Alan blogs at Downshore Drift, where this post originally appeared.
Apparently, I am part of the 33% of Americans who do not believe in Evolution, according to a recent Pew Research Religion & Public Life Project study (Al Mohler’s article yesterday got me thinking about this today). And, I am completely fine with that. I am not trying to be different or unique or have my head in the sand when it comes to Science and its claims. I have actually studied and read quite a bit on this subject over the past 20 years, and although I am not a scientist by any means, I consider myself at least reasonably well informed and interested in the subject. My area is history and the social sciences, however, so I read things differently than others, perhaps. I am particularly interested in how human thought and philosophy has developed over time. So, when I study Science, I do not just study the latest theories and assertions, but I place them into historical context and trace the development of scientific thought over time. We have thought a lot of different things throughout human history and I do not think that we are through in developing theories as to how the world works or how we got here or where we are headed. Also, I am a Christian who takes the Bible seriously, so there’s that.
But, without further delay, here are the reasons that I reject Evolution in the macro-sense (micro-evolution, hybridization, and mutations and changes within species is not what I am disagreeing with here). I am not making scientific assertions or defenses here. I am simply sharing what I think and why I have come to the conclusions that I have. Take it for what you will.
- To start, I have no issue with basing my beliefs in what I see Scripture saying on the subject. I see nothing in the Bible that says that we or other species evolved over time. There are many theistic evolutionists* who believe that God guided the process. That is fine, although I would disagree. I do not think that that is what the text asserts. Now, I recognize that the Bible is not a science book and it should not be read as such. Could God have created using guided evolution? Sure. But, I don’t think the Bible tells us that. Still, if someone believes that, we can have good discussion, but I am not going to make that a sticking point necessarily. The main issue is whether or not one believes that God created or if it was blind chance that got us here. The world is so incredibly beautiful and complex and incredible in all of its vastness and smallness and wonder, that it makes perfect sense to me that what Scripture seems to clearly assert – that God spoke and the material universe came into being – is what actually happened.
- I do not trust Science to know exactly what it is talking about on this issue. I am not saying that because I claim to know more, but because I really believe that human understanding is limited. I think that all that we can do is observe and make assertions based on what we think our observations are telling us. In other words, we are in 2014 and we are looking back over potentially millions of years. We are trying to figure out the meaning of what we see – or what we think we see. How do we know for sure? Many people do not believe in God because they cannot be sure and do not see direct evidence of His existence but want others to accept evolution without direct/conclusive evidence. In other words, they change the rules of the game to suit their side. To be fair, it is better to see Evolution as a rival theory to Theistic Creation rather than seeing it as fact and then seeing religion as mere faith. I get that Evolution makes sense if God is removed from the equation or if certain presuppositions are accepted or if it is your belief that that is how God created. But, I honestly think that it makes most sense when you have people looking backwards in time trying to figure out what they see but reject the idea that God could have done it or that God did not do it instantly. It is still a theological statement, even if it is from the negative, declaring either that God did not create the world or that God created in that way. Perhaps they are staring right into God’s creative work and do not know it? Maybe they are piecing together clues of something that they do not understand? That has happened before, hasn’t it? Humans often get things wrong. My point is that when I study this, I have more questions than answers and have seen nothing that appears conclusive to me.
- The role of Science, I believe, is very important. It is an explanation and investigation into how the world works. From a Christian perspective, engaging in Science can be seen as worship as we seek to understand the world that God created. Science is completely compatible with Christiainity if one accepts that God is rational and reasonable and that He created a world that can be investigated and understood. So, I love Science and every Christian should. But, when we go beyond what we can observe and then make claims that are based on biases and further claims that lead us to certain conclusions, we are not still doing Science. We have crossed a line and no, Christianity is not compatible with alternative assertions.
- Timeline: As I said, the main issue for me is that God created. That Bible clearly states this. I also want to assert what the text clearly asserts. I am not locked in to the earth only being 6,000 years old. It could be much older. Lots of things in our timeline get messed up pretty severely if we try to place a world-wide flood and reboot of the entire human race in one place just at 3,000 BC, as is required if we use the timeline of the earth being created in 4,000 BC. That means that all of ancient history is completely wrong. Or, we do not at all know how to look at the past. There is no doubt, though, that ancient societies all over the world have flood cataclysm stories in their past and mythologies. Something happened. I think that it is more likely that the earth is quite old and that God created long ago. Or, perhaps there are things that we do not see? I am okay with the mystery.
- I understand that some struggle with this and I do not want to diminish the struggle. I am not here making a conclusive argument against evolution. I am saying why I reject it and why I have no intellectual problem doing so. I believe that all things are possible with God. I believe that God created. I believe that God could have made things complete or with what we understand as “age” and I believe that God is capable of making a human out of the dust into what we presently see. That is not a leap of faith for me. It makes perfect sense. And, I find it to be an intellectual argument as well as a faith argument because I do not accept that intellectual arguments can only be based on a secular playing field. Who sets the rules here? Why is the idea of God illogical? Why is God creating spectacularly and instantaneously something that is outside of the realm of possibility? I do not see where it is.
- I do not think that Evolution adequately explains the world or the human experience. Why do we care about beauty and art and falling in love and how the world works? Why do we tell stories and write plays and laugh and travel and aspire to great things? Why do we find such intense satisfaction in certain things and have disdain for others? None of what I have mentioned here is necessarily connected to any kind of evolutionary process, nor does it have an evolutionary explanation that I have found satisfactory. Sure, evolutionary biologists and psychotherapists will tell us that there is a reason for what we choose rooted in evolution and what we need to survive and evolve. They will even tell us that our belief in God was needed – for a time – to help the human race cope and put aside fear and evolve. But, now, God is no longer needed because we have reached the point of reason as our guide and can go on without ancient fantasies. But, if you group up everything that you don’t have a real explanation for and say that Evolutionary process/biology is the reason for it – even when we cannot understand it or it makes no sense to us – then isn’t that the same thing as saying that “God” is the reason for everything, even if you can’t see Him? There is a lot of speculation that passes itself off as fact and it has never been convincing to me. Of course, I have my own biases. But, then again, so do the proponents of evolution. Which leads to my last reason.
- Perhaps this comes from my postmodern conditioning, but I do not trust that proponents of particular views are objective. Everyone has an agenda or works from presuppositions. What are they? Science claims objectivity, but it isn’t – it is limited by perspective and asserts certain things. Sure, math is pretty objective, but once you take the facts that you can observe and then start making leaps on what those facts mean, you have slipped from hard science into philosophy. The arguments against religion made by Enlightenment and Modernist thinkers can easlily be turned back on their own truth claims until all sides go nuclear and we are left not knowing much of anything other than what can be definitively proven. I don’t think that reality only consists of what can be definitively proven, but at the same time, I am not going to accept the Evolutionists “facts” when I see those “facts” as dressed up assertions and philosophical speculations that combine certain actual facts with the logical results of presuppositions.
The Secular Evolutionist claims to be intellectually satisfied. That is fine. I accept his claim. As a Biblical Creationist, I can make the same claim. We begin from different presuppositions. The Secularist has set the playing field and claimed that his view is rooted in “facts” and my view is rooted in “faith” or superstition or fantasy. I reject that self-serving assertion. I don’t have the “faith” to believe in Evolution and the “facts” that have been presented to me are entirely unconvincing, especially when I know that the “facts” have changed over and over and over again over the past centuries (or decades, or years, or even months, as new “facts” come out all the time disputing old “facts”).
So, what we are really talking about here are competing truth claims or even competing religions or philosophies. We are looking at metanarratives that claim to best explain life, our origins, and our destination. I find Christiainty and its claims to be utterly convincing and to explain ultimate reality, the nature of man, what is wrong with the world, and how things are made right better than any other perspective that I have seen. And, to be gracious, I fully expect adherents of other views to think the same thing about how they see the world and I give them room to do so without thinking that they are morons, necessarily. From that basis of respect, let’s talk and discuss which view fits with the reality that we actually can observe and not just what we might speculate on. I am always happy to have discussions.
*Many scientists who have moved to a belief in Intelligent Design would be considered theistic evolutionists. In other words, they believe that God created using evolution as the means and that He guided the process. That is a theological claim based on a combination of readings of Scripture and scientific observation, in my opinion. People are free to believe that and that belief does not, in all cases, cancel out Biblical fidelity in other areas, necessarily (when we get into whether or not there was an historic Adam, for example, I think that we have moved beyond Scripture pretty strongly and we need stronger evidence to claim that Adam was just a mythical representative of humanity than our own theories on the matter). I disagree with theistic evolution though, for a lot of reasons – too many to get into here.
