Does Science Support a Six Day Creation? What Is Science? Parts 1 and 2

“The broad brush, by the way, concerns calling one ‘liberal’; what makes a theological liberal a liberal is, I believe, a denial of bodily resurrection of the Son of God, not a denial of Paul’s authorship of 1-2 Timothy and Titus.” Daniel Wallace link

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap140119.htmlSpiral Galaxies in Collision

This is a rather long post. I start with an introduction as to why I am discussing this subject. I am going to be very busy though the early part of next week with the wedding and out of town guests. I will not post again (but will look at comments) until next week.  At that time, I will continue this discussion and plan to conclude it at the end of next week. In the meantime, Deb will post on unrelated topics. Due to this big gap between this series of five essays, I thought I would start with two. I have separated the two essays with lines. You may choose to read them at once or as separate readings.

Introduction: Why we are doing this series on creation and science

On October 11, 2013, I read an article by Tim Challies in which he made a rather audacious claim with no facts to back it up. At the time, Challies had just finished speaking for Ken Ham's beleaguered Creation Museum link and I figured this article was a quid pro quo. Nevertheless, it bothered me and I discussed it at length with my good friend Jim Farlow whom I call KOATAP (knower of all things astrophysical). I have gone to Jim a number of times through the years to help me understand certain scientific principles. Everyone who finds science a bit daunting needs a "KOATAP " in their life.

Jim then wrote a few essays and sent them to me to help me understand how to answer Challies. I decided to use them around the time that my daughter got married.  Well, lo and behold, last week, Al Mohler made a statement that I believe is both misinformed and unnecessarily accusatory. He demonstrates a lack of understanding in his definition of theistic evolution. Frankly, Dr Francis Collins could run rings around this statement and he is one of the most respected scientists in the world, a theistic evolutionist as well as a devoted Christian. In this statement, Mohler appears out of his league. From Evolution Is Most Certainly a Matter of Belief

On one point, however, Krattenmaker is certainly right: he argues that it is possible to believe in God and to affirm evolution. That is certainly true, and there is no shortage of theistic evolutionists who try to affirm both. But that affirmation requires a rejection of the dominant model of evolution in favor of some argument that God intervened or directed the process. The main problem with that proposal, from the scientific side, is that the theory of evolution as now taught in our major universities explicitly denies that possibility. Theistic evolutionists simply do not present the model of evolution that is supposedly “settled science.”

On the other hand, such a blending of theology and evolution also requires major theological alignments. There can be no doubt that evolution can be squared with belief in some deity, but not the God who revealed himself in the Bible, including the first chapters of Genesis. Krattenmaker asserts that “it is more than possible to accept the validity of evolution and believe in God’s role in creation at the same time.” Well, that is true with respect to some concept of God and some concept of creation and some version of evolution, but not the dominant theory of evolution and not the God who created the entire cosmos as the theater of his glory, and who created human beings as the distinct creature alone made in his image.

I know that CJ Mahaney says that Al Mohler is the smartest man on the planet and all, but Mohler is not a scientist. (Quick aside-why does Mohler allow the over-the-top, almost creepy adulation from Mahaney? See the latest from Thou Art the Man.)

I have decided that, whenever these guys make such statements, I will provide alternatives from deeply committed Christians who are either evolutionary creationists (preferred by some to theistic evolutionist) or old earth proponents. This blog is blessed to have two such folks-Old JohnJ and Jim. So, if you tire of our continued push on this subject, tell the high profile guys to zip their lips and we will as well. I will especially jump on the bandwagon when I find influential Christians questioning the faith of those who believe otherwise. I believe that both Al Mohler and Ken Ham have done so.

Once again, I wish to stress that I have no problem when people defend their belief in a young earth by appealing to belief in a literal Genesis. However, the moment they jump into science, then it is with science we MUST debate!


Part 1: Does Science Support a Six Day Creation

I read through Tim Challies article Why I Am a Six Day Creationist posted on October 11, 2013. He lists several reasons for his belief, but perhaps the most ostentatious is this:

SCIENCE CONFIRMS IT

The third reason I am a six-day creationist is that I believe this is what science tells us. I believe science confirms a literal six-day creation and a young earth. I find the science demanding millions or billions of years less compelling than the science supporting a much less ancient universe. Even though so many people today scoff at even the suggestion that the world may be young, I find the old-earth science built upon very shaky and ever-shifting ground.

When Mr. Challies says this, he is effectively undermining his entire argument. Why? Because science does not tell us the creation was created in six literal days as humans measure them, nor does it indicate the Earth is ‘young’ (which typically means <10,000 years to a Young Earth Creationist). In point of fact, the only self-consistent conclusion one can draw from the data using the scientific method and our current knowledge of physics, chemistry, mathematics, and astronomy is that the universe is over 13 billion years old and the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old. And this is in fact the almost universal consensus of those that are educated in and do research in these fields.

To be fair, Mr. Challies is not alone in his claim. There are several organizations and individuals that attempt to paint the mainstream scientific conclusions as biased results which ignore critical evidence. Indeed, it is very likely Mr. Challies bases his statement upon the information they provide and the arguments they make.

So, what in fact does ‘science’ say about the age of the Earth or the age of the universe? To evaluate that is a very non-trivial action. And it is in fact a topic that is way beyond the scope of this short comment on Mr. Challies claims. But it is very important to note that Science and Mathematics in the 21st century are a massive collection of knowledge and data that requires even the most powerful minds on the Earth decades to master. Indeed, to master just one field like physics at a level in which one is competent to do research may require a minimum of 8 years of post high school education in the most complex areas of both mathematics and physics itself. These subjects include abstract concepts that most of the population could not even begin to understand, regardless of how long they tried.

And yet, Mr. Challies (and a whole host of others) will read, in my opinion, a few 8th grade reading level articles from AIG (Answers in Genesis) and think they can then pass judgment on the conclusions of centuries of painful, tedious research from the greatest minds who have ever lived.

So, what does Mr. Challies bring to the table to evaluate how ‘compelling’ the scientific arguments are for the age of the Earth or the universe? What does he bring to the table that lends credulity to his claims to have actually in some sense or another evaluated the science and concluded it is lacking?

To quote Mr. Challies himself:

"I am a self-employed computer guy from Canada with no seminary or Bible college education. I have nothing more than a bachelor’s degree in history and one I really only barely deserved, and I earned it from a college people only know of because Clark Pinnock taught there. I attend a church no one has heard of and, until recently, had never met any well-known Christian leaders or speakers. So while I am supremely unqualified, people continue to visit the site. When they do so, they read book reviews, they read personal reflections, and they read what I attempt to teach or share on the subject of theology. I often feel like I’m in over my head."  

And so, in fact, Mr. Challies is uniquely unqualified to evaluate how compelling the scientific arguments are.

And yet, he has an audience. An audience that likes what he has to say and for one reason or another places a certain amount of trust in what he says.

And so he chooses to take advantage of their trust and tell them that Science says the Earth is <10,000 years old.  A subject in which by his own admission he has no applicable formal education – only a history degree. How can any educated man of integrity with no formal education in a subject stand up and with a straight face say that centuries of research are completely wrong!

And why? Why would a man with little training in science use his position as a respected Christian blogger to lend support to a claim he is wholly unqualified to comment on? How can a man of honesty and integrity say such a thing when he has not one iota of capacity to judge if that claim is in fact true?

Tim Challies is not alone. There is a whole plethora if bloggers and ministers and individuals that blindly promulgate the idea that one can make a viable scientific case for a <10,000 year old age for the Earth. A claim that has overtaken Evangelical Christianity and which finds its source in a few misguided individuals. A myth that functions as a glass crutch for faith and that fails any real inspection of the facts. To those that never venture out of the YEC pseudoscience bubble, it feels safe. But woe to any who actually learn the math and science that is pertinent to this discussion.

And that is the real tragedy behind what Mr. Challies has said. It is in fact a lie. A falsehood. Science simply does not support his position.

In Part II, I will examine what science is, and in subsequent essays I will explore what it actually says about the age of the Earth and the Universe.


Part 2: What Is Science?

In this second part, I’d like to explore what science is, and address what is to be gained by Tom Challies this previously quoted statement.

From the Tim Challies article Why I Am a Six Day Creationist posted on October 11, 2013:

SCIENCE CONFIRMS IT

The third reason I am a six-day creationist is that I believe this is what science tells us. I believe science confirms a literal six-day creation and a young earth. I find the science demanding millions or billions of years less compelling than the science supporting a much less ancient universe. Even though so many people today scoff at even the suggestion that the world may be young, I find the old-earth science built upon very shaky and ever-shifting ground.

What is Science?

Why would what science has to say about a young Earth be important to start with? Why would it be important enough to be part of justification for that belief? But first, let’s make a few statements about what Science is not. Science is not (necessarily) Truth. When a scientific conclusion is supported or even when it becomes rigorously supported and gets labeled a Theory, or even when it becomes so ubiquitous and pervasive that is moves to be considered absolute fact, it is in fact not the same as ‘reality’ or ‘truth’. So the first thing we must recognize is that in the ultimate sense, the fact an idea is supported by science does not mean it is necessarily true. And, in an ultimate sense, the fact an idea is not supported by science does not necessarily mean it is false (It does, however, mean it is very unlikely to be true).

Science, in fact, is really two things.

  • The first is a systematic method used to investigate and gain understanding about the physical world.
  • The second is a set of Ideas that have been subjected to the scientific method and found by scientists (people trained in the scientific method and areas of scientific study) to have been validated by that method.

So why would science be something Tim Challies would look to for support of his belief in a young Earth? Why would he even make the statement at all?

The reason is that science and the scientific method has proven itself to be a very, very reliable way of uncovering, if not the truth about creation, at least something so close to the truth that it is very hard to tell the difference. We can and do use those conclusions to manipulate our world reliably and to understand its workings in a way that allows us to predict its behavior. That is, the discoveries of science have allowed us to cure diseases, build airplanes and spaceships, explore other planets, create computers and televisions, predict the weather, understand volcanoes and earthquakes, and so on ad infinitum.  As a result, our overall trust of the conclusions of science is very, very high. And when someone can say science supports their conclusion, they gain an immediate endorsement of the highest quality.

What is the scientific method?

In a nutshell, the scientific method begins with observations about some aspect of nature. We may observe rain falling, or a comet in the night sky, or an odd behavior in an electrical circuit. From those observations, we derive a hypothesis that proposes a reason for the observations we’ve gathered. To be clear, this hypothesis is no mere presumption or arbitrary conjecture, it is first and foremost derived from our initial data set.

Once the hypothesis is made, a set of tests is proposed to challenge the hypothesis. If these tests are conducted and produce results consistent with the hypothesis, then it can be retained and lives to fight another day. If not, the hypothesis must be discarded and a new hypothesis is generated that explains both the initial set of observations AND the new data gathered by experiment.

The process then repeats, potentially forever, with each new hypothesis explaining a larger and larger set of data and observations. Eventually, a hypothesis tends to reach a place where new tests simply confirm over and over again the same hypothesis without further revision, or with only trivial revision (perhaps better termed clarification). Once this occurs, a hypothesis tends to move into the realm of Theory or even eventually may become regarded as Scientific Fact.

In the end, however, any scientific conclusion is always subject to refinement or even refutation if data can be found that denies the existing theory, or even ‘fact’ as it were. So it is possible, even if the current scientific consensus is that the universe is 13 billion years old and the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, that one day we may discover evidence for some other conclusion.

But any such new theory would need to do two things. It must explain:

  1. ALL the currently known data AND
  2. whatever new data has caused the upset.

It will not be some isolated conjecture that is based on some odd piece of data whose fit into the current set of theories is a mystery and that fails to address the massive set of data already used to derive the current set of theories.

The implications of Tim Challies statement "Science has confirmed it."

So then, to conclude my second essay, for Tim Challies to say “Science supports a six day creation and young earth”, he seems to be saying that the current set of scientific theories that have survived the rigorous scientific process of testing and validation point to that conclusion. That is the implication of “Science Confirms it”.  Yet they, in point of fact, do not. Any review of the current research in the area will show no such support.

In his expansion of the statement Mr. Challies recognizes the distinction by saying he means not science as I have originally defined it, or as it is defined by the entirety of the scientific community, but rather science according to his own personal definition and evaluation – which is in fact quite simply nothing more than Mr Challies unfounded, unqualified, personal opinion.

So, again, we can conclude something very disquieting about this short little paragraph in Mr. Challies discussion of his belief. Mr Challies has invoked an element that has great public trust on his behalf without any real justification for that act and in effect dressed his own opinion up as something far more valuable and having far more authority.

Unfortunately this kind of thing is typically known by another name: deception or false pretense. And, not to put too fine a point on it, this same kind of thing, if practiced by a scientist as relates to his research, would, if discovered, end his career.

TWW will present the remaining 3 essays next week. 

Lydia's Corner: Isaiah 62:6-65:25 Philippians 2:19-3:3 Psalm 73:1-28 Proverbs 24:13-14

Comments

Does Science Support a Six Day Creation? What Is Science? Parts 1 and 2 — 619 Comments

  1. Great article, I enjoyed it thoroughly and look forward to the next 4. Have a wonderful wedding!

  2. “but rather science according to his own personal definition and evaluation – which is in fact quite simply nothing more than Mr Challies unfounded, unqualified, personal opinion.”

    This is a common problem with YECs and creationists: attempting to re-define scientific terms. Also known as lying.

  3. Excellent exposition, in short form, of the nature of the scientific enterprise. One other piece may help some to understand: When constructing the tests of hypotheses, it is considered contrary to the ethos to design one’s test so that it is more likely to support one’s pet hypothesis versus the alternative(s). And when there is a variance in the result from a test versus the generally accepted understanding, scientists will examine the test and the results, and will attempt to replicate and to vary the conditions to see if the same thing or a different thing results. It is the validation of results by replication by different (and frequently skeptical) scientists in different laboratories that lends credence over time to the findings.

  4. nmgirl wrote:

    “but rather science according to his own personal definition and evaluation – which is in fact quite simply nothing more than Mr Challies unfounded, unqualified, personal opinion.”
    This is a common problem with YECs and creationists: attempting to re-define scientific terms. Also known as lying.

    That’s what it seems like to me – redefining terms/lying.

    The questions I would have is why the necessity to lie? Why not state that “this is my opinion?”

    Sometimes it appears that leaders in Christianity possibly believe that they need to help God along in his redemptive plan. What other reason is there for redefining science? Is God not able to redeem people that believe in an old earth? Maybe it shakes up their own beliefs in God (who seems to be confused with a certain book) to the extent that they need to create a separate reality, as in a different definition for “science.” It makes me think that their God is small instead of the creator of the universe(s).

  5. Maybe you could get your KOATAP friends to write up a nice little post-game analysis of the Ken Ham v. Bill Nye debate on Feb 4. I would so appreciate a nice link I can use on my homeschool forum.

  6. Arce wrote:

    Excellent exposition, in short form, of the nature of the scientific enterprise. One other piece may help some to understand: When constructing the tests of hypotheses, it is considered contrary to the ethos to design one’s test so that it is more likely to support one’s pet hypothesis versus the alternative(s). And when there is a variance in the result from a test versus the generally accepted understanding, scientists will examine the test and the results, and will attempt to replicate and to vary the conditions to see if the same thing or a different thing results. It is the validation of results by replication by different (and frequently skeptical) scientists in different laboratories that lends credence over time to the findings.

    Excellent point. It is HARD to get a new theory accepted unless it has significant explanatory power and can survive rigorous criticism. The age of the universe and the Earth or theories on the origins and history of life all the more so in that these areas have tended to challenge common cultural and historical/religious notions of how things ‘ought’ to be.

