Darrel Falk, President of BioLogos, calls Albert Mohler “among the most important evangelicals in the world” and a “giant” in evangelical and fundamentalist circles. In April of 2003, Time magazine preposterously referred to Mohler as America’s “reigning intellectual in the evangelical movement . . . ” (What about, say, William Dembski?)
Albert Mohler also happens to be President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky. Here’s what Mohler said this past year about the apparent vast age of the universe:
The universe looks old because the creator made it whole. When he made Adam, Adam was not a fetus; Adam was a man; he had the appearance of a man. By our understanding that would’ve required time for Adam to get old but not by the sovereign creative power of God. He put Adam in the garden. The garden was not merely seeds; it was a fertile, fecund, mature garden. The Genesis account clearly claims that God creates and makes things whole.
Seriously. And in the YouTube clip below, Mohler tells young Christians that when confronted with the choice between reality testing and reading Genesis literally, they should default to the latter. In other words, God said it, I believe it, and that settles it. Apparently, this is what passes for intellectual practice among American evangelicals in the 21st century.
But could you offer advice to a group of people any more cultish than this?
Ladies and gentleman, Time magazine’s “reigning intellectual in the evangelical movement”:
Prometheus Unbound 
“In other words, God said it, I believe it, and that settles it. Apparently, this is what passes for intellectual practice among American evangelicals in the 21st century.”
Ah yes, it’s SO much more intellectual to say, “Science said it, I believe it, and that settles it.”
It’s SO much more rational to believe in imaginative stories created by fallible people who weren’t present to see the events in question rather than to believe the communication from the infallible ONE who was present at the historical events in question and communicated about them.
Tom,
Compared to God belief, you wrote that it doesn’t seem terribly “rational to believe in imaginative stories created by fallible people who weren’t present to see the events in question . . .”
Wouldn’t that then include, not just 21st century natural historians, but the author of Genesis as well? The anonymous author wasn’t there at the creation, and he was surely fallible, right? And whatever else Genesis seems to be, it appears to be filled with imaginative stories.
By your own logic, the best that you ought to be able to arrive at is some form of deism or fideism.
—Santi
Santi,
There were likely several primary sources involved in Genesis. All authors were present to see the events in question that they covered. One of them was infallible and was present for all events, though only likely provided primary source material for one section. That One also would have been present to oversee the compilation of Genesis, so Moses would have been able to have discussions with the One about Moses’ editing and any changes that would have needed to have been made. Therefore, the fallibility of Moses and the human authors of Genesis could have been managed. Exodus states that God communicated with Moses face to face (3:11), so perfect quality control was possible.
From a creationist, evidentiary perspective, which is the assumption for the comments I made, the stories aren’t imaginative at all.
The comparison is apples to apples and the evidentialist conclusion stands.
Tom, you could not be more wrong. Biblical and Rabbinical scholars explain that the books of Moses were handed down orally for 100s of years and, at a minimum, adjusted long after his death.
http://www.amazon.com/Five-Books-Moses-Translation-Commentary/dp/0393019551
Try reading this. It is written by Robert alter and reviewed by many biblical scholars in the priesthood and Rabbinical. It explains, in depth, the multiple versions of the OT that exist between the birth of Christ and the death of Moses.
Nine minutes and 16 seconds of my life that I will never get back, thanks Santi
Really? Time magazine’s “reigning intellectual in the evangelical movement” didn’t impress you?
—Santi
I am sorry, but my reaction to this was WTF.
Also, time magazine has lost it. It has for some time now.
This is sad, because i used to enjoy reading it.
Pingback: The Book of Nature and the Book of God: Peter Enns v. Albert Mohler on Young Earth Creationism | Prometheus Unbound
Jared,
No, I am right and you are wrong. I know of no conservative biblical scholar who adheres to your liberal stories about the development of the Bible which have zero evidentiary support.
The oral tradition nonsense was based on the assumption that Abraham came from Ur of the Chaldees at a time when literacy was unknown there. This assumption has been disproved by archaeology. You are about five decades out of date. http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/bm/criticism_bruce.pdf
Indeed, there were several translations of the OT and several different textual lineages, but the differences are exceedingly minor and don’t support your thesis in the slightest. You are making a mountain out of a molehill.