AiG Fancies Itself the Grand Inquisitor (but everyone expects the AiG Inquisition!)

Last week, Calvin Smith at Answers in Genesis started a blog series about BioLogos, the organization started by Francis Collins that, in a nutshell, tries to ease the fears of many Evangelicals regarding evolution by trying to show that the scientific theory of evolution does not conflict with the Bible and the Christian faith. Smith’s first article leaves little to the imagination regarding how AiG feels about BioLogos. It is entitled, “House of Heresy and False Teaching.”

Truth be told, this is really nothing new for AiG. Back when I wrote my own book, The Heresy of Ham, I noted several examples of Ken Ham saying that BioLogos is undermining the authority of God’s Word, targeting children, helping the devil, and will one day stand in judgment before God. So, yeah, to anyone who has followed AiG, Smith’s new blog series really is just par for the course. Nevertheless, it is quite a trip to read!

Now, when I wrote The Heresy of Ham six years ago, it came on the heels of my own ordeal at the hands of an overzealous YECist headmaster who, upon finding out that I didn’t agree with Ken Ham, felt that I was a “wolf in sheep’s clothing” and told me I was no longer a “good fit” for the Biblical Worldview program that I had built from scratch at the school at which I had taught for eight years. It was a very hurtful time for me, and my writing of the book, as well as the many blog posts I wrote at the time, was my way of making sense of what had happened. When I go back and read some of that material, I think some of my hurt and frustration can be seen in some of what I wrote. Simply put, it was hurtful to read the incendiary things AiG was writing, particularly the parts where they were openly attacking any Christian who didn’t happen to accept YECism.

That is why I entitled my book, The Heresy of Ham. In the book, I made it quite clear that I didn’t consider merely believing in a young earth “heretical.” If you believe that, fine. I think you’re wrong, but I’m certainly not going to attack you or question your faith. But if you make YECism a foundational tenet of the Christian faith and proceed to attack other Christians who simply don’t buy YECism, well I’m sorry, but that, at the very least, is dipping your toes into heretical waters. And what I mean by that is simple: Nowhere in the early Church did any of the apostles or early Church Fathers make belief in a young earth a fundamental tenet of the Christian faith. Therefore, to elevate a secondary (or completely irrelevant) issue (like the age of the earth) to the level of what I call a “Creedal Fundamental of the Christian Faith,” you are distorting the Christian faith. And, almost always, the natural outgrowth of doing that is that you end up sowing division and attacking anyone who disagrees with you.

That is what I saw (and experienced) YECists like Ken Ham doing over and over again. Given that I’ve written a book with “Heresy” in the title and given that I am about to critique Calvin Smith’s blog series in which he throws the “heresy” and “false teaching” accusation at BioLogos, I think that is an important point to make. What I was calling “heresy” and what Smith clearly labels as “heresy” are two different things. Fortunately, enough time has passed where, far from getting mad at articles like Smith’s, I find them ridiculously amusing. Make no mistake, Smith’s article is completely hateful, pharisaical, and self-righteous, to be sure. But it is also utterly cartoonish. And for anyone who knows anything about AiG, virtually every one of his accusations ring out with an absurd amount of irony. Hence, Ron Burgandy’s reaction.

That being said, let me be your tour guide of Calvin Smith’s denunciation of BioLogos. In a famous Monty Python sketch about the Spanish Inquisition, they had the famous line, “Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!” Well, the truth is that AiG clearly fancies itself as God’s anointed inquisitor—the only difference is that, well, Everybody expects the AiG Inquisition! And, quite frankly, the schtick is just getting old.

Smith’s Initial Attack
Smith prefaces his article with three quotes from Kenton Sparks, Peter Enns, and Joseph Bankard respectively, taken from various articles found on the BioLogos website. Now, whenever one reads a seemingly shocking quote taken from a larger article, one should always exercise a bit of healthy skepticism, because the quote might very well be taken out of context. Smith, though, doesn’t cite these quotes, so it is impossible to go back and read the quotes in context.

Nevertheless, I will readily admit that, on the surface, they did cause me to raise an eyebrow. Sparks said Jesus was “a finite human being who erred,” Enns said the Bible is wrong from a scientific point of view, and Bankard said that God didn’t send Jesus to die and that his death wasn’t part of God’s divine plan. Perhaps the larger context in which these statements were made would provide a better understanding of what they were saying, but I think we can admit that, for any Christian, those statements probably should cause one to say, “Wait a minute…what?” At the very least, whatever these men were getting at, the wording in these statements is pretty problematic.

So, okay, Calvin Smith, go on…

AiG vs. BioLogos
Smith begins his article by claiming that “most fair-minded believers would concede that Answers in Genesis is sincere in its mission to uphold the authority of the Bible and further the proclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ.” Well, I’ll be honest, I don’t concede that at all. Regardless of what it states, I’ve found that AiG’s real mission is to push YECism as THE fundamental tenet of the Christian faith and to accuse any Christian who disagrees with them a “compromiser.”

In any case, the reason why he begins with that is so he can show how AiG is different from BioLogos. BioLogos, Smith decries, doesn’t have in its mission statement that they are proclaiming the gospel of Christ! Instead, they say they want to show how there can be harmony between science and the Christian faith! And what is Smith’s reaction to this? “Born-again believers should be appalled at what Biologos and their contributors have stated in clear contradiction to the revealed word of God and the gospel of Jesus Christ.”