    Zeta

  7. I gotta say, I feel bad for YECs. I can’t imagine a life where you can’t enjoy going to a planetarium, or visiting the grand canyon, or going caving, or glacier hiking, all because the tour guide will tell this totally offensive concept of old earth. Maybe i’m a heathen but being “right” about every little detail of faith is not that important to me. I find a lot of joy in learning about natural history and celebrating creation in that way.

  8. As Mark Noll, the author of the Scandal of the Evangelical Mind, writes:

    The scandal of the evangelical mind is that there is not much of an evangelical mind.

    We Evangelicals are already seeing a division in our ranks: the brainless Evangelicals vs. the thinking Evangelicals. I’m so sorry to see a man of Challies reputation coming down on the anti-intellectual side. It makes it so hard for the rest of us to be taken seriously as we seek to have dialogs with the non-Christians in our professions.

    Maybe Challies needs to be aware of the American Scientific Affiliation, a group of people (mostly Christians) who have grad or undergrad degrees in science and who assent to the statement of faith. They don’t advocate the 6-day viewpoint.

  9. Dee, does every new scientific theory really need to explain “ALL the currently known data…” This doesn’t seem accurate.

    And instead of choosing to take on Tim Challies or Al Mohler, who are not scientists, why don’t you invite participation from someone like Jason Lisle who has a PhD in astrophysics. He can interact with your more conventional experts and then the readers can judge based on people with similar educational backgrounds. Wouldn’t that be a more enlightening discussion?

  10. Wayne wrote:

    Jason Lisle who has a PhD in astrophysics.

    You seem to think that the odd scientist out is the one “who really knows what is going on.” In case you are not aware, Lisle did not do a post doc in which he established himself in the scientific community. He raced directly into Ken Ham’s arms. Unfortunately, the vast majority of Christian scientists do believe in an old earth and you can confirm this through the American Scientific Affiliation.

    I once knew a Mormon who was a graduate of the Naval Academy and a trained engineer. I showed him a quote by Brigham Young who claimed that there are people dressed like the Smith living on the moon. He was forced to believe that even though he knew it wasn’t true.

    For any theory, one can always drag out the outliers. But, as Jim said, you do not base scientific theory on the outliers. Lisle along with Wise and the few others are the outliers. Look carefully at the list on Ham’s site. You are, in general, not dealing with the best and the brightest. So, no, it would not be enlightening. Lisle is behind the embarrassing works that pose as “science” at AIG.

    This is a game of “See, see we have a doctor sort who agrees with us so that must mean that it is all OK.” It’s not.

    And I get to quote Mohler and Challies because they were the ones who opened their mouths and made those foolish statements in a very public manner.

  11. @ Wayne:
    PS I listened to the whole debate between of Kaiser and Ross versus Lisle and Ham. Guess who lost. It was so one sided that Ham had to come out and accuse the debate moderator of bias and then reproduce his own version of the debate with all of his explanations on the matter. Lisle was noticeably silent in the debate. Ross owned him.

  12. Wonderful topic, thanks so much for diving into these dangerous waters.

    My father was an adamant YEC type, so I am familiar with the concept, though I could never reconcile it with what little I knew of astronomy. YEC seemed to take a massive, ancient universe and reduce it to something far more finite and limited. And I knew that C.S. Lewis had some controversial views on evolution, so there must be some middle ground between theistic YEC and atheistic evolution. A way in which the age and size of our universe could still say something about the God who created it.

    I do appreciate the insights of Dr. Hugh Ross — There are some debates between him and Ken Ham on YouTube. And I’m still processing this concept from Greg Boyd, that what we see as the blind process of evolution is actually the outworking of the ongoing cosmic war over planet Earth which predated Eden and the Fall.

    http://gregboyd.blogspot.com/2008/04/evolution-as-cosmic-warfare.html

  13. @ Gary:
    I had not seen that article by Boyd. I will try to read it in a bit. I had the pleasure of eating lunch with Dr Ross last year. He is a delightful man. He actually lived the scientific life. He established a post doc lab and was well published unlike some of the “I’ve got my PhD, too” types.

  14. Wayne wrote:

    Dee, does every new scientific theory really need to explain “ALL the currently known data…” This doesn’t seem accurate.
    And instead of choosing to take on Tim Challies or Al Mohler, who are not scientists, why don’t you invite participation from someone like Jason Lisle who has a PhD in astrophysics. He can interact with your more conventional experts and then the readers can judge based on people with similar educational backgrounds. Wouldn’t that be a more enlightening discussion?

    If you were to use a hyper-literal reading of ‘all’, you would be correct. I had a choice between something like majority (which tends to get translated as 55% or 65%) or ‘all’, or to get a bit more wordy in an already long train of thought. Measurement error itself means a theory can’t necessarily explain ‘all’ data, as some of it is simply bad or noisy or erroneous measurement. Generally, a good theory will account for the vast majority of the known data. But there are all kinds of caveats to this that don’t lend themselves to black and white or simplistic thinking.

    For example, consider Einstein’s theory of Relativity. Here is a theory that in point of fact has NEVER been found to be incorrect in its predictions of macro scale phenomena. That is, it’s predictions about time dilation, the behavior of mass in gravitational fields, mass increase – all have been validated time and time again by experiment after experiment. One recent experiment was able to validate the predictions of the theory as regard time dilation at speeds of only meters per second! And yet – we know the theory fails or is in some sense incomplete. Because it cannot account for what we see at the quantum scale (sub atomic distances).

    But the point is, whatever replaces Einsteins theory will still produce the same results for all the tests that have been done (or to the limits of measurement accuracy when the test was performed). So we can tell Einsteins successor from a phony just by asking if it can account for what we already know.

    Another element of a good theory is that it can be found to predict what was not already known. And here I’ll toss in a curious little fact about our own planet’s magnetic field generation. The current theory is that the field is created by the dynamic interaction of the flows of molten iron in the core and currents in the magma (a magnetic dynamo). Not too long ago computer simulations of that process were done which managed to predict to a fair degree of accuracy the known time intervals over which the dynamo would tend to swap polarity. (The Sun also has a magnetic dynamo driving its magnetic field and it’s field also swaps quite regularly and drives the sunspot cycle) However, that simulation also predicted that the Earth’s core would rotate at a different velocity from the mantle/crust. And like good scientists should, seismic data was carefully analyzed to see if there might indeed be such a differential, and it turns out, there was/is.

    One of the most difficult problems for YEC attempts at forcing science to behave according to their wishes is that there are so MANY different directions from which the data can point, and like a large puzzle, there really are only a very limited number of ways all the pieces can fit together and form a single, intelligible picture. And as more is learned, typically, the number gets smaller and smaller.

    In the case of the age of the universe and this planet, there is simply no coherent synthesis of ‘all’ the data that yields <10,000 years. But I'm stealing my own thunder (so to speak).

    As for debates. I'm open to it, and got into it a bit once on another site with Baumgardner over Lake Suigetsu. After I pointed out too many problems with his attempts at explaining away the rather obvious implications of that data, he dropped back into direct attacks on the legitimacy of my faith – a typical fallback that is used rather frequently on that side.

    But we've got quite the big deal public debate on this already in the pipes – let's see how that comes out 🙂

    Zeta (Jim)

  15. Dee, I never said the “odd scientist out” is the one who knows what’s really going on. You completely read that into my statement. I think both sides make interesting points, and would rather let them speak for themselves. You have a bias, which is fine. Unfortunately, I think you are doing exactly what Challies is doing. The amateur is telling us “Guess who won.” If Mohler said that, you would say he was an unqualified judge. It’s your blog, and so you may choose to be the amateur authority for your readers, and the determiner of who one a debate. I was simply suggesting sponsoring one. If Lisle is so weak, it will manifest itself. If not, maybe the issue is more complex than you will admit.

  16. Mohler writes : “The main problem with that proposal, from the scientific side, is that the theory of evolution as now taught in our major universities explicitly denies that possibility [that God directed the process].”

    I don’t doubt that there are many atheistic professors who draw this conclusion and teach this. However, I don’t recall that this has to be conclusion based on the actual theory itself. Anyone more educated than me care to comment on this?

  17. Wayne wrote:

    instead of choosing to take on Tim Challies or Al Mohler, who are not scientists, why don’t you invite participation from someone like Jason Lisle who has a PhD in astrophysics

    Wayne, it doesn’t matter, it amounts to the same thing. Yes, there are a number of individuals with Ph.D.’s that are YECs and some of them actually earned their degree in a field that is relevant to the discussion such as Steve Austin, Kurt Wise, and others. But when they argue for a young earth and/or anti-evolution position using scientific language, they are no more practicing science than I would be if I argued for an old earth.

    The reason is that they all are simply putting their own creationist spin on the scientific literature. NOT ONE of them has the guts to stand up at a mainstream science conference or publish an article in a mainstream science journal in support of a young earth. What they are, in fact, are merely hecklers rather than participants in the scientific debate on the age of the earth and how it was formed.

    The consensus of mainstream science on the earth’s age and formation and of evolution are dependent on the findings of many different areas of science. To name just a few:

    •Paleontology – analyzing the fossil record and determining patterns of evolution

    •Geology – analyzing the makeup of the earth and determining how and when the various land and sea forms were created along with the relative ages of the fossils found in various geological strata

    •Zoology and anatomy – analyzing the structures of animal life to determine the extent to which they are related and unrelated and how they function

    •Genetics – examining the DNA of various species to determine the degree to which they are genetically related, giving clues to how far back they may have had common ancestors

    •Embryology – studying the development of embryos of various species can reveal evolutionary development and degree of similarity among species (for example, the development of bird, human, and other mammal embryos looks very similar early on but then diverge at various points along the way)

    •Astronomy – knowing the distance of a star from earth and the speed of light, we can determine how far back in time the image of the star id from

    •Atomic physics – determining the rate of decay of various atomic particles to determine the age of rock formations and organic materials

    In none of these areas have YEC Ph.D’s participated in the mainstream science discussions. Take Jason Lisle, for example. Mainstream science says we know how far distant stars are from earth and we know the speed of light, so that we know that what we are seeing now of distant stars is what happened millions and billions of years ago depending on the distance. Lisle presents no scientific data to show that this is not true, he simply says something like ‘Well, God created the universe with the light already reaching earth’ or something like that. That’s not science, and it’s no more scientific than listening to Tim Challies on the subject.

  18. I’m so glad you did this! I’ve often felt like the heretic among my Christian friends, especially when I tell them that I teach Science in a public school.

  19. Erik wrote:

    I’m so glad you did this! I’ve often felt like the heretic among my Christian friends, especially when I tell them that I teach Science in a public school.

    I understand this. My best male friend is a HS science teacher. ( go figure, I taught HS 30+ yrs.) he is a devout Christian, and he just laughs at the YEC crowd. He said it is like they just “make stuff up” and believe if they say it enough, with no facts that make are scientific, really scientific in nature, or if they say people are going to hell for believing old earth, enough people will believe them….

  20. @ JeffT:

    Jeff, I’m pretty sure you haven’t read Lisle. That’s not what he says.

    Obviously, science and YEC start at two different points. YEC believes the Scripture is true. They don’t hide that. It is their foundation. They don’t claim to explain everything, or to have solved all the problems, nor do they have to. They only need to show that there are genuine uncertainties about the prevailing theories…puzzle pieces that don’t fit and seemingly can’t be made to fit.

    It’s the I.D. people who approaching these issues from a pure science basis. I think Stephen Meyer and his associates have cast serious doubt on descent from a common ancestor. It’s intriguing. His latest work is outstanding in my view. He is an old-earth guy, but even he says the YEC have good scientists on their team. He doesn’t seem compelled to defeat those who disagree, or belittle them, he weighs what they have to say…you know, like a thinking person. He doesn’t seem upset by YEC people. He gets where they are starting from.

    The YEC folks have, in my untrained opinion, made good points that not all measures for the age of the earth point to the same age. That’s all they have to do. Science has to start from observable evidence and make the best conclusion it can. Starlight is an obvious one. But if a legitimate theory is offered to explain how a universe in which God intervenes is plausible according to the known facts, that’s of interest to me. I believe that God made the universe, and that He can intervene whenever He wishes. If science excludes that possibility from the outset as “not science” then they will likely come to a wrong conclusion. They are making the best conclusion they can from a naturalistic starting point.

  21. @ Wayne:

    I will admit to having only a passing knowledge of Lisle’s arguments. Here’s one discussion of them that I found:

    Lisle then argues that the Genesis 1 creation account suggests that God used the ASC in His miraculous work during the creation week. For example, all the stars created on the fourth day would need to be visible from Earth’s surface in order to perform their function (to serve as signs for seasons––Gen. 1:14). Choosing the ASC would mean the light from these stars arrived instantaneously on day four.

    The page I found this at is here:

    http://www.reasons.org/articles/an-infinite-speed-of-light

    If I have missed something I stand corrected.

    At any rate, it really doesn’t matter. As I said, neither Lisle nor any other YEC Ph.D. is willing to stand stand before a mainstream scientific conference or submit an article to a mainstream scientific journal arguing his case? Why should I give that any scientific credibility?

    So long as YECs refuse to participate in mainstream science to argue their viewpoint, their claims are not science. Science depends on open debate within the scientific community in order that claims can be tested and survive scrutiny by other scientists in the field until a consensus is reached. To refuse to do that is merely offering an opinion that deserves no more scientific credibility than any man on the street.

  22. dee wrote:

    @ Gary:
    I had the pleasure of eating lunch with Dr Ross last year. He is a delightful man. He actually lived the scientific life. He established a post doc lab and was well published unlike some of the “I’ve got my PhD, too” types.

    Dee, I am officially jealous. Dr Ross strikes me as a crazy-smart, congenial, completely secure grandfather type. And well-grounded in the faith and apologetics. (Ham strikes me as a crazy uncle who talks constantly.)

    My concern is that if YEC is too closely associated with mainstream Christianity, it would make it almost impossible for scientistific types to come to faith, since they are told that they have to believe (our interpretation of) the Bible regarding first things before they can accept all those Jesus stories. Which means they would have to deny most of what they know about science before they could come to faith. And it reinforces the modern mindset that faith and science are incompatible.

    I have read the stories of students who came to a point in college where they felt they had to choose between their faith and their scientific calling, because the only form of faith they knew was this extremely rigid version. Tragic. That was probably in Gabe Lyon’s book “You Left Me.”

  23. Wayne wrote:

    If Lisle is so weak, it will manifest itself. If not, maybe the issue is more complex than you will admit.

    Lisle is truly a nobody in the scientific community. He, and Ham will not submit their “science” to peer review.” Therefore, they are illegitimate and will always be sidelined.

  24. Wayne wrote:

    The YEC folks have, in my untrained opinion, made good points that not all measures for the age of the earth point to the same age. That’s all they have to do.

    Give us the studies. And, no, that is not all they have to do. And, do you know what the discrepancy rate is on the age of the earth? Is it millions, billions? To say there is a disagreement on 50,000 years is not significant when one is dealing with a 4.5 billion year earth.

  25. JeffT wrote:

    NOT ONE of them has the guts to stand up at a mainstream science conference or publish an article in a mainstream science journal in support of a young earth. What they are, in fact, are merely hecklers rather than participants in the scientific debate on the age of the earth and how it was formed.

    So, so true. They try to pretend that they will be discriminated against. My husband, who did have his work peer reviewed has often said that, if one could truly prove the earth was young, he would win the Nobel Prize.

