As we continue in our Answers in Genesis Week on my blog this week, in anticipation to the appearance of Ken Ham at the up and coming AiG conference in my town this weekend, I want to share a short article by Dr. Andrew Snelling, a contributor to the AiG enterprise. The February 2, 2016 article is entitled, “Dealing with Skeptics.” In it, Snelling recounts an episode in which he encountered certain skeptics at a creation event in which he was speaking.
He noted that when he got to the event, there were “vocal anti-creationist skeptics” who were denouncing him for not being a real scientist. Snelling then said, “You see, I wasn’t a true scientist because I believe the Bible and therefore teach that the earth is young and that its geology was shaped by the global Flood cataclysm.”
I couldn’t help thinking, “No, they’re not saying you’re a true scientist because you believe the Bible. They say you’re not a real scientist because you are misinterpreting Genesis 1-11, and are injecting modern scientific assumptions into an ancient text. You are, in fact, molding the Bible into your own image—and the results are ridiculous.”
Of course, Snelling won’t even get specific enough to say, “They don’t believe I’m a scientist because I think Genesis 1-11 is giving historical/scientific information.” I think the reason is because he wants to frame the so-called controversy as one in which “secular evolutionists” are persecuting Christians for their faith. Therefore, he leaves it at the ambiguous “I believe the Bible is true, that’s why they’re attacking me.” Well, I am a Christian, and I believe the Bible is true. But I have no problem with the earth being millions of years old because I realize that Genesis 1-11 isn’t intending to relate scientific information on that topic. I realize that it’s not that Genesis 1-11 “isn’t true;” it’s that it isn’t trying to do science in the first place.
Condemnations from II Peter 3
Well, Snelling continued his narrative by pointing out that while he was giving his sermon entitled, “Creation and the Scoffers,” those skeptics were sitting in the front row. Undeterred, Snelling proceeded with his sermon. He referenced II Peter 3, where Peter talks about “scoffers” who will come in the “last days.” And how did Snelling interpret that passage? Simple:
“These scoffers would be those who would deliberately reject the geologic evidence that the world was destroyed and rebuilt by the global, mountain-covering Genesis Flood. They would instead believe that only present-day slow and gradual geologic processes could have shaped the earth and deposited the fossil-bearing rock layers over millions of years.”
That’s right! Snelling didn’t point out the “scoffers” Peter was talking about were those who scoffed at the idea of Christ’s coming at the end of the age. He claimed Peter was talking about…evolutionists who reject the geological evidence for a global flood!
Snelling then noted there were “howls of protests from the skeptics when I identified these last-days scoffers as the uniformitarian (millions-of-years-evolutionary) geologists of our day.”
I’m sorry, allow me to lend my voice to that protest. Let’s forget the whole “creation-evolution debate” for a moment, and focus on what Snelling really did. He claimed that Peter was talking about 21st century evolutionary geologists! Let’s put to the side the fact for all of AiG’s insistence that there is a mountain of evidence for a global flood, that they never articulate any, and focus on the fact that Snelling has just completely distorted Scripture. By claiming that Peter was talking about the 21st century creation/evolution debate (!!!), Snelling is twisting Scripture, plain and simple. He is twisting Scripture to try and support his young earth creationist claims which are, in and of themselves, a distortion and misrepresentation of Scripture.
I cannot even make fun of that. I’m just astonished.
Back to the Skeptics
In any case, Snelling then seemingly took pride in the fact that these “skeptics” denounced him as a fraud because they claimed the geological evidence proved the earth was millions of years old (which, by the way, it does). He then boldly proclaimed that “no amount of counter evidence would convince him.” Well, if you boldly state you will not consider evidence, I’m pretty sure that makes you not a scientist. For that matter, it makes you not an honest or humble person.
But that’s not how Snelling sees it. Instead, he accused the “skeptics,” not of being bad scientists, but of being in spiritual darkness: “Their root problem was instead spiritual. They did not want to “retain God in their knowledge,” so their “foolish” hearts were “darkened, professing themselves to be wise, they (had become) fools” (Romans 1:18–32). That’s right, they question him on the evidence of geology, and instead of engaging them on the geological evidence, he accuses them of being foolish sinners.
