Explore
Online premiere of Dismantled: A Scientific Deconstruction of the Theory of Evolution
Watch for free here between 12 AM October 9th - 11:59 PM October 11th EDT!

William Lane Craig on creation and anthropology

by , ,

Published: 13 August 2020 (GMT+10)
wikipedia.orgwilliam-lane-craig
William Lane Craig

Dr William Lane Craig is an internationally known Christian apologist, and is famous for being an excellent debater. Some of his debates are enjoyable to watch, as he is skilled at making his case and presents arguments well. We have particularly respected his use of the Kalām Cosmological Argument,1 although it is unfortunate that he chose to incorporate Big Bang cosmology into it unnecessarily. Like all others, he is an imperfect scholar. Sadly, in recent years, Craig has moved further and further away from his specialty of ‘classical apologetics’, making defenses for the existence of God and for the Resurrection of Christ. Instead, he has begun commenting on wider areas of science and theology, and the more he has had to say, the worse things seem to have gotten. This was highlighted in his recently released YouTube video series on the doctrine of man. These were filmed during his weekly Sunday school lessons given at a church not far from CMI’s US office.2 Additional insights can be gleaned from other recent presentations, for example an interview Craig gave to Remnant Radio and a video he did with Joshua Swamidass3, all from the Reasonable Faith YouTube Channel.

The Bible, Science, and History

Craig reduces Genesis to the point where it has no historical significance. The only use for Genesis in his methodology is for theology, and even then he is often on shaky ground. This allows him to accept most of evolution and deep time while still paying lip service to Genesis as Scripture. However, certain things, like the historical Adam, are too important in Paul’s writings for Craig to explain away, so he accepts a historical Adam and Eve. But even they must have been far different from the biblical Adam and Eve in his way of thinking. For one thing, they had parents. For another, they existed far earlier than the genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11 would allow, and far too late to be the cause for the actual introduction of death and suffering into the world. Many scholars before him have wrestled with the sin-before-death conundrum, and none who have adopted a long-age mentality have solved it. But his approach is worse than many others. It’s almost as if Craig wanted a worst-case scenario that solves none of the problems and makes no one happy!

The Bible as ‘mytho-history’

Craig calls Genesis “mytho-history”—a term he borrowed from OT scholar Dr Bill Arnold. He has to admit it’s history in some sense, because Abraham is indisputably seen as a historical individual (e.g. Matt. 1:1, Matt. 1:17, Luke 3:8, John 8:39, Acts 3:25), and Abraham’s genealogy goes back to Adam, Eve, and the pre-Flood Patriarchs with no appreciable break. But Craig cannot accept Gen 1–11 as straightforward (actual) history, because that does not allow for millions of years. This is why he appeals to Arnold’s idea of “mytho-history”, which allows him to explain away inconvenient details of the text—such as Adam and Eve being direct supernatural creations of God—while keeping the historical details required for orthodoxy in Christian faith. Please note that we are not questioning his orthodoxy on most of the important biblical doctrines. However, we are pointing out a glaring error in his logic on several important doctrines, errors that could easily lead someone following him into apostasy. We have said this many times before.

When presented with actual historical questions, like for example when Adam and Eve actually lived, he feels the need to consult evolutionary science. In a series of gymnastic maneuvers, and with the help of Dr Joshua Swamidass (though he doesn’t agree with him on everything), he arrives at his solution that Adam lived somewhere between 500–750 thousand years ago. He also claims Adam was what the paleoanthropologists call a Heidelberg man (Homo heidelbergensis). To our knowledge, this is the first time Craig has ventured to clearly enunciate his views on Genesis and human origins.

But by associating Adam (and Eve) with Heidelberg man, he inadvertently raises all sorts of problems. For example, Heidelberg man is thought, by many evolutionists, to be an ancestor to the Neanderthals of Europe. He was not involved in the African bottleneck that supposedly led to the evolution of Homo sapiens several hundred thousand (imaginary) years ago. He is not thought to be the ancestor to the main people group(s) that contributed to modern man and is not the ancestor to sub-Saharan Africans. If Adam is not ancestral to humans alive on earth today, we fall right back into outdated arguments from prior centuries that were used to justify slavery and the fallacious thought that Europeans were superior to the other ‘races’. Associating Heidelberg man with Adam comes with a lot of baggage. Craig should have known this.