    Think of it this way. A long time ago, Christians were all up in arms over the big bang theory. They missed the fact that the theory actually proves a beginning to this world. The proof for big bang totally screwed up the scientists who banked on the universe having no beginning. The preachers preached against it until slowly, they began to realize that the big bang proves that God spoke and the heavens leapt into existence.

  26. When having an evolution debate with a pastor, he told me, “You don’t get to use your personal beliefs and experiences to interpret the Bible. That’s the first thing you learn about biblical exegesis.” And I say: how profoundly numb. If you know something to be true (the scientific support of old earth and evolution), and the Bible appears to be saying that it’s not, perhaps your interpretation is wrong? It seems that both Challies and Mohler have missed that. They think the only two options are 1.) you agree with conventional science and therefore disbelieve the bible and hate sweet baby Jesus, or 2.) you continue to be uninformed and ignorant while spouting off about what the Bible “clearly” says.

  27. Gary wrote:
    My concern is that if YEC is too closely associated with mainstream Christianity, it would make it almost impossible for scientistific types to come to faith, since they are told that they have to believe (our interpretation of) the Bible regarding first things before they can accept all those Jesus stories. Which means they would have to deny most of what they know about science before they could come to faith. And it reinforces the modern mindset that faith and science are incompatible.
    I have read the stories of students who came to a point in college where they felt they had to choose between their faith and their scientific calling, because the only form of faith they knew was this extremely rigid version.

    I would say YEC is already very associated with mainstream American Christianity. Quite a lot of time ends up going the YEC route in many atheist/Christian discussions that I follow. I’m a member of a few forums and follow many blogs, though of course there is probably loads of biased experience on my part, since I don’t encounter the same sort of discussions much anywhere else. As to leaving the faith due to YEC strictness and dogma, I know it was a huge aspect of my personal apostasy, and I think my experience was pretty par for the course there. The elevation of what are secondary issues to primary doctrine is just so weird the longer I’m out of that culture. I probably wouldn’t have gone down as many of the questioning routes that I took or would have been more able to balance my faith with my observations and reasoning of the world as it is.

    Though, have good heart. Blogs like this, or Slactivist, Rachel Held Evans are doing a good job disassociating some of the more outliers from being associated with American Christianity. For example, no one takes Westboro Baptist as any sort of serious example of Christian thought, in large part because they’ve been denounced by a clear majority of Christians. So that association may not always be the case.

  28. Moxie wrote:

    how profoundly numb.

    Well said. Thanks for the laugh. I can always tell when people have been through an AIG seminar. They use the “drive by” slogans. “My grandmother looks old and she is only 93,” “Real YE scientists cannot get a fair shake due to a conspiracy and that is why we will not peer review our stuff”, “You are biased” etc. Boring…

  29. Moxie wrote:

    1.) you agree with conventional science and therefore disbelieve the bible and hate sweet baby Jesus, o

    You are truly funny!

  30. Albuquerque Blue wrote:

    As to leaving the faith due to YEC strictness and dogma, I know it was a huge aspect of my personal apostasy, and I think my experience was pretty par for the course there

    I know that to be the case for many and it saddens me. I learned about this while reading, for years, ExChristins.Net. For me, this has become an issue that affects many. When I see people leave the faith over this, I get really mad. And, for the ones out there who Ham has trained to say “That’s not the reason they left the faith, That’s just an excuse.” Spend time reading on your own and stop being fed “talking points.”

  31. Erik wrote:

    I’ve often felt like the heretic among my Christian friends, especially when I tell them that I teach Science in a public school.

    How blessed those children are to have you as their teacher. I fear the true heretics are those who say that one cannot be a Christian and believe in evolution.

  32. @ dee:

    It doesn’t help your case to pretend there are no efforts in the scientific community to disallow creationist or even I.D. researchers to publish in mainstream journals. Look at the Meyer/Sternberg case. Some have published in the scientific literature, of course, before becoming connected publicly with I.D. or YEC, like Georgia Purdom. (I would like to see an exchange with her and Dr. Collins. Why not arrange it?)

    I remember Baumgardner from his secular achievements long before I ever heard of any subsequent association with Creationists. Anyway, I think he’s pretty well published in his field. Would he be now? I suspect not.

    As I said, YEC and “mainstream science” start in different places. As the evolution champion Edward Larson wrote back in 2004: “Even if God specifically created the first humans in a one-time event, that could not be a naturalistic explanation for our existence. It might be true, but it cannot be science. It’s supernatural, not natural.” That says it all, doesn’t it? If God is invoked in any way, even if it’s true, science would not recognize it. He plainly says science would be against the truth if God is true.

  33. Wayne wrote:

    He plainly says science would be against the truth if God is true.

    No. That’s not what that quote is saying.

  34. I like your analysis of their statements in regards to science.

    @Brian
    I did my undergrad in bio I spent a lot of class time learning about the philosophy of science. I hope I can do your question justice. The scientific method and scientific theories are in general developed within the framework of philosophical naturalism (the entirety of our existence lies within the natural realm/there is no supernatural or spiritual reality) or methodological naturalism (the physical realm can be studied and explained by appealing only to natural and not supernatural processes). Someone else could define that better, but basically most Christians who engage in science hold to a form methodological naturalism and atheists hold to philosophical naturalism.

    This means atheists can point to evolution and say “see everything is self contained we don’t need God”. And Christians -who have historically helped develop the scientific method- can say “our wise and powerful God is not a whimsical cranky god (like the Greek gods) but instead created order in the universe so that we may know and learn.”

    In this way science does not address supernatural phenomenon such as miracles or the existence of God. YEC and and intelligent design people both want to change the scientific process so that it can address supernatural and natural realities and this is a big part of the animosity between the range of opinions on earth’s beginnings.

  35. nmgirl wrote:

    “but rather science according to his own personal definition and evaluation – which is in fact quite simply nothing more than Mr Challies unfounded, unqualified, personal opinion.”

    This is a common problem with YECs and creationists: attempting to re-define scientific terms. Also known as lying.

    There seems to be a weird pride about ignorance & lack of scholarship amongst some of these people, as though learning corrupts rather than enlightens you. Is this a cultural thing from somewhere because I can’t figure it out?

  36. I am reading an interesting book: “Five Views on Biblical Inerrancy” Zondervan 2013. It is part of their Counterpoint Series. In an essay entitled “When the Bible Speaks, God Speaks: The Classic Doctrine of Biblical Inerrancy” the essayist makes the following statement as to why he feels free to reject archaeological findings if he thinks they do not substantiate what the Bible says. He is specifically talking about the fall of Jericho

    “The point is that I do not allow any line of evidence from outside the Bible to nullify to the slightest degree the truthfulness of any text in all that the text asserts or claims.” R. Albert Mohler Jr. p51

    That is a statement of faith, not an argument Why would he say this? Earlier in the same essay he said “I will make my position plain. I do not believe that evangelicalism can survive without the explicit and complete assertion of biblical inerrancy.” (p31)

    For those who believe this it seems to be a matter of survival of their whole system which they see at stake. It is useless to present evidence to people who plainly state that they will not accept any evidence that does not fit with their understanding of biblical inerrancy.

  37. Moxie wrote:

    Wayne wrote:
    He plainly says science would be against the truth if God is true.
    No. That’s not what that quote is saying.

    You’re right, Moxie. He is saying if the biblical account of creation is literally true, science would never acknowledge it.

  38. dee wrote:

    Wayne wrote:
    You have a bias, which is fine.
    Yep-I do. Just like I am biased that 1+1=2.

    This is so incredibly clever, I am completely undone by it!

  39. Wayne wrote:

    It doesn’t help your case to pretend there are no efforts in the scientific community to disallow creationist or even I.D. researchers to publish in mainstream journals

    You insult a group of scientists who are not monolithic. There are many believers in the science community along with devout Jews. Hindus and deists are plentiful. And yes, some are atheists. Yet not all the atheists are averse to proof of a young earth via the scientific method.Their acceptance of the Big Bang Theory is proof of that fact. That theory was devastating to hardcore atheists.

    This is another typical Ham argument. There is a vast scientific conspiracy to prevent the “truth” from getting out. That is absolute hogwash. There are zealots on both sides of the argument. Christians who denigrate good scientists and atheists who denigrate Christians. In the middle are a vast multitude of scientists who go where the research brings them.

    You insult men like my husband who was the Young Investigator of the Year for the American College of Cardiology and who is a believer in an Old Earth.Sure- he is involved in the conspiracy as well. or he is just plain stupid and just didn’t see the stealth tactics around him.

    Once the “conspiracy” card gets played, all reasonable discussion ends. Who can disprove a conspiracy? So that is what people who cannot appeal to peer reviewed data use to stop discussion of the facts. It is like Hilary Clinton who said the case against her husband was due to a vast right wing conspiracy. That showed her desperation.

  40. Nancy wrote:

    “The point is that I do not allow any line of evidence from outside the Bible to nullify to the slightest degree the truthfulness of any text in all that the text asserts or claims.” R. Albert Mohler Jr. p51

    Just as the “sun revolves around the earth” folks claimed. He will not, for a minute, consider that his interpretation on anything may be incorrect.

  41. @ Gary: with respect to Boyd, he is WAY out of his depth here. (Though to be fair, I also think his ideas about an ongoing cosmic battle are seriously flawed – they certainly aren’t new; he’s rehashing stuff that has been around in many charismatic circles for about 30 years.)

    Apart from anything else, I don’t see where or how Boyd has any scientific background.

  42. Wayne wrote:

    Moxie wrote:
    Wayne wrote:
    He plainly says science would be against the truth if God is true.
    No. That’s not what that quote is saying.
    You’re right, Moxie. He is saying if the biblical account of creation is literally true, science would never acknowledge it.

    No. He’s saying that it would go beyond the scope of science (supernatural, not natural). My PhD is in molecular genetics and I have heard similar phrasing elsewhere. It is common for scientists who are not religious to say these sorts of things. It’s quite charitable of them actually. Leave it to Christians to get hyper offended over everything.

  43. @ Gary: the thing is, the kind of xtianity you’re talking about is a primarily white, American thing, held by certain segments of the evangelical church.

    It’s a non-issue in Catholic and high church Protestant circles. And I really do mean “non-issue.”

  44. @ Beakerj: yep, it’s definitely a cultural thing in these sectors of American evangelicalism. Mark Noll’s The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind is an excellent starting place for the history, etc.

  45. @ Beakerj: and it’s pretty much the same mentality as the following: “well, my high school didn’t have a swimming pool or new chemistry labs, or even science textbooks that mentioned the space program, so if I got along fine, why do my kids need any of that?”

    Unfortunately, I’m not making this up. It was one of the chief arguments used against the building of a new high school in my home town, back in the early 1970s, when I was a teenager. The arguments against it went on for years.

  46. Wayne wrote:

    @ JeffT:
    Jeff, I’m pretty sure you haven’t read Lisle. That’s not what he says.
    Obviously, science and YEC start at two different points. YEC believes the Scripture is true. They don’t hide that. It is their foundation. They don’t claim to explain everything, or to have solved all the problems, nor do they have to. They only need to show that there are genuine uncertainties about the prevailing theories…puzzle pieces that don’t fit and seemingly can’t be made to fit.
    It’s the I.D. people who approaching these issues from a pure science basis. I think Stephen Meyer and his associates have cast serious doubt on descent from a common ancestor. It’s intriguing. His latest work is outstanding in my view. He is an old-earth guy, but even he says the YEC have good scientists on their team. He doesn’t seem compelled to defeat those who disagree, or belittle them, he weighs what they have to say…you know, like a thinking person. He doesn’t seem upset by YEC people. He gets where they are starting from.
    The YEC folks have, in my untrained opinion, made good points that not all measures for the age of the earth point to the same age. That’s all they have to do. Science has to start from observable evidence and make the best conclusion it can. Starlight is an obvious one. But if a legitimate theory is offered to explain how a universe in which God intervenes is plausible according to the known facts, that’s of interest to me. I believe that God made the universe, and that He can intervene whenever He wishes. If science excludes that possibility from the outset as “not science” then they will likely come to a wrong conclusion. They are making the best conclusion they can from a naturalistic starting point.

    Wayne,

    There are a lot of subtle statements you have made here that illustrate some of the underlying problems and misstatements that create roadblocks in these debates. You say “YEC believes the scripture is true”. Well, so does OEC (Old Earth Creationism) and EC (Evolutionary Creationism) and even a good number of TE (Theistic Evolutionist). The issue here for most any Christian believer with a high view of scripture is not “is the scripture true”, it is “what is the correct reading of the text”. The evidence is VERY strong that Genesis 1 does not even attempt to be a technical expose on how God created. But your statement implies that unless it has such technical overtones and should be read so, the scriptures themselves are not true (this is bottom line what Ken Ham et al teach).

    I believe the scriptures are true. I believe science shows the Earth to be very old. I believe they are not in conflict because the evidence is that Genesis is not literal history as YEC’s interpret it. It serves a very different purpose.

    But to the rest of your post, take a look at the statement by Challis that is being addressed here. Can we really put Lisle off the hook when Challis reads his and other YEC writings and concludes “Science confirms it”? These folks are quite happy to have quotes like that flooding the internet.

    Or do we forget that the YEC movement as espoused by Ham and his crew (which includes Lisle) not too long ago tried (and still are trying) very hard to get YEC taught as a scientific curriculum in the public schools? And that a primary ID text was shown quite clearly in the Dover trial to be nothing more than a YEC text with ‘creator’ and it forms simply block replaced with “Intelligent Designer”.

    And I would encourage you to think carefully about your comment that the YEC’s have shown that “Not all measures of the Earth point to the same age”. This is not a good point at all. It’s just more or less obvious. All things on this Earth were not created 4.5 billion years ago. In fact, most of them were not. Some where created yesterday, others a few years ago, others thousands, other hundreds of thousands and so forth. The minimum age of the Earth is not defined by the age of some things, it is defined by the age of the oldest things that can reasonably be defined at being originally part of it. And there are a rather large number of things on this Earth that have clearly been created as part of this Earth’s history that are orders of magnitude older than 10,000 years.

    Zeta (Jim)

  47. @ Gary: Gary, I don’t suppose you’ve read Boyd’s blog post on demons? They’re scary, because he is so literal in his belief about them that he is able to both provide a scientific explanation for a common kind of severe nightmare (biological/neurological phenomenon of sleep paralysis – something i’ve experienced myself) and then turn around and say that it’s really an attack of the devil anyway.

    What really bothers me about that particular post is that it is in response to a query from someone who might very well be experiencing serious mental/physiological issues, yet *nowhere* does Boyd even so much as suggest that it would be a good idea for this person to see a doctor, therapist or both.

    Like he has the expertise to be able to diagnose and treat her problem over the internet. [/sarcasm]

  48. @ Gary:
    P.s. – Boyd has another blog that’s either part of his site and/or hosted by WordPress. It’s got a completely different setup, blog template, etc. That’s the blog that I’ve read, not the Blogger one that you linked to. You’ll find the sleep paralysis post on the blog I mention in this reply.

  49. dee wrote:

    @ Wayne:
    After you get over laughing at yourself, think about what I might be trying to say.

    It sounds like you are saying you have the same level of certainty that the earth is 4.5 billion years old as you do that 1+1=2. Outside of the obvious differences between math and unobserved history, I doubt you are, in your heart of hearts, equally certain of that date. I doubt most scientists are so sure of the 4.5 billion years that they would say nothing could ever change that belief.

  50. Wayne wrote:

    Moxie wrote:
    Wayne wrote:
    He plainly says science would be against the truth if God is true.
    No. That’s not what that quote is saying.