Snelling then ended by saying that those “skeptics” needed the Holy Spirit to convict of the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ, because that would be the only way they would “accept the authority of God’s Word in every area it teaches on, including the earth’s origin and history.”
That statement is extremely telling, for it shows the mindset of Answers in Genesis. The real focus, the real “end game,” if you will, isn’t the Gospel of Christ. No, the Gospel of Christ is only the means to the true end: being convinced of a young earth.
Never mind the fact that Genesis 1-11 isn’t giving a scientific account of material origins; never mind the fact that at no time in Church history was that ever seen as a core fundamental of the Christian faith; never mind the fact that no scientific evidence supports the claims of young earth creationism; for Answers in Genesis, convincing people of a young earth is the key to, well, everything. Apparently, Christ suffered, died, and rose again, so that the Holy Spirit could convict people to accept the authority of God’s Word, so that they would believe the earth is 6,000 years old.
That is the Gospel according to Answers in Genesis.
Conclusion
Snelling ends his article by saying that he knows without a doubt that a global flood occurred, “because God’s Word says it did! Even if I couldn’t see any evidence, I would have to accept God’s Word for it!” That statement too is very telling, for the biblical evidence is that Genesis 1-11 isn’t attempting to do history and science, therefore Snelling’s basis for belief in a literal global flood is founding on a profound misreading of Scripture. And because of that, he chooses to renounce all the actually scientific evidence for an old earth.
Basically Snelling says, “I’m going to reject the scientific evidence we have for an old earth, and instead I will base my belief in a young earth on a misinterpretation of Scripture.” When you think of it, Snelling is actually exchanging the truth about God’s creation for a lie.
That, I submit, is the insidious nature of groups like Answers in Genesis. People like Snelling and Ham really believe what they’re doing is right, and their followers cannot see that what they are doing is not simply damaging to science, but more importantly it is making a mockery of the Bible.
One More Thing
As I looked up material for this post, I came across this very interesting web article on Andrew Snelling. It takes about 5 minutes to read, but here’s the gist of it: Snelling writes for young earth creation organizations on topics like Noah’s flood; but then he also writes scientific articles on geology in which he advocates for millions of years.
When I was a kid, we used to play a game called “Concentration.” I think we could alter that game and play, “Contradiction.” Do you know the game? “Contradiction, now in session, try to keep the rhythm going. Names of…walking contradictions…such as….” You get it.
Snelling is tying Christianity to outright denial/distortion of both known human history and unambiguous scientific discoveries (the latter takes account of ALL relevant evidence not just different rock layers or the pattern of the fossils within them). Plus the pseudo-science (used to ‘back up’ New Testament quotes) that the geological record we observe can only be explained by a ‘recent’, ‘rapid’, ‘worldwide’ flood inundation from above and below and not by any other scenario(s) over a much longer period. (And if you refuse his version of events then you are denying ‘the word of God’ as well as not being scientific.)
https://answersingenesis.org/is-the-bible-true/dealing-with-skeptics/
PS I believe Snelling had in mind 2 Peter 3:5.
The ironic thing about Andrew Snelling painting 2 Peter 3:5 as being all about the modern creation and evolution debate is that 2 Peter 3 also contains verse 8, which tells us that a day with the Lord is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.
When confronted with that verse, Answers in Genesis denies that the passage has anything whatsoever to do with creation. For example: https://answersingenesis.org/why-does-creation-matter/the-necessity-for-believing-in-six-literal-days/
It seems to me like they’re trying to have it both ways with that passage.
Yes, I think it is safe to say that AiG is trying to have everything in whatever way they want it to mean. And when you accuse them of being inconsistent or illogical, they will respond with, “No, we’re just reading the ‘natural’ sense of the Bible. You’re elevating ‘man’s reason’ above God’s Word.” That’s at the root of the problem: when THEY make any given passage mean whatever THEY want it to mean, it’s just ‘reading the Bible naturally’–they don’t acknowledge they are bringing a truck load of false assumptions and biases to their reading of Scripture. And when you try to say, “But you have to read that passage in context, etc.” they retort with their accusation that you are putting reason, logic, and context “above God’s Word.”
What can you do with that? You’re never going to change the minds of the AiG devotees. I’ve realized the best thing to do is simply warn people about them.