Craig believes that Adam and Eve were the first humans to come from a long, evolutionary line of pre-humans. They would have been the first ‘humans’ but only in the spiritual sense. The difference between them and their non-human peers may have been entirely imperceptible to the naked eye, and they would have been very similar physically to the non-human ‘people’ among whom they lived, to the point where there were no reproductive barriers. Even though Craig believes they were intellectually and spiritually superior to the others, Adam and Eve would have merged with the ape-men. Does this sound remotely like the historical account we find in Genesis?

Craig points to elements of Genesis he sees as symbolic—the tree of life, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, a talking serpent, and God presented as an anthropomorphic being physically walking in the Garden—as evidence that Genesis is not intended to be interpreted literally. However, one could point to elements in the Resurrection accounts (which Craig does interpret literally) to make the same sort of argument. In other words, his argument from incredulity4 is being selectively applied to only the parts of Scripture he prefers to interpret figuratively.

But what about places where Genesis seems to give sufficient detail for us to take it as a plainly historical statement? He finds reasons to dismiss those as well. For instance, Genesis clearly says Adam lived 130 years before fathering Seth, after which Adam lived another 800 years. In fact, there is a direct line of descent from Adam to Moses, with ages at birth and total lifespan at every step. This reads like straightforward history, with as little mythological imagery as we might hope for. But because Moses never totals up the years between Adam and Noah, Craig feels free to dismisses the obvious chronological implications.

Appeal to science

When it comes to questions like, “How long ago did Adam live?” and, “How old is the earth?” Craig seems to rely completely on the latest secular scientific opinions. However, anyone who has followed the creation/evolution debate knows that today’s ‘settled science’ is often completely rejected tomorrow. That’s why we say that theology wed to science will soon be widowed.

Lowest common denominator (‘Mere’) Christianity

Craig intentionally minimizes the historical details in Genesis, paring everything down to what is required to be a Christian believer. This is also his general apologetic approach in debates: he wants to persuade the unbeliever to accept the minimum degree of belief about Jesus (according to Craig) in order to be saved:

“The arguments of natural theology for God’s existence don’t depend upon biblical inerrancy, nor does demonstrating the crucial facts about the life of Jesus of Nazareth, including his radical personal claims, whereby he put himself in God’s place, and the key events undergirding the inference to his resurrection from the dead.
Popular Christian apologists have long given lip service to this point but did not really take it seriously, as revealed by their resorting to implausible harmonizations in order to defend the Gospel accounts against any allegation of error. Such measures are unnecessary … So I almost never argue with an unbeliever about biblical inerrancy. … For the apologetic task it doesn’t really matter whether Jesus was born in Bethlehem, which day of the week he was crucified, how many angels were at the tomb, and so on. So long as the central facts are secure, the unbeliever ought to become a Christian.”5

In the above quote, it is clear that Dr. Craig does not consider belief in the Bible as the infallible word of God within the definition of “Christian”.

Technically, Craig is correct: to be saved by Christ, one need only believe the Gospel, which Paul defines as:

“… that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.” (1 Corinthians 15:3b-8)

However, if you would have suggested to Paul that someone might believe his Gospel while at the same time rejecting the Scriptures as being the word of God (and therefore infallible), we’re sure the idea would have seemed preposterous to him! In reality, the nature of the Gospel is such that it is couched in, and undergirded by, the assumption that the Scriptures are true. Nothing about the Gospel can be logically divorced from the rest of the Bible. If Jesus is really God (and Craig believes this), we can believe Jesus when He tells us that, “For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.” (Matt. 5:18)

Inerrancy?