    You’re right, Moxie. He is saying if the biblical account of creation is literally true, science would never acknowledge it.

    We actually have a very nice test of this assertion, and it is shown not to be true. The Big Bang Theory was proposed by a Catholic Priest, based on a reasoned conclusion drawn from the physics of relativity and the astronomical Red Shift observations. Sir Edmond Hoyle was vigorously opposed to it because such a theory implied a beginning, much like what the Bible teaches. In fact, our term “Big Bang” comes from his own mouth in mockery of the theory. But a Russian Scientist George Gamow had also looked at this theory and had derived from equations that such an event would leave the universe itself flooded with a background temperature of around 50k. Later, a group of Bell Labs Radar researchers (Wilson/Penzias) were trying to calibrate a super sensitive antenna and they kept finding this constant, microwave ‘noise’ in their signal and not matter what they tried they just couldn’t get rid of it. No matter where in the heavens they aimed the antenna, the stupid noise was still there. Just down the road, another set of scientists(Dicke, Peobles, and Wilkenson) were preparing to search for the background radiation that would be associated with the residual ‘termperature’ Gamow had reasoned should exist and were shown a pre-print of the paper detailing this persistent ‘noise’. Right then and there, the ‘smoking gun’ as it were of the Big Bang was discovered. This residual light from that event is everywhere, and has been very, very carefully mapped, and from it comes the derived age of 13.7 billion years, and a whole host of other parameters that allow us to test and predict the parameters of our universe.

    And as unpleasant to atheist scientists everywhere that the universe would have a beginning at all, and that such a beginning would be in an unimaginable flash of light that would persist for 500,000 years until the universe could cool enough for darkness to exist, separated from the light, the data said that is what happened. And that is the dominant paradigm for how our universe came to be. The one supported by the evidence. A ’causeless’ start in a flash of light. As the Bible describes.

    Science to a large extent simply follows the data. One of the most massive lies coming out of the YEC pseudo science arena is that the reason we have the theories we do about the age of the earth and universe is because the scientists want to disprove the Bible. That is hogwash. In fact, it mostly went the other way early on. The Earliest scientists expected to find evidence that conformed to the traditional reading of scripture as regards the flood, and the age derivation of Ussher. And what they found pointed so profoundly away from that they simply had no choice (often at their own peril in the early days) but to conclude those traditional renderings were just wrong.

    Zeta (Jim)

  51. Do not fear! There will be no shortage of post debate commentary by those who do and do not know what they are talking about.
    @ Christy:

  52. Orion’sBelt wrote:

    Wayne wrote:

    Wayne,
    There are a lot of subtle statements you have made here that illustrate some of the underlying problems and misstatements that create roadblocks in these debates. You say “YEC believes the scripture is true”. Well, so does OEC (Old Earth Creationism) and EC (Evolutionary Creationism) and even a good number of TE (Theistic Evolutionist). The issue here for most any Christian believer with a high view of scripture is not “is the scripture true”, it is “what is the correct reading of the text”. The evidence is VERY strong that Genesis 1 does not even attempt to be a technical expose on how God created. But your statement implies that unless it has such technical overtones and should be read so, the scriptures themselves are not true (this is bottom line what Ken Ham et al teach).
    I believe the scriptures are true. I believe science shows the Earth to be very old. I believe they are not in conflict because the evidence is that Genesis is not literal history as YEC’s interpret it. It serves a very different purpose.
    But to the rest of your post, take a look at the statement by Challis that is being addressed here. Can we really put Lisle off the hook when Challis reads his and other YEC writings and concludes “Science confirms it”? These folks are quite happy to have quotes like that flooding the internet.
    Or do we forget that the YEC movement as espoused by Ham and his crew (which includes Lisle) not too long ago tried (and still are trying) very hard to get YEC taught as a scientific curriculum in the public schools? And that a primary ID text was shown quite clearly in the Dover trial to be nothing more than a YEC text with ‘creator’ and it forms simply block replaced with “Intelligent Designer”.
    And I would encourage you to think carefully about your comment that the YEC’s have shown that “Not all measures of the Earth point to the same age”. This is not a good point at all. It’s just more or less obvious. All things on this Earth were not created 4.5 billion years ago. In fact, most of them were not. Some where created yesterday, others a few years ago, others thousands, other hundreds of thousands and so forth. The minimum age of the Earth is not defined by the age of some things, it is defined by the age of the oldest things that can reasonably be defined at being originally part of it. And there are a rather large number of things on this Earth that have clearly been created as part of this Earth’s history that are orders of magnitude older than 10,000 years.
    Zeta (Jim)

    I appreciate your thoughts, Jeff. I am well aware that one can be old earth and believe the Bible is true in some poetic sense. It does cause obvious theological problems (first second Adam, death, etc.), but I agree with you. The earth may be old. I am not a trained scientist, but I am a trained exegete. I find the case for a literal understanding of Genesis (six 24 days) compelling. I could be wrong. I am happy to listen to both sides (that’s been my point here all along).

    The YEC people are starting from their exegetical/theological view of the Bible, which is the historic view. They are not evil or fools for starting there. it makes sense to them. They are convinced that key components of the Gospel are tied to a literal understanding of Genesis. They assume God was there. They see no overwhelming reason to accept the current conventional science on the age of the earth. Scientists are often wrong.

    Where is all their vast research? It’s beginning. The numbers alone mean it will take time. I’m surprised they do as much as they do.

    I think both the YEC people and the ID people are bringing to the table some very interesting finds, and theories, and reasoning. I mentioned Stephen Meyer. Don’t you find his work interesting? He’s an old earth person, but the scientific community still disdains him because his work is breaking with pure naturalism.

    I don’t think Creation science should be taught in public schools. ID science absolutely should be, and the scientific community is just as paranoid about that as they are Ken Ham. It’s naturalism they are defending so vigorously, and yes, persecuting those who don’t tow the line. Of course they don’t care if a scientist is a believer, as long as his beliefs do not break with naturalism in even thinking about origins. Have you seen Meyer’s interview on Socrates and the City? He had some interesting things to say about the Dover trial, but more interestingly, he said he has no interest in getting ID in the classroom right now, because Meyer is so convinced that science is going his way that it will eventually have to be acknowledged. I think he’s optimistic, not because of the science, but because of the ferocity of naturalism. But at least he’s confident in the science. A happy warrior. That’s a good thing.

    And like I said, he is willing, unlike so many here, to recognize that there are real scientists in the YEC movement. I’m not sure why Dee and the others are so hostile. I really don’t.

    Instead of stonewall the ID and creationist people, why not peer review their work, and let it stand or fall on its merits? Take it, look at it in the proper manner. if it’s deficient, hand it back to them…”Work on this here.” You know…basic fairness. I don’t think you are seeing clearly if you don’t think they are being shut out.

    And Jim, there are some measurements of “old things” or earth features that do seem to point to a younger earth… especially if you accept some form of uniformitarianism. Those oldest things you are speaking of are very few indeed, and to put 1+1=2 certainty on those few things is probably not wise.

  53. dee wrote:

    Wayne wrote:
    It doesn’t help your case to pretend there are no efforts in the scientific community to disallow creationist or even I.D. researchers to publish in mainstream journals
    You insult a group of scientists who are not monolithic. There are many believers in the science community along with devout Jews. Hindus and deists are plentiful. And yes, some are atheists. Yet not all the atheists are averse to proof of a young earth via the scientific method.Their acceptance of the Big Bang Theory is proof of that fact. That theory was devastating to hardcore atheists.
    This is another typical Ham argument. There is a vast scientific conspiracy to prevent the “truth” from getting out. That is absolute hogwash. There are zealots on both sides of the argument. Christians who denigrate good scientists and atheists who denigrate Christians. In the middle are a vast multitude of scientists who go where the research brings them.
    You insult men like my husband who was the Young Investigator of the Year for the American College of Cardiology and who is a believer in an Old Earth.Sure- he is involved in the conspiracy as well. or he is just plain stupid and just didn’t see the stealth tactics around him.
    Once the “conspiracy” card gets played, all reasonable discussion ends. Who can disprove a conspiracy? So that is what people who cannot appeal to peer reviewed data use to stop discussion of the facts. It is like Hilary Clinton who said the case against her husband was due to a vast right wing conspiracy. That showed her desperation.

    Well, I don’t think a cardiologist has anything to say one way or the other about the age of the earth. Does he edit a scientific journal? I didn’t say the conspiracy was against “the truth.” It’s against any hint of anything that might overthrow naturalism. It’s that basic. No one cares what your husband personally believes, and long as he doesn’t publish anything that says the heart is a work of remarkable design that natural processes don’t completely account for.

  54. 1. Science cannot prove the age of the earth.
    2. The Bible does not tell us the age of the earth.
    3. The Bible does not tell us to figure out the age of the earth.
    4. The Bible tells us who created the earth.
    5. We are free to debate the age of the earth.
    6. Winning a debate on the age of the earth is as likely as winning a debate on baptism.
    7. Neither the age of the earth nor baptism are central to our faith.
    8. Enjoy the debate.

    Be kind,
    Steve

  55. Wayne wrote:

    I doubt most scientists are so sure of the 4.5 billion years that they would say nothing could ever change that belief.

    Wayne, the scientific estimate of the age of the earth has changed many times over my lifetime, but it has never, never been less than 10000 years old.

    I admit that i was well on my way out of the faith when I first encountered the YECs after Dover. I don’t know what I am faith-wise, but I will not ever call myself a christian again. Why? I will not be associated with a group of people who gleefully repeat multiple lies, no matter how often corrected. And who want to teach those lies in our public schools in clear violation of our Constitution. I worked very hard to receive an education in a time and culture where women were not supposed to be smart and well-educated. I do not understand the willfully ignorant (and proud of it).

  56. Great post Dee. Here are my thoughts. I’m an atheist who was a devout Christian for 35 years. I’m also an engineer with a strong background in science. I never doubted the age of the earth as 4 billion+ years or that evolution was a fact, but I compartmentalized this with regards to my faith. Only when I allowed myself to ask the hard questions did I realize that evolution and an old earth is anathema to Christianity and that I had to give one of them up for the sake of my sanity. Since the evidence for an old earth and evolution is indisputable and the evidence for Christianity is razor thin, I gave up the latter.

    This is what Challies and Molher fear, and I think they are right to fear it. A Christian accepting an old earth implies that either (a) god sat around doing nothing for billions of years until he decided to create humans or (b) god used evolution over this time to create humans. The problem with (a) is that the bible really does mean “days” when it says “days” and not “ages”. This goes against everything science has revealed to us. The problem with (b) is that evolution is a cruel, mindless process that takes place over eons. As Daniel Dennett states, it boils down to a simple algorithm in which (a) organisms give birth to more offspring than can survive, (b) the offspring best suited to an environment survive and pass on their genes to their offspring, (c) Go to step (a) and repeat. A benevolent god who loves his creation would have to be crazy to think this was the best way to create a world. The fact is that evolution stands in direct contrast with the idea of a loving creator god. Once you truly understand the implications of evolution by means of natural selection, it changes the way you see everything.

    I’m not going to deny that there are Christians who hold these conflicting views, but I think they are being intellectually dishonest with themselves. It’s possible that there could be a deist god who used evolution to create life, but that is not the god that Christians worship. It’s something else entirely.

  57. Wayne wrote:

    Well, I don’t think a cardiologist has anything to say one way or the other about the age of the earth.

    Well that’s pretty ironic coming from someone who uses Stephen Meyer as a source for biology. Meyer has dual Ph.Ds in history and philosophy.

  58. Wayne wrote:

    Well, I don’t think a cardiologist has anything to say one way or the other about the age of the earth. Does he edit a scientific journal? I

    And by this statement you have proven how little you know about the scientific community.

  59. Wayne wrote:

    I don’t think Creation science should be taught in public schools. ID science absolutely should be

    ID IS Creation science. It’s actually not science in any sense of the word. I think you need to read some solid criticisms of the movement instead of just reading Ken Ham and Stephen Meyer. You are not getting a clear view of the deceptive practices that IDers have used over the years. Are you familiar with the Wedge Document? If not, go read it and come back and tell us with a straight face that ID is not creationism repackaged.

  60. My take on the controversy is that the Genesis accounts are mythic orally transmitted explanations for how things came to be, similar to those in every ancient culture. But that does not mean they are not true; it only speaks to what the nature of that truth is. Jesus taught in parables and preachers tell preacher stories. Neither is required to be literally true to teach a theological truth.

    The theological truth of the creation story is that God created, He created a good earth, and everything in the universe. It is not specific about how he created. And the people to whom that would have originally been addressed would not have accepted a story about atoms, massive explosions, and the time and speeds of things — it would have been beyond their conception. So God caused the creation of a theologically true story of how he created.

    And the rest of the Genesis story is an oral tradition, put into writing during the exilic period ca. 500 BC. And it shows the signs of that. But that does not mean that it is not true, in terms of what it teaches us about God and humanity. It is like a serial story with chapters missing or absent. Like other ancient stories and oral traditions, there are gaps and transitions that were dealt with during the writing. But nothing that does not accurately portray the nature of God, the nature of humanity, and God’s relationship with humanity — the core theological truth.

    And I would carry that through the rest of the Pentateuch and the other pre-exilic “history” books of the OT. A lot of truth about God, humanity, and the relationship with some truth about some of the events, orally transmitted over centuries, with all of the characteristics of a memorized oral history, transmitted from person to person, fathers to sons, over long periods of time.

    It is truth, but it is not an historical account like western minds think of history. And as one moves to the exilic and post-exilic period, the writing reflects less an oral history and more and more a more contemporary record of the events, while still teaching truth about God and humanity. And foretelling the coming of the incarnation.

    This makes sense to me, and I can defend it to scientists and anthropologists. And there are theologians (not employed in evangelical seminaries, btw, due to threat to their careers were they to so state) who basically believe what I have set forth above. It is not that the OT is not true, but it is not a literal history, but an historical novel of a people taken from their oral history, appended to a creation story that none of them were there to witness.

  61. Once the hypothesis is made, a set of tests is proposed to challenge the hypothesis. If these tests are conducted and produce results consistent with the hypothesis, then it can be retained and lives to fight another day. If not, the hypothesis must be discarded and a new hypothesis is generated that explains both the initial set of observations AND the new data gathered by experiment.

    In my experience, scientific testing is more likely to begin with the null hypothesis – the idea that the proposed hypothesis is wrong. The burden of proof then lies with the proposer to demonstrate reasonable evidence for its acceptance.

  62. Arce wrote:

    My take on the controversy is that the Genesis accounts are mythic orally transmitted explanations for how things came to be, similar to those in every ancient culture. But that does not mean they are not true; it only speaks to what the nature of that truth is. Jesus taught in parables and preachers tell preacher stories. Neither is required to be literally true to teach a theological truth.

    That gets an amen from me!

  63. numo wrote:

    @ Gary: the thing is, the kind of xtianity you’re talking about is a primarily white, American thing, held by certain segments of the evangelical church.
    It’s a non-issue in Catholic and high church Protestant circles. And I really do mean “non-issue.”

    Hey numo, I agree. I grew up in the Episcopal Church, and the perspective on these issues was different than in evangelicalism. It’s probably more so now.

    I mentioned Boyd’s article because I find the title so audacious. It would be fun to share that with my YEC friends and watch their reactions. Is it scientifically solid? I have no idea — I’m just a computer geek and amateur theologian. Is it biblical and a reflection of reality? Maybe, maybe not. I just think it is an entertaining idea that stretches the imagination, like good science fiction. In fact, it reminds me of C.S. Lewis’ sci-fi trilogy, where the planets around us have their own cosmic histories, and it helps me appreciate how big and ancient God really is.

