Be very careful as you read the Towers article, because it consistently relies on equivocation when it comes to the word "creation."  In the article, and in the way of thinking presented, the "doctrine of creation" no longer means believing that God has created.  The word "creation" here means something much more specific:  young-earth creationism.  Even more specifically, creationism that boldly adheres to the dogma that the universe is less than ~6,000 years old.

So when Roach writes...

"The doctrine of creation is the foundation for biblical Christianity."

...remember that he doesn't mean that believing God created is the foundation of Christianity.  He means believing in young-earth-creationism (YEC) is the foundation.  This theme runs the length of the article and is almost certainly familiar to most Towers readers, let alone people who are well-read in terms of modern creationist literature.

However, the theme is incredibly short-sighted.  Why?

First, beware when somebody tells you that YEC is the only option, because if you check their claim, you'll find that mainstream Christianity, including the majority of evangelical conservatives, do not dogmatically hold to strict YEC.  Kurt Wise says so himself, as I quoted him in the last article that he appeared in on this blog.  Proponents of YEC would do well to familiarize themselves with TCLP, and this list at NCSE.

Second, beware when somebody tries to convince you that their brand of Christianity is "the only biblical kind" while at the same time making the foundation of it something other than Christ.  This should alarm you at the outset.  Furthermore, the more exclusivist the language of a certain strain of theological belief becomes, the faster it shrinks down the number of "biblical Christians" or "true Christians" in the world.  While Phelps and Jehovah's Witnesses and a complete embrace of hyper-Calvinism (dystheism, here we come) might be comfortable or even happy with a very small church universal, most modern Christians are not.

Third, beware when somebody makes an unnecessary either-or proclamation.  When it is declared (simply by fiat) that legitimate Christianity must include creationism, the person who espouses such a position has backed himself into a corner.  When all of the evidence is fairly investigated and all of the scientific findings are evaluated, and creationism is found to be completely bankrupt, what happens to our previously over-confident creationist?  He must put his money where his mouth is and renounce his Christianity, or somehow back-peddle, admit his error and change his stance, joining the many Christians who accept evolution and an ancient cosmos.

Roach wrote:

"Wise, professor of theology and science at Southern and a Harvard-trained paleontologist, argues that the methods of modern science are inadequate to determine the origin or age of the earth."

This would tend to make a curious reader want to know what methods Wise would suggest science should use to determine the age of the earth.  It might also make you curious as to what research Wise has done into such questions and what methods he himself chooses to make use of (if any).  A really clever reader might even wonder if the methods of modern science have been found or shown to be inadequate, or if certain people simply declare them to be inadequate because they don't lead to answers that work nicely with certain dogmatic predetermined conclusions.

Roach quoted Wise:

"“As a scientist I am convinced that the Bible—and not science—is the correct place to begin to determine the age of things,” he writes. “I also believe that the Bible is very clear about the creation being only about 6000 years old.”"

The sentiments expressed here are absurd to the point of insanity.  The first sentence is incoherent—one cannot as a scientist declare science the wrong place to begin when trying to answer a scientific question.  Deciding you know the answer before doing the research is completely unscientific, and is a sentiment Wise expresses as an apologist (for ignorance), not as a scientist.

Imagine with me, for a moment, a similar statement of spectacular incompetence.  "As a dentist I am convinced that the Tooth Fairy—and not good dentistry—is the correct place to begin to determine proper oral hygiene."  Could we rightly agree to call a person who expressed such foolishness a dentist?  Or perhaps you think that too ridiculous an analogy?  Then try this one.  "As a plumber I am convinced that a jumpy mustached italian—not the trade of plumbing—is the correct place to begin to determine how to fix that broken water main."  If somebody uttered that sentence, would they be saying it as a plumber, or as an idiot?

While it may be clear to some that the Biblical age of the earth is a mere ~6,000 years, what is clear about the age of the earth when we turn our attention to the evidence?  Surely, the desire that our beliefs be reflective of reality is a reasonable one.