Very good points, Alan. You are exactly right as it concerns evolution. But I would like you to apply 1, 3 & 7 to number 4. 1. “I see nothing in the Bible that says” that the earth than the 6000 or so that is indicated by the texts. 3. “But, when we go beyond what we can observe and then make claims that are based on biases and further claims that lead us to certain conclusions, we are not still doing Science.” The scientific dating methods are tied up with evolutionary bias. 4. Lots of things in the evolutionists’… Read more »
Well done. The problem is more that YE creationists have declared the age of the earth to be indispensable along with flood geology. Any who disagree are heretics. The handful of YE specialists are virtually considered to speak ex cathedra on the matters. Consider Baptist Press recent story that could have been a promo piece for AiG.
I am gratified that there are serious OE profs at SEBTS.
The earth might be 6,000 years old. God might have created everything old and we might be way off on how we date things and things might be able to happen much quicker than we think when it comes to the development of human societies. We might be wrong about everything.
But, I do not think that the Bible requires a belief that the earth is 6,000 years old.
It could be as old as 6010, 6015 years, right?
If God created everything “old,” then God should not be surprised or offended if we believe that it is old–and neither should anyone else.
Agreed.
Have you considered that approaching Scripture with an anti-supernatural bias might be offensive to a supernatural-acting God? It is one thing to create old-looking things and have people think they are much older than they are, but quite another to leave an inspired, written account testifying that such things were supernaturally created and when, and still have people think they are much older than they are. So then, no, God would not be surprised, but the prospect of His being offended would have more to do with the disregarding of His word than the perception of what He created. If… Read more »
But why would God create everything “old” except to see who could be fooled. Is creation logic a test and if we go with the data we fail the test?
No I don’t think so Bennett. I just think that since God appears to have created things in maturity it would stand to reason that they would appear older than they are.
Bennett, Did Jesus turn the water into wine just to fool people into thinking it came from grapes and was old enough to have fermented? Did He create Adam & Eve as adults just do that their children would think they were older than they were? And would Cain, Abel & Seth have been fooled into thinking that their parents were born of previous parents? Whenever God supernaturally acts in such miracles, there is always the choice to believe or not. The fact that those who choose to not believe can find a plausible natural explanation is no excuse for… Read more »
Ken, I was under the impression that Jesus turned the water into wine because the host of the wedding was out of wine. Is there a greater reason that I missed?
Jesus did turn the water into wine because the host ran out, but also for the glory of God, since that was always His main reason for everything. My point was that the deceptiveness of miracles is unavoidable and not part of some motivation to deceive.
I would point out, though, that God has decided not to be found by science or by materialistic evidences. Instead, He requires faith.
Alan, It comes down to whether we allow Scripture to determine its own meaning or permit extra-biblical evidences and considerations to carry as much (or more) authority as Scripture in determining what Scripture means. Scripture is sufficient to determine its own meaning, and is the only authority of the truths it contains. You say, “I do not think that the Bible requires a belief that the earth is 6,000 years old;” but I must ask you, where in the Bible do you find the any textual reason to to think that 6000 years is signifiantly or dramatically incorrect? There are… Read more »
William Thornton, et al: I agree with your critique of Answers in Genesis. I attended a talk by Ken Ham. That talk was recorded and put up on a podcast. Later, I made a written transcript of what he said. The bottom line is that he equates “young earth creationism” with “inerrancy”. Actually, he does not use the term “inerrancy” — instead uses the term “authority”. So, according to Ham, if you hold to a young earth view that is tantamount to not holding to an inerrant Bible. He never debates the young earth view vs. the old universe view… Read more »
“So, according to Ham, if you hold to a young earth view that is tantamount to not holding to an inerrant Bible. He never debates the young earth view vs. the old universe view on it merits. He conflates “a young earth” and “evolution” as being the “same thing” in terms of them both being “anti-Biblical”. Roger, did you switch “old” and “young” in your comment, or have I just misread it? Ham is scheduled to debate “the science guy” in a few days, as I seem to recall. I think the debate will be frustrating for all sides. As… Read more »
Alan, If I may borrow part of your article, I find the arguments you’ve presented to be entirely unconvincing. You have dealt with none of the claims of evolution, have considered none of the evidence for evolution, and seem to base your argument almost entirely on relativism: these are competing truth claims and you just have to pick which one you want to believe. This sounds a great deal like Peter Hitchens (Christian brother of famous atheist Christopher Hitchens) in his Oxford University debate for the existence of God. He says he believes in God because he chooses to believe… Read more »
“I think it absurd when people claim to be Christians yet reject the Bible and its teachings.”
Most excellent comment, Christina!
Curious, did you ever claim to be a Christian at one point, Christina?
Christina, You stated: Science operates on the basis of the evidence while attempting to push aside preconceptions. Yet, science makes no attempt whatsoever to push aside their grand preconception that no supernatural, miraculous event happened, and that natural processes alone are responsible for the current state of things. Science can only observe what is observable. When they venture to explain origins, they venture out of the purview of science and into the purview of theology and philosophy. They cannot even approach the question of origins without a philosophical basis, which they have found in materialistic naturalism, which is the belief… Read more »
Christina, You stated: In his book Reasonable Faith William Lane Craig essentially says that Christian is verified by the fact that we know it is true because we have had some sort of experience and we know our experience is valid (“the experience of the Spirit’s witness is self-authenticating for him who really has it. The Spirit-filled Christian can know immediately that his claim to the Spirit’s witness is true despite the false claims made by persons adhering to other religions.”) In other words, Christianity is established by divine fiat and it is authenticated by individual fiat. I have to… Read more »
Christina, You missed my point in a fairly spectacular way. I am giving my own perspective. I am not engaging in relativism. I am explaining why the absolutist claims of evolutionists are not convincing to me and why I think that they are engaging in the same things that they accuse religious people of engaging in. This is not written as a defense of Creationism or a disproving of Evolution. It is written as a personal confession of why I have not found the arguments of evolutionists to be convincing. As you address my Point 2, you reiterate the very… Read more »
“Disputing that would be another post for another time.”
Well then, Alan, hurry up ad write it so we will know you are not a heretic.
CB,
Hey, doesn’t THIS post demonstrate that I don’t believe in Theistic Evolution? No heresy here.
But, CB. We might want to bring you up on charges unless you renounce the Evil Empire up there in Tuscaloosa with the bringing in of Lane Kiffen.
Alan, Some things are simple and easy to understand. Even a fifth grader can understand. Things such as creation of all things? — Hey, God did it. He did it in six days just like the infallible and inerrant Word stated in the first Book of the Bible which was written by an older, somewhat hot tempered guy named Moses who wrote that which God revealed to him as he was under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit to write. The understanding of that is simple. It is a no brainer. God did it. However, Lane Kiffen coming to T’town… Read more »
CB,
All of us, Vol fans, are just tickled to death that Kiffin is coming to Tuscaloosa.
Also, I agree with you about creation. It’s simple. God spoke it all into being in 6 days….literal days. And, the world can’t be as old as some of the Evolution Scientists wanna claim….millions and millions and millions and millions and billions of years old. Yet, there was nobody around to write all of that down…no one to witness all that millions and billions of years stuff.
I’ll just stick with the One, Who was around….Who did see it.
David
SEBTS recently had a wonderful conference about “Noah’s Ark and the Age of the Earth”. It featured some Old Earth folks, Young Earth folks and allowed their Old Testament faculty to weigh in as well. It was really interesting…and every speaker was an unashamed proponent of the 5 fundamentals…and gracious enough to not call each other a heretic.
http://multimedia.sebts.edu/?cat=70
Christina: I appreciate your solid argumentation. However, I’d like to engage you on one question: Regardless of any truth claims in the Bible, and regardless of the any theistic model that caused creation or guided the introduction of successively complex life forms, how could evolution be a credible model? Given that we only have, at most, about 13-16 billion years available since the Big Bang how in the world could all the stuff that exists happen by random chance? The equivalent question is posed by Steven Hawking — How could a monkey pounding on a typewriter come up with a… Read more »
“how in the world could all the stuff that exists happen by random chance?” Whether or not it could happen by random chance is irrelevant because evolution is not random. This is one of the great misconceptions. Evolution is not equivalent to monkeys banging away on typewriters. Evolution is a progressive system, a building system, an adaptive system. I once heard a creationist (I think it was Ham, not sure) use Mount Rushmore as an example. He said evolution would be akin to wind and rain creating Mount Rushmore. His argument was that if we see a Mount Rushmore, we… Read more »
Christina,
A safe cracker has a brain that organizes his actions. Evolution has no brain, no overall organizer. No one to tell all the other little organizers that that one over there is a better evolve.