The doctrine of inerrancy states that the Bible, in its original copies, is without error in everything it teaches, whether in history, theology, science, or anything else.6 As we said earlier, Craig attempts to push most of Genesis’ teaching into the theological realm and limit its claims about early earth history, the origin of the universe, and the origin of human beings. But if Adam lived 130 years before he fathered Seth, and so on, Genesis puts Adam far later than Craig’s theory would allow.

It makes little sense to believe Jesus died for your sins, and is God, and yet to simultaneously believe the Scriptures contain error. Is God not strong enough to preserve an accurate testimony of Himself? Would a God who wants us to have faith and trust in Him not also want us to know He is true by maintaining his word free from error?

Craig says he wants to make it as “easy as possible for a person to become a Christian.”7 In one sense, this is a good strategy, at least from a debating perspective. But his approach is a bad strategy for creating new disciples in the long term, for he is putting stumbling blocks in people’s way that will prevent them from believing the rest of the Bible. Most new Christians struggle with significant aspects of biblical theology and biblical history. It generally takes people some time to come to terms with things like the age of the earth specifically. Being a Christian involves a process of being conformed to the image of Christ and we do not understand all doctrine on day 1 of our walk with Him. Christians should not have a hard road to believing the Bible, miracles and all. If God is real, then God is more than capable of doing miracles. Yet Craig writes, “I don’t want to make them have to jump through the hoop of believing … that Jesus was born of a virgin.”7 That is not a “hoop”. In fact, it is one of the first things that a Christian should be taught. It is so basic to Christianity that it is found in all the early Christian statements of faith, such that no mainline scholars debated it until very recent times, and then only in very liberal circles.

He maintains that we can’t read the portions of the Bible written later into Genesis. Nor can we apply modern science to Genesis. In one sense this is accurate—Moses didn’t have either microscopes or the doctrine of the Trinity. However, if we take the doctrine of the inspiration of Scripture seriously, we would know that God has a greater knowledge of the physical world than any scientific instrument can give us. We would also understand that He could easily put details in creation that would be clarified in light of later revelation.

A reluctant compromiser

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.8 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.

He even says that he feels like a child who has just been told there is no Santa Claus. There are many extremely telling and honest confessions that Craig makes in the interview we cited above, to our genuine surprise. Yet, at the end, he still states, “Flood geology is just hopeless.” He doesn’t explain why he came to that conclusion, and he ignores all those who believe otherwise. We genuinely wish he would give creation science a second look.

Craig wants to believe the Bible but cannot, because he has placed secular ‘science’ on a pedestal higher than the Bible itself. Craig states that, “ … interpolating into the history of this planet things that the Bible would seem to exclude,” is a bad thing! In his interview, Swamidass sharply rebukes him immediately by saying, “Isn’t that what you’re doing with the Old Earth?” Craig can only reply sheepishly, “Good point.”

We do not need to compromise!

The most disappointing aspect of Craig’s almost wholesale capitulation to ‘science’ is that we have better evidence for the Bible’s historicity than ever before. At a time when we should be more confident than ever, many well-known ‘defenders of the faith’ are giving over precious ground to secularists. As you might imagine, this sends the exact opposite of the message we should be sending, as Christians and apologists of the faith.

Predictably, his compromise does not often yield the results Craig, and others like him, hope for. Giving so much ground on Genesis does not tend to impress skeptics, but rather it comforts them in their unbelief; i.e. they aren’t just skeptics with Genesis 1–11. They think it is just as impossible for Jonah to survive three days in a great fish, for the sun to stand still ‘for about a day’ in Joshua’s time, or for a man to rise from the dead on the third day and ascend into Heaven! It is a mystery to us why Craig, Swamidass, and others are willing to believe ‘impossible things’ in the New Testament but refuse to apply similar thoughts to Genesis. The only consistent defense of Scripture starts with a strong stance on biblical inerrancy, beginning from the very first verse. Please pray for Drs Craig and Swamidass, that they would reconsider their compromise and become better defenders of biblical Christianity.