Startling to some will be the fact that ancient proto-Iranians and Mesopotamians, the Chinese, Neolithic Georgians, and possibly the Egyptians were all producing beverage alcohol (both wine and, to my amusement, beer) from between 6,000 and 9,000 years ago.  Agriculture itself has been around for at least 6,000 years, and depending on the region 10,000 years or more.

The history of ancient Egypt (and the evidence regarding the Predynastic period) provides us with a stark contradiction of the YEC timeline.  Also, people have been living at Byblos since 7,000 years ago.  Furthermore, the Americas have been populated for at least the last 12,500 years.

Currently, many dendrochronology (tree-ring dating) sequences go back between 8,000 and 10,000 years, with the oldest unbroken record going back more than 11,000 years.

Eclipsing the impressive age of such dead trees is the living creosote bush.  One in Johnson Valley, California, is 9,400 years old.  Even older is the one in the Mojave Desert, called "King Clone," measured at around 12,000 years old.

Alternatively, you could learn about Y-chromosomal Adam, our most recent common male ancestor from 60,000 years ago.  Even better, Mitochondrial Eve was walking around about 140,000 years ago.

Ice-core dating goes back quite far, as well.  Cores from Greenland have consistently yielded data going back over 100,000 years.  Cores from Vostok, Russia show a record going back over 400,000 years.  Cores from Antarctica (the Dome F and EPICA cores) reach back 720,000 and 740,000 years, respectively.

Exiled: Voices From The Southern Baptist Convention Holy War, edited by Carl L. Kell

In a rare and very brief departure from the normal entries found here, today I offer a short book review.  I received Exiled as a Christmas gift, and finally got around to reading it over the last two weeks.  This book is the second in a series of three.  The first, In the Name of the Father: The Rhetoric of the New Southern Baptist Convention, was printed in 2001.  Exiled was published last year; and the third book, Against The Wind: The Moderate Voice in Southern Baptist Life, is due to be printed in the near future.

Perhaps the first thing to note is the title.  Of course, "holy war" might be easily dismissed as an inflammatory phrase or simply a good way to make the title grab your attention, and perhaps it is.  But it does draw attention to the important concept of framing.  Currently, those within and in close proximity to Southern Seminary (and by corollary, Boyce College) might not often hear mention of the transition and upheaval that went on in the Convention and also in the school, between '79 and '95.  But, when it is talked about, it is of course always called "the conservative resurgence."  A change of perspective, however, finds the same events being called "the fundamentalist takeover."  Exiled is one source for considering such a perspective, and it is probably in this where the book's greatest strengths lie.

You see, perhaps the most eloquent writing found in the book mostly takes place before it even really begins.  Two forewords, a preface, and an introduction all occur within the first 45 pages (before page 13 of the text proper).  Because the book does not aim to be a theological treatise or an academic inquiry into religious politics, its greatest strength may also be its greatest weakness.  Exiled aims to communicate to its readers the individual experiences of nearly 30 different men and women, all deeply and personally affected by the fundamentalist's rise to power.  The book thus succeeds in giving the reader a broad glimpse into the trials and struggles of people directly involved in some of the events in the recent history of the SBC, but because of the more emotive style of most of the contributions, the book lacks the more scholarly or well-argued punch that I expected.

The short essays that make up the bulk of the text are almost all less than six pages apiece.  Most consist of summaries of that particular author's life during the last thirty years, of course focusing on when, where, and how the denomination's shift impacted them.  Recriminations or accusations are virtually nonexistent―the writers do an admirable job of telling their stories and recounting events without having to drag names through the mud.  From a variety of stations in SBC life, from lay men and women to pastors and chair people to high-profile Convention leaders, all tell of the jolt of years of ministry ending as the tide of conformity swept across the denomination. 