Likewise, many individual parts up to whole ecosystems had to develop at the same time in a complex way.
It takes much faith in chance to believe in evolution, and none in science.
What nature has is the willingness to perform billions of experiments–and to keep some of the ones that are advantageous in some certain ways. Advantageous for a while, anyhow.
Here’s your problem. And you can’t get around it. While there is abundant logical, constant proof for microevolutionary processes, There is little to no evidence for macroevolution. There are no examples of a simpler organism, becoming a more complex organism. There are no examples of changes from one “kind” of organism to another. There is no evidence of transitory species. There is no evidence that mutations lead to an increase in complexity of DNA, which is absolutely required for evolution to be true. If I believed in the “science” of evolution, I would have to believe in the “science” of… Read more »
Alan, a couple of words in defense of science here, from a heretic 🙂 The only difference between micro and macro evolution is quantitative. Macro is made up of micro; like algebra is made up of arithmetic. What you’re saying is arithmetic exists, but algebra does not. It’s like admitting that you believe in glass shards glued onto a big sphere, but you don’t believe in disco balls. So given you already believe in evolution, you won’t be surprised to learn that speciation has been observed. Google “observed speciation” and you’ll find plenty of material to reconcile. Secondly, it isn’t… Read more »
The Bible doesn’t describe species, but “kinds.” Birds may develop into various species of birds, but not into various species of any other kind. Apes develop variety, as do humans; but apes do not develop into humans. You say that the difference between micro and macro is only quantitative; and yet, the glaring absence of transitional species belies such a claim, since a mere quantitative difference ought to result in so many transitional species as to make the entire variety of animal life to be uniformly gradient.
The thing is, Ken, when I have engaged with creationists over this point, any example of what biologists and paleontologists call a “transitional species,” creationists call a “separate species,” so that the argument is winnable. Have you seen that sort of argumentation?
John
Drat that spell checker! Should be “unwinnable.”
John
John,
There are two sides to consider in that argument.
If evolution is true, it could be a transitional species.
If evolution is false, it couldn’t be a transitional species.
The question is then:
Can science prove by the scientific method their claim that it was a transitional species?
The answer is No.
So rather than being a question of science, it becomes a question of faith- does one believe the Bible or does one believe in evolutionary theory?
Mike, that sounds good; however, as these debates play out, you have put the cart before the horse so to speak. Those with whom I have argued this point in the past begin with not with your stated hypothesis (“If evolution is true, it could be a transitional species. If evolution is false, it couldn’t be a transitional species.”) but rather with the presupposition that there are no transitional species, but only separate and distinct species, therefore any species named cannot be transitional. I really believe that the only way these folks would be convinced would be (1) if there… Read more »
John, It seems to me John, that as long as there is missing evidence, evolution theorists will have a problem. They can’t prove their hypothesis. Let me put it like this: Say a man is murdered and some of the evidence points to you. You know that you did not kill this man. But the prosecutor brings his partially complete evidence to the grand jury and gets an indictment. Meanwhile, he tell his investigators to seek to dig up more evidence to solidify his case. For the prosecutor, the truth he thinks he sees is a lie. He is sincere… Read more »
Mike your analogy is not valid. As a former detective in a metropolitan area, I know that a competent DA (merely competent, not exceptional) can get a Grand Jury to indict a ham sandwich for murder. In a great many crimes, including homicide, there is never anything except circumstantial evidence. Now you are right that a DA will instruct investigators to seek further evidence against the accused. However, the DA is under some constraints that no defense attorney is: namely that any exculpatory evidence discovered has to be turned over to the defense, whereas no defense attorney is allowed to… Read more »
John, Well you got me. But i wasn’t trying to be completely accurate as to how our justice system works, only to show that some evidence might lead some to convict an innocent person, i.e., to come to a wrong conclusion. And certainly you would agree that in the end, at that great Judgment Day, one far better than our fictional Perry M. will reveal the truths you or I or you and I fail to see now. And certainly if you are a theistic evolutionist, you are not going to agree that God created all the living world out… Read more »
Mike I appreciate the way in which you carried on our conversation, without questioning my faith, character, or anything else. I hope I have been likewise honorable toward you. If you ever find yourself in southern Maryland, I hope that we can get together and enjoy a cup of coffee or a meal. My final comment will be simply that I do not in the least question THAT God created all that there is; our difference is not there, but in how He created, whether in all things simply by divine fiat, or whether He used geologic and biologic processes.… Read more »
“As a former detective in a metropolitan area, I know that a competent DA (merely competent, not exceptional) can get a Grand Jury to indict a ham sandwich for murder.”
That’s a killer ham sandwich!
😉
While I am a YEC, I also believe that ultimately it is not a major point worth too much trouble (discussion yes, division absolutely not). That said, a belief in a literal Adam (and Eve) is vital and important for Christians. If there was not a literal Adam, then Paul’s arguments for Christ and His saving work in Romans makes no sense. Several thousand or several billion years? It ultimately does not matter. A literal Adam and Eve? It matters.
Agreed!
I will admit that I have trouble seeing the validity of the biblical arguments in the exegesis of Genesis 1 and 2 made by Old-earthers, but we ought not make this a test of faith or fellowship.
I find you Christians/Baptists can end up being wrong about a LOT of things – every time you disagree with me.
Do you think there were 24 hour days before the sun moon and stars were created and light and darkness were separated? Hebraicly time and history are cyclical rather than linear in nature. I believe must be read with this context in mind to be understood. We have numerous sevens then new beginnings throughout scripture. Sevens inside of sevens…cycling…wheels within wheels possibly. Sabbaths, 7 feasts, 7 spirits of God, 7 churches, seals, trumpets, bowls….7creation days, 7 Hebrew words in Gen 1:1…so many more. New Heavens and new earth will be after the 7000th year…hmmm. Were we the first 7000 year… Read more »
Dee,
To your first question, maybe the day was the same amount of time even if there were no standards at that time to measure it.
What I want to know is – what does the consistent ‘there was evening and morning’ (even from the first day) phrase mean? As Dee points out, the mechanism for these didn’t even exist for the time they were first used. Evening and morning *where*? I sometimes wonder if by insisting on reading Gen 1 in a ‘Creation vs Evolution’ mode, we’re missing something there. The only thing I’ve so far been able to get out of that is that God doesn’t work in the dark. And I note that it says that God had created light and separated it… Read more »
Psalms 90:4 and 2 Peter 3:8 indicate that time to the Lord is very different than time is to man. “For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday” when it is past, and as a watch in the night.” “… that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.” I submit for your consideration that each of the sevens in the Bible are cycles and fabric in time and space. 7 words in Genesis 1:1 each are a millennium of time and represent what is contained in that… Read more »
Ben: “What I want to know is – what does the consistent ‘there was evening and morning’ (even from the first day) phrase mean? As Dee points out, the mechanism for these didn’t even exist for the time they were first used. Evening and morning *where*?” Perhaps I’m missing something in what you’ve said, but the first mention of “evening and morning” comes after God a) created earth, b) created light, c) separated the light from the dark, and d) called the light day and the dark night. Then, after all of that, we see the first mention of “evening… Read more »
Christina: You are right: organisms are not rocks. How do we get from rocks to organisms? What is the feedback mechanism by which a batch of rocks which undergo various changes due to their environment become — incrementally over time — single cell organisms? The micro evolution we see — selective breeding of dogs for instance — is 100 orders of magnitude less challenging than going from pond scum to people. The Greeks had a crazy cosmology. Their cosmological model was that the universe was of infinite age and that it was unchanging with time. To them God and nature… Read more »
Roger, you repeat your earlier mistake by assuming evolution must be random and must take a lot longer time than is available. Evolution is not random, it is cumulative. It happens at times gradually, at times in jumps but it is always progressing. You ask about how life came to be, how we get from rocks to organisms, but of course you know that no one proposes we came from rocks to organisms. While theories vary, there is general consensus about the process of chemical and electrical factors which lead to basic organisms. Experiments have not reproduced the early earth,… Read more »
To which will you give the benefit of the doubt: ‘science’ or Scripture?
