When in doubt, look to the heavens. These days, your view might be blocked by a billboard from the young-earth creationist outfit Answers In Genesis.
From Times Square. Image Source: Answers In Genesis
If you look closely enough, you might see a clue as to why the creation/evolution debates have been so divisive for so long.
According to their press release, yesterday AIG rented billboards in high-visibility sites in New York’s Times Square and San Francisco’s Fisherman’s Wharf. Soon similar billboards will hit the skies in Los Angeles.
The billboards announce, “To All Our Atheist Friends; Thank God You’re Wrong.”
San Francisco. Image Source: Answers In Genesis
AIG leader Ken Ham described the choice of wording. AIG wanted to be “cordial and engaging,” he explained. Though these high-profile billboards were an explicit response to Christian-bashing billboards posted by atheist groups, Ham said he wanted to take the high road.
An Atheist Billboard. Image Source: Answers In Genesis
“We are not angry at the atheists at all,” Ham wrote. Instead, AIG feels “burdened” by atheists’ separation from God.
For those new to the creation/evolution debates, it might seem surprising that this latest publicity stunt does not mention creationism, dragons, or zip lines. After all, AIG has had some success in the past with such creation-focused billboards.
But as Ken Ham repeats, creationism is not the main interest of his organization. Rather, salvation is the point; creationism is merely the vital theme.
For those of us interested in conservative themes in American education, this distinction matters.
Many non-creationist commentators on the creation/evolution issue assume that if readers can be convinced of the scientific truths of evolution, the debate will be over. Even the insightful philosopher Philip Kitcher seemed to fall into this trap in his book Living With Darwin.
These AIG billboards demonstrate the difficulty of the issue. The young-earth creationists at AIG care a lot about creationism, but that is not their central concern. Their central concern is salvation. As long as evolution is seen as a threat to salvation, it will never be open to discussion and compromise.
More perspicacious religious minds understand this. Francis Collins and the BioLogos Foundation set out to prove not only that evolution is true, but that evolution does not threaten salvation. Without that focus on salvation, creation/evolution discussions will get nowhere.
These AIG billboards do more than attract attention in America’s big cities. They demonstrate the true heart of the evolution/creation controversy.
Bunto Skiffler
/ October 8, 2013[AL] “These AIG billboards do more than attract attention in America’s big cities. They demonstrate the true heart of the evolution/creation controversy.”
(John 1:1-3, Bunto Skiffler Translation)
1 In the beginning was the Slogan, and the Slogan was with God, and the Slogan was God. 2 Buzz was with God in the beginning. 3 Through Buzzworthy all things were made; without Buzzworthy nothing was made that has been made.
-b
Adam Benton
/ October 8, 2013I do like those billboards, simply because without the explicit reference to atheism & AiG it could be ambiguous. An atheist group going for irony or Christians trying to get a message out there.
hitchens67
/ October 8, 2013Reblogged this on hitchens67 Atheism WOW!! Campaign and commented:
Ken Ham is an ignorant hack and no amount of billboards will convince a rational person to believe the absolutely ridiculous claims of his myth book!
Warren Johnson
/ October 8, 2013To ILYBYGTH, I was struck by your statement: “The young-earth creationists at AIG care a lot about creationism, but that is not their central concern. Their central concern is salvation. As long as evolution is seen as a threat to salvation, it will never be open to discussion and compromise.”
To this physicist, the behavior of Ken Hamm, and his minions, strikes me as plainly sinful: dishonest, harmful to children, scapegoating the innocent biology teachers, impeding the progress of medicine, etc. No way that he could be a “Christian”, in the sense I learned it.
It has always seemed to me that evolutionary biologists could claim the moral high ground in the evolution/creation debate, but shy away from discussing moral concerns. In your experience, or in the experience of your readers, have you seen creationists taken to task for violating their own moral codes? (Which would implicitly risk the salvation of themselves and their followers. Is this an argument with any traction?
Adam Laats
/ October 8, 2013Warren,
Do you mean if non-creationists have taken creationists to task for acting in an anti-Christian manner? Or maybe if non-young-earth-creationists have accused their YEC cousins of doing so? If that’s your question, then there is a rich history of Christian accusatory literature. The most famous of these from the 1920s (the era with which I’m most familiar) was Harry Emerson Fosdick’s barn-burner sermon “Shall the Fundamentalists Win?”
Or, if you mean more general moral accusations against YEC strategies, you might check out some of the great new “ex-fundamentalist” writers out there. Jonny Scaramanga at Leaving Fundamentalism and Anna at Signs You Are a Sheltered Evangelical spring to mind.
jonnyscaramanga
/ October 9, 2013Thanks for recommending me, Adam.
Warren, the most stridently anti-creationist Christian writer I know of is James F. McGrath, professor of Biblical Studies at Buter University, and author of such excoriating blog posts as “Do young earth creationists worship the devil?” http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/2013/06/do-young-earth-creationists-worship-the-devil.html
Douglas E
/ October 8, 2013Adam – I see that you have a link to Coyne’s post about the billboards – I had sent him an email with a link to your post and was glad to see that he used it.
Adam Laats
/ October 9, 2013Yes, made for a busier day than usual here at ILYBYGTH, thanks. I’m proud to join the ranks of those called “accommodationist” by Prof. Coyne. If I read him correctly, that includes such folks as the Templeton Foundation, BioLogos, and even the National Center for Science Education. I do indeed agree with their work, and I sharply disagree with Prof. Coyne’s assertion that such attempts to spread evolutionary science can’t work. I’m a fan of Prof. Coyne, but I think his refusal to think politically is a weakness, not a strength.
Douglas E
/ October 10, 2013I share your criticism of Coyne’s dismissal of an accommodationist approach to evolutionary science among evangelicals. He does not seem to appreciate the need for incremental change.
Adam Laats
/ October 10, 2013Thanks. I’d argue this is not only about conscious religious resistance to evolutionary science. I read with interest this morning a review of Evolution Challenges: Integrating Research and Practice in Teaching and Learning about Evolution, edited by Karl S. Rosengren, Sarah K. Brem, E. Margaret Evans, and Gale M. Sinatra, by Tania Lombrozo in the latest edition of Reports of the National Center for Science Education.
According to Lombrozo–I’m looking forward to reading the book myself, but I haven’t yet–students fail to understand evolutionary science for a host of reasons. Only some of those reasons are religious dissent. For instance, the authors examined “psychological essentialism” and “‘folk’ biological categorization” as significant problems for students.
This makes a lot of sense. It makes sense to me to include evolution and anti-evolution is ongoing debates about successful education. When students speak non-standard English, for example, it is generally accepted that teachers won’t be more successful if they tell those students that their home cultures are stupid or deficient. Why would we do that when students come from cultures that dissent against evolutionary theory?
Douglas E
/ October 10, 2013Many folks, including some atheists in university biology departments, agree with your last two sentences. They understand that calling someone stupid is not a particularly good way to convince them that they should listen to the evidence supporting evolution. When BioLogos was launched, several of us were willing to work on curriculum materials that would present the data in as much of a non-threatening manner as possible. The whole project got scrapped when conservative evangelical leaders decided that not affirming an actual Adam was not acceptable.