Tuesday, September 01, 2009

Oh, brother du jour: The ICR on Collins.

The chuckleheads at the Institute for Creation Research are once again rearing their pharisaical heads and claiming—not merely that their view of creation is correct, which would be perfectly reasonable for them, as it is for anyone, to argue—but that their view amounts to a test of orthodoxy.

No matter that many church fathers, at a time when there was no reason not to accept a hyperliteral view of Genesis, in fact did not.

No matter that the early church, when constructing its tests of orthodoxy (the historic creeds) saw fit to mention only the who and the what: (God created the universe), and not the when and the how.

I have addressed the ICR and the Family Morris before. For example in this post, concisely entitled Spiritual Arrogance, The Garden of Eden, and How I Learned Not To Worry That A Dead Mouse Could Render Jesus Inconsequential I discuss, among other things, Dr. Morris's unsupportable if not blasphemous claim:
if death preceded sin [the fall], then death is not the penalty for sin, and Christ's death on the cross—accomplished nothing.
The ICR (and AiG) follow this annoying Chicken Little template: If you disagree with us, then unsupportable, sensationalist conclusions which would result, we tell ya, trust us, in the negation of the power of the Son of God.

Now the ICR is judging the orthodoxy of Francis Collins. Lawrence Ford, writing for the ICR and singing its praises and placing it in very good company:
The Bereans were praised for their study, "in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so" (Acts 17:11). Notice what they examined: the Scriptures. That's our real anchor. Not "born again" Francis Collins or the pontifications of BioLogos. It all goes back to the divinely inspired and inerrant Book of God.
Is Dr. Collins skilled to lead the programs of the NIH? Absolutely. Is he qualified to teach the Bible? Not a chance. There are "more legitimate evangelical" Bible teachers who are "genuine authorities" in the Bible.

The implied likening to the Bereans and their laudable object of study (the Bible) looks rather silly when you note that the ICR website is a veritable amazon dot com of extra-biblical sources. (Ninety-Six products here, at last count.) Does the ICR think the Bereans had a cottage industry trafficking in extra-biblical commerce?

Collins's views on science and faith are similar to my own. They are not identical—for example unlike Collins I am convinced of the historicity of Adam and Eve—but similar. And, most importantly (to say the least) we are in absolute agreement on the gospel: we are saved by faith in the finished work of Christ, and faith alone.

This will fall on deaf ICR ears but:

The gospel is a gospel of faith that the blood of Christ atones for your sins and makes you acceptable before a holy God. It is not a gospel of the end times or the beginning times. Those are worthy of discussion, but don't put the cart before the horse.

And you never, ever get to say that views on creation other than your own render the creator of the universe impotent.

No comments:

Post a Comment