Nothing like a link to save a lot of space… Would it be fair to say that you are among those who have bundled inerrancy, creationism, six day 6k young earth creationism such that Christianity and truth stands or falls on the acceptance or rejection of the whole bundle? Do you object to competing views such as those of several here and of the OE views do some SEBTS profs, for example. The sagacious Phillip E. Johnston dealt with the presumption of a very narrowly defined creationism toe decades ago. I don’t see much of a solution here but do… Read more »
Gotta watch Johnston and his “toe”
Read “two” …dang auto complete.
William,
Reinterpreting Gen. 1 in such a way as to deny the “common sense, straightforward” meaning—for no other reason than because of the demands of the anti-supernatural, materialistic presupposition—destroys the authority of Scripture and deligitimizes Christian truth-claims.
Christians must, without compromise or fail, believe that Jesus literally and physically rose from the dead, so no believer should ever doubt the supernatural, miraculous nature of God’s acts as recorded in Scripture. That question should have been settled for us at the empty tomb.
I haven’t read Johnston yet.
There is much in Scripture that cannot be interpreted in a “common sense, straightforward” way, but this exchange illustrates that the age of the earth is first an interpretive issue, unless I missed where Scripture states the age in a common sense, straightforward way.
There is a reason that a literal death and resurrection of Christ is in the BFM and the age of the earth is not. To juxtapose the two in this discussion diminishes the former.
We should have a hermeneutic that appropriately reflects the authority of an inspired Scripture—in other words, a common-sense, straightforward hermeneutic that assumes that every text of Scripture is a literal, historical account unless the text itself warrants a meaning that is other than literal. To do otherwise, and allow extra-biblical considerations to determine when the meaning is other than literal is to surrender the authority of Scripture. Scripture is sufficient to interpret itself and needs nothing from outside in order to accurately convey its meaning. It is Scripture, and not science, that is the ultimate authority of the truths contained… Read more »
So, we’re discussing various interpretive issues, the degree of literalness, and common sense (unless the text demands otherwise in which case an underlying presupposition might be sniffed out) readings, highly subjective stuff. …which is part of the reason that the details of creation aren’t included in the BFM. A creation/evolution discussion generally devolves into various interpretive issues among Christians because the subject has been hijacked by a very narrow and recent special interest industry which makes one interpretation, a very young earth, into the fulcrum for the entire body of truth. I’m a creationist. Alan’s a creationist. You are. We… Read more »
Ken, you might stand back and look at what you have asserted here, that the resurrection and a young earth NEED to be juxtaposed.
No, there’s no heresy or apostasy. But there is a misguided, erroneous, eisegetical way to bow to the world’s anti-supernatural demands and attempt every conceivable way to shoehorn billions of years into what is obviously intended as simple, contiguous chronology of six literal days.
This is not an interpretive issue in the sense that the meaning is not clear; but rather, it is an interpretive issue because many find the clear meaning to be unacceptable in light of what the world tells them occurred.
Juxtaposed simply in the sense of looking at one in light of the other.
…And I know of no text in Scripture that requires us to discard our common sense. If the plain sense makes sense, then seek no other sense.
Here’s a quote from the linked article: …We lost the high ground when the truth claims of Christianity were delegitimized. Prior to losing this high ground, the hatred for Christianity was hampered by a lack of legitimacy—there was no foothold in reason strong enough for a legitimate claim that the Bible was not true and divinely authoritative. Oh, the claim has always been there, but the legitimacy was lacking as long as there remained a foothold in reason strong enough for the legitimate claim that the Bible is true and divinely authoritative. The world could deny the Bible is true,… Read more »
…which is why YE/OE discussions so often devolve and are probably not worth the effort.
But, I appreciate your thoughtful articles.
I know I will eventually fall to the temptation to comment here, so I might as well do it now. An outright rejection of evolution because in one way or another it contradicts Scripture requires a specific, and rather limited, interpretation of Scripture. More specifically, it requires one to accept two rather contradictory issues regarding Scripture: one, a 19th Century interpretation, popularly known as fundamentalism, and two, a 16th Century western European interpretative framework (interestingly, also the basis of the scientific method) which presupposes that every statement in the Bible can us used as propositional truth. It also pretty much… Read more »
Christina: By definition, evolution is idea that the state of nature now is the product of long sequence of events. You rightly use the term “cumulative events”. Given that the events are cumulative does not address the randomness of each event. Are you positing some type of non-theistic “invisible hand” to orchestrate this? If randomness is not at work, and stipulating that theism is not at work, then by what mechanism “do complex ecosystems mature together”. Regardless of the Bible and regardless of Christianity and regardless of any understanding that springs from theism, evolution is bankrupt to explain reality. I… Read more »
I’d like to thank Christina for coming into potentially hostile territory and making a reasonable and articulate case for her point of view. Even if you disagree, let’s treat her with respect.
I think that this discussion should be done “person to person” while walking through the paleontology hall at the Houston Museum of Natural Science–or similar if you don’t want to come to Houston. The displays there are hard to ignore or discount.
When you have to base some of your arguements on experiments that happened a long while ago and were not documented (and many left no records at all), science labors under a significant handicap.
I do not believe that Bro. Alan offered an attack on evolution but merely stated what he believed. It is refreshing to hear someone whose belief in Christ and the Holy Bible have led them to state what they support. There are many who carry the name of Christ who can only state what they are against. However, some have taken this opportunity to speak of the science of evolution like it is settled and can’t be refuted. Such claims are fairy tales. Some scientists have lied and manipulated findings and results to support evolution and attack creationism. We lived… Read more »
I agree with the idea of being respectful of all views. Evolution is not an idea that just fell off of the turnip truck. To engage it completely takes more heft than I have at my disposal. As in all discourse, the way forward is to lay out the case for one’s views in an irenic fashion. Also I have to admit that cosmologies that are “creation based” are inherently based upon theistic pre-suppositions. Since theism is a truth claim based upon faith as well as reason, theists “cheat”. They can get by [or least attempt to get by] with… Read more »
Roger,
Your last paragraph is kind of mixed up in meaning.
If there is no God and we bet right, then how is the outcome for each of us not optimal?
Parson Mike: Thanks for pointing out my mistake in describing Pascal’s wager. I proofread stuff prior to posting but this error escaped my attention. If there is no God then whatever we bet results in the same outcome. I guess we could say that in this case, regardless of our bet, the outcome would be “optimal”. If there is a God then if we reject His offer the result is catastrophic. My point is that we shouldn’t make our acceptance of God’s plan for our eternal life contingent upon our absolute certainty regarding God’s existence. We should embrace God’s plan… Read more »
There are two (well, more than two but two for now) problems with Pascal’s wager. First, the wager is fundamentally selfish. It tells me to think about the consequences of belief as they relate to me without regard for anyone else. Well, if I believe in God and there is no God, I’ve lost nothing. But perhaps there is more at stake than just my own life. Pascal’s wager doesn’t take that into account. It’s all about me. Second, and raised by the first, Pascal’s wager considers only the possible post-death ramifications of belief. If there’s a God and I… Read more »
It doesn’t matter. Wagers may be about probabilities and uncertainties, but faith in Christ is about utter certainties. Those who truly put their faith in Him will never be faced with the consequences of believing in what is false.
Roger,
A person doing a rational cost/benefit analysis would choose theism and respond positively to the Gospel?
Paul told us that if Christ was not risen we are to be most pitied of men.
The analysis then would need to take into account spiritual truths that are un-affirmable and that can only be known by faith.
Of course, if they are known by faith, one does not need to do a cost/benefit analysis to determine how to respond to God.
Admitting one does not believe in evolution requires courage in our society. We get ridiculed when we don’t pretty regularly. As an engineer who doesn’t (which I am), it can be a challenge, but the Bible doesn’t speak of evolution and, frankly, I find the theory to be lacking.
http://oldlineelephant.com/2013/05/07/im-a-creationist/
You said, “Admitting one does not believe in evolution requires courage in our society.” I agree with you; but it takes about the same amount of courage, perhaps more, to admit that one does “believe” in evolution in most Baptist circles. And almost as much as saying you are an Old-Earth’er, even if a creationist.
I put the e-word in quotes because I do not really like it. I prefer to use “believe” in discussing my faith in Christ, and reduce other matters to “acceptance” or “denial.”
John
Excuse me: the “b-word,” not the “e-word.”