I’m sorry, but that is like saying, “Because Francis Collins isn’t Billy Graham, you should be appalled at Francis Collins because he is contradicting the gospel of Christ!” That simply doesn’t make sense. (And to be clear, that is just an analogy—in no way am I equating Ken Ham with Billy Graham!). In all seriousness, though, I fail to see how BioLogos’ focus on what essentially amounts to science education for Christians is “contradicting” the revealed word of God and gospel of Jesus Christ.

Necessarily Divisive/What is BioLogos?
In the next two sections of the article, Smith acknowledges that calling BioLogos “heretics” is a bit provocative, but then doubles down on the charge, saying that he will show that they are. Therefore, anyone who “collaborates with” or supports BioLogos really should heed his warnings. And what is BioLogos, Smith asks? It is an organization founded by Francis Collins in 2007 that, although professing to be Christian, really is committed trying to get Christians to accept evolution. And “evolution,” as Smith defines it is, a secular, atheistic, naturalistic, materialistic, pagan view of origins.

Never mind the fact that such a “definition” is instantly self-contradictory (I mean, how can one be an “atheistic pagan”?), it is also patently absurd. It comes down to the old boiler plate accusation found in so many AiG articles, namely that evolution is a worldview (apparently a secular, atheistic, naturalistic, materialistic pagan worldview!). Well, sorry, no its not! Evolution is a scientific theory that attempts to explain how the various life forms in the natural world have come about. It is no more a “worldview” than is photosynthesis.

In any case, Smith then accuses BioLogos of not providing a “robust defense of Christian doctrine,” but instead “speaking authoritatively” about how things like fossils and genetics have helped us understand the history and development of the natural world better. Apparently, Smith finds the study of fossils and genetics to be exercises in the atheistic, pagan worldview! I’m just being silly. Unfortunately, Smith isn’t trying to be silly—he’s completely serious.

Smith then alludes to a BioLogos article (that he claims was scrubbed from their website) entitled, “On What Grounds Can One Claim that the Christian God Is the Creator?” In this scandalous article, Smith says that BioLogos admits to the fact that their view of origins isn’t distinctly Christian! Woah!

Well, as it turns out, that article hasn’t been scrubbed. You can view it for yourself. When you do, you’ll see that Smith isn’t really being honest about the piece. (Perhaps rather than accusing him of outright dishonesty, I should say it seems he is just self-deluded). The gist of what the article is saying is that the scientific explanation of how life has come about and has evolved in the natural world is just that—a scientific explanation. It is not making a religious claim. Now, sure, science might convince you that nature points to a creator, and that is where religion comes in—but science cannot prove or disprove God. It is impotent when it comes to speaking about God. In that respect, science doesn’t “support” Christianity, or Hinduism, or Islam, or even atheism.

Yet Smith has interpreted that as BioLogos saying, “Hey! Our view of origins isn’t Christian!” Indeed, he even says that BioLogos is engaging in false teaching, in direct contradiction to the Word of God. I have to say, Smith’s conclusion about the article goes beyond just being “a stretch.” Nothing in the article says what Smith claims it says. That’s practically a peculiar version of ex nihilo in and of itself! Talk about creating something out of nothing!

False Teachers—That’s What BioLogos Is
Smith ends his article by talking about what the Bible says about false teachers…and then telling you that BioLogos is full of false teachers, so you should completely cut them off and have nothing to do with them. He notes that the Apostle Paul tells us that a false teacher is anyone who teaches doctrines contrary to what the Church has been taught. Let me say, YES! THAT IS TRUE! And yet, that is what is so ironic here. For it is AiG who has (1) elevated YECism to a “doctrine,” (2) has falsely claimed that the original New Testament writers and early Church Fathers ascribed to YECism (and apparently elevated this “doctrine” to a fundamental of the faith!), (3) has labeled the scientific theory of evolution a “doctrine” (atheistic or pagan?), and (4) has then proceeded to attack Christians who don’t agree with them. This has been AiG’s modus operandi for years.

So, yes, Calvin Smith, you are right! That is what a false teacher does! Now go to the Ark Encounter, find a mirror, and look into it.

What adds to the irony of the article is that Smith then talks about how the New Testament writers were concerned with false teachers “infiltrating the ranks of church leadership” and “influencing people negatively.” He then says there is a clear difference between Christians having a difference of opinion about certain “non-essential doctrines” (like eschatology and baptism) and false teachers denying “non-negotiable truths that strike at the very heart of the authority of Scripture and the gospel itself (like Christ’s deity, virgin birth, sinless life, substitutionary death, and resurrection). The irony, of course, is that Smith and AiG clearly view their teaching of a literal 6-day creation a mere 6,000 years ago as a “non-negotiable truth,” on the same level as things like Christ’s resurrection. Smith’s very article, and his condemning BioLogos as heretical false teachers testifies to this very thing.

…but YECism isn’t a “non-negotiable truth” on par with the resurrection. Even if you think it is true, it still is not on the same theological level as the resurrection. To elevate it to that level, and to set about attacking those who disagree with you, why, maybe THAT might make you a heretic. Maybe?

Let’s wait and see what Part 2 of Smith’s attack on BioLogos brings about.