Albert Mohler’s address on the age of the earth has rattled the cages of the evolutionists at the Biologos website. If you missed Mohler’s address, you can watch it here or read a transcript
here. In short, Mohler argues that many of the theistic evolutionists are simply allowing general revelation to trump special revelation and that the most straightforward reading of the creation narratives in Genesis presents a young earth view of creation.
As I noted a month ago, Mohler’s address has provoked a spirited conversation with the theistic evolutionists. At the Biologos site, Peter Enns, Darrel Falk, and Karl Giberson have all responded to Mohler. And now, Karl Giberson has written another response which appears on the Huffington Post blog.
This latest salvo, however, has a shrill tone to it. Giberson has taken his argument to a secular forum and airs some pretty outrageous accusations against Mohler. Chief among them is the notion that Mohler simply doesn’t care about the truth. Phil Johnson has an extended response to Giberson that rightly questions Giberson’s chosen forum for airing this unseemly (and untrue) accusation against Mohler. Mohler himself tweeted today that he will be responding to Giberson very soon, and I am looking forward to reading it.
In the meantime, my question for Giberson is simply this. Why not respond to the central issue that Mohler raised in his original address? Mohler argued that general revelation must never be allowed to trump the special revelation given to us in the Bible. The plain sense of the Genesis creation narratives does not support an evolutionary version of human origins. Mohler warns against letting science drive the interpretation of the Bible rather than letting the Bible drive the interpretation of science. Why can’t Giberson answer these central concerns?
That is the real issue that Giberson fails to address in his Huffington Post article. If Giberson thinks the real issue is the dating of Charles Darwin’s lapse of faith, I think that he has really missed the point.