John
One, possibly last by me, comment on the subject. The YEC industry with its specialists is so successful that we have a heavy supply of clergy and laypeople who are experts in the arguments, having availed themselves of the latest YE response to dendrochronology, various dating methods, paleoclimatology and the like. Why not just declare that the appearance of age solves all possible dating problems and just not bother with the details. If things are not as they appear, if supposedly concrete evidence is actually false then there is no possible argument against whatever point one may wish to make.… Read more »
Unlike Ken Ham, I don’t try to argue the faults of dating methods much. There’s no need. The approach used by science is only legitimate if God did not in fact recently create the earth in a supernatural way—and such a biased anti-supernatural approach is incapable of arriving at a knowledge of the truth if God did in fact create supernaturally and recently. Therefore, the nature of the question of origins is determined by what actually happened. The nature of the question is not determined by one’s chosen approach to the question. If what actually happened was in some way… Read more »
Ken,
Great point.
Where is the ‘like’ button when you want it?
Thanks, Mike
I suppose I should thank you for making my point, rather wordily but quite explicitly.
Are you lamenting that the opposing argument is too strong? Since the argument has not devolved into any anger or accusations of heresy, then what is the problem?
Well, no, the argument is not too strong though I grant that your , correctness assertions and categorical truth claims are. To simplify, You’ve ruled out evidence as having an anti supernaturalist presupposition and opposing biblical interpretations as failing the common sense test. Not a lot of basis left to even have a discussion. I said that I appreciate that you’ve obviously thought a lot about all this but think that there may be a bit too much influence from one side. My hacker and plodder opinion on these discussions is that too many YE creationists think they must be… Read more »
William Thornton: Reasonable people can agree to disagree as to the age of the earth. However, when one side or the other posits stuff such as the speed of light is not constant over space and time then it does raise questions, at least to me, if the argument advanced is a top down rather than a bottom up argument. Or to put it another way, I don’t think it is robust to choose which side of a debate you support first and then manufacture arguments to support it. A more solid apologetic is to work bottoms up. Take a… Read more »
Things are not always as they seem. Here’s an article for you. http://news.yahoo.com/speed-light-may-not-constant-phycisists-133539398.html
Well unless Adam was created as an infant I certainly think there is some biblical warrant for the belief in a superficial appearance of age.
Roger, Those who posit changes in the speed of light are using the wrong approach. The God who created the stars, and Who created light that comes from the stars, also created—at the same time—all the light present between the stars and the earth (and everywhere else). It is inconsistent to think that God could create the entire universe full of stars, but then have the problem of not being able to create all the light trails between them—or that God could not create a universe already functioning as if it had long been functioning. Consider what is meant by… Read more »
Ken, what do you feel was God’s motivation for creating all the light between the stars so that it comes out just right for observers here on earth?
“The heavens declare the glory of God.” He created it as He wanted it to be. Man was and remains the focus of God’s creation, because the ultimate reason for creation was so that Christ could die on a cross for the sin of the world, rise again, and thereby redeem to God a people saved by grace.
Outstanding answer Ken.
Thanks, John.
Tim B: I have read the article you cite. A first reading still leaves me with a lot of questions. This is the first I’ve heard of anyone coming out with a paper that suggests that the speed of light may not be constant. According to the news release, there are two different models posited. Both of which suggest the idea that the speed of light is not constant. I don’t know if there is any observable information (such as Hubble Telescope observations) that supports either model. We know based upon observation that the speed of light is constant to… Read more »
The speed of light is something of an illusion anyway. According to physics, light is always the same speed relative to me no matter how fast I am moving. If I am standing on earth the light from the sun passes me at “c.” If I leave earth and head directly away from the sun at 10000 mph the sun’s light still passes me at the same “c.” If I leave earth and travel away from the sun at a speed just under “c” the sun’s light would still pass me at “c.” My opinion is that there is a… Read more »
Let me add one more thing as an addendum to the above post. Einstein taught that as one approached the speed of light time would approach zero. Consequently, if I could be present at both the source of light and any other point (no matter how distant) at the same time, the light from that source would arrive instantaneously. While neither your or I can be at two places simultaneously, the Lord can. Consequently, from His perspective the light he personally created no matter how distant arrived at earth instantly because He was present in both places. That thought raises… Read more »
Sometimes scientists and engineers miss God’s hand in things because, I think, they presume that God must be a scientist or an engineer: Why on earth would it be functional or efficient for God to have created an already eroded somewhat, already tectonically shifted somewhat, already having the light of stars from trillions of miles away kind of universe. It makes more sense if you conceive of God as not only scientist and engineer but also as poet and artist. A “new” earth would be ugly. A nighttime sky showing only the light from a few of the closest stars… Read more »
well said . . .
any attempt to circumscribe or ‘box up’ the vastness of the Eternal fails to honor that we ourselves are AWARE that the more we ‘know’, the more we realized we do not know;
and among the wise of our kind, there is and always has been a recognition that our grasp towards understanding exceeds our reach, but still we reach out, because it is in us to seek the unknown . . . a human quality placed in us by the God Who made us for Himself
Well said.
Great point, Bart. That is a lot of what I was trying to say in just a few words. I have no problem with saying that God made something old. God is eternal, after all. God is old and young at the same time. He is outside of time.
I love the way you have put this, Bart.
I’ve always fallen along these lines, but I’ve never heard it expressed in those terms.
Yep
John Wylie: You raise a good point I’ve never considered. Regarding Adam’s creation: I think a plain reading of the Genesis account suggests that he was created as an adult. Likewise Eve. The fact many people described in the first chapters of Genesis lived such long lifetimes does suggest that there was a different (for want of a better term) “environment for life” back then. I’m not sure of the implication of this. Is it a waste of time to use our understanding of biology, medicine, physics, chemistry, etc. when projecting back on what happened in the past? Do I… Read more »
Roger,
Thanks for your thoughtful response. No I actually like Hugh Ross and I do think that science can aid us to a certain extent to understand what has happened in the past, but insofar as the supernatural is concerned I don’t think science is sufficient because there is no way to observe the supernatural scientifically.
But it is a waste of time to ‘scientifically’ presuppose that a supernatural creation by fiat did not happen, and assume that evidence might support a much chronology than God has indicated in Scripture.
Roger,
You asked if it is a waste of time to use science as a way to understand what happened in the past?
Not if one starts with the Bible as a true record of the past. Who knows what understandings man can learn then?
To Old-Earth Creationists: Science is knowledge gained from observation; and scientists have observed millions upon millions of people and animals dying. Death is well known and understood. It is a scientific fact beyond dispute—a proven law of nature—that all living biological things die and then decompose. The claim that Jesus raised people from the dead and was even raised from the dead Himself is worthy of only scorn and perhaps pity from the scientific community. They would have you be ashamed for believing such a ridiculous and outlandish thing. Do you value their opinion? Are you ashamed or embarrassed? You… Read more »
Ken: Of course the creation is/was miraculous. This holds true regardless of when it happened or how long it took. Science doesn’t even attempt to explain the first cause of creation. Your argumentation seems to hold that accessing knowledge through empirical observation is — anti Christian. What about an epistemological approach that takes input from both worlds: science and Biblical revelation? I am not arguing that the creation was old or new. All I’m saying is that when trying to get a total picture of what is happening / has happened we need to look at all potential information sources… Read more »
Roger said:
“There is nothing big contingent on understanding the timing of the creation event.”
By ‘timing’ I assume you are relating to and mean a starting point that can be measured in years?
This is where I think Biblically you err. The very gospel itself is ‘contingent’ upon the age of the universe and earth. There is indeed ‘everything’ we hold dear about our redemption and our message to the lost riding on this. Your thoughts?
why limit God? from nothing, He created all that exists He sets the Natural Law into order He also has the power to go beyond the natural order of things to do what we consider to be ‘miracles’ Isn’t is funny that we take a single blade of grass for granted, when it is a ‘living’ organism (plant life), and performs the tremendously complicated process of photosynthesis in the presence of sunlight, and provides food for other living organisms (bovine, animal kingdom), who then process the simple sugars from photosynthesis and turn it into milk . . . a substance… Read more »
Just because there is a supernatural explanation for some things, that doesn’t mean there is a supernatural explanation for everything.
Without science, miracles don’t exist. It is precisely because we know scientifically that people don’t come back from the dead that the resurrection is a miracle.
