<body>
Hip and Thigh: Smiting Theological Philistines with a Great Slaughter. Judges 15:8

Thursday, June 07, 2007

Enslaved Dogmatism

Russell Moore of the Henry Institute gives his review of the opening of Answers in Genesis Creation Museum Memorial Day weekend.

Particularly interesting is Moore's report about the intellectual hypocrites protesting outside the gates of the museum called Defcon. There were dishonest signs that read something along the lines of "free inquiry." Of course they don't really mean they are for "free inquiry." As I have always noted, any one who claims to be a "free thinker" has an extremely closed mind and is often one of the loudest bigots. The folks of Defcon are the secular version of Fred Phelps and his Westboro Baptist Church cult.

Rather than free inquirers, they are enslaved dogmatists, and they are the most oblivious to this fact, all lining up under the same propaganda for anti-theistic naturalism.

What is unique about Answers in Genesis is their method of challenging the foundational presuppositions of secularist when they engage the culture. They are one of the few ministries challenging the world in this manner, which makes them a significant threat to Defcon, Eugenie Scott, and the host of other enslaved dogmatists. The Defcon folks probably have never had their foundational presuppositions challenged before and this is why they know the creation museum is a serious threat to their dishonest intellectuality.

Labels: , ,

9 Comments:

Blogger elephant said...

Fred,

I don't know anything about Defcon, but I will happily stand alongside them in all their "intellectual hypocrisy" and protest anything and everything Answers in Genesis does. AIG is a smarmy organization (as much as evolutionists tend to be) lead by Ken Ham, who I found to be caustic to the point of being offensive. Speaking at a Christian conference a few years back, he basically said that he didn't think one could be a Christian unless one believes in a six 24-hour day creation cycle. (Sorry, don't think anyone was actually recording it at the time. I can check, though, if you're interested.)

So yeah, boo AIG. I don't have much to say about Defcon; I don't expect them to act any other way if they don't have a personal relationship with Christ. But I can sure expect AIG and other Christians to act a little more in accordance with Biblical principles (e.g., salvation doesn't come from a particular interpretation of Genesis 1-3, but through the blood of Christ).

Peter

1:22 PM, June 07, 2007  
Blogger Fred Butler said...

So Pete, I take it that you are one of those looonnng agers?

Smarmy? How exactly is saying a person can't be a Christian unless they understand Genesis properly being smarmy?

In order to have the blood of Jesus, you have to have a real, historical Adam who plunged the creation into sin. Either Genesis is historical narrative that tells us why we are in need of the blood of Christ, or the "blood of Christ" is a whimsical illusion.

Fred

6:59 PM, June 07, 2007  
Blogger Matthew Christensen said...

Peter, do you claim to be a Christian? Then you shouldn't spread lies about other Christians. You said "he basically said that he didn't think one could be a Christian unless one believes in a six 24-hour day creation cycle.". This is easily proven false. They have said this isn't the case time and time again on their web site (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v11/i4/christian.asp). Also I have met the man in person a few times. Please don't spread untrue rumors.

8:29 PM, June 07, 2007  
Blogger Jim Lippard said...

Answers in Genesis is being sued by Creation Ministries International, which also accuses AiG of deception and dishonesty.

AiG's response to supporters with a reply from CMI and additional commentary of mine, is here.

9:48 PM, June 07, 2007  
Blogger Matthew Christensen said...

Let's not let Jim blur reality with his bias against Creationists. CMI supports AIG's museum as is seen by on CMI's website.

4:49 AM, June 08, 2007  
Blogger Fred Butler said...

From what I understand from CMI's website, the issue has to do with how AIG switched the two magazine when the ministries separated, something I didn't appreciate at all when it happened. Under the circumstances, AiG probably needs to be held accountable to that decision, which I personally believe was a bone head one.

What that proves for Jim is beyond me. Evolutionists have acted dishonestly over the years by putting forth fraudulent research as allegedly supporting evolutionary theory. The National Geographic raptor dino-bird comes to mind.

Fred

6:06 AM, June 08, 2007  
Blogger elephant said...

Fred,

I don't take much of an interest in it. My father, uncle, and grandfather used to have a heyday talking around the Thanksgiving table--all three are Ph.D's in chemistry, chemistry, and physics, respectively; all three are also very conservative Christians. All three are also "looonnng agers". So I suspect you could call me a "looonnng ager" insofar as you can call my father-in-law a Catholic because he was born in the church, yet never attends.

I've read through a bit of literature, but mostly on the old earth Christian side of things. I also lurked a bit on talk.origins, back in the day. I admit that I'm really not passionate enough about the topic to read too much about it.

Nor am I really passionate enough to get into a long and drawn-out debate (as any discussion of the matter inevitably becomes) over any of it. I was commenting, simply, on AiG's apparent attitude toward evolutionists. My comment is simply that the same disdain evolutionists express toward those silly, simple-minded creationists can be found in creationists toward those godless, pagan evolutionists. It sure just seems like each group ends up doing little more than speaking to itself and further alienating the other... which is WHY I really don't care to be a part of that conversation.

Nor am I interested in getting into a deep theological argument on a blog about the blood of Christ. You are certainly far more versed in rigorous apologetics, and I wouldn't stand a chance. :-) All I know is that regardless of whether Adam was an actual person or not, whether he lived 6000 years ago or not, whether Genesis is to be taken as a historical or scientific narrative or not... *I* need Christ's blood. Having accepted him as my personal savior and declared him as such is what saves me, not my interpretation of Genesis 1-3. I suspect you will still disagree; that is fine. We can discuss it in heaven, even if you don't think I'm going there. :-)

Finally, Matthew: I think you might have misunderstood what the word, "rumor", means. I, along with a number of my friends and business partners, was present at a meeting in which he said what I said he did. The article you have quoted was not written by Ham and, therefore, does not necessarily represent his personal views, which I believe he was expressing at that seminar.

Whatever your view of the man, what I said was neither a lie nor an untrue rumor nor easily proven false.

Peter

11:11 AM, June 08, 2007  
Blogger Matthew Christensen said...

Peter, you must have misheard him then. I have heard from Ken Ham's own lips more then once that you can believe in billions of years and evolution and still be a born again Christian. You would need to show me a DVD of him saying that for me to ever believe you. I have been following his ministry for many years now and he has always held this position along with others at AIG. I don't know if there is a quote from Ken Ham on the web site about this but there has been at least 10 different times on the web site they have talked about this. Several times in response to letters people have sent. So let it been known this is what Ken Ham really believes. If you still think Peter is right please e-mail AIG and they will set the story straight. In fact I encourage you to do this Peter. The last thing a Christian should do is say untrue things about Christians or nonChristians.

3:48 PM, June 08, 2007  
Blogger pilgrim said...

I find it interesting how much people are protesting this, and the comments here show even more of it.

I agree on the presupposition thing--it gets under people's skin.
But it's true.

But really if some group wants to spend all that money on a museum you don't like --so what?
Why protest--unless you're afraid or have something to hide.
Why make up stuff about AiG unless you have an axe to grind.

9:46 PM, June 08, 2007  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home