Albert Mohler, the man Time magazine has called America’s “reigning intellectual in the evangelical movement”, is a young earth creationist. (Yes, it appears that you can be a “reigning intellectual” and still think the earth is about 6,000 years old. You didn’t know that, did you?)
In any case, a recent blog post by Darrel Falk, President of BioLogos, calls Albert Mohler out on the preposterous notion that, in the 21st century, you can ever really be a serious intellectual and a young earth creationist at the same time. Albert Mohler’s young earth creationism, says Dr. Falk, is:
[A] view that takes on the entire scientific enterprise.
And what is Albert Mohler’s retort? Well, at his own blog this week, Mohler appears to agree:
As I have stated repeatedly, I accept without hesitation the fact that the world indeed looks old. Armed with naturalistic assumptions, I would almost assuredly come to the same conclusions as BioLogos and the evolutionary establishment, or I would at least find evolutionary arguments credible. But the most basic issue is, and has always been, that of worldview and basic presuppositions. The entire intellectual enterprise of evolution is based on naturalistic assumptions, and I do not share those presuppositions. Indeed, the entire enterprise of Christianity is based on supernaturalistic, rather than merely naturalistic, assumptions. There is absolutely no reason that a Christian theologian should accept the uniformitarian assumptions of evolution. In fact, given a plain reading of Scripture, there is every reason that Christians should reject a uniformitarian presupposition. The Bible itself offers a very different understanding of natural phenomena, with explanations that should be compelling to believers. In sum, there is every reason for Christians to view the appearance of the cosmos as graphic evidence of the ravages of sin and the catastrophic nature of God’s judgment upon sin.
Translation: The world indeed looks old. Reality testing suggests that a reasonable person should probably conclude that it is old. But the Bible says it’s not. The Bible’s alternative narrative, even where it blatantly contradicts the straightforward discoveries of science, “should be compelling to believers.”
And what should compel them? Obviously, the logic derived from within the biblical texts themselves, accepted wholly by faith and one’s inner witness that they are true. That’s Mohler’s epistemic “presupposition” that scientists don’t bring into the lab or field with them. Put simply: God said it, I believe it, and that settles it.
Isn’t that what Albert Mohler is affirming here? When push comes to shove, the Christian should keep with the Bible program, submitting to its inner logic and ignoring outside sources of information. The believer should do this even when the outside information comes from a process of painstaking scientific investigation.
In other words, like the most fanatic Muslim fundamentalist, Albert Mohler is saying that one’s reading of the Book of Nature must submit itself to a plain and literal reading of the Book of God.
But could there be anything more cultish and intellectually bankrupt than to do this? I mean, seriously. If this isn’t “a view that takes on the entire scientific enterprise,” what is?