Bill,
The question is, why would you believe something so scientifically absurd as a literal resurrection from the dead, for which there is abundant proof that resurrection is impossible, and then balk at the straightforward testimony of Scripture regarding a recent creation by fiat in 6 literal days?
when you think of all that exists originating from nothing,
even the ‘natural world’ is miraculous
Christine,
Not sure I understand your comment ‘all that exists originating from nothing’. The ‘natural world’ is God’s creation ‘out of nothing’, but there is nothing ‘natural’ about the ‘natural world’ if you get my drift. Your comments?
Hello STEVE . . . sorry comment was so cryptic, but it was a sloppy reference to a belief in ‘ex nihilo’ which in orthodox Christianity, you may know means all that was created by God was made from nothing . . . if you accept that God is Creator and Master of the Cosmos, then the ‘natural world’ and its laws and cycles and order are also of His doing my comment means that we take a lot of His Creation for granted, as not ‘special’, certainly not ‘miraculous’ in our minds. . . nor even by true definition,… Read more »
I noticed the words ex nihlo in a few responses…out of nothing in the Latin…however Hebrew’ bara’ means to fatten. I just think we are missing something here. If we look at this as a cold case what will we find that has been missed? Here is one option to look at. http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/23_genesis_1.html
You made a simple, but understandable mistake, Dee. There are two words – one means fat, one means create. But it is nonetheless a mistake. No reputable Hebrew lexicographal authority I could find gives any support to your idea. Sorry.
Bara means to create.
Years ago I heard a native born Baptist preacher from the Southland explain the Hebrew word “bara” while preaching from the Book of Genesis.
He stated, “The word ‘bara’ means that God looked out over the void. Then He first reached over to the left side of void and got some nothing. Then He reached over to the right side of void and got the same amount of nothing. Then He brought both nothings together and spoke to it. Then that which was not, became and still is!”
Dave, this is classic Hebrew parallelism. The vav conjunction is linking two ways to say the same occurrance, rather than consecutives between v 1 and v 2. Fattened/filled and empty vpid earth.
Dave, this is classic Hebrew parallelism. The vav conjunction is linking two ways to say the same occurrance, rather than consecutives between v 1 and v 2. Fattened/filled and empty void earth.
Dave v 1-2 are overview then the following verses set about explaining the days of the filling process.
Seriously, take the Bible as cold case. We have had years of others telling us to think their way about it. Start by learning to forget Western step logic and adopt Hebraic block logic. Drop Greek abstracts and let the Hebraic concrete thought speak through the original languages. Scripture cries out to us …will we quiet all distractions and let thr Living Torah…the Aleph-Tav of Gen 1:1 and Revelation…tell His-story?
Create is an abstract thought so we are left with cut or fatten. In another example…Glory is abstract so we are left with liver…the heaviest organ which cleanses blood. We only have a full picture of the intent when we see it concretely. Our translations cut out half or more of the intent. Then we ignore the known literary devices and lose much more. EW Bullinger Companion Bible is excellent for teaching us Hebraic literary devices in an understandable fashion.
Dee,
Not sure what your point is. Are you saying God did not create(bara) out of nothing (ex nihilo) everything that exists? What particular flavor of creation do you find yourself most agreeing with?
I lean toward what God says about it. I like to take it literally but see that there are so many layers God wants us to see more than the obvious. The real question is what am i missing if i think i have it all figured out? Before today i thought it was created from nothing…but i am seeing a distinction here as i study it again. He commanded light verbally to exist and it existed immediately! I think it did not exist prior. But as for the earth, He fattened..he did not command it to exist as the… Read more »
Dee Stover said:
“The real question is what am i missing if i think i have it all figured out?”
Ask this question about your salvation Dee. What answer do you come up with? Or are you not a Christian?
Remember God will make /create a New Heaven and New Earth…are we so arrogant as to believe God never did this before? I think all the cycles of 7s pretty much indicate this repeating plan.
I believe the Aleph Tav created and tav aleph spells cell in Hebrew for a reason. The entire Alephbet makes up the spoken word from God which creates. I believe that if you let that sink in as you study and ask God questions He will answer. If Jesus repeats himself about being Aleph Tav we need to ask Him where that is in the OT and quit ignoring Him.
What if to create God cut down (bara) in order to fatten/shape (bara)? This just like in Revelation he will have His wrath the make new heavens and new earth…what if he is telling us that the scroll being rolled back to the beginning at the end is just that. That being the reason Isaiah tells us the end is told out of the beginning! Pondering the implications…
I think Dee has had a Hebrew class.
I think Dee thinks she had a Hebrew class.
I don’t know if the problem is that she has had “a” Hebrew class or that she “thinks” she has had a Hebrew class. However, as I read her comment I had a hunger stiring remembrance of the fact that “liver” goes good with onions.
C.B.
try it with onions and BACON – calf’s liver is best
and mashed potatoes and carrot-raisin salad (with pineapple)
and . . .
I’ll stop now. Happy New Year, C.B.
Take care of yourself and yours.
And i like liver and onions hold the bacon.
cb–did you get my email? Just making sure I had the right address.
Doug,
Of late and due to current events, my emails have been at an abnormally high volume on both my personal and work addys.
Therefore, please check this email address against the one you used: cbscott5512@gmail.com. Please resend the email. I shall respond.
Please know that I would never purposely ignore or delete an email from you.
Not a problem, cb.
I had the address wrong. Apparently, one cannot substitute a vav for a beth and have the message come across.
I think when Dale and CB get together, things get interesting on this blog.
Dave,
I think that is because Duckman Dale and I both know “chopped liver” or “chopped Hebrew” when we see it.
And I don’t think I like either “chopped liver” OR “chopped Hebrew.” I do like a “chopped ’49 Mercury” though. Those are some sweet custom hot rods.
I like chopped steak….if it’s cooked right and has either grilled onions on top of it, or brown gravy…either one….doesn’t matter.
David
Liver is gross.
I reject trusting brainwashing institutions which turn out memes, though I have utilized said institutions in the past. Hebrew was not my major, but Linguistics and dabbled in 6 languages…plus some seminary. I check what I have been taught because research and analysis is my bent and I have seen too many pat answers given. We are losing generations because we prefer pat answers to being real with uncertainty. I talk to many caught in cults and pat answers just won’t help them out of deception. I want to ask more questions rather than be so certain I’m not asking… Read more »
“Hebrew was not my major. . . ”
The above statement may be the greatest illustration of understatement in the history of SBC Voices comment threads.
CB, that’s cold! True and funny but cold! 🙂
Dean,
Now you know the truth. Cold is my first name. 😉
If insults are taught in your seminary alma mater, I am very glad I did not study there and I have grave concern for your congregation. You have made my point for me.
Dee Stover,
Insults??
OK. Here’s the deal.
Quite often in this thread and in others of which you comment, you throw “insults” at orthodox, conservative Christianity. You throw “insults” at those who teach and preach orthodox, conservative, biblical Christianity. You throw insults at institutions wherein orthodox, conservative, biblical Christianity is taught and where that which you declare to be truth is taught to be nothing more than what it is; Heresy.
“I reject trusting brainwashing institutions which turn out memes…”
I consider myself insulted, Dee. I have grave concern for anyone who frequents your blog or listens to your quasi-linguistic teachings.
There’s such a thing as learning enough of a language to get into trouble but not enough to get out of it.
Duckman Dale,
Have you ever noticed that folks in ministry who understand the biblical languages best make mention of it the least in sermons and in conversations pertaining to faith and those who understand it the least make mention it in every sermon and conservation even when ordering a hamburger at Buger King?
Well, yes, SEC CB, I have. As a matter of fact, it should be an absolute rule of teaching and preaching that the use of the biblical languages should be restricted to only once every 30 minutes UNLESS one is actually teaching a language course. I dare say that the best Bible teaching I’ve ever heard came from people who never had a day of Hebrew or Greek in their lives. I wonder at those who seem to think that the Bible can’t be understood in English, or Spanish, or German, or whatever language it may be translated into from… Read more »
My Greek Prof in Seminary stated that the most dangerous (in a negative sense) Christian in the world is one who has had 2 semesters of Greek.
Your Greek prof never spoke truer words, SVMuschany.
I dare say that the best Bible teaching I’ve ever heard came from people who never had a day of Hebrew or Greek in their lives. I have this sneaking suspicion that those people, while they might not have had Greek or Hebrew, knew something about what I call listening well – listening in such a way that what they hear actually bears a good resemblance to what the speaker intended to communicate. It’s not a common knowledge or skill, but is one that can go a long way when you’re trying to listen to what God says in His… Read more »
STEVE DRAKE,
you made a comment “there is nothing natural about the natural world” and I am not SURE about your meaning . . . so I thought to ask if you would elaborate on that comment, if you care to do so. And thanks in any case.
