A Review of “Theistic Evolution: A Sinful Compromise” by John M. Otis.
see part 1 here
I chose this book by John M. Otis because it has been recommended to me more than once as an example of the best that modern YEC has to offer and I think that addressing what your opponents consider to be their best arguments is both an honourable and an effective way to tackle the issues. The book is also freely available as a download so I don’t have to pay for it. Neither do you if you want to check out if I am telling the truth about it. If you are already a Creationist or if you are considering becoming a Creationist please do so.
Apart from a sentence in the introduction claiming that he is not trying to start a battle with those Christians who disagree with him by daring to accept modern science he does exactly this. In fact he sets off briskly in the direction his title indicates (labelling all such people as sinners and compromisers) and calls them all kinds of other names. I actually started to make a list but it is too long for this piece so here are just a few choice examples.
People who don’t agree with him have "Seriously compromised the truth of scripture", he points out (fairly enough) that they state that "Our hermeneutic must not be in stark contrast to science" without even bothering to mention their stated reasons for saying this or even a passing reference to Saint Augustine ( who basically said that if a Christian claims stuff that is commonly and plainly known to be untrue he makes Christians look stupid ). You might think that in any attempt at an honourable treatment of his subject, Otis would at least mention St Augustine, but no. In fact he makes it his general approach never to mention, let alone address, the best points his opponents have made against his position. He prefers instead to rehearse and repeat the same few basic arguments in most chapters in the apparent hope that if he pretends the strongest points against him don't exist, then they will just fade away and his followers will never find out. Such behaviour is indicative of propaganda and not reasoned argument.
Otis asserts that theistic evolutionists have given up on redemption itself because it entails the existence of an historical Adam. Apart from the fact that theistic evolutionists vehemently insist that this is not their position, it is neither logically required nor theologically implied. Oh but then I did get the impression that if people aren't Young Earth Creationists(YEC) then they are not proper Christians as far as Otis is concerned.
Otis states that general revelation can never give insight to special revelation because . . . Oh sorry he just says it can't.
He claims that the Westminster Standards, written in the seventeenth century, are YEC and so this proves that all previous Christians were YEC because . . . Oh sorry he just implies they do.
He states that a God who creates the universe and it's laws such that intelligent life evolves is robbed of glory compared to a God who speaks it into existence over six days because . . . Oh sorry that is just how it is you know.
Do you see the pattern yet?
Part three here.