References and notes

  1. Craig, W., On Guard, David C Cook, Colorado Springs, 2010, pp. 73–104. Return to text.
  2. Johnson Ferry Baptist Church in Marietta, GA. Return to text.
  3. Craig, W., and Swamidass, J., The Search for Adam & Eve with Dr. Joshua Swamidass | Peaceful Science, youtube.com, 8 June 2020. Return to text.
  4. ‘Argument from Incredulity’ is one of the classical logical fallacies. Return to text.
  5. Craig, W., #454 Scriptural Inerrancy and the Apologetic Task, reasonablefaith.org, 27 December 2015. Return to text.
  6. See The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, defendinginerrancy.com/Chicago-statements/, accessed 15 June 2020. Return to text.
  7. Craig, W., An Objection to the Minimal Facts Argument, reasonablefaith.org, 6 May 2018. Return to text.
  8. The Search for Adam & Eve with Dr. Joshua Swamidass | Peaceful Science, youtube.com, 8 Jun 2020. Return to text.

Helpful Resources

How Did We Get Our Bible?
by Lita Cosner, Gary Bates
US $3.50
Soft Cover
Christianity for Skeptics
by Drs Steve Kumar, Jonathan D Sarfati
US $17.00
Soft Cover
The Genesis Account
by Jonathan Sarfati
US $39.00
Hard Cover