Christiane, In coming to blogs on this subject, it is often quite difficult to determine from someone’s post their underlying philosophy and ultimate worldview. To thus was my error, for I assumed you may have been espousing the naturalist worldview. I reread some of your other comments above and now think that that was not at all what you were promoting. My comment there is nothing ‘natural about the natural world’ was in concert with thinking you were espousing that line of reasoning, and was meant to indicate that God’s fiat act of creation, (He spoke it into existence) had… Read more »
Steve Drake: There are three cosmologies out there: (a) Universe began at a finite time. This is consistent with the Christian worldview because God has always existed and he created everything “de novo” during the creation week (b) Universe has been here forever. It was not created. This is the pagan view of the ancient Greeks and Romans. This is not a Christian view because the pagan view considers that creation and the creator are the same thing. (c) The operation of the universe is in one huge cycle. This is the view of some eastern religions — India and… Read more »
Precisely right Roger. Although I will say that even today several evolutionists are going back to the idea of matter/energy being eternal. They do this because even they recognize the weakness of the evolutionary theory apart from the eternality of matter/energy.
Roger Simpson said: “Christians, who hold to an inerrant Bible, can agree to disagree regarding the age of the earth (or more precisely the age of the universe) as long as the age is not infinite. Darwinian naturalism doesn’t stand a chance of being credible with any age of the universe that you choose — as long as it is finite.” To this I disagree Roger. That we are in agreement and disagreement on the age of the earth is unfortunately the result of Christians not understanding their Scriptures. And here I am thinking of Christians who think that they… Read more »
When I was an Atheist, evolution was the name of my game. I bought it hook, line, and sinker, as the saying goes. After my conversion, it took a while to realize there was a problem, a difference between the biblical account and what the science (so-called) textbooks tell us, whether of naturalistic or theistic evolution. In any case, I never gave the issue any real thought until a professor of Psychology set forth Ralph Elliott’s case for a primitive any mythological view of the first 12 chapters of Genesis in the latter’s The Message of Genesis. While I did… Read more »
Whoever linked above the SEBTS conference on the age of the earth and the Flood did a good thing. I have enjoyed listening to it the past couple of days. One thing was missing: any reference to the appearance of age, an argument that inevitably pops up in these discussions. Neither the two OE scientists nor the two YE scientists, nor the seminary profs, nor the moderator, nor the attendees who asked questions tossed out the old saw about stuff looking old but being young because God so created it that way – the geological features of the earth, the… Read more »
You may claim the argument to be deficient, but you have yet to establish it as such. Disqualifying all material evidence does not in itself disprove the argument. And you do not represent the argument accurately. How old something is depends on how “old” is defined. We do not really hold to “Young-Earth” creationism, but Recent-Earth creationism. By the standards and definitions of secular science, what God created was created already old, and not just appearing old. But by the definition of how long it actually existed, it was brand new.
Quite right Ken. 6000 years is quite old by any standards. We have been so brainwashed to think in millions and billions of years as foisted upon us by men in active rebellion against their Creator that the Church, and Christians who have the Scriptures and who should know better, have capitulated. I have enjoyed reading your comments. Keep it up brother.
Thanks, Steve. Glad to have your agreement.
“6000 years is quite old by any standards.”
That’s a fact! These last 500 of it have really been rough on my hand-eye coordination.
“Constructive” discourse CB. There may be many reading these comments who take your and Dale’s puns as not indicative of the Name by which you are so called.
Steve Drake,
That may be because they do not actually have a true relationship with the One by whose “Name by which we are so called.”
For, if they did and had read His Book, they would know He used a similar methodology of communication quite often. Of course, the problem with our puns for many of them may be the fact that they have their “constructive” eye filled with a log.
Do you have a question CB, or do you wish to continue to make light of a serious subject?
Steve Drake,
Creation is a serious subject, I agree. However, I have found that some who discuss it constantly, tend to take themselves a little too seriously.
Loosen up a little, Steve Drake. Too much retentiveness causes one’s internal organs to cramp, and especially does it fog the brain.
No one has made light of a serious subject here. Unless, of course, you consider yourself to be the primary subject. Steve Drake, it was nothing more than levity. Take it as such and move on with your discussion.
Steve, there’s nothing “punny” about what I’ve said. I’ve said it as straightforwardly as I intended. The fact that you’re new here would indicate a lack of history with many of those who comment here, including Dee. The whole “you guys don’t really get the Hebrew” schtick is standard fair from her. It isn’t “constructive” because she doesn’t approach the languages “constructively.” She’s trying to re-invent the whole study of the languages and has turned it into a semi-gnostic approach to scripture, in my opinion. She has the right to her opinion, I have the right to mine, and you… Read more »
I have posted archeological proof in the past to allegations that if seminaries dont teach it it cant be true. Much has been discovered in recent years that sheds old light on the study of Hebrew. I dont mind if you disagree and i regularly say so. But someone out there in blogland may choose to look into the research for themselves. I approach this from an archeological linguistics point of view. You approach from a traditional church view. Of course there’s friction. I just want to stck to point counterpoint. I’m sorry for when I strayed from that.
Actually, Dee, I’m an institutionally brainwashed biblical backgrounds/archaeology major from one of our SBC seminaries. I’m somewhat of an expert in the Dead Sea Scrolls, having made that the major focus of my research degree, which I admit was a master’s degree, not a PhD. It was 10 years ago, so maybe things have changed since then and I was just left out of the memo. So before you start marching out your archaeological linguistics, you might want to know who you’re dealing with. Anywho, I don’t approach it from a traditional church view, whatever you think that is. I… Read more »
Steven Drake: I’m open to discussing our differing views. In order to have something definitive for me to discuss with you I believe it would be helpful if you: (1) Indicate why you hold that the age of the earth is a key Christian doctrine. (2) Indicate what ages you believe are correct ages relating to the creation of: (a) Adam and Eve, (b) the earth, (c) the solar system, (d) the Milky Way galaxy, and (e) the universe. Then I’ll respond. My guess is that we likely agree on many of the points regarding our interpretation of the first… Read more »
Roger,
“I really don’t have a hard-line view as to these ages. My problem with many Bible expositors is that they conflate holding to a high view of the Bible [i.e. inerrancy as defined by the Chicago Statement] with a particular view of the age of the earth. ”
And why is that a problem for you? Would you say the same about the resurrection? the virgin birth? a God-man incarnate?
As to your point 1, who was the agent in Creation?
My previous note should say “. . . MANY Bible expositors”
CB Scott said:
“Creation is a serious subject, I agree. However, I have found that some who discuss it constantly, tend to take themselves a little too seriously.”
Are you one of the blog administrator’s CB? I noticed there was no “reply” button at the bottom of your last post above. If a blog administrator and you don’t feel Dee’s posts are constructive, then simply block her.
Otherwise, as someone coming to this blog in just the past few days, I personally don’t find your joking puns and veiled insults at Dee to be in the spirit of Eph. 4:29.
There’s no reply after a certain number of replies–the system is limited in how many it allows.
Steve Drake, No. I am not an administrator of this blog. I am a guy who works a lot of hours most every day with the “true” seriousness of creation. I come here after having done so to read a few posts, the comments in those posts, make a few comments myself, some of which are serious, some of which are about sports, and many of which are no more than larks. I also make a few comments to chill guys who are far too much in love with their own reflections in the pond. I come here to fight… Read more »
CB,
I had a rib eye steak tonight that made my tastebuds sing the hallelujah chorus in B minor! My wife had tenderloin that had been butterflyed….and, it was great, too! I wish you could’ve seen me digging into that thick, juicy rib eye…..if you’d been there, I could’ve taught you how to eat!
BTW, how do you say “steak” in Hebrew?
David
“fattened” bovine “bara”-ed, medium-rare is “steak” in Hebrew.
CB said: “However, I never come here to take myself too seriously, because I know that most of the guys who come here don’t try to take themselves to seriously either, for they, like me, “work a lot of hours most every day with the ‘true’ seriousness of creation.” There are plenty of other blogs you can post to which a non-serious, cavalier and joking manner would have quite a lot of appeal. I thought this is not one of them. I would suggest you either add to the discussion with questions, constructive comments and dialog, or stay out of… Read more »
Steve,
Excuse me, but are you an administrator of this blog? I didn’t think so. And, a lot of us in here really enjoy CB’s wit and down home sense of humor, which is mixed with some wisdom. So, chill out, Dude.
