students he has influenced through his books, curriculum materials, and teaching.” Yet how seriously can we take her critique? It is full of misrepresentations of Enns’ work and outright lies. It is, pure and simple, an exercise in fear-mongering.
Now let me re-emphasize, there are some things in Enns book I don’t agree with, but that’s okay. The core of his argument is incredibly good and worth considering. He is not God, and his is not all-knowing. He is a Christian scholar doing the best he can to understand the Bible in light of its historical and literary contexts—and he does amazing work. I would encourage everyone to read him.
But just because I disagree with him on a few points, I’m not going to warn people that he is “hurting children” with his views. His work will challenge you to think more critically, and I think more Christianly, about what the Bible is and what its message is. It will engage you, challenge you, and help grow you in your faith. Why? Because it is inviting you to wrestle with the biblical text, much like Jacob wrestled with the angel. And that is always a good thing.
Apparently, though, for Mitchell and Ham, wrestling with the Bible and trying to understand it better is tantamount to challenging God’s authority. No, don’t ask questions, don’t express doubt, and for good heavens, don’t even think that what Answers in Genesis is telling you isn’t true! It is! And if you think it isn’t, then you’re calling God a liar.
The term “theory” in science is vastly different from how we use “theory” in our daily talk. We use the word “theory” as “working theory”. Something we have not been proven yet. In science, we have “observation”, out of “observation”, we form “hypothesis”. In other to test the “hypothesis” is true, we do numerous experiments to reject or not to reject the “hypothesis”. If the “hypothesis” is not rejected, we can then proceed to form a “principle” or “law”. After all the projections and predictions made by the “principle” or “law”, if such results are still valid, we then proceed to “Theory”. In fact, “theory” is the term used in science that are used as the overall guiding models. That is why we have “atomic theory”, “electromagnetic theory”, etc. Those “theories” are the models of which we make predictions, designs and conclusions of our natural environments. We cannot actually see atoms or electromagnetic fields, but we use those theories in our daily lives. As for the theory of evolution, we use it everyday even if one does not believe in it. For example, every time we finish some antibiotics as a course of treatment as directed by our doctors, it is an act of applying the theory of evolution. If we do not let enough time for the antibiotics to kill all the bacteria, the few that survive will evolve and become resistant to the same antibiotics. This is evolution in real life, real time. We apply this “theory” everyday in our gardens and farms. It does not mean that we do not believe in creation if we apply such “theories”.
Thanks Dragonfinger…I completely agree. Just understanding the basic definition of scientific “theory” puts a lot of Ham’s rhetoric to rest. Of course evolution is a theory–it is the best explanation of what we observe in the natural world, and it helps us make sense of things we are still trying to figure out. In the future, new things might come up that will force us to tweak it, alter it, and maybe (as with Einstein’s unseating of Newton) abandon it for something that explains things better. It’s a provisional theory, and every real scientist knows this. But Ham tries to make it out to be some sort of “divine dogma” that “secular scientists” are trying to force on the public.
That’s my ultimate concern with Ham and Answers in Genesis–they purposely obfuscate so that it is hard to even see the issues clearly.
Stumbled across this post. Interesting.
It sounds as if you are suggesting that the Theory of Evolution is not regarded as fact, or have I misread your comment?
No…you misread the post.