Readers’ comments

Giancarlo B.
Unfortunately, CMI. I have to give yiu the sad news that I personally don't think Craig will ever reconsider his position any time soon. His audience is already sold into his influence and should he ever come out as a Young Earth Creationist, he will see the missiles of discreditedness on his way. He will be in danger of not been cited as a prominent apologist in the circles is is usually invited to. Maybe that's a harsh outcome to grant for Craig should he become a biblical creationist, but is it really that far off? Maybe be may surprise me at some point and does reconsider his position, but I don't know. I'm not making any bets. We'll see what happens along the way.
Jeffrey C.
It is disappointing, indeed, that as you say "we have better evidence for the Bible’s historicity than ever before" nevertheless with "defenders of the faith" giving ground because, it seems, they have no idea that this is the case. Because of who they are NOT listening to and who are listening to ... "for our struggle is not against flesh and blood" (Ephesians 6:12). Satan has contrived that not only the world, but most worldly professing Christians -- unaware of just how worldly they are -- are not even BEGINNING to listen to ministries such as yours. I find 'Creationists' regarded with complete and utter contempt by all and sundry, including segments of Christianity who consider themselves quite conservative. As near as I can tell, quite unjustifiable and unjust contempt. Satanically orchestrated contempt, seems to me. As if you were lower than dirt -- pure hatred. It saddens me greatly and amazes me. Carry on. Your reward shall be great. Which of the religious leaders of His time accepted Jesus during His ministry? So many prophets of God were murdered, often by the established religious elite.
Donald D.
I read On Guard a couple of years ago and found it to be a refreshing argument for the existence of God. The fact that the Bible itself never makes (to my knowledge) any argument to prove God's existence is telling however. The Bible simply declares this truth...even insofar as when Moses is told that God's name is "I AM". But I am in need of logical reasons to believe and to believe that nothing created the universe is a miracle far greater than creation "ex nihilo" by the "hands" of a supernatural being who is beyond space and time. At least the Christian doctrine has an actual cause for the fact of the universe's existence! Again, a "singularity" is already more than should be allowed scientifically...but it is how the proponents of the "Big Bang" have described the beginning of all that exists. I find it disturbing and very sad, really, that Dr. Craig is getting so caught up in his own hype. That he is a brilliant scholar and debater is evident to any who will take an honest look. That he has now found it impossible to support Biblical inerrancy especially for this one section of the Bible where the attack actually rages the most fiercely is dumbfounding. However, it appears that his "precious" is his Kalam Cosmological Argument and he is unwilling to give that up. May we all hold to what is truly most precious: the love of God found through the Cross of our dear Saviour and Lord. Amen
Egil W.
Hmm, It would seem like Craig hasn’t made ‘Sola Scriptura’ his first priority. I still admire his defense of the antique kalaam-argument. I still admire his debating-skill, but I’d never put ‘Sola Scriptura’ below mere christian debating-merrits. I think CMI should contact him, openly, and ask him about his core-values; the hierarchy of his beliefs. A civil and open debate of necessary exchange could unfold. My hope and prayer, is that Craig will give ‘Sola Scriptura’ first priority - - - far, far above his own concepts of past natural historical possibilites.
Lincoln S.
So I was confused by this site, which I love, but unfortunately, disappointed. This article is perfect in its approach, but what Craig fails to understand is because it is impossible to fully understand Genesis in a heliocentric model, and I have seen on this website ridicule the geocentric view, which is the biblical view. Wouldn't that be secularism too?
Robert Carter
First, this is way off topic. Second, there is no "ridicule" in our articles discussing geocentrism. Third, if you take it that way, that's your business, but scholarly writing can often be harsh when answers are clear and people wrong. Fourth, geocentrism is not the biblical view. [Interested readers who might not know what this person is talking about are encouraged to read Why the Universe does not revolve around the Earth: refuting absolute geocentrism and Refuting absolute geocentrism: refutation of our detractors.]
David G.
Thinking more on Craig's view, he and those with similar views seem to indeed regard Genesis 1 as mythic. On their analysis it is figurative, dislocated from our world of experience. The events it relates simply, in their view, did not, and probably could not have happened. A signal capitulation to materialist dogma. But Genesis 1 is more than retelling a story to entertain us, a vain polemic or empty cosmogony. It is relating events that happened that demonstrate the nature of the creation, its purpose, and its definition of reality. What does it tell us then? First, that the cosmos is not a given. Nothing about it is 'given'. But created, with intention, purpose and for an effect that has an objective. This is evident from God's considered activity throughout the days. Proverbs 3:19, 20 reflects on this. Not only is the cosmos not 'given' but it is not accidental in any way. It results in an orderly rational causality from the word of God. Word, 'logos', personal will is prior to the mute cosmos and there is nothing between its elements that we experience and their coming into existence (Hebrews 11:3) The cosmos consists of apprehensible categories that relate in a coherent manner to each other and our understanding, neatly putting paid to both Kant's fiction about perception and Hume s scepticism about causality. This is a cosmos in which we can have sure knowledge, reliable relationships between word, event and thing (God's word preeminently, but ours too in a communicative sense), and tangible relationships. It is really real, and the way it works is really real. Th infinite God is present in the finite world (putting paid to another of Kant's fictions). On Craig's path, nothing in Genesis 1 happened, so something else must define reality.
Daniel K.
I find it odd that Craig cites an Assyriologist as an authority on the literary genre of Genesis. Why should we assume that Genesis is on equal footing with pagan texts? Jesus clearly didn’t think so.
Tim L.
You said, "We have particularly respected his use of the Kalām Cosmological Argument, although it is unfortunate that he chose to incorporate Big Bang cosmology into it unnecessarily." However, I recently had a discussion with Dr. Danny Faulkner about this topic, and he pointed out that the Kalām Cosmological Argument is fundamentally flawed because a cause must of necessity precede its effect, but both the Big Bang and biblical creation propose an origin of time itself that coincides with the creation of the universe. Therefore, applying the Kalām argument to either fundamentally misunderstands both by assuming that time pre-existed the beginning of the universe. A better argument for God's existence can be fine by observing that the first and second laws of thermodynamics require a metaphysical origin of the universe. This argument has been made in more detail in an article by Dr. Faulkner titled "The First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics and the Origin of the Universe" written on February 19, 2019.
Paul Price
The Kalam argument does not suggest that time began before the universe; the claim that a cause must precede its effect in time is simply wrong. Cause-and-effect relationships can also be simultaneous.
S. Joshua S.
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.
Paul Price
Dr. Swamidass,

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.