Personal storytelling is a perfectly suitable way of communicating the real-life consequences of such a "holy war."  But it ends up making many of the essays read as if they were simply transcripts of somebody standing up and rambling their testimony for a few minutes.  Detail and polish are missing too often, and in my opinion the editor should've been more careful (even perhaps to the point of requiring people to rewrite sections of their submissions).  But perhaps my criticism of the book in this regard is because I'd prefer it to be a little less relational, and to contain some sustained argumentation.  Outside of the introductory material, some of the best writing, connecting historic summary with reasoned analysis, probably comes from Paul D. Simmons.  In relating how Convention resolutions quickly began to have a suffocating effect on intellectual honesty and academic integrity, on page 110 he writes,

"The final insult to scholarship was registered when a pastor declared that "if a resolution says that pickles have souls, seminary professors are to teach that pickles have souls."  He was not just any pastor; he had also been president of the Convention and a lead drummer in the march to the right.  The implications and directions of that declaration were simply horrendous.  Despite the justifiable derision that greeted the statement in academic circles, it became a working principle for Convention policies.  Baptists had embraced an approach that resolved complex problems simply by a majority vote.  What was right became a matter of what a resolution declared.  This extremist brand of right-wing evangelicalism has now imposed rigid controls on the seminaries and their leaders."

Unfortunately, the very next paragraph suffers from a typo so badly timed that it completely invalidates the sentence it appears in.  Sloppy editing can so badly ruin a good piece of writing.

A few pages later, Simmons recounts the obvious and lasting victory that fundamentalists won against the moderates.  Of the winners, he writes on page 118,

"...They are "true believers" as described so well in the classic by Eric Hoffer.  They are intransigent, dogmatic, aggressive, domineering, controlling, and ideological.  They are also motivated by fear―fear their goals will not be realized, fear their faith will falter, fear homosexuals will ruin the family, and fear that pluralism will dominate the country.
    Such fears involve a paranoid style in political and social movements.  Thus, angry invective is aimed at those who see the issues differently and do not support the goals of the movement.  Women and those who are homosexual are especially at risk of having their rights denied.  The School of Church Social Work at Southern Seminary was closed, but finally "sold," because accreditation standards required a nondiscrimination policy for admissions and placement.  Southern Baptists have taken a strong stance against homosexuality, and insist on the right to discriminate against gays and lesbians."

If more of the contributors to Exiled wrote with similar verbal fervor, the book would probably be a more intellectually exciting read.  But in doing so it might have given up some of its ability to communicate how a different perspective and experience really does make all the difference.  Notably, after finishing the book I was left with the distinct feeling that many of the moderates (those who are pejoratively called "liberals" by the winners) who have been exiled from the SBC seem to be suffering from a similar myopia of perspective.  I question whether they have a broad yet detailed understanding of the particular issues and underlying reasons that so strongly motivated the fundamentalists to reform the denomination.

In lighter fare, Mark Fleming's essay (page 145) in Exiled made me smirk.  Yes, he did state that the SBC represents "retrogression, white male chauvinism, [and] dogmatic pronouncements."  But in commenting on congregations that use hip language to promote or advertise themselves, he called them "McChurches."  Oddly, he admits that his own is one such McChurch, but in any case I get a kick out of McWords-type jokes.

I can recommend the book, but with the reservations I touched on in the above paragraphs.  Exiled could use a second round of careful editing, and could have benefited from slightly more focused efforts from several of its contributors.  However, since a whole lot of people know pretty much nothing about what went on in the biggest non-Catholic denomination in the country over the past few decades, it is certainly an excellent place to start if you are interested in hearing voices that the current climate has all but squelched out of existence.

It seems rare that both sides of a story get offered, and even rarer that people will actively pursue hearing both sides when only one is easily accessible.  Perhaps this alone makes books such as Exiled worth the time it takes to read them.

Mohler wrote:

"The movie, directed by Catherine Hardwicke, takes some liberties with the biblical accounts found in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke."

I've not had opportunity to see the movie, so I'm curious as to the details of the liberties Hardwicke took.  Did she do what is usually done, and combine the two stories into one amalgamated tale, meshing the different details into a single narrative?  Or, did she favor one Gospel over the other?