  64. @ AJG:
    Thank you so much for commenting here. I am familiar with Daniel Dennett thoughts on this matter. I believe that Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris have also said similar things.

    Let me ask you a question. Francis Collins became a great friend of Christopher Hitchens. Hitchens’ writings were always my guilty pleasure. As you know, Collins is brilliant and one of the most respected scientists of our generation. And yet, he believes in a good God and theistic evolution. Have you read his book Biologos? So, it must be possible for some folks to combine the two in a way which is satisfying. Thoughts?

  65. Albuquerque Blue wrote:

    I would say YEC is already very associated with mainstream American Christianity.

    I completely agree, Albuquerque Blue, and it saddens me. Last night when flipping the channels I ran across Mr. Ham on TBN, speaking to a group. I could only stand so much. To so many people (and not just Americans), this sort of thing defines Christianity. I don’t mind that the YEC folks have a voice, but in so many corners of Christianity it seems that they are the only voice.

    And like you, I am thankful for this and other blogs. But mostly this one:-)

  66. Wayne wrote:

    The YEC folks have, in my untrained opinion, made good points that not all measures for the age of the earth point to the same age. That’s all they have to do.

    An important part of generating evidence supporting or challenging scientific theories is producing quantitative data. The age of the Earth is a quantitative statement. In science a measurement consists of two parts. The first is the value of the individual measurements. The second and equally important quantity is an assessment of the uncertainty in the measured values. For example, a series of measurements of the radiometric age of a particular geologic site might show a range values of a few percent. These ideas are refined in the discipline of statistics which is universally used to evaluate sets of such measurements. The uncertainties, technically called the standard deviation, expressed as a fraction the the average value of the set of measurements, are usually in the 1-10 percent range for radiometric dates.

    I was honored with a TWW guest post in December 2012: http://thewartburgwatch.com/2012/12/10/fraud-in-science-are-some-young-earth-proponents-being-disingenuous/ In this I reviewed two AIG papers claiming to show that serious problems exist in the radiometric dating methods. In actuality, AIG results agree with the published reference ages cited within the claimed uncertainties. These two papers support rather than call into question the accepted geological ages of the Earth in spite of their claims otherwise.

    The difference between the YEC favored 6000 year age and the accepted 4,500,000,000 year age is almost a million, not a few percent. Until YEC supporters can show reproducible data differing from accepted age estimates by many standard deviations they will not be considered as doing science.

  67. When this came up in my little corner of the world, it was prompted by the documentary “Expelled” that purports to reveal a conspiracy to shun Intelligent Design in the scientific co. Some of the material in the documentary overlaps with what Wayne has posted here. Google brought me to the website “Expelled Exposed,” which had the information I needed to respond to the arguments people had extracted from the documentary. I’m passing this along because I suspect someone here who hasn’t already heard of this will run into arguments from Expelled eventually.

  68. I meant to say “scientific community,” and don’t know why that sentence became truncated. (PEBCAK?)

  69. My, isn’t this timely? One of the local megas (the word-faith outfit) is having a Mythbusters: Creation vs. Evolution on Wednesday nights for the next several weeks. I wish it was light at 6:30 p.m., because I’d go out there with a sign that read: “IF YOU LIE TO ME ABOUT EVOLUTION, WHY SHOULD I BELIEVE YOU ABOUT JESUS?” or something like that.

    As it is, I’m tempted to go by the church, snap a picture of the banner, and then send it to the MythBusters guys, since the church has obviously lifted MythBusters’ logo. The use of the logo makes it appear like the MythBusters guys are approving of what this church is doing.

    In “defense” of the church, a quick internet search indicates this seems to be a home-grown effort, and not a canned anti-evolution set of sermons, etc.

  70. WWayne wrote:

    Instead of stonewall the ID and creationist people, why not peer review their work, and let it stand or fall on its merits? Take it, look at it in the proper manner. if it’s deficient, hand it back to them…”Work on this here.” You know…basic fairness. I don’t think you are seeing clearly if you don’t think they are being shut out.

    Wayne, YECs are not being shut out of mainstream science, YECs refuse to participate in mainstream science and chose instead to only promote their views through the media where they aren’t required to respond to criticism.

  71. Dee, I have to correct this statement:

    “I once knew a Mormon who was a graduate of the Naval Academy and a trained engineer. I showed him a quote by Brigham Young who claimed that there are people dressed like the Smith living on the moon. He was forced to believe that even though he knew it wasn’t true.”

    This statement is hearsay. This didn’t come directly from Joseph Smith. It came from Oliver Huntington, who wrote about this in 1892 (or 48 years after Smith’s death) in the Young Woman’s Journal. Here’s a copied page from the Utah Lighthouse Ministry:

    http://www.utlm.org/images/changingworld/chwp24textimage.gif

    Now Brigham Young, on the other hand, taught the Sun was inhabited in the Journal of Discourses (volume 13, page 271). Yet the average Mormon isn’t going to know about either of those quotes, because they don’t have access to the Young Woman’s Journal (and won’t look at stuff from the Tanners) and have been warned off from looking at the Journal of Discourses, which is chock-full of amazing, crazy stuff.

    I could say a lot more but I just wanted to point out that even though Smith said a lot of weird stuff, the quote about Quakers on the moon only comes through Huntington, 48 years later, and there’s no corroborating quote from anyone else. Which means it can probably be discarded, unlike Smith’s corroborated stuff, like the King Follett sermon (one of the sources of exaltation and godhood in Mormonism), which the current church is slowly, slowly backing away from.

  72. Wayne wrote:

    Instead of stonewall the ID and creationist people, why not peer review their work, and let it stand or fall on its merits? Take it, look at it in the proper manner. if it’s deficient, hand it back to them…”Work on this here.” You know…basic fairness. I don’t think you are seeing clearly if you don’t think they are being shut out.

    You can’t peer review papers by people who refuse to agree on the basic ground rules for scientific investigation. It’s like that old New Yorker cartoon, where there are two scientists standing in front of a blackboard scrawled full of formulas. But in the middle, it says, “And then a miracle occurred.” One of the scientists says to the other, “I think you should be more explicit here in step two.” Creationist proponents *can’t* be more explicit at any step, because what they’re promoting is basically a matter of faith.

  73. Steven’s 8 rules were rather nicely put, although I think science can at least give us a current consensus for the age of the earth. Scientific consensus can change, but then as has already been pointed out, the proposals for such change must be published in scientific journals, by scientists or at least people who are unafraid to submit the proposals backed up with relevant data.

    The problem I see with Dr Mohler’s approach is that it misunderstands the scientific method. I think I’ve already pointed this out before, but there is a big difference between “scientific naturalism” and “philosophical naturalism”. Scientific naturalism avoids invoking any involvement by supernatural agencies – or God, as we would call Him – because it seeks to find out the material causes of why things happen. To use a Biblical example, Ahab was killed by a random shot by an archer (the material cause), although from a supernatural perspective we know this was because of God’s judgement on him. Philosophical naturalism by contrast totally denies any possibility of there being a supernatural agency being behind an event – the material causes are all that there are, toto. It is a presupposition. Confusion between the two (sometimes wilful, on both sides) gives rise to more heat than light.

    AJG made the point about God apparently sitting around for billions of years waiting for the universe to get going or deciding whether to create humans (depending on which approach one takes). I think there was an element of humour here, but I don’t think God operates in the same medium of time as we do. It is true that theistic evolution must always resist the temptation to deism, ie viewing God as creating the universe with a Big Bang and then letting it develop itself rather as I leave pasta boiling while I get on with other things. Somehow theistic evolution must view God as being aware of and somehow involved in His universe while still using natural processes to get from the 3.5 billion year prokaryotic fossils to Homo sapiens.

    I was recently reminded again of the gap theory, which was forcibly expounded on a website by a preacher who seemed very critical of a certain YEC big name. In this view, God did create the earth very much before the appearance of man, but it became waste and void in Gen 1:1 or 1:2 (can’t remember which verse). I’m going to put my hand up here and say I don’t know enough of the original Hebrew to say whether this is a plausible interpretation or not, but it’s a starting point for further debate (no doubt!).

    Happy New Year to everyone, btw – sorry for such late seasonal wishes!

  74. Here’s a case in point regarding YECs refusal to engage mainstream science according to the accepted process of evaluating scientific claims.

    Steve Austin is perhaps the leading geologist with a Ph.D. in geology that carries the YEC flag. He does not espouse his views at mainstream conferences and journals. Instead, he joins them as a member then skulks around the edges so it appears to the public that his YEC views are part of mainstream science. One of the best descriptions of how YECs go about this was in an article in Earth Magazine (eartmagazine.org) dated Friday, June 10, 2011 titled “Creationism Creeps Into Mainstream Geology”. Here’s a link to the entire article:

    http://www.earthmagazine.org/article/creationism-creeps-mainstream-geology

    Here’s what the article said about one such field trip at a meeting of the Geological Society of America (GSA):

    At the 2009 annual GSA meeting in Portland, Ore., four of the five trip leaders (Austin, Whitmore, Clarey and Ross) organized a field trip to Mount St. Helens to examine catastrophic erosion resulting from the 1980 eruption. After that trip, the Institute for Creation Research ran a headline bragging, “Christian Geologists Influential at GSA Meeting,” noting that Austin’s “peer-reviewed manuscript was published by GSA.”
    In truth, every field trip guide that year was published in the book “Volcanoes to Vineyards.” Austin’s guide, “The dynamic landscape on the north flank of Mount St. Helens,” followed normal geologic thinking and contained no direct creationist arguments — though attempts to link Mount St. Helens to the Grand Canyon erosional processes might have proved puzzling to attendees.

    Austin continually tries to assert to the public that the Grand Canyon was formed only thousands of years ago as a result of Noah’s Flood, which has zero credibility in mainstream science. Here’s a scholarly review of Austin’s claims:

    http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/Carol%202.pdf

    Here’s a very recent two-part article using mainstream geology in breaking down Austin’s claims:

    http://ncse.com/blog/2013/12/creationist-grand-canyon-claim-4-grand-canyon-rocks-were-0015274
    http://ncse.com/blog/2013/12/top-5-creationist-claims-grand-canyon-4-grand-canyon-rocks-0015276

    If YECs are so adamant that their views are scientifically true, why do they refuse to participate as part of the mainstream science debate? Instead, they skulk around the edges to make it appear to an unwary public that they are.

  75. @ Arce: agreed on pretty much all counts. And really, the underpinnings of history as an academic discipline of of pretty recent origin. I doubt that people prior to 1850 (give or take a decade or so either way) viewed it in the same way, though some things were similar. Others were radically different.

    I think the leap is less about “western” thinking and more one of time. The ancient NE was drastically different in ways we can only faintly comprehend. I think it does help some, though, to read other ancient NE lit, as then you begin to get a feel for both the similarities and differences between the various cultures of the NE and Egypt. (And further on, the Hellenized world + Rome plus the many ideas that gained traction after the last OT books were written – complex and often pretty crazy apocalyptic lit, ideas about Satan and demons, etc.)

    For myself, I’m finding that less literal = more depth to the overall message. Besides, we are all highly selective about what we interpret literally and what we don’t. Does anyone think it would be possible to kill 10,000 people with a donkey’s jawbone? 😉

  76. @ Southwestern Discomfort:
    Let me explain how I found out about this statement. You might find it amusing. I was challenged by my Mormon friend to not use any evangelical material in our discussions. He said I could use any Mormon source. So, I went straight to the horse’s mouth for Mormon academia. I went to the Brigham Young University site on which there was a question and answer page. The students could ask the professors questions about the faith.

    I then downloaded the question and answer and asked my friend at our next meeting. We met at my house, along with some wet behind the ears Mormon missionaries (new ones about every 3 months-I was the local token practice evangelical) for about 1 1/2 years. I asked him the question and did not tell him from where I received the question. He accused me of using evangelical nonsense. I then showed him precisely from where I got the information. He was shocked but gave me my due.

    So, don’t blame me. Blame the profs at BYU!!! 🙂

  77. AJG wrote:

    Great post Dee. Here are my thoughts. I’m an atheist who was a devout Christian for 35 years. I’m also an engineer with a strong background in science. I never doubted the age of the earth as 4 billion+ years or that evolution was a fact, but I compartmentalized this with regards to my faith. Only when I allowed myself to ask the hard questions did I realize that evolution and an old earth is anathema to Christianity and that I had to give one of them up for the sake of my sanity. Since the evidence for an old earth and evolution is indisputable and the evidence for Christianity is razor thin, I gave up the latter.

    Hi AJG,

    I of course disagree with your assessment. I find the only real conflicts are related to certain traditional views of what the scriptures are saying about the areas science is able to offer an opinion. A lot of those center around preconceptions as to how God ought to reveal certain kinds of truth, or how one ought to be able to assess the truth of the scriptures in a physical sense.

    This is what Challies and Molher fear, and I think they are right to fear it. A Christian accepting an old earth implies that either (a) god sat around doing nothing for billions of years until he decided to create humans or (b) god used evolution over this time to create humans. The problem with (a) is that the bible really does mean “days” when it says “days” and not “ages”. This goes against everything science has revealed to us.

    Here you simply are wrong. Not only is the use of day in Genesis debatable in terms of how it should be applied, it HAS been debated historically since before the Christian faith began. At its most fundamental level, time is a construct the Bible teaches us God is not bound to. And so any description of what God has ‘done’ is an accommodation to our 4 dimensional existence, which He Himself is not bound to. Much the same as talk of His ‘breath’, or His ‘resting’. What is time to a timeless being? A being that is in all times ‘now’ (As indicated by Jesus telling the Pharisees that “before Abraham was I am” and in the very choice of name “I am that I am”. What does ‘sitting around doing nothing’ mean when we talk about a being that is in all times at ‘once’? All such communication with us is accommodation.

    The problem with (b) is that evolution is a cruel, mindless process that takes place over eons. As Daniel Dennett states, it boils down to a simple algorithm in which (a) organisms give birth to more offspring than can survive, (b) the offspring best suited to an environment survive and pass on their genes to their offspring, (c) Go to step (a) and repeat. A benevolent god who loves his creation would have to be crazy to think this was the best way to create a world. The fact is that evolution stands in direct contrast with the idea of a loving creator god. Once you truly understand the implications of evolution by means of natural selection, it changes the way you see everything.

    Ken Miller give great insight into this issue. This creation is not perfect. It is, in fact, a place designed to all for two fundamentally difficult elements. It is a place where evil is allowed to exist. And it is a place where sentient beings like ourselves are allowed to be as we see fit. To allow for the possibility of evil means one has created a place that is necessarily flawed. But the scriptures indicate God did this for a purpose. And many have speculated that purpose is to create beings that truly of their own love Him, without any form of coertain or forcing. We are free to not even acknowledge He exists. And the consequences of that in many cases is evil that is then foisted upon others that are otherwise innocent.

    Even God can’t create a rock too big for Him to move. It flows out of His reality as a logical inconsistency. Likewise God can’t create a perfect creation where all his creations are truly free. For to be truly free they must be able to chose evil. And to chose evil is to be imperfect.

    In one sense evolution is nothing short of amazing. It has a kind of logical beauty to it in that the intrinsic nature of the system can produce such variety and beauty, as well as such horror. It is hard for us to understand a God of love allowing it as His means of creation, but God is not a being of our making. He IS. Thus it is what it is. A God of love allows evil. This has been a stumbling block from the beginning. We can’t be true free moral agents if He does not allow evil. And I believe that goes to the fundamental nature of the universe itself. IF God had made things the way you require Him to, our free moral agency, our ability to be His if we chose or not simply would not exist.

