Gotquestions.org inconsistent?

[RickD]

I have recently complimented Gotquestions.org. They believe in YEC, and posted this article about OEC:http://www.gotquestions.org/old-earth-creationism.html I complimented them on being honest about OEC. Then I read their article on progressive creationism here:http://www.gotquestions.org/progressive ... onism.htmlThey seem to be misrepresenting the progressive creationism side by not being honest. The following quotes from their article aren't honest imo:

It is obvious that progressive creationism is a belief which opposes both atheistic evolutionism and historic Christianity's understanding of biblical creationism.

Threads on this website(godandscience) have shown that historically, Christians have believed in long creation days as well as 24 hour creation days. And this:

The error of progressive creationism rests on the assumption that the biblical account of creation in Genesis chapters 1-2 cannot be understood literally. According to progressive creationism, the "days" in Genesis chapter 1 are not literal 24-hour days, but actually long periods of time (millions or even billions of years).

Threads in Godandscience have also shown that the OEC worldview IS a literal interpretation of the Bible. And then the "coup de grace" is here:

Another error of progressive creationism is that it posits that death existed prior to the Fall, which undermines the Bible's clear teaching that death is a result of sin (see Romans 5:12 and 1 Corinthians 15:21-22). Any theory which places the death of men or animals prior to the fall of Adam must be rejected.

These passages are speaking of HUMAN death alone. There is no reference to animals in these Biblical passages.
I just wanted to point out these inconsistencies because I have complimented them on their honesty in the past.

[jlay]

I would send them a polite email with what you have posted here.

regardless of what position we hold, it is always wise to rightly understand and rightly critique of differing positions.

[RickD]

Jlay, I sent an email after I posted here. If I receive a response, I'll update my post.

[RickD]

Here's the response to my email:

Rick,



Thank you for pointing that out to us. I’ll review the “progressive creationism” article, and prayerfully consider revising it.



In Christ,



Shea

GotQuestions.org

We'll see.

[Canuckster1127]

Can't ask for more than that as an initial response. It will be interesting to see if the comments are removed or modified.

[RickD]

Well, I just got my gotquestions email, and this is an article they had. :http://www.gotquestions.org/Day-Age-Theory.html

For all those here that are oecs, I challenge you to read the article and see how many times the author misleads the reader by the dishonesty of what is written in the article. I'm getting tired of their misleading, dishonest articles. I didn't always agree with their articles, but I felt at least they were honest with what they wrote. I guess my email I sent a while back wasn't even looked at.

[Canuckster1127]

Not particularly honest in many areas and takes on a condescending and dismissive tone toward the strawman arguments propped up. As there's no opportunity given for public response (the same as AIG) I'd say it's just a copier in that regard.

Disagreement is one thing. Unfairly characterizing others with arguments that they themselves would not give as they do is sadly a part of the YEC neo-fundamentalist crowd. It's the arrogance and condescension that tells me all I need to know of their positions.

Not all YEC supporters are like this but sadly a significant number are and there are usually other issues that come with this attitude and uncharitable treatment of other Christians with whom they disagree.

[DannyM]

http://www.gotquestions.org/progressive ... onism.html.

It is obvious that progressive creationism is a belief which opposes both atheistic evolutionism and historic Christianity's understanding of biblical creationism.

Straw Man.

The error of progressive creationism rests on the assumption that the biblical account of creation in Genesis chapters 1-2 cannot be understood literally. According to progressive creationism, the "days" in Genesis chapter 1 are not literal 24-hour days, but actually long periods of time (millions or even billions of years).

OEC’s interpretation of the days *is* a literal interpretation.

Another error of progressive creationism is that it posits that death existed prior to the Fall, which undermines the Bible's clear teaching that death is a result of sin (see Romans 5:12 and 1 Corinthians 15:21-22). Any theory which places the death of men or animals prior to the fall of Adam must be rejected.

As Rick said, according to OEC it is *human* death that is being spoken of by Paul here.

Clearly, progressive creationism is an attempt by some Christians to harmonize the teachings of modern science with the Bible.

Straw Man. I wouldn’t be surprised if this were true for *some*, but applying this to OEC *as a whole* is clearly a misrepresentation.

However, the theory actually ends up supporting the tenets of evolutionary science

Irrelevant to the validity (or otherwise) of the claim.

and causes greater anxiety among believers about whether God's Word can be trusted.

Unsubstantiated.

After all, the so-called "proofs" of progressive creationism come mainly from the field of science, not from the simple teachings of the Bible.

The implication here that YEC is upholding the “simple teachings” of the bible is just an assumption and is loaded, implying that it is *they* who are holding to “the simple teachings of the Bible”. Why, of course.

That post was just one big straw man. I think the credibility of gotquestions is now shot.
-
-
-

[RickD]

I just emailed this thread to gotquestions. We'll see if they have the integrity to address this now.

[RickD]

Please understand that we have a lot of articles on our "to-be-revised"
list. As you can imagine, we receive all kinds of suggestions/complaints on
all kinds of issues and from all different directions. Not having yet edited
an article that was complained about in May sounds like a long time. But, if
you keep it in mind that we receive hundreds of such comments/requests,
hopefully our slowness becomes a little more understandable.

Shea
GotQuestions.org

Notice that they said an article I complained about in May sounds like a long time. Since I "complained" about the article in January, it seems like an even longer time.