For instance, does she follow Luke and begin the tale at the time of the census taken when Quirinius was governor (a few years after Herod had died), in 6 A.D.?  Or does she follow Matthew, beginning the tale up to two years before Herod's death, around 4 to 6 B.C.?  Presented with a roughly ten-year discrepancy between the two stories of Jesus' birth, I wonder how Hardwicke would have wielded her movie-making liberty.

Mohler wrote:

"At the same time, there is no comprehensive biblical narrative that fills in every detail. We are left with huge questions."

Indeed, many questions about the Nativity arise when we read the two Gospels that contain the story.  Which genealogy is correct, Matthew's or Luke's?  Why doesn't Luke mention Herod's slaughtering of the infants?  For that matter, why isn't it mentioned by any other contemporaneous sources!?  Why does Matthew say that Joseph decided to move to Nazareth (based on fear of Archelaus in Judea, and a dream to head for Galilee), while Luke says that they simply returned to Nazareth after going to Bethlehem for the census?  This problem is only compounded by considering that while Matthew indicates the fear of Archelaus keeps the family out of Judea (and therefore Jerusalem), he is directly contradicted by Luke's account of the family making yearly visits to Jerusalem (including the baby's temple presentation forty days after his circumcision).  Another question: Why is the tension between the importance of a virgin birth and the importance of the line of David ignored?  Jesus can't be a bloodline relative of David if he isn't Joseph's actual son, and he can't be Joseph's son if he's born of a virgin.  How can mutually exclusive signifiers both be true?  Also, what about the large time gap between the two birth dates, mentioned above?

Mohler is correct.  We are left with questions.  Huge questions.

References:
  - BibleGateway, useful for side-by-side comparisons like this one and this one.
  - The Date of the Nativity in Luke (5th ed., 2006), by Richard Carrier.
  - Matthew vs. Luke: Whoever wins, coherence loses, by Tom Flynn.

Original article by David Roach: "Kurt Wise serves as consultant for creation museum"

In my view, the original article should require little commentary, because it speaks volumes all by itself.  However, due to people's views being varied, I will elucidate my problems with it in a point-by-point fashion.

Roach wrote:

"In Kurt Wise's office. . .you can find fossils that secular scientists claim are billions of years old..."

I cannot speak to the particular fossils in Wise's possession, but I can speak to this general idea.  Specifically, the word "claim."  All too often (and likely in this case), the implication is that "claim" is rather akin to an opinion, or a personal assertion of questionable credulity.  But, in view of the facts, when scientists "claim" that ancient fossils are billions of years old, they are claiming such in the same way that scientists "claim" that germs cause disease.  In other words, rather than simply making an unfounded assertion, scientists are sharing what they know to be true based on the preponderance of evidence.  [Fossil dating references, for those interested in further study: radiometric (and common criticisms), isochron, carbon.]

Roach wrote:

"But this Harvard-trained paleontology expert is out to show that the fossils have a better explanation and that neither science nor the Bible allow for evolution."

Remember this part later.  It's important.

Roach wrote:

"...the museum shows how science supports the Bible's accounts of creation, the origin of man and the worldwide flood."

A suspicious claim, considering that science supports an ancient earth (and an even older cosmos), a non-Adamic "origin" of man, and the factual impossibility of a worldwide flood.

Roach wrote:

"The Creation Museum is a project of Answers in Genesis, an apologetics organization focused on answering questions about the book of Genesis."

This should immediately raise your warning flags.  A museum containing supposed scientific exhibits that is actually a functioning arm of an apologetics organization, whose specific focus is defending a literal reading of Genesis.  As opposed to a museum project of, say, a scientific organization.  If Muslim apologists bankrolled a "scientific" museum, surely no one would doubt the inherent bias involved, and seriously scrutinize the claims made therein.  This raises an obvious question: who would you trust to run a museum that purports to display scientific information?  Would it be scientists?  Or dentists?  Philosophers?  Fundamentalist apologists?