We believe that your view, as enunciated in your book, is far from being a literal reading of the Bible, and instead represents evolutionary syncretism.

Thank you for reading, and for taking the time to write in! We sincerely hope you’ll thoughtfully and prayerfully consider these points.
James V.
Dr. Craig is heterodox on the doctrine of the Trinity, which is fundamentally destructive of the faith. For example, he writes: “Similarly, on the view presented here, the persons of the ontological Trinity can be as similar to one another as three distinct persons can be, knowing, willing, and loving the same things ... so that it may well be arbitrary which person plays the role of “Father” and which of “Son.” These titles have reference to the economic Trinity, to the roles played by the three persons in the plan of salvation with respect to the created order. The Son is whichever person becomes incarnate, the Spirit is He who stands in the place of and continues the ministry of the Son, and the Father is the one who sends the Son and Spirit. In a possible world in which God did not choose to create but remained alone, the economic Trinity would not exist, even though the ontological Trinity would.“ “Similarly, the Son is the result, not the cause, of the union of the Logos with the flesh. Athanasius notes another option that his opponents might advocate: that the Son is the Son in name only. This seems even more plausible: the Son is not a new substance formed by the union of the Logos with the flesh, rather “Son” designates an office or role which the Logos enters into in virtue of the Incarnation, just as someone becomes President in virtue of being elected to that office. Athanasius objects that then the flesh is the cause of his being the Son. But that does not follow; rather it is the union of Logos and flesh together that put the Logos into the role of the Son in God’s economy.“ [link deleted per feedback rules]
Stephen G.
I'm curious as to how WLC can make such a big deal about independent accounts in the NT as evidence for the resurrection yet he ignores the plethora of independent accounts from around the world for the Flood! It's a shame because he is a great scholar and would be a great asset. He's also humble and intelligent enough to accept what Paul says, "what do you have that you did not receive?" He can't boast before God about his gifts but he is going to answer for how he used them. I'm sure the Lord will be able to say "well done" in regard to many of WLCs words and actions but nevertheless he will fall short in regard to Gen 1-11 etc.
King T.
Thanks for the update on another set of prominent long-age Christians who are rapidly veering closer to the broad road of the broad mind. We can pray; only God can work the required miracle.
I am just totally puzzled as to why professing Christians doggedly cling to the big bang and long ages story even after repeatedly being shown the consequences of such a belief.
I would dearly love to understand why they do it and I hope that someone somewhere could do an interview with them wherein this puzzling item gets addressed head on. Why, Why, Why?
Pratha S.
I too have been saddened by Mr.Craig's departing from scripture. I used to respect him because of his stand on Biblical principles. Unfortunately in the last several years,he has started to depart from scripture. A smart,well-educated man who chose his words carefully concerning Biblical issues is now going over to the other side and going against scripture -- it's sad to see this. We need people who will stand WITH scripture -- not against it!
Charles G.
Perhaps Dr Craig has gone down this road to try to maintain his status in the eyes of the secular academics. I often wonder if this applies to the leading lights of Biologos as well?
What do you think?
Lita Cosner
I prefer not to try to analyze the motives of people except where they are explicitly stated, because we're not mind-readers. However, by searching "Biologos" on creation.com, you can see that we've called them out many times using much harsher language, such as calling them "evolutionary syncretists" and plainly stating "it's not Christianity!"
Bruce J.
God said he made man from the dust of the ground and breathed into him the breath of life. Therefore, every one who says we evolved from apes is calling God a liar. It's as simple as that.
Jordan C.
