In the Interest of Balance?

Greg opened the radio show Sunday afternoon by evaluating an email update that was sent out by The Berean Call.  Here's the text we received:

From: The Berean Call <noreply@thebereancall.org>
Date: Jul 20, 2006 7:18 AM
Subject: TBC Today : Evolve This!
To: updates@lists.thebereancall.org

[TBC: The Gospel and the Scriptures are not subject to the changing opinions
of men. Neither should we base our biblical position upon the credentials or
notoriety of those who agree with us. Yet, a Christian group which denies
the historicity of much of Genesis chooses exactly this approach in order to
bolster their standing. Following are some of the names listed as being
supportive of what is called the Old Earth view]:

Notable Christians Open to an Old Earth Interpretation

John Ankerberg
Gleason Archer
Michael Behe
Henri Blocher
James Montgomery Boice
William Jennings Bryan
Chuck Colson
Norman Geisler
Hank Hannegraff
Jack Hayford
Charles Hodge
Walter Kaiser
Meredith Kline
Greg Koukl
C. S. Lewis
J. P. Moreland
Robert Newman
Greg Neyman
Mark Noll
J. I. Packer
Nancy Pearcey
William Phillips
Pat Robertson
Hugh Ross
Francis Schaeffer
C. I. Scofield
Chuck Smith Jr.
David Snoke
Lee Strobel
Ken Taylor
Bruce Waltke
B. B. Warfield

http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/notable_leaders/index.shtml#gan
ge

TBC: In the interest of balance, here are some additional names of those who
support the Old Earth view:

Charles Darwin
Carl Sagan
Julian Huxley
Many Popes
H. G. Wells
L. Ron Hubbard
Heinrich Himmler
Richard Dawkins
Joseph Stalin
Mao Tse-Tung

The calls covered quite a bit of territory, including quantum physics and reaity, Calvinism and Hebrews, inerrancy, and martial arts.

Comments

[Rusty Lopez]

I believe that Abraham Lincoln was shot by John Wilkes Booth at Ford's Theater in April of 1865.

In the interest of balance I should mention that there are many atheists and agnostics who support this view.

[Jason]

I notice they left out in the interests of balance that if I understand correctly, there are plenty of heretics who would openly support a YEC view, along with muslims and others.

Must just be a conincidence.

Jason

[John Gillmartin]

I'd have to AMEN Rusty!

[Shawn]

Rusty - that was funny!

[Fred Butler]

Dave Hunt is an embarrassment as an apologist and a critic of opposing points of view. This is clearly demonstrated in his deplorable book, "What Love Is This?" and I have always said that its terrible research and illogical conclusions is reflective of his entire body of work. Once again, with his latest shot, Dave Hunt vindicates my charge that he is incompotent as a defender of the faith.

That being said, as a young earth creationist, Hunt's material is not characteristic of those who would be critical of long age views of earth's history. Though I agree with Greg's criticism of Dave Hunt, his poor arguments should not create a false confidence with Greg that his position is unanswerable.

I can recall on a previous program Greg asserting that the claims of young earth cosmology are incredible, but he provided no examples to back up his assertion, nor interacted with the research of young earther explainations, which tells me he has not studied the relevant materials, but is only familiar with the stuff put out by like-minded individuals like Ross and Geisler.

I still truly hope Greg would avail himself of the excellent material put out by ministries like AiG, rather than dismiss them as a quaint little ministry who are at least doing the Lord's work.

Fred

[Aaron Snell]

"I can recall on a previous program Greg asserting that the claims of young earth cosmology are incredible, but he provided no examples to back up his assertion, nor interacted with the research of young earther explainations, which tells me he has not studied the relevant materials, but is only familiar with the stuff put out by like-minded individuals like Ross and Geisler."

I think that is a rash assertion, for two reasons:

1) Greg may very well have studied the relevant materials from YECs, formed conclusions (which he stated), but did not have the time to get into the details and give a full-blown argument for his view on the air.