Roach quoted Wise:

"It's a good balance of philosophy, theology and science with the priority being on Scripture as a starting point.  We understand science because we start with the Bible. We understand philosophy because we start with the Bible. [The museum] is an attempt to weave those together."

We must applaud Wise for his honesty, but not for his method.  Deciding that you know the answer before you ever look at the relevant information is presumptive and unscientific.  Starting with dogmatic assumptions and then trying to find supporting data is an obviously bad way of finding truth.  Philosophy and science are not well balanced when the would-be philosopher or scientist thinks she knows all the answers from the outset, before she actually does any philosophy or science.  Such is the methodology of pseudoscience, not real science.

Roach wrote:

"[Wise] noted that believing the earth was created by God 6,000-7,000 years ago is the most consistent position to take in light of Scripture."

I am inclined to agree.  However, what about the most consistent position to take in light of reality?  For example, all of the available evidence regarding ancient Egypt renders the proposed 6,000 year timeline's Noahic deluge quite impossible.  Furthermore, the history of Predynastic Egypt is evidence of an entire developing civilization, completely pre-dating (by 1.5 to several thousand, to tens of thousands, of years) the alleged Scriptural creation date.  Additionally, we know that the Americas were populated, at least as far back as 9,000-15,000 years ago.

Outside of such anthropological evidence, we also have tree-ring data that goes back almost 11,000 years.  Even better, we have ice core data that commonly goes back 400,000 years, and sometimes as far as 700,000 years!  Additionally (as if it were necessary), we have varve formations that go back from 45,000 to over 200,000 years.

Roach quoted Wise:

"If you don't believe in a young earth, you really cannot — and be consistent — believe in the truth of much of Genesis 1-11.  You have to reject a Babel origin for modern languages. You have to reject a global flood — it has to be a local flood. You have to reject the longevity of the patriarchs — they couldn't possibly have lived for 900 years."

We can reject Babel as the origin of diversity of language because we know that several languages predate the story.  Archaic Sumerian and Old Akkadian, for instance, as well as Cuneiform and Egyptian hieroglyphs.  (I specifically note "diversity" of language here, because it surely isn't possible that Wise actually thinks modern language originated thousands of years ago.)  What science has to say about the flood story has already been mentioned.  But Wise's comment about the incredible life spans reported for the patriarchs is puzzling.  I'm not sure how the earth being either young or old impacts the believability of people living to impossible ages.

Roach quoted Wise:

"You have to reject that the first city was built by Cain or anything associated with Cain. You have to reject that Adam was the first human. You have to reject the origin of agriculture spoken of in Genesis 4."

It might depend on how you define "city."  To my knowledge, the ancient Hebrew word rendered "city" can mean a pretty small place, which means that virtually all of the evidence of early human settlements predates the story of Cain by a few thousand years, at least.  Not to mention the Phoenician city Gebal (Byblos in Greek).

Both the DNA evidence (mitochondrial for females, Y-chromosomal for males), and the fossil evidence, gives reason to reject Adam as the first human.

The origin of agriculture spoken of in Genesis 4 is flatly contradicted by all that we know of ancient agriculture (summaries here and here).

Roach quoted Wise:

"You have to reject the description of Eden — it becomes absurd with rivers on three different continents coming out in one place. You have to reject Genesis chapter 1 — the order of creation is wrong, not just the days or the length of the days."

I wish the article (or Wise) had been more clear regarding rivers, because I'm not exactly sure what he means by this.  However, I've personally found absurdity in the Biblical claims regarding the Edenic rivers, simply because those rivers seem to have magically avoided destruction in the supposed worldwide flood (and managed to climb atop all of the layers of sediment that the diluvian-proponent is forced to say were laid down by the flood).

Wise is correct that all of the evidence regarding stellar evolution and planet formation gives us reason to reject the order of creation outlined in Genesis 1.  What isn't mentioned, however, is that many (most?) scholars also readily admit that Genesis 2 contradicts the order of creation in the preceding chapter.

