Point #3: Creationism, Original Sin

January 21, 2015
This is the third post in a planned twelve post series debating the twelve Points of Reform for a New Christianity that John Spong presents in his book – A New Christianity for a New World. These posts will be published in the New Christianity Category.

As in the previous posts, I want to note that this series of posts serve as research for my screenplay – The Hero Science Project – about an eighth grade Christian/Catholic student  whose experiment in team problem solving goes viral, igniting a fierce inter-Christian battle, the Character Wars. Again I would like to thank Ms. Monk for sharing her paper, and apologize for how disrespectfully I am treating her arguments.

Spong – The Biblical story of the perfect and finished creation from which human beings fell into sin is pre-Darwinian mythology and post-Darwinian nonsense.

Monk – Response to Thesis 3: Creation and Fall
Spong argues that a biblical account of creation and the fall of mankind are incompatible with science. The first part of this statement relates to a scientific question, and as scientist Dr. Jonathan Sarfati and co-author Michael Bott state, evolution does not require the mythologization of Genesis, and there are many scientists that criticize evolutionary theory.

Spong says he regards the creation vs.evolution debate as an “irrelevant issue‟.

But the issue is relevant enough for him to use evolutionary theories to dismiss Genesis as “myth‟. He does not acknowledge the criticisms of evolutionary theory even by secular scientists like Dr Michael Denton, Sir Fred Hoyle, Dr Chandra Wickramasinghe, H.S. Lipson, D. Heribert Nilsson; secular science writers like Richard Milton, or the thousand plus members of the Creation Research Society, all with advanced degrees in science.

Spong’s desire to eliminate Genesis is tied to the fact that he denies man‟s sinful nature and need for a savior, for “the jettisoning of sin results necessarily in the loss of any meaningful understanding of the need for Incarnation or for redemption.”

Thus, when Spong rejects the fall of man, he rejects that mankind has any need for salvation. However, this leaves Spong with no answer to the problem of evil and suffering in the world, a problem that can only be addressed from the Christian understanding of man‟s fall and God‟s salvation.

Sly – The Mental Illness of Creationism

Spong says he regards the creation vs.evolution debate as an “irrelevant issue‟.

I do not consider it irrelevant, and once again refer the readers of this series to my two posts on Creationism as a Mental Illness (Part 1, Part 2). I can see why Spong might dismiss this as an important issue after Point #1 and Point #2, but to me, the war being mounted against science education by creationists is a deadly serious threat to our democracy. Its intention is to propagate a suffocating mental illness that deceives young minds into freezing the learning cycle to lock them in a Truth Trap, and forces a separation between evidence and belief that drives children further and further into a fantasy increasingly divorced from reality. This illness creates weak hearts incapable of dealing honestly with uncertainty, and weak minds incapable of working the solution process.

Meet the “scientists” of the Creation Research Society

The CRS adopted the following statement of belief, mandatory for all members:[6]

  1. The Bible is the written Word of God, and because it is inspired throughout, all its assertions are historically and scientifically true in the original autographs. To the student of nature this means that the account of origins in Genesis is a factual presentation of simple historical truths.
  2. All basic types of living things, including man, were made by direct creative acts of God during the Creation Week described in Genesis. Whatever biological changes have occurred since Creation Week have accomplished only changes within the original created kinds.
  3. The great flood described in Genesis, commonly referred to as the Noachian Flood, was an historic event worldwide in its extent and effect.
  4. We are an organization of Christian men and women of science who accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior. The account of the special creation of Adam and Eve as one man and one woman and their subsequent fall into sin is the basis for our belief in the necessity of a Savior for all mankind. Therefore, salvation can come only through accepting Jesus Christ as our Savior.

I suggest that having a degree in science does not make you a scientist, and once again, starting with the “right answer” and walking in a circle to arrive back at your right answer is not science, or in any way, a sincere search for what is true.

Thus, when Spong rejects the fall of man, he rejects that mankind has any need for salvation. However, this leaves Spong with no answer to the problem of evil and suffering in the world, a problem that can only be addressed from the Christian understanding of man‟s fall and God‟s salvation.

I did not read Spong’s book, but it so happens that I do have an answer to the problem of “evil and suffering” in the world, though I am pretty sure you are not going to like it. I propose that the evil and suffering in the world arises from educational systems that trap young students in their selfish hearts and knowing minds in order to command their obedience with the words of God promising heaven and threatening hell. It looks very much like Fundamentalists, such as yourself, Ms. Monk, are the vectors that are spreading the mental illness that is the source of war and poverty.

Please stop.

Next up – Point #4: Virgin Birth

Advertisements