There was a very interesting exchange between Bill O’Reilly and Dr. Ben Carson last night on the O’Reilly Factor. Here is the link to the video: http://insider.foxnews.com/2015/10/12/bill-oreilly-ben-carson-are-you-really-creationist
The exchange starts at about 3:35 into the clip and goes to 4:47. Here is the text of the exchange:
O’Reilly: Now, are you really a creationist? Do you subscribe to Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden and that’s where we came from?
Carson: Well I certainly believe that God is our creator. And interestingly enough, if you look at our founding document, the Declaration of Independence, it talks about certain inalienable rights given to us by our Cre-a-tor (that’s how he said the word).
O’Reilly: Right, but that can be intelligent design, you know, and intelligent design leads to evolution. But some people – fundamentalist religious people – believe that, look Adam and Eve were there and that’s the way it says in Genesis and that’s what happened. Where are you on that?
Carson: Well I think people are certainly allowed their private beliefs. I know a lot of people say that I believe that the earth is 6,000 years old, and they have no basis for saying that. I don’t know how old the earth is… It says “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” and there’s a period there. You don’t know how much time elapsed. But, the other thing is that people don’t realize is that He’s God. If He wanted to create an earth that was billions of years old, He could do it. They can’t do it. How come they’re always trying to put themselves in the same category as God? I happen to believe in God.
O’Reilly: Well they’re trying to diminish your intellect, that’s what they try to do.
So, as I considered this exchange, I wondered how I would’ve responded to O’Reilly’s questions. I think Dr. Carson did a decent job defending his position, but as politicians do, he didn’t directly answer the question. I think he was trying to side-step the label “creationist” but still affirm the truths of creation. I respect that. But I think he should’ve addressed the question of Adam and Eve more directly.
If I had been there and been asked that, I may’ve asked Bill whether he believed in Jesus and if so, did he know what Jesus said about this issue? I mean presumably, O’Reilly does believe in Jesus – he claims to be a Roman Catholic and he even wrote a book about Jesus. The truth is that Jesus did address this issue. Jesus said:
“Haven’t you read,” He replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’” (Matthew 19:4)
So, as a Christian, that involves following Jesus, having faith in Him and believing His teaching. I would be interested to hear Bill’s answer to that.
Aside from Jesus believing in Adam and Eve, there is even a scientific case being made for Adam and Eve:
Modern-day DNA research is confirming the biblical account of Adam and Eve, according to one genetics expert.
Answers in Genesis’ Georgia Purdom has recently released a documentary explaining her findings and the scientific support for the records presented in Genesis.
“One of the most compelling genetic evidences for an original human couple created by God is mitochondrial DNA research done by creation geneticist, Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson,” Purdom says. “He clearly shows that the common human female ancestor of us all (biblical Eve) lived within the biblical timeframe of several thousand years ago.”
Jeanson has also done research disproving the evolutionary timescale.
What the scientific jargon breaks down to is this: If evolution were true, if men and women had been roaming the planet for years, there would be more genetic diversity.
By focusing on the DNA, these scientists have been able to evaluate that men and women can trace their roots back to a man and woman, Jeason writes.
Though Jeason’s timeline differs, his research echoes a study claiming all men can trace their lineage to a single man who lived 135,000 years ago, a “Genetic Adam.”
“The Y chromosome is passed down identically from father to son, so mutations, or point changes, in the male sex chromosome can trace the male line back to the father of all humans,” LiveScience’s Tia Ghose writes. “By contrast, DNA from the mitochondria, the energy powerhouse of the cell, is carried inside the egg, so only women pass it on to their children. The DNA hidden inside mitochondria, therefore, can reveal the maternal lineage to an ancient Eve.”
For creationists, the scientific evidence backs not only the existence of Adam and Eve and the truth of Genesis, but the overwhelming support for the need of Christ in a broken world.
Without Adam, Eve and original sin, Purdom says, we wouldn’t have a need for a Savior—and salvation wouldn’t be a necessity.
But through this research, geneticists are proving the case for Christ, not just creation.
“We need the good news, grace and life, which is found in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ,” Purdom says. “Jesus is the solution to the problem of evil that began in Genesis 3. Paul made this connection very clear in Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15.”
I might also have asked Bill whether he had actually investigated the evidence for creation. Dr. Carson, as a neurosurgeon, certainly would’ve had much education in evolutionary biology. So the charge cannot be made that Dr Carson has not investigated evidence for the naturalistic theories of our origins. But I don’t know if the same thing can be said for Bill. He (Bill) referenced intelligent design, but in the same breath said that leads to evolution. I would have also wanted to know what he meant by the word “evolution” as this is often used has an equivocation. Sometimes by “evolution” people mean the classic neo-Darwinian theory that all life, in its diversity, descended from a single cell organism. But evolution can also mean simply “change over time”, which is uncontroversial, and is agreed upon by creationists.
So, there is certainly more Dr. Carson could’ve responded with, but then again, the segment was very short and O’Reilly always cuts off his guests if they start to go into lengthy rebuttals. Anyway, I appreciate that Dr. Carson at least gave the minimal defense that he did.