Yesterday, I began assessing the assessment that Elizabeth Mitchell of Answers in Genesis gave to Karl Giberson’s book, Saving the Original Sinner. Today, I would like to finish it. As is already obvious from “Part 1,” Mitchell does not like Giberson’s book…at all. What is so unfortunate (yet altogether predictable) is that instead of writing an actual review of Giberson’s book, Mitchell, in typical AiG fashion, choses instead to engage in character assassination of the author, and mischaracterizations of his book.
I now pick up my critique half way through Mitchell’s “review.”
Be Fruitful, Multiply, and Fill the Earth
The next point Mitchell challenges Giberson’s on is his claim that the human genome project has conclusively proven that all the human beings on the earth could not have descended from two people a mere 6,000 years ago. Rather, it is believed that our species of homo sapiens descended from a starter population of about 10,000 people about 100,000 years ago.
Mitchell, though, dismisses all of it out of hand, and says all of it is just dependent on “unverifiable assumptions about the past,” like “presumed evolutionary relationships between species.” Yet I have to ask, “What do relationships between species have to do with analyzing the genetic relationship between all human beings?” The “genetic map” printed into our DNA conclusively proves that human beings go much further back than 6,000 years. It is irrefutable. Nevertheless, Mitchell has the audacity to dismiss the work of the human genome project as “mathematical gymnastics,” and then say it “cannot disprove the historical fact that Adam and Eve were the ancestors of all people, created with perfect genomes and sufficient genetic raw material to generate the last 6,000 years of human diversity.”
Let me give you an example of the utter absurdity of Mitchell’s claims. It would be like a modern map-maker coming out with a map of the United States and showing that the distance from New York to Los Angeles was 2,789 miles, and then Dr. Mitchell saying, “No it isn’t! It is only 500 miles from New York to Los Angeles!” Then the map-maker responds with, “What? Then how do you explain the fact that Denver is 1,778 miles from New York and 1,011 miles from Los Angeles?” Mitchell comes back with, “Denver doesn’t exist!”
My point is simple: in the human genome, there is an entire map of genetic material that is irrefutably there that points to the human species tracing its roots back over 100,000 years to a starter population of 10,000 people—it is mapped out; it is there, just like a road atlas has mapped out the mileage from New York to Los Angeles. This isn’t a matter of “how one interprets the evidence.” This is a matter of Mitchell, so to speak, denying the existence of Denver and the entire Midwest.
And while we are at it, where in the Bible does it say Adam and Eve had perfect genomes? That’s right—it doesn’t. Mitchell is denying the evidence found in the human genome in favor of supporting a claim for which there is not only no scientific evidence, but also not even claimed in the Bible itself. She is not denying science, in favor of what the Bible says. She is denying science, in favor of the fanciful, unhistorical, unbiblical imaginings of Ken Ham.
Body Un-Designed
Mitchell then accuses Giberson of essentially mocking God as an incompetent designer: “Dr. Giberson also claims that numerous design flaws prove a perfect God could not have designed the human body.”
Once again, Mitchell’s statement is misleading. Giberson’s point was to challenge the YEC and ID claim that God “designed” the human body (or the body of any creature for that matter) like an inventor designs and build a machine—he lays out all the parts, painstakingly puts them all together, then BAM! He presses a button and the clock works perfectly.
Giberson was arguing (quite correctly) that if one looks at the anatomy of the human body with the assumption that God designed it much like an inventor designs a machine, then one would be faced with the fact that there would be a number things that would have to be characterized as “design flaws.” But the fact is that God doesn’t create like an inventor designs and builds a machine. The odd peculiarities that would have to be characterized as “flaws” if we picture God as a “grand watchmaker” aren’t “flaws”—they are evidences of the much more complex and astounding way that God is creating, even today.
But again, this is missed on Elizabeth Mitchell. The ironic thing about AiG’s claim that “if a perfect God made something, then that thing must be perfect also,” is that when we look back in Church history and read the writing of Irenaeus of Lyon (a 2nd century early Church Father who defended the faith against heresies), we find that in contrast to the heretics of that time, Irenaeus emphasized that only God can be perfect, and therefore what He creates can never be “perfect.” Yet God’s plan all along was to enter into relationship with human being who are created in His image, so that they could grow up in maturity and become like Him.
So, just to be clear: when AiG claims that Adam and Eve were “perfect” with “perfect genomes,” and that such a view is fundamental to the Christian faith, we have historical proof that such a view was actually considered heresy by the early Church. This is irrefutable.
Broken Genes
Now, one of the most astounding parts of Mitchell’s already astounding “book review” is one in which she addresses a particular discovery of genetic studies that many feel is a “slam dunk” for evolutionary theory, specifically the evolutionary relationship between human beings and modern chimpanzees: the broken vitamin-C gene. Here is the discovery in a nutshell: most of the genetic make-up of chimpanzees and humans are identical. There are obvious differences, but one very odd similarities is that humans and chimps share a same broken gene—the gene that produces vitamin-C. Most animals produce it on their own, but human beings and chimpanzees need to eat oranges to get their needed vitamin-C intake.
