A CRITIQUE OF THE EVANGELICAL CENTER FOR FAITH BASED REASONING ARTICLE ON THE NEW THEORY OF INTELLIGENT FALLING by Dr. Kent McBrandenburg

A few people have asked me what I thought about the article from the Evangelical Center for Faith Based Reasoning. Of course, they asked because my thoughts are in great demand on these matters. After I read the article, I thought it would be helpful to provide a brief critique of their analysis, helpful, of course, because I say it is and I am a doctor and celebrated everywhere for my ability, well, at least in my own mind. It sounds better, however, if I make it sound like people want to hear what I have to say. If anyone is interested (sound of echo..interested, terested, rested…) about how I have treated the biblical material related to scientific phenomena and the extra-terrestrial, I have dozens of articles in a publication that we say is good so they must be good, and it is a journal, and we do publish it because we think we’re good, but anyway, I digress, even as these two that no in particular is asking for are titled: “A Restatement of What Other Very Astute Men Have Said About Creation,” Walla Walla Baptist Seminary Journal 5 (Autumn 2004): 43-47; and “A Rehash of What Everyone Else Has Already Said about Anything Scientific (Part 1 of 2),” WWBSJ 10 (2001): 10a-12b. We will soon have these available at a website where we self-promote our other work that does not leave the realm of theological correctness. As I evaluated the Evangelical Center for Faith Based Reasoning Article, hence called ECFBRA, I found some galaxy sized problems with it, but because there were several thousands in the one article, I will confine my comments to merely a tidy two. First, however, let me say something positive about the article. Let me tell you, before I reveal what I liked to fake being balanced, that me and the other five fellas, that have promised to quote each other extensively for our own credibility, got a big belly laugh out of this that in a few cases came from actual big bellies (and the accompanying double chins applauding).

Though I disagree with almost everything that ECFBRA said and with them in general (and we agree here in Walla Walla that we don’t like anybody competing with us for about anything, except for Phil Johnson, who is welcome anytime to say anything he wants about us, oh, and Al Mohler, and anyone essentially left of us), I agree with ECRBRA that things actually do rise just like Scripture says, and besides that, two words: Pillsbury doughboy. Pillsbury Dough + an oven = puffy hot biscuits. So I like this Scriptural thingamajig that they do with all the Biblical quotes and so on and so forth, that presuppositional thing. Now that I’m done with my token concession with ECFBRA, for the sake of looking balanced (as I said before), let me get into my big-time criticisms.

First, ECFBRA does not make its point by using the theologically correct liberal sources. People in the business interact with sources with high-falutin names and titles. This is how we make it in theological circles and they are giving fake authority a bad name. For instance, I got out my Bible Works (computer program that does all the work for you) and read the verses used in multiple translations. I read them in the NASB, ESV, HCSB, NIV, and NET Bible. I also read the New Jerusalem Bible, the New Webster’s Bible, the little known Inner City Ebonic Bible, and Mom’s 365 Day Home Devotional Bible. Now that all took me exactly three minutes folks, but I interacted. Ask ECFBRA if they interact. Just ask them. You can’t really know what something means until you find out what other people say something means. And that takes interaction. And then five minutes later I read the attached lexicons for “rise up” and “go up” and “ascend,” and then the grammar part of my computer Hebrew scholar module, and I can tell you that no one should assume that “ascend” means “ascend.” It’s not that it doesn’t mean that, but what is bad is that he didn’t interact like good scholars do with what other scholars say is scholarly. I have, and my colleagues give me thumbs up on that. I don’t want to hurt anyone’s feelings, so I have carefully chosen this word, but what ECFBRA says is just nonsense. How’s that for sensitive? And if you question me, you better have interacted, and even if so, you better show you are in good standing with Walla Walla and its club schools or we’ll just ignore you.

Second, and this is a big one, and much different than number one, but ECFBRA doesn’t read and interact with other scholarly articles on the same subject. Seem like the first point? If you think that, then you can put away your juvenile scholar badge buddy. That’s important. Then they would have read my article and a few colleagues that I quoted in my article and then they would have surely agreed with me. Not many disagree with me when they do the very same thing that I do to come to a conclusion about a scholarly and scientific matter. Then you can also get a ton of footnotes that look like you have been all over the place researching and studying and googling. Magnifecentus Documentus. That is great documenting. They didn’t. I do. Enough said.

Lastly, I would take the time to debunk the actual exegesis of the particular texts, but who has time for that. I’m a doctor anyway, and I have interacted, so what more needs to be said. They’re wrong. I’m right. Let any agreeable discussion begin, and if not, thread closed.