    I’m not going to deny that there are Christians who hold these conflicting views, but I think they are being intellectually dishonest with themselves. It’s possible that there could be a deist god who used evolution to create life, but that is not the god that Christians worship. It’s something else entirely.

    It is intellectually dishonest not to acknowledge conflict, or to try to cover it up. But it is not intellectualy dishonest to hold two potentially conflicting concepts at the same time and to believe that are BOTH accurate descriptions of the world. Case in point. Is light a particle or a wave? We accept from the evidence it is both. But we don’t really understand how that can be. But it is. Neither do we censor every study that shows it a wave, or every study that shows it a particle.

    One of my favorite analogies as to how this works is the 2 dimensional fellow looking at how a conical section intercepts his 2 D world. One fellow sees it and it looks like a trapezoid. But if a different cross-section intercepts His world, he sees a circle. And then if another lady sees one intercept her world she might see something that looks like a triangle. How can all these things be the same thing? they ask. From the point of view of his/her 2 D world, it is in fact impossible. But if they could go outside themselves and pop into our 3 D world, it would all make sense. God is outside our little 4D world. And I can believe from what I can see in this analogue that God could well be exactly what He says He is and that these seemingly conflicting views of Him I observe from my perspective just simply are incomplete pictures of what is from my place in fact an incomprehensible whole.

    Zeta (Jim)

  78. My notes: What is the purpose of scripture if it points to nothing?
    What is it called when a person says they are a Christian but doesn’t believe Christ rose from the Grave?

    I think, things regarding debate on creation story get very skewed and anti-semetic especially if excessive time is spent throwing scripture in the fire. Were not most of the writers of Hebrew origin?

    If Christ said “I am the say the truth and the life.” Then he must be or it is false.

    1+1 = 2 and nothing proves science to be truth (law) expect 100% proof of nonfalacy.

    Einstein said, “Science without religion is weak, Religion without science is blind.” He was Jewish….or he would have been destroyed by Nazi regime…..true or false??

    Ok, if I have time, I may come back to read the article. I only have 10 fingers and toes and a certain amount of time in a day.

    I hope the couple of wedding are blessed with blessings and not curse.

  79. @ Southwestern Discomfort: I can’t imagine them ever giving up temples and temple ordinances,though… If you take away the “god was a man with flesh and bones” plus Kolob and some of the other distinctive signs of the inner circle, what’s left? Magic stones and “reformed Egyptian,” along with phony history and mammals that never existed and… The position of women could change dramatically as well.

    I can imagine a Mormon equivalent of the Reformation, but I think the LDS will never willingly give up on some of the more extreme beliefs they’ve hung onto for so long.

  80. My husband is a horticulturist, he likes some of AIG’s material and follows Creation magazine on face book. He commented on a post once, and was emailed asking him to write on plant evolution. When he has no credentials, no degrees and no background in the sciences. We were both shocked that they would take an article from someone without any formal training or knowledge in that field with the intent to publish it. My husband declined but is now very suspicious of the credentials of the article writers.

  81. @ dee: PS-You are correct. It was Joseph Smith who said it. Oh yeah-you know what the profs said. Get ready. "We haven't seen all of the moon yet." Kid you not.

  82. laura wrote:

    I hope the couple of wedding are blessed with blessings and not curse.

    @ laura:
    Your comment does not make much sense to me. Could you elaborate? I also did not like your final sentence.Could you perhaps clarify exactly what you mean.

  83. Ken wrote:

    This topic is one where I have changed my mind over the years.

    May we ask which way you feel about it now?

  84. dee wrote:

    Let me ask you a question. Francis Collins became a great friend of Christopher Hitchens. Hitchens’ writings were always my guilty pleasure. As you know, Collins is brilliant and one of the most respected scientists of our generation. And yet, he believes in a good God and theistic evolution. Have you read his book Biologos? So, it must be possible for some folks to combine the two in a way which is satisfying. Thoughts?

    Hi dee. I have not read Biologos, but I’m familiar with the project and Collins’ work. I think Collins is not willing to apply the same empirical view to his faith as he is to his science. If he can live with that, then good for him. I could never do it. The cognitive dissonance was too great. I suspect his faith is too much a part of his life for him to question it with the same inquisitiveness as he would molecular biology. He understands and accepts evolution but doesn’t seem to be able to take it to its logical end.

    I think Collins is wrong, but that’s okay. I believe that people should do (or believe) whatever brings them contentment as long as it does not adversely affect others.

  85. Moxie wrote:

    @ dee:
    The thing was very weird and rangy. ESL issues?

    LOL autocorrect issues. Supposed to say “The whole thing was very weird and ranty. ESL issues?”

  86. Orion’sBelt wrote:

    Here you simply are wrong. Not only is the use of day in Genesis debatable in terms of how it should be applied, it HAS been debated historically since before the Christian faith began. At its most fundamental level, time is a construct the Bible teaches us God is not bound to. And so any description of what God has ‘done’ is an accommodation to our 4 dimensional existence, which He Himself is not bound to. Much the same as talk of His ‘breath’, or His ‘resting’. What is time to a timeless being? A being that is in all times ‘now’ (As indicated by Jesus telling the Pharisees that “before Abraham was I am” and in the very choice of name “I am that I am”. What does ‘sitting around doing nothing’ mean when we talk about a being that is in all times at ‘once’? All such communication with us is accommodation.

    You and I will simply have to disagree here. One must stretch the meaning of the text in order for “day” to mean anything other than it does. The implication in Exodus 20:11 is clearly that days mean days, not untold amounts of time. There just isn’t any reason to think that the bible is anything other than a collection of primitive myths, and there certainly is no reason to think that if there is a god, that Yahweh is the correct one. The evidence simply does not support the assertion. That’s alright. I’m not interested in deconverting anyone.

    Ken Miller give great insight into this issue. This creation is not perfect. It is, in fact, a place designed to all for two fundamentally difficult elements. It is a place where evil is allowed to exist. And it is a place where sentient beings like ourselves are allowed to be as we see fit. To allow for the possibility of evil means one has created a place that is necessarily flawed. But the scriptures indicate God did this for a purpose. And many have speculated that purpose is to create beings that truly of their own love Him, without any form of coertain or forcing. We are free to not even acknowledge He exists. And the consequences of that in many cases is evil that is then foisted upon others that are otherwise innocent.

    There are a thousand different explanations for why the world is the way it is, how a good god could create a world of pain, etc. In the end, the simplest explanation is that there is no god who created it this way. It just is the way it is and it doesn’t owe us any other explanation. It might not be the most comforting, but it makes the most sense.

  87. @ laura:

    Laura:

    Maybe this will help, it’s where I’ve ended up on this issue. I believe that the early chapters in Genesis aren’t meant to provide a historical account of what actually happened. Instead, Genesis speaks of creation as a parable using the framework as understood in the Ancient Near East (ANE) based on a number of earlier ANE creation stories – God had to do it this way because there was zero scientific understanding of the world at the time, he had to communicate in terms the people would understand.

    What bothers me some in the whole creation debate is that all the time is spent debating young earth vs. old earth and evolution versus fiat creation that the very purpose of the Creation story never gets discussed. The purpose of the early chapters in Genesis is to tell us who God is, and what the relationships should be between God and humans, among humans, and between humans and the Earth. I know I’ve posted some of this before in an earlier thread some time ago but I’ll repost it here. God is telling us:

    • There is only one God, there is no other realm from which he comes nor are there other Gods who compete with him

    In contrast to all of the creation stories of the Ancient Near East the Bible tells us there is one, and only one, god and that is the God of the Bible. God did not come from some other realm and there are no other gods in the universe with whom God competes or had to compete with for supremacy.

    • It is God who created the earth by his own work

    God created the universe on his own, it was done by his handwork. Since there are no other gods, the universe was not created as the result of any divine combat among gods nor through the sexual union of gods that are related by other stories of the Ancient Near East.

    • Humans were formed ‘out of the dust of the ground’ meaning we are part of the Earth and connected to it

    Genesis 2:7 tells us that “the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground”. In fact, the word “man” in this verse is the English translation of the Hebrew word adam (pronounced “a-dom”). In Hebrew, the word adamah means ground or earth. So it’s a biblical pun in Hebrew when Genesis 2:7 tells us that adam was created out of the dust of the adamah. Moreover, the way the Hebrew word adam is used in this verse, it is not a proper name, which is why Genesis 2:7 tells us that “man” was formed from the dust of the ground rather than “Adam”. So when God creates adam, a literal translation of the word might be “earthling”, which is why English translations of the Bible in Genesis 2:7 use terms such as “man” or “human being” – the proper name Adam is only given to him later in the Chapter

    All of this is a long way to say that the Bible is telling us that we are part of the Earth and connected to it, and lovingly created by God like a potter creates a valued vessel. Many of those who farm, garden, or grow trees, shrubs and other plants will tell you of the close connection they feel to the Earth when performing these tasks. We are, in fact, so connected to the Earth that we depend on it for our food, water, oxygen, for our very lives. We cannot abuse the Earth to the point where we lose this connection or we will lose our very lives.

    • God ‘breathed’ life into humans, creating us in his own image, establishing what is supposed to be an intimate relationship

    Genesis 2:7 continues “and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living being.” This description of the creation of human life is unlike that of all the other creatures. God lovingly created us with an intimate act, a kiss, if you will, creating us in his image with the purpose of having a close and intimate relationship with us. This is how are relationship with God is supposed to be.

    • God created all human beings in his own image

    In contrast to many of the creation stories of the Ancient Near East, Genesis tells us that all human beings are descendants of God’s image. In many other creation stories, only the kings, pharaohs and other rulers were descendants of gods. In the Bible, though, we are all descendants of God – from the mightiest to lowliest of human beings we are all equally in God’s image. We are all created equally worthy before God and no one is given a privileged position in his eyes.

    • All human life is precious

    In the Babylonian creation story Enuma elish, human beings were essentially created to be slaves of the gods and do the dirty work that the gods didn’t want to do. In Enuma elish human beings were created to build temples for the gods and grow food and livestock to offer as sacrifices to the gods to feed them. The creation story in Genesis could not be more different. In Genesis, human beings are not created to be pawns of the gods, we are created to have our own life and purpose in community with other human beings and have an intimate relationship with God as a significant part of that.

    We get a hint of that relationship when God came looking for Adam and Eve after they had eaten the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Genesis 3:8 says “[t]hey heard the sound of the Lord God walking in the garden at the time of the evening breeze”, presenting a warm picture of a God who regularly comes to have fellowship with his created beings.

    Finally, in Genesis 4, the story of Cain and Able, the Bible presents us with a portrait of how we are to live with one another as human beings. We are all Cain and Able, brothers and sisters, and to kill another human being is to kill a brother or sister, it’s fratricide. But that’s not all. The answer to the question “am I my brother’s keeper?” is an emphatic “Yes!”. We are all brothers and sisters who are to be each other’s keeper.

    So while we Christians debate how to properly interpret the creation process used by God, we really need to focus on what God is teaching us about himself, us, and the Earth and we cannot afford to ignore the purpose of the story, otherwise we are missing the entire point.

  88. Moderation? What’d I do bad Deebs? No bad words, not even “bitter” 🙂

    [[MOD: Sorry we don’t discuss moderation specifics in public.]]

  89. Orion’sBelt wrote:

    It is intellectually dishonest not to acknowledge conflict, or to try to cover it up. But it is not intellectualy dishonest to hold two potentially conflicting concepts at the same time and to believe that are BOTH accurate descriptions of the world. Case in point. Is light a particle or a wave? We accept from the evidence it is both. But we don’t really understand how that can be. But it is. Neither do we censor every study that shows it a wave, or every study that shows it a particle.

    BTW, when I taught bible studies in the past, I always used the wave-particle duality of light to explain the Trinity. The difference, of course, is that there is experimental evidence that light can behave as both a wave and a particle. In fact, if you have the know-how and the resources, you can demonstrate this yourself experimentally. There is no such evidence for god, the trinity or any other supernatural phenomenon. Until there is, the most logical conclusion is that the natural world is all that is. You may wish for that not to be true, but there is no good reason to believe it.

  90. Here’s what gets me frosted about Timmie up in Toronto? I read up above about how he has a lowly bachelors in History and no seminary training yet that qualifies him to teach and pastor. ME on the other hand has a MA in American and European History from a Prestigious Jesuit school in the upper Midwest. AND I have the student loans that I am still paying off and will for the next decade.

    YET this crowd has told me when I venture onto other blogs that I do not have training to talk about theology and that a History degree amounts to %^$#!!!!

    So if that’s the case…why is Tom Challies teaching?!?

    WHISKEY TANGO FOXTROT!!!!! (SQUARED!!!!)

  91. Moxie wrote:

    They think the only two options are 1.) you agree with conventional science and therefore disbelieve the bible and hate sweet baby Jesus, or 2.) you continue to be uninformed and ignorant while spouting off about what the Bible “clearly” says.

    Haha Moxie, thanks for number 1. I love your humor. I seem to recall you saying once before you have a scientific background. Me too. Looking forward to reading more of your input. I’m a Christian woman who doesn’t exactly fit into a lot of regular Christian circles.

  92. numo wrote:

    I can imagine a Mormon equivalent of the Reformation, but I think the LDS will never willingly give up on some of the more extreme beliefs they’ve hung onto for so long.

    And that’s the key point: “willingly.” It’s being subtly taken away, because without exaltation, where’s the carrot to put up with the various “sticks” from the leadership? However, there are forces beyond the leadership’s control (in particular, the Internet) and things are not going as the suits in Salt Lake want it to be.

  93. dee wrote:

    PS-YOu are correct. It was Joseph Smith who said it. Oh yeah-you know what the profs said. Get ready. “We haven’t seen all of the moon yet.” Kid you not.

    0_o Uhm, the moon is an airless, lifeless rock either freezing near absolute zero or baking…*can’t stop shaking head, this is so nuts*

  94. This is only one topic that I really don’t understand continues because it is an arguement with scientists not theology. Personally, I switched to at least to semi YEC when I started thinking about the oxygen and carbon dioxide dilema with plants and animals. At some point time of creation has to speed up, now prior to the marking of time by the heavenly lights perhaps this is where the expansion of time is much longer.

  95. I cant tell you how much this helps me, I have struggled with the YEC / OE creation and other science / historic issues. I have grown tired of being told I am on the side of Satan and that I am denying God in unrighteousness and basically I hate Jesus and His word because I struggle with these issues. It has almost killed my faith after so many years of disagreeing with things like it is evil to have a women teach or work outside the home, think Catholics, EO, Anglicans, charismatics etc are actually Christians instead of Children of Satan.The idea that there is an international conspiracy of scientists lead by the Jesuits to deceive all of us. Dont believe me people actually believe such utter nonsense and expect you to do the same.

    I guess what I am really tired of is living in a world view where Satan is way more powerful then God or Jesus. Taken to its logical conclusion that is what I come away with, that the “true biblical faith” is fighting a rear guard action and it is loosing every single battle. I dont find much hope in that type of faith.

  96. AJG wrote:

    Orion’sBelt wrote:
    It is intellectually dishonest not to acknowledge conflict, or to try to cover it up. But it is not intellectualy dishonest to hold two potentially conflicting concepts at the same time and to believe that are BOTH accurate descriptions of the world. Case in point. Is light a particle or a wave? We accept from the evidence it is both. But we don’t really understand how that can be. But it is. Neither do we censor every study that shows it a wave, or every study that shows it a particle.

