When ‘Knowing You’re Right’ Goes Wrong: A Christian Biologist’s Perspective on AiG’s Latest Article

As a Christian biologist, I often find myself examining the intersection of faith and science. Today, I’m addressing a recent article from Answers in Genesis titled “How do I stay humble when I know I’m right?” This piece caught my attention not for its scientific claims, but for its theological implications. My goal is to critique this article from a Christian perspective, focusing on how it approaches the relationship between faith, knowledge, and humility.

The central question – how to remain humble when confident in one’s beliefs – is a crucial one for Christians. It’s particularly relevant in discussions about the age of the Earth and the interpretation of Genesis, where opinions among believers can vary widely.

If you want to get the full story, check out my video on this topic below:

Analysis of the Answers in Genesis Article

Let’s start with the article itself. The author, Todd Freel, kicks things off with a story about a guy named Bob who gets rescued from a desert and then mocks someone else in the same situation. Honestly, it feels a bit forced and doesn’t really connect well with the main point. It’s like when a pastor tries too hard to make an anecdote fit their sermon – sometimes it just doesn’t quite work.

The meat of the article comes when Freel asks, “Why do Godly creation scientists believe God created the world in 6 24-hour days?” He gives three options: they’re brilliant, they have PhDs, or they understand the “plain meaning” of Genesis 1 and 2. But he goes with none-of-the-above. Rather, he says the real reason is that “the Holy Spirit taught them the truth.”

Freel backs this up with some Bible verses. He uses 1 Corinthians 2:14 to argue that you need spiritual discernment to get young Earth creationism. Then he throws in 1 Corinthians 8:1 as a warning against getting cocky with knowledge, and John 15:5 to remind us we need to rely on Christ.

Critique of the Article’s Theological Approach

Now, let’s break this down a bit. The article is basically saying that divine revelation trumps human reason and scientific evidence. As a Christian, I get where he’s coming from – God’s revelation is crucial. But this approach creates some problems.

First, it assumes there’s only one right way to interpret Genesis 1 and 2. But here’s the thing – throughout church history, many devoted Christians and respected theologians have understood these passages differently. It makes you wonder about how we determine what’s true and what role spiritual discernment really plays.

Secondly, it sets up this false dichotomy between faith and reason. By suggesting that only young Earth creationists have true spiritual insight, it kind of dismisses the faith and understanding of a whole lot of Christians who’ve come to different conclusions about the Earth’s age.

The view of divine revelation here is pretty limited too. It doesn’t give much weight to general revelation – you know, what we can learn about God through nature. And it kind of brushes aside the diverse ways Christians have interpreted scripture throughout history.

There’s also this circular logic going on. The article is saying you know the Earth is young because the Holy Spirit reveals it, and if you don’t agree, well, you must not have spiritual discernment. It’s a bit of a logical pretzel.

In my view, this approach oversimplifies some pretty complex theological issues. It doesn’t really acknowledge how faith, reason, and revelation all interact in helping us understand God’s creation. It’s a lot messier and more nuanced than the article makes it out to be.

Broader Implications and Problems

Now, let’s zoom out a bit and look at the bigger picture. This article, while it might seem straightforward, actually opens up a can of worms when it comes to how we approach faith and community as Christians.

First, it’s taking a really complex issue – the age of the Earth and how we interpret Genesis – and boiling it down to a simple yes or no question. But here’s the thing: Christians have been wrestling with these topics for centuries. It’s not as simple as “either you get it or you don’t.”

The article also sets up this false dichotomy: you’re either a young Earth creationist, or you’re wrong. But that doesn’t reflect the reality of Christian beliefs. We’ve got old Earth creationists, theistic evolutionists, and all sorts of views in between. By drawing this hard line, we risk creating unnecessary divisions in the church.

There’s also this tension between calling for humility and claiming absolute certainty. The article tells us to be humble, but at the same time, it’s saying, “We know we’re right because the Holy Spirit told us so.” That’s a tricky balance to strike, and it can easily tip over into a kind of spiritual pride.

But here’s what really concerns me: this approach can be really divisive within the Christian community. If we start saying that only those who believe in a young Earth have true spiritual discernment, what does that say about all the other faithful Christians out there? It can create rifts in our churches, our families, and even hinder our witness to the world.

Reflections on Answers in Genesis’ Approach

When I look at how Answers in Genesis approaches these issues, as shown in this article, I see some problematic attitudes towards other Christians. There’s this implication that if you disagree with their interpretation, you’re somehow less spiritually mature or discerning. Ken Ham, the founder of Answers in Genesis, often refers to those who disagree as “compromising Christians.” That’s pretty harsh language to use against fellow believers unless he understands all Christians to be “compromising” since none, in this life, know the truth perfectly or act in perfect accordance with God’s word.

Here’s a question we need to ask ourselves: What if they’re confidently wrong? Throughout church history, we’ve seen plenty of examples of sincere believers who were absolutely certain about their interpretations, only to be proven mistaken later. That should give us pause and encourage us to approach non-essential doctrines with a bit more humility.

It’s worth noting that many respected Christian thinkers – both past and present – have held different views on the age of the Earth. We’re talking about folks like C.S. Lewis, John Stott, N.T. Wright, Tim Keller, B.B. Warfield, Gresham Machen – the list goes on. These are people who have a high view of scripture and a deep love for God. The idea that the Holy Spirit has somehow failed to lead these devoted believers to the “truth” about the Earth’s age is troubling, to say the least.

Where do we go from here?

So, where does all this leave us? While the Answers in Genesis article raises an important question about humility in our faith, I think its approach falls short in several key areas. The theological reasoning is pretty shallow, lacking the nuance and depth that this topic deserves. It doesn’t really engage with the broader Christian tradition, and it risks creating unnecessary division within the body of Christ.

As Christians, we’re called to pursue truth diligently, but we’re also called to hold our interpretations of non-essential doctrines with humility. We need to remember that our understanding is limited, and that God’s truth is often more complex and multifaceted than we might initially think.

Moving forward, I think we need more nuanced, theologically deep approaches to these questions. We should engage respectfully with fellow believers who hold different views, recognizing that we all see “through a glass, darkly” as Paul puts it in 1 Corinthians 13:12. Our unity in Christ should be more important than our disagreements about the age of the Earth or the specific mechanisms of creation.

Ultimately, our goal should be to foster a community of faith that values both truth and love. We should be able to discuss our differences openly and humbly, always seeking to grow in our understanding of God and His creation. It’s not about winning arguments, it’s about growing together in faith and knowledge.