Roach wrote:

"Wise acknowledged that the majority of Christians and even the majority of conservative evangelicals believe the world is older than 7,000 years, but he argued many of the foundational doctrines of the Bible — such as marriage, the literal fall of man, the necessity of a savior and the end times — depend on belief in a young earth."

Wise acknowledges correctly.  Lots of Christians would argue differently than he does.  Lots.

Roach quoted Wise:

"The most important thing is that you ought to be able to trust your God and the claims the Bible makes. I know most people don't understand what in the world the scientists are saying. That's okay. Just pay attention to what God says. If you trust what God has given us, it becomes an appropriate foundation for every aspect of our lives."

I find a statement such as this, coming from a Harvard graduate and an ostensible professor of science, to be simply amazing.  Don't worry about all that science stuff; just believe.

Re-read the paragraph, but replace the words "the scientists" with "people who think differently," and replace "Bible" with any other holy book, such as the Qur'an.  Doing so will give you an idea of how silly this kind of reasoning sounds to anybody who doesn't automatically respond with an "amen."

Plus, we should remember what was said at the beginning of the article.  Wise is out to show that science is on creationism's side, and he is in favor of a museum that supposedly uses science to prove as much.  That doesn't seem to mesh very well with just trusting the Bible and not worrying about anything else.  But, as we'll see in a few moments, things Wise has said or written elsewhere along these same lines are quite telling.  But first, let's finish with the Towers article.

Roach wrote:

"As believers examine science, the most important thing they can remember is to always pay attention to Scripture above any scientist, Wise said."

This is the standard Christian position, as I'm sure all are familiar with.  But again, if we re-read the sentence and place a different set of holy writings in it, surely we can see that something is amiss.  When Scientologists do the exact same thing — pay attention only to the writings of Hubbard to the exclusion of science and all other information — the outside world can only gaze on them in awe and disbelief.  When a Mormon pays attention to the Book of Mormon above any scientist, we do not feel guilty in noticing the ridiculousness of the belief, nor do we shy away from words like "cult."  When religious leaders around the globe and throughout history have proclaimed that their followers are to heed nothing but the orthodox teachings — actual evidence or investigation and scrutiny be damned — reasonable people have always refused such ideology.

Roach quoted Wise:

"The most important thing is, regardless of what all the scientists are saying, the Bible is true and you can accept it by faith. God is only pleased with faith, as a matter of fact. To trust the scientists is not faith. It is, in fact, trusting in man's reason rather than God."

But is not Wise himself a scientist, and a science professor?  Why talk about the "scientific evidence" on display in the apologist's museum?  If Wise convinces a person to believe in young earth creationism because of some scientific reasons he offers, or a person believes creationism because they view the science displays at the Creation Museum, is not that person then "trusting in man's reason rather than God"?  In Wise's view, it is a matter of fact that God desires only faith, not trust based on reason or evidence or science.  His position as a professor of science (and a supposed proponent of showing how science supports creationism) is completely compromised by his insistence that science simply does not matter — just have faith in the Bible.

And that is the part of this that is really frustrating, if you're at all familiar with what Wise has stated elsewhere.  Do you recall when I said to remember the part about how "science doesn't allow for evolution"?  Well...

In a presentation at First Presbyterian Church (which can be purchased on audio tape), Wise said:

"I'm playing a very different game than a lot of these folks [other creationists] are. . .A lot of them want to find evidence, I believe, to substantiate and bolster their position. I'm not looking for evidence. I don't care beans whether the evidence is out there. I'm trying to understand the world in the light of the Truth of the claims of scripture. I'm not trying to find evidence for my position. I have sufficient evidence in the nature of God that these things are true."

Simply stunning.  This is the man who is running the "science" branch of the Seminary.  A man who cares nothing for evidence.  It gets worse.

