There are four other contributors: John Franke, Kevin Vanhoozer, Michael Bird, and Al Mohler.

As many of you know, the Counterpoints series invites authors of different, even diametrically opposing, views to write essays on why the entire world should rightly revolve around their view and why everyone else’s should be dismissed as hopelessly muddled. I signed on right away.

This particular volume should be interesting in that the participants do not represent five distinct positions but three general ones. At this point I will leave it to you to figure out what those positions are and who holds which.

In the meantime I will say that we are going to be discussing inerrancy not in the abstract, but focusing on the same three passage, which have yet to be determined. That will be a strength of this volume, even a breath of fresh air: “How does inerrancy work here in this passage?” (No easy retreat to doctrinal statements to stall debate.)

This won’t see the light of day until 2013, so don’t hold your breath (unless your view differs from mine).

He mentioned in his presentation the BioLogos Foundation as a being on the wrong side of this culture war, a since we are not biblical literalists and we feel science affects how we read the biblical account of creation. Along the way, Mohler made numerous statments about Darwin, science, and biblical interpretation that are simply wrong, ungenerous, and potentially misleading to his listeners, so we thought we would respond.

My response follows that of Darrel Falk’s and Karl Giberson’s (here and here). A transcript of Mohler’s presentation can be found here and the video here.

I will now sit back and wait for book and movie deals to come pouring in. Please don’t call me as I need to leave the phone lines open.

All kidding aside (was I kidding?), you can see that the story was handled with some objectivity, with little attempt to incriminate Waltke or RTS. Neither did ABC opt for an incendiary approach, which they could easily have done. I don’t think Ken Ham is a good representative of the Evangelical counterculture, though, since his views are so idiosyncratic (I don’t think RTS faculty think that there were dinosaurs on the ark).

The heart of the issue did come through, though, as far as I am concerned, which is: what happened between BKW and RTS should not have happened, but, given the general “culture of fear” concerning evolution among Evangelicals, it was inevitable.

The piece will air either tonight (Friday the 16th) or this Sunday night.

Click here to read the first post.

Both Sparks and I have entered into the discussion in the comments. (My comments begin at #36.) Hint: In order to see the entire comment thread, you have to click the “Comments” link under the post.