Therefore, a logical question thus becomes, “If God was like that “grand designer-watchmaker,” then why would He have designed humans with a broken vitamin-C gene? Mitchell would no doubt say, “It broke as a result of the Fall!” To which the next question would be, “It broke in chimpanzees at the same time?” Does that sound believable? For that matter, is any of that even addressed in the Bible?
Instead, genetic studies have shown that both humans and chimps share a common ancestor who, because of some genetic mutation, lost the use of its vitamin-C gene. As shouldn’t be surprising, Mitchell views such an explanation as an attempt to “execute Adam.” The way she gets around the clear information found in the genome, though, is unbelievable. She actually claims that evolutionary scientists have written that such claims “defied the standard inferred evolutionary model for primates.” When one checks her footnote, though, one finds that she’s not quoting an evolutionary scientist at all. She quotes Jeffery P. Tomkins…a creation scientist from Answers Research Journal…the journal that AiG puts out.
To be clear: Mitchell claims “evolutionary scientists” say something, and then quotes a creation scientist who writes something in AiG’s own journal. That fact speaks volumes. There is no need for me to elaborate any further.
Starting Points and Conclusions
Near the end of her “review,” Mitchell laments that Giberson used to be a young earth creationist, but then “jettisoned a biblical worldview” in favor of a “molecules to man evolutionary worldview.” She claims that AiG loves real science—the kind that is based on the assumption that Genesis 1-11 is God’s eyewitness account of origins.
When I read that, I wondered if Mitchell had really even read Giberson’s book. He showed conclusively that the claims of the modern young creationist movement have never been universally held in Church history—that is a historical fact. Giberson didn’t “jettison a biblical worldview.” He jettisoned the modern YEC worldview that makes claims that have never been held in the history of the Church.
Not a Salvation Issue
Mitchell ends her review by taking issue with Giberson’s point that Christianity is fundamentally about Christ, not Adam. She responds with, “No one at Answers in Genesis ministry and the Creation Museum would ever suggest a person has to believe in Adam to be saved.” Well, I’m sorry, but I’m pretty sure Dr. Giberson wasn’t suggesting AiG was suggesting that. I mean really, I don’t know anyone in the world who thinks belief in Adam is necessary for salvation.
Giberson was simply making what should be an obvious point: insistence on a historical Adam has never been a fundamental tenant of the Christian faith. The focus has always been on Christ, and throughout Church history, people have read and interpreted the Adam story in a variety of ways—and that’s okay…except for Mitchell, who insisted that without a historical Adam, then one cannot understand the need for salvation in Christ.
But is that true? Let’s pretend that Genesis never mentioned Adam and Eve and “the Fall” in Genesis 3. Would you have any trouble, after watching the nightly news for just one hour, or after just reflecting on your own choices you’ve made in your life—would you have any trouble realizing that this world is one screwed up place, and that we are all in need of salvation and healing? Should we believe Mitchell when she says that unless there really was a “perfect-genomed” couple living 6,000 years ago, then we can’t understand that sin is in the world and we can’t understand Christ’s message of salvation? …The answer is obvious.
Mitchell ends with this: “Shame on Karl Giberson for wanting to snatch this truth from people, asserting that evolution made you who you are, and good luck on figuring your way out of the mess you are in.”
…I think such fear-mongering, judgmentalism, and character assassination speaks for itself.
Conclusion
Reading AiG material infuriates me. If you look on the internet and AiG’s Twitter feed, you’ll see that they infuriate many people—not because they are proclaiming the Gospel, but because this type of vitriolic rhetoric just puts people on edge and stirs up anger…and gets AiG publicity. Just like manipulative politicians in a presidential season, they have to convince “their base” that the apocalypse is right around the corner, and that secularists and compromised Christians are out to get them…unless they donate more money to the cause, so AiG can build an ark and reclaim America.
Such tactics are described by Paul in Galatians 5, when he lists the “works of the flesh.” One will find that the majority of Paul’s list describes things that divide—things like “enmities, strife, jealousy, anger, quarrels, dissensions, factions, and envy” (Galatians 5:20). These things describe AiG perfectly, for AiG is in the business of creating strife, anger, quarrels, etc. What other way can Mitchell’s “book review” be characterized?
If you read Karl Giberson’s book, you might not agree with every one of his conclusions and opinions, but I assure you that you will be intellectually challenged and spiritually invigorated. It is an honest and heart-felt book that attempts to give historical context to the modern creation/evolution debate. According to Mitchell, though, Giberson should be ashamed for “snatching truth away from people.”
The works of the flesh are obvious: “enmities, strife, jealousy, anger, quarrels, dissensions, factions, and envy” (Galatians 5:20).
Near the end of the movie O Brother Where Art Thou? the people of Mississippi realize just what kind of man gubernatorial candidate Homer Stokes really is…and they run him out on a rail. I long for the day when Evangelical Christians realize just what kind of organization AiG really is…and, well…you get the picture.
