Continuing the discussion from Cosner, Price, and Carter: Swamidass and Craig the Compromisers:
@PDPrice graciously offered to answer a couple questions for me. Let’s start with the background.
@Swamidass and WLC = Compromisers?
Recently, he published an article accusing WLC and myself of being compromisers: Cosner, Price, and Carter: Swamidass and Craig the Compromisers. There is a lot of interesting claims in this article, but let me just quote a couple.
As one listens to Craig, one cannot help but feel empathy and compassion for the man. He is clearly deeply disturbed by his own conclusions, and he would prefer to hold to the straightforward, literal, biblical creationist position! This is in stark contrast to the flippant attitude displayed by Swamidass. Craig agonizes over these matters because he has come to the realization that they are not a side issue. He knows the very deity of Christ is at stake when we question the validity of Genesis.
Totally Misunderstanding WLC
It is notable that this totally misunderstand’s WLC. I do hesitate to call this “misrepresent” though, because it does not look like you understood much of what he was communicated. He had clarified his position in a QA about two weeks before @PDprice’s article was published, and it does not appear they took his actual position into account (The Historical Adam: Whatâs at Stake? | Reasonable Faith).
Flippant About a Literal Reading of Genesis?
Given what I’ve written in the GAE, this also is an egregious misrepresentation of me. So I left his comment on the article, which @PDPrice approved:
Thanks for the article! Turns out that I do not have flippant attitude towards a literal reading of Genesis. You may have forgotten, but I wrote a book (The Genealogical Adam and Eve) that shows how a literal reading of Genesis is entirely consistent with evolutionary science. This is really good news for those of you who care about Scripture.
He immediately responded:
I’m responsible for the use of that word ‘flippant’ there, and I do stand by it. By contrast with Dr Craig’s somber, almost reluctant abandonment of the literal reading (as he said, he felt like a child being robbed of his belief in Santa Claus), you appeared to laugh at his predicament, and at the seriousness with which he is handling these issues (his faulty conclusions notwithstanding).
Your use of the word “literal” to describe your reading of Genesis is disingenuous. Do you believe it is literally true that God provided only plants for all the animals and people to eat prior to the Fall, and were finally allowed to eat meat only after the literal worldwide Flood (Gen 1:29-30, c.f. Gen 9:3-4)? No. Do you believe it is literally true that God created in 6 days as stated in Genesis 1, and restated in Exodus 20:11? No.
Thank you for reading, and for taking the time to write in! We sincerely hope you’ll thoughtfully and prayerfully consider these points.
I stand by the objective fact that the GAE shows a literal reading of Genesis (frankly a reading more literal than @PDPrice’s) is entirely consistent with evolutionary science. To say that I am flippant about a literal reading of Genesis is transparently false. At the same time, I’m not threatened here, because I know that Jesus is greater than Adam. He is greater than Genesis. I place my trust in Him, not YEC.
To My Questions…
So I have two questions.
- Do you really believe that Genesis is the cornerstone of the Christian faith? Do you really believe that our confidence in Jesus depends on a YEC reading of Genesis and YEC science? Would you, for example, agree with the sentiment expressed in this comic?
- Would you allow me to publish a response at creaion.com to your article? If not, why not? I hope that you are committed to open exchange of ideas and allow real dialogue about these critically important questions.
Thank you for taking the time to answer my questions.