    BTW, when I taught bible studies in the past, I always used the wave-particle duality of light to explain the Trinity. The difference, of course, is that there is experimental evidence that light can behave as both a wave and a particle. In fact, if you have the know-how and the resources, you can demonstrate this yourself experimentally. There is no such evidence for god, the trinity or any other supernatural phenomenon. Until there is, the most logical conclusion is that the natural world is all that is. You may wish for that not to be true, but there is no good reason to believe it.

    There is no physical evidence we can scientifically analyze, this is true. But there is evidence. Evidence that convinces most people on the Earth there is some kind of God out there. The problem here is that you have made a decision to dismiss all evidence that is not physical, that can’t be quantified or analyzed. But there are all sorts of things that exist that resist scientific or physical measurement. Love (Agape, not eros) is such a thing. As is trust, or faith itself. Basically, there is more to life than meets the eye 🙂 . And God is interested in connecting with us on that other level. Those that refuse can never know or understand Him. For without faith, it is impossible to please him.

    I get the difficulty of crossing the divide (or uncrossing it as appears to be your case), especially coming from the scientific mindset. In the end, no matter what is said, no matter how convincing, it is up to God to cross it for the most part. In the end, it is our personal interaction with God that convinces us He is there, not something quantifiable or measurable.

    Consider the story of the Exodus and for a moment take the story at face value. How many times did they see quantifiable, measurable acts of God beyond anything you and I may have ever seen or will ever see? Did it make them believe or have faith? Not even a little bit. Not in the majority. That is in many ways the point of that story, and it is true in all of our lives. If what God does do in terms of meeting us in the heart is not sufficient to draw us to Him, then neither will a whole host of physical manifestations and miracles. It is part of who we are, part of what keeps us from Him. We will always doubt and have doubts. The last miracle will fade and a new one will be needed. Unless we are able to have faith.

    Jim

  97. In other news, Murray/Federer is an intriguing match, and could be a very good one. Though the match of the tournament is still likely to be the final (Djokovic / Nadal).

  98. Southwestern Discomfort wrote:

    It’s like that old New Yorker cartoon, where there are two scientists standing in front of a blackboard scrawled full of formulas. But in the middle, it says, “And then a miracle occurred.” One of the scientists says to the other, “I think you should be more explicit here in step two.”

    I remember that one – it was a Gary Larson (The Far Side).

  99. Liz R wrote:

    My husband is a horticulturist, he likes some of AIG’s material and follows Creation magazine on face book. He commented on a post once, and was emailed asking him to write on plant evolution. When he has no credentials, no degrees and no background in the sciences. We were both shocked that they would take an article from someone without any formal training or knowledge in that field with the intent to publish it. My husband declined but is now very suspicious of the credentials of the article writers.

    My husband just added,the topic they asked him to write about, was one he didn’t know anything about. The comment he had made was asking a question as he didn’t understand. So basically, not only did they want someone with out knowledge of the topic to write for them, the would be writer in question did not understand the subject.

  100. @ NC Now:
    Indeed you may!

    Started evolution only as taught in school, Genesis was rubbish. Became a believer, came to see over time the bible was true, so Genesis must be as well. Accepted YEC as the most natural reading of Gen 1 and that evolution as an explanation of how the universe came into being had problems.

    Since then I have come to think that Genesis being true AND literal are not mutually exclusive. I’ve thought for a long time that Genesis is literal truth in figurative or poetic language. There is some parallel with Revelation at the end of the bible – literal events described figuratively. Genesis does nevertheless describe real historical events.

    I tried to re-read it recently without worrying about what science says, asking what it meant to the original recipients, and whether is requires YEC as the only way to understand it based simply on what the text says. The result was I now have some old earth sympathies, though YEC scientists are welcome to defend the other view – they may be right. But Genesis is not a scientific text that dates the age of the universe, it’s more why than how. I still have problems with theistic evolution, as it distances the creator from his creation, and the bible shows a God intimately involved with his creation, albeit now dealing with a fallen world.

    The non-negotiable truth separating believer from unbeliever is 1 v 1 that God created everything. That is the primary truth we should stand together on, the mechanics of it is secondary and up for discussion. That discussion, all too often, sadly produces attitude problems on all sides that would best be avoided in front of an unbelieving world.

  101. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    Though the match of the tournament is still likely to be the final (Djokovic / Nadal).

    OK, so I called at least one half of the final wrongly… (Wawrinka having just beaten Djokovic 9-7 in the fifth set).

  102. @ AJG:
    But Collins converted later. He did not start out as a Christian. He said it was his work as well as an encounter with a patient that changed his mind. He believed that his science was unable to answer the questions that he had about the world he observed. In fact, it was straight naturalism that caused cognitive dissonance for him.

  103. AJG wrote:

    hat’s alright. I’m not interested in deconverting anyone.

    You are most welcome on this site, even if your intent is to deconvert someone. If we cannot stand in our faith when challenged, we have very little faith. I am really glad that you are hear to challenge us.

  104. AJG wrote:

    but it makes the most sense.

    To you, perhaps but not to me. In fact, I believe that the world that i observe is best explained by the Christian narrative. Now mind you, it doesn’t answer everything and there are some fuzzies, but that is the case for any point of view.

  105. @ JeffT:
    You will laugh at this. About 50% of the time when I comment in this area, as opposed to behind the scenes, my comment gets moderated. Obviously I have an “in” with the powers that be. Believe it or not, when i see what word held up the comment,i am surprised and then I understand why it is in the list.Remember, it is there to protect us when we are offline and cannot monitor the conversation. Certain words can be part of a triggering conversation if used in a certain way.

    So, I get moderated as well!

  106. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    Southwestern Discomfort wrote:
    It’s like that old New Yorker cartoon, where there are two scientists standing in front of a blackboard scrawled full of formulas. But in the middle, it says, “And then a miracle occurred.” One of the scientists says to the other, “I think you should be more explicit here in step two.”
    I remember that one – it was a Gary Larson (The Far Side).

    Lurker here enjoying the conversation, but must pop in for a moment to defend my favorite science cartoonist, Sidney Harris, who did the above mentioned cartoon.

    Thank you. Back to the subject…

  107. JeffT wrote:

    Humans were formed ‘out of the dust of the ground’ meaning we are part of the Earth and connected to it

    I have often wondered if the dust is DNA.

  108. dee wrote:

    @ JeffT:
    You will laugh at this. About 50% of the time when I comment in this area, as opposed to behind the scenes, my comment gets moderated. Obviously I have an “in” with the powers that be. Believe it or not, when i see what word held up the comment,i am surprised and then I understand why it is in the list.Remember, it is there to protect us when we are offline and cannot monitor the conversation. Certain words can be part of a triggering conversation if used in a certain way.
    So, I get moderated as well!

    Which is why I thought it was humorous because it’s amazing the lengths you have to go to try and keep things civil in the Internet world. Your tireless work in providing such a valuable forum for religious discussion is very much appreciated.

  109. Dee, you and your family have a very blessed wedding! Thanks for all you and Deb do here. With much appreciation, God bless you.

  110. Southwestern Discomfort wrote:

    0_o Uhm, the moon is an airless, lifeless rock either freezing near absolute zero or baking…*can’t stop shaking head, this is so nuts*

    The funny thing about it is my friend didn’t know what to say. He sat there and shook his head as well. He then told me to avoid the BYU site and I called foul!

  111. seekinghope wrote:

    I have grown tired of being told I am on the side of Satan

    Dee has a saying. Whenever they resort to the “satan” argument, they have lost the dialogue and they know it. There is a corollary to that. Whenever they mention the “conspiracy” word, it is all over!

  112. Orion’sBelt wrote:

    Consider the story of the Exodus and for a moment take the story at face value. How many times did they see quantifiable, measurable acts of God beyond anything you and I may have ever seen or will ever see? Did it make them believe or have faith? Not even a little bit. Not in the majority. That is in many ways the point of that story, and it is true in all of our lives. If what God does do in terms of meeting us in the heart is not sufficient to draw us to Him, then neither will a whole host of physical manifestations and miracles. It is part of who we are, part of what keeps us from Him. We will always doubt and have doubts. The last miracle will fade and a new one will be needed. Unless we are able to have faith.

    This needed to be repeated. It is the argument that Phillip Yancey also makes in “Disappointment With God.”

  113. @ Liz R:
    This means that they are desperate and that is the point I keep making. They make a list of scientists but in the big picture they are few in number. Some might, when you are sitting around and watching Downton Abbey (I am a fan), Google the names on AIG’s list and see what you come up with.

  114. Ken wrote:

    The non-negotiable truth separating believer from unbeliever is 1 v 1 that God created everything.

    This is the bottom line. Where did “the stuff” come from? And for me, who leans now towards evolutionary creationism, God spoke and the universe leapt into being.

  115. @ Joy Huff:
    I am coming to DC when the weather warms up. You are on my list for dinner! That will occur after my Segway Tour of DC (a bucket list item!)

  116. From the article: “to master just one field like physics at a level in which one is competent to do research may require a minimum of 8 years of post high school education in the most complex areas of both mathematics and physics itself. ”

    Actually, I studied Math and Statistics. Only 4 years though. Even towards the end when I was in the process of writing my senior paper, I noticed something. And that something is that math formulas are easily distorted and skewed to prove something or create the appearance of something good. When infact, real studies of such a thing point to the opposite. Insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, oil companies etc. skew math formulas to create a business and so on. This is why we may hear of Amish groups who do not “believe” in using insurance. They only had an 8th grade education. Christ was a genius at 12…..

    Hence I believe this is why Christ used the book of Deuteronomy when confronting SATAN in the Desert. (reference ttb.org) SATAN had a play with the words to try to fool Christ to go against God’s will. God’s law is law and Satan distorts the orders of things to make one thing look grand when it really isn’t so grand at all. The mirage and images we as humans see that really are not real so to speak. Lawyers play with words to produce an effect. Christ said, avoid those lawyers and scribes. Avoid both the DARWINISTS and the CREATIONISTS.

    All in all I think it is interesting to study creation, but with the aide of careful study of scripture. Scripture is unique and doesn’t support the Sun-God worship of the babylonians. Ashteroth, Baal and that sort of worship is another topic of debate and how it has “infected” Christian life. Left Christians with the curse instead of the blessing so to speak.

    “Jdg_2:13 And they forsook the LORD, and served Baal and Ashtaroth. ”

    The first time I encountered Baal and Ashtaroth and what it was in my Lutheran college bible introduction class. After that I wasn’t hungry in religion study and went to mathematics.

    Later I decided to study just bible and encountered the bible calendar. There it mentions that Noah landed the ark in the 2nd month. What month or time of the year was that? Where is that verse? The bible is very detailed and specific, unlike the fairy tales and myths of the past.

    PS. For the marriage topic, Debi Pearl had a few interesting things to say in her book “Created to Be His Helpmeet.” I agree with the fact that she said, to find blessing in a marriage……it takes work. I don’t always agree with everything that is said in that ministry however. I just eat the meat and spit out the bones and make broth.

    Like I said b4…..to take the time to constantly debate about the creation story is about as time wasting as figuring out how many freckles are planted and placed on the president. Take a guess……President Obama has exactly ___________freckles on his back. What about the pope. The pope (who denys the existence of adam and eve by the way) has exactly ____________ freckles on his arm.

    Have a blessed day……count the stars and then when that is done time to count the sand on earth.

  117. AJG wrote:

    There is no such evidence for god, the trinity or any other supernatural phenomenon. Until there is, the most logical conclusion is that the natural world is all that is. You may wish for that not to be true, but there is no good reason to believe it.

    I think that there are good reasons to believe in God. Those reasons just aren’t scientific in nature.

  118. dee wrote:

    I have often wondered if the dust is DNA.

    I have often wondered if, when God took something from the first human’s side, that was DNA. 🙂

  119. To answer the full question does science support the six day creation?

    Well, a full question would be in proper account to the study at hand…..

    Does scripture AND science support the six day creation? What is scripture? What is science?

    The Babylonian account is a mud-pie of ideas with no scientific root. A calamity of myths. Scripture is based on the six-sided snowflake. That doesn’t change. Snowflakes always have six sides. Scripture is based on 7 musical values of the piano and musical scale. There are 7 days in a week with three “black” days/piano keys. Three days in the grave. And a saturday-sunday break (no black piano keys from B to key C) to prove Christ rose from the grave. Scripture is unique to other ancient writings as far as I can see…… Scripture holds a musical value that was there before the invention of scientific instrument by man.

    Now the fibbonacci formula. Supports the balance of 7. Creates a number in the division of 7.

    Thanks for reading my calamity of “ideas”

  120. @ dee:
    Imagine if it had said: “In the beginning God created the universe. He spoke and said ‘Let there be a big bang. And there was a big bang. And soon there were stars and galaxies as the total substance of the universe expanded. And God said it was good. And the morning an the evening were the first aeon.”

    Who would ever have believed it?

  121. laura wrote:

    For the marriage topic, Debi Pearl had a few interesting things to say in her book “Created to Be His Helpmeet.” I agree with the fact that she said, to find blessing in a marriage……it takes work. I don’t always agree with everything that is said in that ministry however. I just eat the meat and spit out the bones and make broth.

    I disagree with ever quoting Debi Pearl. Her views on women, sex and the discipline of children are highly offensive to me. Please do not use her as an example of “godly” marriage.

  122. Wayne wrote:

    YEC … don’t claim to explain everything, or to have solved all the problems, nor do they have to. They only need to show that there are genuine uncertainties about the prevailing theories… [elipsis in original] puzzle pieces that don’t fit and seemingly can’t be made to fit.

    This belief is not uncommon; the trouble is that it relies on setting the bar much lower for YEC than for the prevailing theories it seeks to supplant. As has been pointed out already on this thread, the prevailing scientific consensus on the age of the earth relies in turn on theories that have had to fight for their place against rigorous and (back when they were new and shocking) hostile examination from many independent groups.

    To be taken seriously as scientific, YEC must do the same. It is nowhere near good enough to say, well, here’s a small uncertainty, therefore YEC is just as good as any other theory and deserves to be given at least equal credence. That’s like me saying, well, Mo Farah ran the last 100 meters of the Olympic 10000m final in around 13 seconds; I can run 100 meters in around 13 seconds too, so I deserve a share of his Olympic title. If it wants to call itself “scientific”, YEC must come up with not just an alternative explanation but a better one, that more accurately accounts for more data and (sooner or later) leads directly to the prediction of previously-unforeseen phenomena.

    To put the boot on the other foot, one might say that all a secular scientist has to do is find one contradiction in the Bible or even just an area of uncertainty that nobody quite seems to be able to definitively explain; if (s)he does, (s)he has demonstrated that the Bible is fallible and has no special authority.

    YEC is not the only theory whose proponents sometimes claim themselves to be discriminated against in the scientific community. So do scientists who claim to have discovered Atlantis, the Loch Ness Monster, alien spacecraft and cold fusion. The Italian group who wondered whether they’d clocked neutrinos going faster than light recently fared much better, because they made no great premature claim – instead, they asked people to check their results. When the results were found to contain small errors, the group thanked everyone and got on with their work. Had they continued to insist they’d discovered warp drive, you can be sure they’d be vilified for it.

  123. Joy Huff wrote:

    @ JeffT:
    I appreciate this post. It’s encouraging and enlightening to me. Thanks.

    Thanks! It took me a while to get there. I got so caught up in the creationist vs. science debate that it took quite a bit of reading and thinking before I starting asking “What are the reasons this in the Bible in the first place?”

  124. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    Had they continued to insist they’d discovered warp drive, you can be sure they’d be vilified for it.