Due to Dr. Craig's influence, it's good to see that CMI is publicly addressing Dr. Craig's departure from Scripture in these areas. The man was an incredible debater and strong defender of the Resurrection and his arguments for God back in his prime made atheist's defenseless. But now, he seems more interested in wedding contemporary religious materialistic worldviews with Christianity. He is diluting his presentation of Christianity in the process. This method is not going to win over many atheists. I don't see atheist saying "Wow look how impressive Dr. Craig is! He is yet again, conceding with materialist and agreeing with us! Boy, he's onto something! We need to be Christians now!" Rather, they are thinking, "just give him time, he will follow Charles Templeton." His position on an old earth and evolution, is weak and unconvincing. It's one thing to show for the MERE sake of argument that an old earth Big-Bang story, still requires miracles, e,g. de novo creation and fine-tuning of physics, however to implement this view into ones theology as his foundation, is weak and inconsistent with the basis of our faith, the Word of God! It's as you say, adopting the Big Bang is unnecessary. With the position he is taking, it just makes him look like materialists are the authority and Christianity is in the back seat for a ride, destination be determined... which(as you say) "science" is tentative, it changes by the day... It's so simple and obvious, when a Christian "champion" such as Craig, takes a weak defense on the foundation of his belief, and bends it to fit his opponent, he's already lost, it's just a matter of time before he realises it. - Thanks CMI!
Jim M.
He wants to make it as easy as possible to become a Christian. Perhaps he means he wants to make it as easy as possible to assent intellectually to the facts of the gospel. But becoming a Christian requires more than just intellectual assent. Real faith and trust in Jesus and a desire to forsake sin and follow Him. I'm all for removing intellectual stumbling blocks as much as possible, but that in and of itself is not enough. And I'm reminded of the time when Jesus tells the crowd that they need to eat his flesh and drink his blood. Of course he was speaking figuratively, but He certainly was NOT making it as easy as possible to believe and follow Him. I'm disappointed by this approach of Craig's that attacks the Bible by claiming it is mytho-history. I think he will do more damage than good in the long run.
Desmond G.
Surprisingly, Craig has admitted that Jesus taught Genesis as history but that Jesus was simply mistaken! Jesus said that the disciple cannot be above his master; at best a disciple can only be as his master. Yet Craig, claiming to be Jesus' disciple, says that he "knows" more than Jesus did! If Jesus was wrong about just one thing, everything He taught is in question.
Joshua C.
Kind of a sad tale... Though whenever I hear 'Christian' and 'Big Bang' close together I just remember a shirt my dad had Front "I believe in the big bang" Back "God spoke, BANG it happened" I think that's the kind of big bang any christian can get behind.
David G.
The first misstep in Craig's approach, as mentioned in the article, is that he 'reads' past the concrete history of Genesis 1, etc. and sidesteps those very literary features of the text that prohibit myth making. Myths remove their story from the real world and any existential contact with the reader by their 'somewhere sometime' constructions. As CS Lewis has said, those who claim the Bible is mythical clearly have not read many myths. Genesis goes out of its way to be concrete and historical, placing God's acts and his very communing presence in the time-space-material world that we live and experience life in. Nor is Craig's dismissal of the reality of Genesis 3:8 true to the text. It is a clear demonstration of God (in the person of the son?) seeking the now broken fellowship with A&E. This underlines the task of Genesis in showing God making the real setting for the real fellowship where he, the infinite personal God communes with his finite creatures-in-his-image. If the text is not taken seriously, but read through a western-idealistic philosophical lens, tinted deeply by the pretensions of modern ontological materialism, any theology that comes from it is wrecked.
Daniel T.
Very good article. I admire Dr Craig's work in philosophy and theological environment. But I believe that sometimes Christians who decide to opt for a non-biblical view of events will sooner or later end up "disappointed" with what they believed in the Bible. Reconciling the Big Bang with the Genesis account is somewhat wrong, but most Christians accept it just because the theory starts from the ground up. But that's not the whole theory! Furthermore, it is a bit doubtful whether the Big Bang really does propose a "beginning." I like astronomy and nuclear physics, but my authority is the Bible. Not science. Tomorrow before being anything God wants (physicist, astronomer, historian, etc ...) I must always keep in mind: before all that, I am a Christian. And the word of God did not change it. Although I don't support the Calvinist movement, I do agree with Calvin on one thing: The Genesis means what it says. Romans 1:22 "Professing to be wise, they became fools.

Comments are automatically closed 14 days after publication.