[Canuckster1127]

Doesn't matter much. Whether they change it or not, it demonstrates not only their viewpoint, but their methodology. The fact that they don't allow dialogue in the form of comments themselves or have a forum for interaction demonstrates they're about making one way declarations, nothing more. We don't permit all dialogue here as well and maintain a Board Purpose and Discussion Guidelines. We allow detraction and clarification however.

They're not about interaction. They're about declarations and controlling any dissent and limiting any accountabliity to anyone else in the body.

[DannyM]

Please understand that we have a lot of articles on our "to-be-revised"
list. As you can imagine, we receive all kinds of suggestions/complaints on
all kinds of issues and from all different directions. Not having yet edited
an article that was complained about in May sounds like a long time. But, if
you keep it in mind that we receive hundreds of such comments/requests,
hopefully our slowness becomes a little more understandable.

Shea
GotQuestions.org

Notice that they said an article I complained about in May sounds like a long time. Since I "complained" about the article in January, it seems like an even longer time.

What a measly response. Ask them to put their best man on here, Rick, and defend these misrepresentations.

[RickD]

Please understand that we have a lot of articles on our "to-be-revised"
list. As you can imagine, we receive all kinds of suggestions/complaints on
all kinds of issues and from all different directions. Not having yet edited
an article that was complained about in May sounds like a long time. But, if
you keep it in mind that we receive hundreds of such comments/requests,
hopefully our slowness becomes a little more understandable.

Shea
GotQuestions.org

Notice that they said an article I complained about in May sounds like a long time. Since I "complained" about the article in January, it seems like an even longer time.

What a measly response. Ask them to put their best man on here, Rick, and defend these misrepresentations.

here you go, Danny. I emailed them:

You have officially been invited to give GotQuestions side of the story about your inconsistencies that I emailed you. Here is the link to the thread: http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... =7&t=35116

There are some people there that would like to hear your side, if you are up to the challenge.

Rick

[DannyM]

here you go, Danny. I emailed them:

You have officially been invited to give GotQuestions side of the story about your inconsistencies that I emailed you. Here is the link to the thread: http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... =7&t=35116

There are some people there that would like to hear your side, if you are up to the challenge.

Rick

Good man!! I'll lay bets now that your email gets 'filed,' Rick!

Good stuff, Bro.

[RickD]

Rick,



I visited the link, and it required me to create an account before I will be allowed post a reply. There are thousands of Christian debate/discussion forums online, and there are hundreds of them which express disagreement with one or more of our articles. We do not have the time, or the desire, to respond to each and every one or create/maintain accounts at each and every one. If you so desire, you can continue to post our responses to you in the thread.



I will make it a priority to revise the “offending” articles this week. While we do not agree with progressive creationism or old earth creationism, we do desire to at least present the viewpoints accurately. Other than the “Progressive Creationism” and “Day Age Theory” articles mentioned in your thread, are there any other articles you believe are unfair/inaccurate in their presentation of OEC beliefs?



In regards to why we do not have comment threads along with our articles, with over 2,000,000 visitors and over 5,000,000 pageviews per month, we simply do not have the manpower to review/approve all of the comments we receive. It would literally take a few full-time individuals just to moderate the thousands of comments we would receive.



In regards to how long it takes us to respond to a revision/correction request, I just checked our article revision suggestion list, and right now there are currently 61 suggestions on the list. And, that is after we have deleted all of the suggestions that were disrespectful and/or otherwise not worth our time.



One more thing, several times in the thread individuals accuse us of dishonesty. For us to be dishonest, we would have to be intentionally/knowingly publishing false and misleading content. We very well may be incorrect and/or ignorant on some issues, but we are not being dishonest. Any mistakes we make are due to the impossibility of us being scholars/experts and each and every issue related to the Christian faith.



Sincerely in Christ,



Shea

GotQuestions.org

And my response:

Shea,



I appreciate your taking the time to address my concerns quickly. Your article on old earth creationism was IMO, an honest look at OEC by someone who disagrees with OEC. It was written by someone who seemed to actually take the time to understand at least the basics of OEC before giving a critique.

http://www.gotquestions.org/old-earth-creationism.html

I have only seen the 3 articles, so I can't comment on any other articles. I understand that you have a lot of viewers on your website. That is why I believe this should be addressed asap. When people see an article that has as many inaccuracies as these:
http://www.gotquestions.org/Day-Age-Theory.html and http://www.gotquestions.org/progressive ... onism.html
It speaks to the methods you use to critique those you disagree with.

As far as the claims of dishonesty go, reading into Romans 5:12 something that the text doesn't say, just to make your side look better, in dishonest. If you look at the context of Romans 5:12, It is speaking about human death ONLY. More specifically spiritual death. No where in the text is animal death stated nor implied. Just to let you know, one of the most ardent anti OEC opponents, Ken Ham, said that Romans 5:12 is a bad example of scripture being used to support YEC.

1 Corinthians 15:21-22 is also talking about human death. Unless you want to make the claim that animals will be made alive in Christ, just like humans.

If you want to know more about OEC, to do a better job speaking against it, The homepage of GodandScience.org has articles that explain the position. Hugh Ross also has a website Reasons.org that explains OEC from his perspective as well. One doesn't need to create an account at either, to view the articles. One positive thing about GodandScience.org, is that there is a forum where people can sincerely inquire about any article written on the homepage. It encourages dialogue between Christians with differing viewpoints. That's one problem that was brought up about GotQuestions.org. Articles are written, with no chance for discussing the issues among believers.

Thank You for your time on this matter,

Rick