In his contribution to "In Six Days," Wise wrote:

"As I shared with my professors years ago when I was in college, if all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate. Here I must stand."

And there you have it.  What can be said of a person who decides that no evidence, no matter how brutally it proves him wrong, will persuade him?  We read here the words of a man who has decided the conclusion before ever doing the science, and furthermore will only accept evidence that can be made to fit his desired outcome, while willfully ignoring any and all evidence to the contrary.

Surely others can see how troubling this kind of thinking is.  First of all, it is the definition of unreasonable.  You simply cannot reason with somebody who openly declares before hand that no matter how many ways you can prove your case, they simply will not even consider changing their mind.  Second of all, it is flabbergasting that such denigration of actual science can be maintained by not only a professor of science and theology, but the head of the entire department.

It was bad enough when a philosopher (not a scientist) was first named to the position, and then quietly replaced.  But it is just as bad, if not worse, that this is the caliber of "scientist" who has been chosen to fill the spot.

Original article by David Roach: "Mohler: God's Word is the authority..."

I'd like to encourage readers to at least scan the entire original article, paying specific and careful attention to paragraphs four and five.  A helpful note:  Epistemology = Theory of Knowledge.

In modern Christendom in general, you will not often come across the line of reasoning presented within the original Towers article.  Even within Reformed Southern Baptist circles, the assertion  made is rarely stated in so bald a manner.

Roach wrote:

"...Mohler said the world is experiencing a crisis today because many people do not believe there is any basis for human knowledge. But Christians must counter the world's confusion by pointing to God's Word—the Bible—as the basis for knowledge, he said.

"Christianity depends upon … a Christian theory of knowledge that is based in revelation alone," Mohler said."

Ignoring the questions immediately raised by the first sentence quoted (What crisis?  What people believe that?), we are faced with a very grand statement.  Basically, what Mohler is saying is, "the only foundation of our epistemology is the Bible."  In this view, the Christian Scriptures are the only basis for knowing.

As much as this declaration surely makes sense to the presuppositional crowd, it would appear to be a little troublesome when met with the banalities of life as we know it.  For instance, it is a quick job to think of things we all know that are not based in revelation.  The definitional truth of 2+2=4 requires no revelation for us to know it, and neither does the knowledge that an apple is red and tastes quite good.  The Bible does not inform our knowledge of using computers, as another example.  Scripture tells us none of these things, and more to the point, none of these examples require revelation before they can be known.

But there is a more important problem.  When we try to give feet to the assertion that "revelation is the basis of epistemology" and see if it can run (or walk), a few things become interesting to note.

First, basing our theory of knowledge on revelation really just means basing our ability to know on what somebody tells us is revelation.  Mohler, or a pastor or priest or Sunday school teacher, tells you what they think revelation is (the Bible).  Or getting closer to the source, the early church fathers say that certain books are revelatory.  Even closer: the prophet or apostle claims to speak directly for God.  The end result is somewhat surprising.  Functionally, the position "epistemology is based on revelation" actually becomes "epistemology is based on testimony."  The wisdom of making testimony (the statements or beliefs of others) the basis of your theory of knowledge is questionable.

Second, for a Christian to assent to and affirm the teaching that revelation undergirds all knowledge, she must engage her mind.  The brain must be brought to bear on at least two questions.  First, what exactly is revelation?  Second, of all the things that people claim to be revelatory, which do I accept as true revelation?  Some people claim personal revelation from God, others might present the Qur'an as revelation; many Christians will claim that the Bible is the only revelation available to us.  The act of determining what is accepted (and proclaimed to others) as revelation requires the use of one's intellect.  Thus, in practice "epistemology is based on revelation" as an axiom actually becomes, for the individual, "epistemology is based on my ability to think."

So I ask you:  When the statement "theory of knowledge is based in Scripture alone" can be shown to be functionally equivalent to saying epistemology is based on the testimony of others; and when an individual Christian's theory of knowledge places revelation as secondary to her ability to think...  What is the use of the original claim?  Why make it?