2) I have heard Greg say explicitly on past shows that he not only has looked at their materials, but thinks there may be some valid points coming from the YEC crowd - but that he is more sympathetic to the old-earth view than necessariuly totally convinced by it. I think the term used (even in the TBC list) is "open to" - in other words (and I hope I'm reading him right and not misrepresenting his views) he hasn't put all his eggs in the OEC basket, but thinks that their arguments are, at this point, the most compelling.

[Fred Butler]

1) Greg may very well have studied the relevant materials from YECs, formed conclusions (which he stated), but did not have the time to get into the details and give a full-blown argument for his view on the air.

(Fred) I have been listening to Greg now for 3 years or more and everytime this issue is raised he seems to be uncertain as to the relevant information used to defend young earth geology and such. His program is two hours long, so there is sufficient time to get into "details." He gets into details about pro-life argumentation, and other subjects, even to the point of holding a caller over the break.

2) I have heard Greg say explicitly on past shows that he not only has looked at their materials, but thinks there may be some valid points coming from the YEC crowd - but that he is more sympathetic to the old-earth view than necessariuly totally convinced by it. I think the term used (even in the TBC list) is "open to" - in other words (and I hope I'm reading him right and not misrepresenting his views) he hasn't put all his eggs in the OEC basket, but thinks that their arguments are, at this point, the most compelling.

(Fred) My take on his OE history sympathies is that is due in part more because of his friends with whom he holds company and the spiritual "mentors" from whom he learned, as well as the foundational axioms of his apologetic methodology, ie, "evidence" is self-defining and can be neutral.

I have yet to even hear why Greg thinks the old view of earth's history is compelling, let alone why he disagrees with those in the young camp.

I understand how popular apologist like Greg and others wish to push the age of the earth issue into the realm of a "secondary, non-separation issue," for Christians, but one's position on this matter has vital impact upon his or her over all worldview. Darwinians make the issue of the age of the earth a major talking point in their "apologetics" because millions of years of suffering and death is necessary to the mechanism of natural selection and descent from a common ancestor. There is a reason why one of the first questions put to IDers by ACLU lawyers while in court is "how old do you think the earth really is?"

Fred

[Aaron Snell]

Fred,
Go to the Radio section of this site and listen to the last show on the page, September 5, 2004. Greg can speak (and has spoken) for himself on this matter, as this show is evidence of. He spends about 8 minutes on the subject in response to a caller, and I was not far off in my off-the-cuff assessment. In fact, he specifically says that he thinks there are credible reasons for people to hold the young earth view, and he's sympathetic to those who hold it, but he doesn't hold the view because of a careful assessment. Listen to his own words, and I think you will indeed "hear why Greg thinks the old view of earth's history is compelling, let alone why he disagrees with those in the young camp" which you seem to be faulting him for not doing.

[Harpcat]

Hmm,
I can't say as I have heard Greg present the YEC points myself, but I have heard both arguments extensively. I have actually found a lot of YE cosmology to be based on a lot of old, misdated, and currently irrelevant data (like the supposed human footprint in the dinosaur that has since been throughly refuted, and discarded as an argument)

Does that mean that the YEC position itself is clearly or absolutley wrong. I would say not, but I am leaning much further to an OE view, and find that the theological distinctions presented on this subject in support of OE are arguments that were presented long before science claimed an old earth cosmology. The view of day age enthusiasts date back to early church fathers, though their idea of an age was more in the order of a thousand years for one yom (day).

The point here, and with regard to the list and "balance" is ultimately an ad hominum attack of "guilty by association. It is lame and childish, since one can categorize many people together that way and be adding nothing to the value of a discourse.

For instance. Once could say that Hitler believed that 2 + 2 = 4. Can I, or all of matehmatics be charged with bad or malicious thinking for beleiving the same?

Utlimately it is not association by persons to believe such that makes an argument strong or weak, but the soundness of a positions argument. Anything else is trying to remove the argument from it's proper arena, and cloud the issue with uneccesary bologna.

[Mac]

I've known Dave Hunt since 1977. I've had him come and speak at a church I was serving at. But his insistence now on bickering with just about anyone (and those who do the same like pseudo-theologian James White) leaves me discouraged.

There is a mission field out there and while we hack around about old and young Earth the Earth just gets older and Creation groans.