David
David,
Is this a “millennial” or “Generation Y blog”? I’ve got to be in the wrong place. Sorry, my bad, dude.
Steve,
Millennial? Generation Y? What in the world are you talking about?
David
Vol,
“Millennial” means aged chicken roasted with yams in Hebrew.
“Generation Y” means Tacos in Hebrew.
I’ll take a Millenial, and 2 Generation Y’s, then. Sounds like a good meal.
David 🙂
Good choice. Obviously, you are a man of culture who knows fine dinning when he sees it. 🙂
Steve Drake,
I shall now ask you the same question you asked of me.
Are you an administrator of this blog?
Here is another question for you. (since we are getting to know each other and becoming such good friends)
Do you still live with your mother and by any chance, is your room and “office” down in the basement?
Steve Drake,
I will leave you alone . . . for now. Feel free to go on with your discussion about creation and such.
However, stop taking yourself so very seriously and please quit lingering so long when you look into the mirror. Just look, smile, make sure nothing is between your teeth, and go on. ‘Cause God loves you anyhow.
Chivalry is not dead. Thank you, Mr Drake. If I overstepped, I apologize. I believe that Jesus encouraged those who truly desired to learn from Him and it was the religious leaders He was stern with. My only desire is to learn and share what I have gained thus far to build on it. I don’t mind constructive criticism. I don’t expect people to agree with me. I desire iron sharpening iron. I just prefer not to be cut. I want to be a Berean not just accepting the status quo without delving deep as possible. If you think I’m… Read more »
Are you one of the blog administrator’s CB? I noticed there was no “reply” button at the bottom of your last post above. The reply button isn’t there because that’s the way the blog software works – when the indentation gets to a certain level, the reply button no longer appears under each comment – if you want to reply to one of those comments, and have it appear in line with the comment you’re replying to , you have to use the reply button for the comment *it* is replying to (unless, of course, threading is broken in the… Read more »
To whomever the administrator of this blog is: peace & blessings! A serious discussion of issues does not seem to be forthcoming.
To CB and David,
Peace to you brothers in Christ. May you continue to learn the wisdom and understanding of your fathers.
Steve,
You aren’t by chance related to someone named Wiley are you?
Steve Drake: God is the agent of creation, “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth . . . ” [Gen 1:1] ————————— To All SBC connoisseurs: We have pretty good BBQ here in OKC: to wit — Swadley’s on SW 89th and Western. If any of you ever have come here to trod on Sooner soil you should check it out. It is not cogent to argue for the supremacy of any particular BBQ joint in some emporium east of the Mississippi until you have surveyed the top joints here in Sooner land. ————— I’m done for… Read more »
Well, Roger Simpson,
I might challenge Sooner B-B-Q when it comes to beef or pork against that found in Alabama as to which is best.
However, one thing is for sure. You Sooners’ abilities at fixin’ Barbequed Elephant is the best I have encountered in a long, long time. I will give you that.
I’d sooner put kerosene in my BBQ sauce than mayonaisse
“I’d sooner put kerosene in my BBQ sauce than mayonaisse”
————– which is exactly what you Tarheels do.
CB,
🙂
David
a North Carolina pulled-pork barbecue on a bun with COLESLAW is absolutely WONDERFUL!!!!!
you can never eat only just one,
and it probably gave the name to that famous Southern phrase for ‘over-eating’: PIGGING !
yum!
I can take you to, at least, 5 BBQ restaurants around me, that would just make you smile like a Cheshire Cat, and say all kinds of nice things. Also, they’d make you say bad things about Oklahoma BBQ. I mean, don’t they use beef in Oklahoma?
David
The best BBQ is the entire world is in Davis, OK. It’s called Smokin Joes.
John,
A few ground rules, here…..any talk about BBQ has to be about PORK….beef doesn’t really count. So, does Smokin’ Joes cook BBQ, or do they grill steaks?
David
They do both…however I reject your ground rules. I think beef brisket is wonderful BBQ. However, I would stack Smokin Joes’ pork ribs, and pork tenderloin up against anyone’s.
Vol, I must side with my OK friend here–a smoked brisket must also be included in BBQ.
As for me and my house, we eat the combo plate with pulled pork and smoked brisket at the Whole Hog Cafe.
Though my wife still has a strong preference for the dry ribs at the original Corky’s in Memphis.
Oh sadness. The only bbq that is bbq is beef brisket. Pork bbq is fine but pigs are better served when turned into bacon and sausage.
Doug,
I guess it’s the Okie/Texan in my but I didn’t even know until recent years that folks from the Deep South omitted beef from being considered BBQ. In Texas and OK every BBQ place has brisket as one of their biggest sellers. Pork ribs would be a close second.
Doug,
Whole Hog Cafe. That sounds like my kind of place. Of course, I’ve been called that a few times as well. Sigh.
David
Those parts of the pig what don’t become bacon ought to be slow cooked, pulled, smoked, and served on a bun, a bed of nachos, or just straight up.
Whole Hog is a wondrous place. Especially the North Little Rock one, though I daresay that I’ve never hit a bad location. Friendly people–great food–if I lived nearer one, I’d be in dire financial straits.
Smile you when say that :-).
Rob
Roger, “God is the agent of creation, “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth . . . ” [Gen 1:1] ” Yes, but more specifically the second person of the Godhead, Jesus. John 1:3, Colossians 1:16. Would you agree? So when come to the work of Christ, we understand it in a least two areas: His work in Creation and His work on the Cross. Now, think of Christ’s work in Creation from an old earth perspective over millions and billions of years and link that to His work on the Cross. Are there any cross-purposes with… Read more »
I merely note that I observed no YE or OE proponent who has a background in science is willing to exchange their data, experience, and body of knowledge for some modern docetism that bails them out of any and every prickly geological conumdrum.
Hate to say it, but it is inescapable to some here that Adam had to sin to be able to enjoy BBQ. Some have since further and deplorably sinned by putting strange, mustard based sauce on it, thereby disproving totally and absolutely that BBQ is evolving for the better.
Amen!!
Baloney! I have eaten barbecue from Arkansas, Missouri, Texas, South Carolina and North Carolina, to mention a few. All of it is blessedly addictive. I remember eating that strange barbecue in Orangeburg, SC, back in 70. A sauce over the barbecue, hash over the rice, some coleslaw. I utterly disliked it. And everyone served it at every event, practically, cause the producer catered for that small town. By the end of my second year, I was so addicted to what I had disliked that I could stuff myself with it. Once in the past 30 years, I drove a hundred… Read more »
William, You stated: I merely note that I observed no YE or OE proponent who has a background in science is willing to exchange their data, experience, and body of knowledge for some modern docetism that bails them out of any and every prickly geological conumdrum. What in the world are you talking about? Do you even know what docetism is? Who is denying that Christ was incarnated in the same kind of physical body that we all have—and how would that bail anyone out of anything related to this discussion?? The only “prickly geological conundrum” here is the problem… Read more »
Ken, my use of a modifier for “docetism” should have been sufficient to steer you away from the docetism Gnosticism of the early church.
I have said that I appreciate your energy in thinking of these things. Contrary to your attempt to assess my state-of-mind, I am not frustrated at all. I would be interested in your opinion of the SEBTS conference linked above if you have time to listen to it.
Here is my conclusion on the matter: 1. I assume that there is an all-powerful God of the universe who created it. 2. I take that, from His Word, the universe He created was good and perfect. 3. I take, from His Word, that the people, Adam and Eve, in it were good and free to make choices. 4. I take, from His Word, that the people brought sin into the world. This sin brought death. 5. I assume that sin had a greater effect on the nature of a good and perfect universe than I am capable of measuring.… Read more »
And if Jesus provided the wine at a wedding feast you attended, would science be able to tell where the grapes grew and how long they had been fermented and aged?
Careful Ken. Everyone knows that wine wasn’t fermented ;).
Wow! Bill and Ken, you all have opened another whole can of worms. Now you might get to go fishing.
There seems to have evolved 2 different species of theistic evolutionists: 1. Those who reject a historical Adam. 2. Those who affirm a historical (evolved via an animal) Adam. In relation to #2, it seems that the implication is that man is an animal-human in his nature. And that Jesus would also have to share in that same animal-human nature. In other words, it bleeds over into Christology. Accordingly, I wonder if this view is something akin to what the Monophysites did with Christ. They, if I understand Grudem correctly, combined Christ’s Divine and human natures together so that one… Read more »