    Hmm… that wasn’t well-phrased, since they never claimed anything of the sort! But you know what I mean.

  125. What is the difference in these two statements?

    (1) To be a Christian, a believer, it is necessary to believe in a certain theory about the Bible and how it is to be understood, and that importantly includes the Genesis creation stories. Therefore, I believe in YEC and everything that goes with it, even if I have to ignore any and all evidence to the contrary.

    (2) To be a Christian, a believer, it is necessary to believe in a certain theory about the Bible and how it is to be understood, and that importantly includes the Genesis creation stories. I do not believe in YEC, therefore I am not a Christian, a believer, and neither can I be given my current beliefs about origins.

    The flaw that I see is that the first sentence is based on an assumption that God is required to do things in a certain way, to tell His stories in a certain way, to meet my criteria of what I think He ought to do and say, and if not, then everything is just ridiculous anyhow.

    It also seems to me that people who accept that supposition and tend to think like that are also prone to think that anybody who does not agree with them on this is kidding themselves since there are no other ways to think–not if one is really a Christian or really a scientist (or really a Scotsman).

    Personal story: I grew up with people telling me every few minutes it seemed “the Bible says and what that means is…” I value that training, and I highly value scripture, even if the earth is old (and it is.) My education and my vocation, however, have been exclusively in science based disciplines. I understood it well enough and did it well enough to convince those who needed to be convinced, and they stamped the imprimatur on my forehead and let me go out and take people’s lives in my hands using scientific thinking and the results of scientific research to do it. At the same time I am a believer in Jesus. I am totally not impressed by the fundygelicals who are doing what they are doing and I am totally not impressed by any argument that would say that one cannot be both one who thinks scientifically and at the same time one who believes in Jesus.

    Consider Nicodemus. He had the Torah memorized (so they say) and was a “teacher of the law” as well as an observant among the observant. Never mind affluent and politically connected in the religious party of those wildly committed to the law and the prophets. And when Jesus talked to Nicodemus, Jesus ignored all that, except to take a dig at him for his blindness about what Jesus was saying. Nicodemus put the current fundygelical crowd to shame, and Jesus was not impressed with any of it.

    Then consider Cornelius, not even a Jew, to whom Peter was sent. There is no record to show that Cornelius had to “adopt a Christian world view” let alone come to any opinion at all concerning creations or origins or whatever. Yet what the Spirit did at Cornelius’ house blew Peter’s mind.

    We, that is people, need not be trapped by our suppositions. It is the truth that sets people free, and the Truth is Jesus, and that is where all belief and all understanding have to start.

    I am going to stop here. It is my intent to challenge certain ways of thinking. Somebody else can do the “preaching.”

    Thanks for listening.

  126. I want to state that when I say there is no evidence for a god, that is not intended as a personal attack on anyone’s beliefs. In my view, there is no evidence for a god, and especially for the god of the bible being the one true god. That may not be the case for you and that’s absolutely fine with me. So when I say “there is no evidence” please understand that I am speaking from my own perspective and not yours.

    My original post was intended to present the view of a former Christian who agrees with what Challies states. Not that science supports a young earth, but that an old earth is at odds with what the bible clearly teaches. No person in the ancient world believed that the earth was billions of years old. It is only now that science has revealed that the earth is VERY old that people try to read that meaning back into the text. In my opinion, that stretches credulity and calls into question the idea that the bible is a trustworthy document in any way. The bible makes outrageous claims that contradict everything that we now understand about how the world works. You may say that god can do whatever he wants including act in ways that violate every natural law of the universe, but at the point everything we think we understand about the universe is up for grabs. I don’t think that’s an effective way for humans to proceed, and in fact, stands in opposition to the incredible advances that humans have made in the past and will in the future.

    Anyway, I love your blog dee. I’m an avid reader of it and I think you are doing a great good in standing against evil men (and women) who use their version of god to subjugate others.

  127. Orion’sBelt wrote:

    Consider the story of the Exodus and for a moment take the story at face value. How many times did they see quantifiable, measurable acts of God beyond anything you and I may have ever seen or will ever see? Did it make them believe or have faith? Not even a little bit. Not in the majority. That is in many ways the point of that story, and it is true in all of our lives. If what God does do in terms of meeting us in the heart is not sufficient to draw us to Him, then neither will a whole host of physical manifestations and miracles. It is part of who we are, part of what keeps us from Him. We will always doubt and have doubts. The last miracle will fade and a new one will be needed. Unless we are able to have faith.

    Of course, I think the Exodus story is myth in that no physical evidence of a migration of a million+ Hebrews has ever been found in the Sinai Peninsula. A migration of that size would have left some trace, yet despite decades of searching, none has turned up. And I would argue that Moses certainly was swayed by god’s miraculous revelation to him in the burning bush, so I’m sure many were convinced by the plagues and miracles of god.

    In the NT, Paul expects us to accept what he is saying on faith, yet his conversion supposedly required a miraculous revelation by Jesus on the Damascus’ road. Why are we expected to just accept by faith the amazing things stated in the bible when men like Paul and Peter had to be convinced with their own eyes? That certainly seems like an impossible burden laid at the feet of all those who never saw these things first hand. Eyewitness accounts are among the most unreliable evidence which is why people are rarely convicted of a crime based solely on eyewitness testimony.

    John 20:29 was almost certainly written to stop people from asking these questions and to just accept these things on faith. Think how much more blessed you are because you didn’t see Jesus and yet you still believe! It’s a built-in defense mechanism for Christianity and it has been an extremely successful one.

  128. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    It would be more worrying if someone claimed to have discovered Zefram Cochrane.

    Wait-are you telling me warp drive has not been discovered? Secondly, did Zefram Cochrane get the Vulcans drunk during first contact?

  129. AJG wrote:

    I want to state that when I say there is no evidence for a god, that is not intended as a personal attack on anyone’s beliefs

    I know that. i respect that you have carefully examined your own beliefs in the matter. Many people rarely think beyond the next church potluck.

    You might find this discussion on Rachel Held Evan’s blog pertinent to your contention about the Bible.
    http://rachelheldevans.com/blog/bible-clear

  130. AJG wrote:

    Why are we expected to just accept by faith the amazing things stated in the bible when men like Paul and Peter had to be convinced with their own eyes?

    Of course, the Calvinists would say that God must regenerate a person before they come to faith. I am curious. How do you view the doctrine of election in light of your atheism? I am not a Calvinist but I thought it might be relevant to your comment.

  131. dee wrote:

    Of course, the Calvinists would say that God must regenerate a person before they come to faith. I am curious. How do you view the doctrine of election in light of your atheism? I am not a Calvinist but I thought it might be relevant to your comment.

    And yet, the church fathers needed physical evidence to convince them before regeneration. Too bad for us that we don’t get that luxury.

    I am a determinist although not necessarily a hard determinist. I don’t think the concept of free will makes any sense in or out of religion. If all that exists are elementary particles and fields at the bottom, then we are just really complex machines who cannot control the stuff that composes us. Of course, if an omniscient, omnipotent god exists then he knows all that will happen and even if it seems like we have freedom, nothing will happen that god has not already foreseen and foreordained. Hence, free will is merely an illusion.

    Of course, many Calvinists will still try to deny the logical end of their philosophy and try to sneak free will into their arguments at some point. Usually it is an attempt to rescue the character of their god by saying the choices you make have damned you and god is just in punishing you for them. However, since god made you with a sinful nature, he is ultimately responsible for your sin. You had no choice in being born and you were born with a sin nature god could easily remove (he’s god after all). He didn’t so he will punish for being exactly what he created you to be. Tough luck. He’s god and he gets to do what he wants. I have a grudging respect for men like Piper and MacArthur in that they embrace exactly what their theology proposes, warts and all. Of course I could say the same for radical imams. Doesn’t mean I don’t think they are dangerous men though.

    In short, if Christianity is true, I think election (and all of Calvinism) must be true. Arminianism is a soft-peddled version of Christianity with little biblical support. And before anyone asks, I’m not interested in getting into a debate about why Calvinism is wrong and Arminianism is right. I think they’re both wrong.

  132. AJG wrote:

    And before anyone asks, I’m not interested in getting into a debate about why Calvinism is wrong and Arminianism is right. I think they’re both wrong.

    I hope you do not think that I asked you this to argue the point. Instead, I was curious to see how you have worked these issues through. You certainly have studied and thought long and hard about all of this.

  133. dee wrote:

    I hope you do not think that I asked you this to argue the point. Instead, I was curious to see how you have worked these issues through. You certainly have studied and thought long and hard about all of this.

    Oh no. Not at all. I know why you were asking. I was just anticipating that people would try to present biblical support for Arminianism or against Calvinism. I’m not interested in going that route.

    Yes, I’ve spent most of my life thinking about these things as esoteric as they seem to most people. At the end of my investigation and introspection, Christianity (or any religion) simply does not make sense to me from a philosophical and logical perspective and it lacks evidence from an empirical perspective. In order for me to accept the extraordinary claims of Christianity, I’ve got to have something to grasp onto that makes some kind of sense. The only reason I was ever a Christian was because I was raised to believe those things and I was surrounded by people who professed to believe them. I’m glad to be out of it and free to accept the world as it is.

  134. @ AJG:
    Why dismiss the OT as evidence of the exodus? It may not have been corroborated, but that doesn’t mean it is not true.
    Likewise with the NT eyewitness accounts, if they were all false or made up, it would have been harder if not impossible for the church to get going in the face of the hostility to it.

    To link this with the idea of creation, this itself is in the unobservable past, and if you take (macro) evolution as the mechanism as to how what we see today developed, this too cannot be proven. It’s never been seen, and is to some extent taken on faith (as it were). Creationism suffers from the same problem from a scientific point of view.

  135. @ dee:

    Dee..the sad aspect which RHE article shows is that many Christians have painted themselves into a corner. They have done it over issues such as racial segregation, slavery, the universe, genocide, etc…

    This is part of the reason why many Christians have lost credibility. If Christians want to save face what they need to do is repent and do what is right. Even past mistakes can be opportunities.

  136. I had an interesting weekend. The Lord predetermined that my 2002 Honda Accord was to die. The Lord givith and the Lord taketh away! 😛 If you knew how much money I sunk into it to keep it going then you have my permission to give me a good kick in the rear.

    BUT the other day I drove to Family Christian Stores in Manassas. And talk about depressing…..

    I walked in and the sales books were either prosperity theology (Olsteen, Meyer, etc…) or Mark Driscoll, etc… I saw nothing that was really legitimate. I looked at the books and saw a lot of Neo-Cal stuff….pretty depressing. Saw a lot of “name it and claim it” theology which was equally depressing. After making my way to the back I was surprised to see Harvest Bible Chapel is cranking out worship CDs. I felt sick and looked around. I did see a Chris Tomlin which I decided to purchase…

    So I go up to the register to pay for it and the cashier explains some Family Christian program that will allow many to be donated to buying books for churches. So I look at the list of names and I see Stephen Furtick and Perry Noble. I felt sick..and I explain to the cashier the problem I have with these people. I told her that she needed to read The Pajama Pages about Perry Noble.

    Paid for my CD and left. But what a depressing experience. I don’t think I’ll be going back any time soon.

  137. Ken wrote:

    Why dismiss the OT as evidence of the exodus? It may not have been corroborated, but that doesn’t mean it is not true.

    Not sure what you meant with your first question. I don’t believe the Exodus occurred because there is no account of anything like it in any of the existing cultures if the world (Egyptian, Assyria) and there is no physical evidence that has ever been found. Archaeologists have found physical evidence from far smaller migrations that have not been scoured as closely.

    As for eyewitness accounts in the NT, I have to ask what eyewitness accounts? The gospels are all anonymous accounts so there is no reason to suspect they were eyewitness accounts. Paul was not an eyewitness either as he received his word via direct revelation. There is little to no evidence that any of the books of the NT were written by eyewitnesses of Jesus.

    Macro evolution has been observed in several species (you can google this yourself). Are you familiar with the Evo Devo, or evolutionary developmental biology? Organisms that are exposed to or deprived of specific environmental pressures can exhibit dramatic changes in only a single generation. Here’s a good primer:

    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/what-evo-devo.html

  138. Is anyone here concerned about how some crucial blogs are disappearing? I don’t mean to hijack a thread but SGM refuge disappeared and now The Elephant’s Debt is disappearing. I’m sure James MacDonald would want nothing more than to have TED disappear. How will people know? How will people become aware? I really think blogs like TED, TWW, SSB, SGM Survivors are the best that Christianity has to offer….why? Because here you find the Bereans and in most churches the ability to discern is not existent.

  139. dee wrote:

    Orion’sBelt wrote:
    Consider the story of the Exodus and for a moment take the story at face value. How many times did they see quantifiable, measurable acts of God beyond anything you and I may have ever seen or will ever see? Did it make them believe or have faith? Not even a little bit. Not in the majority. That is in many ways the point of that story, and it is true in all of our lives. If what God does do in terms of meeting us in the heart is not sufficient to draw us to Him, then neither will a whole host of physical manifestations and miracles. It is part of who we are, part of what keeps us from Him. We will always doubt and have doubts. The last miracle will fade and a new one will be needed. Unless we are able to have faith.
    This needed to be repeated. It is the argument that Phillip Yancey also makes in “Disappointment With God.”

    Orion, you hit the nail on the head.

  140. @ Eagle: A tip for you- try Cokesbury (they have a store at the Virginia Theological Seminary in Alexandria), the bookstore at the National Cathedral (it’s in the basement) or pretty much anything other than these “xtian” chains. You’ll find a lot more variety, and maybe even some things that you’d enjoy reading. 🙂

    That Family chain has never really had much of anything worth reading, imo. (The last time I was in one was about 20 years ago, and it sounds like nothing has really changed – they sell whatever the big “xtian” publishing houses they deal with are promoting… Publishers buy promotional space at chains, including Barnes & Noble. It’s no different with Family.)

  141. AJG wrote:

    And yet, the church fathers needed physical evidence to convince them before regeneration.

    Fortunately, the Time Lords don’t.

    On a less frivolous note, I think you’ve hit an important nail on the heid there; one’s own experience of God is an essential ingredient of the Christian life. (There are many realistic shapes and forms that can take, but I’ve never been a fan of “we prayed and nothing happened” being equated with “we prayed and the answer was No“.) If we were supposed to accept the Christian world-view on no other basis than the assertion that the Bible (and not the Qu’ran, or the works of Joseph Smith, or the Watchtower, or Science and Health with Key to Understanding the Scriptures, or… or… etc) is true, and perspicuous, and infallible, then I certainly wouldn’t be attempting to follow a dead theological entrepreneur’s interpretation of the sayings of a dead carpenter.

  142. @ Eagle: Uh oh – Cokesbury brick and mortar stores are gone. Still, there’s this: http://www.cokesbury.com/forms/home.aspx

    There should be some other stores in the area that carry church supplies, including at least *some* books. They will probably be geared toward RCC and/or Episcopalian clients, but don’t let that put you off. I’ve been pleasantly surprised by what I’ve found at stores that cater to the high church crowd (clergy in particular, since these places often sell vestments, choir robes, etc.).

    The store at the Nat’l. Cathedral used to have a really interesting selection of books, and if they’re still operating, I’ve no doubt that continues to be the case.

  143. Pingback: A young earth, science, creation and evolution | musings by carly

  144. OK, a couple of naive questions for Challies. I pick on him because he represents so many other Christians. Maybe someone can fill me in on how he might answer.
    1: In his 6 day creationist article, he says, “I believe the earth is young—probably less than ten thousand years old.’
    Why does he choose 10,000 years rather than 6018 years? OK– lets go 6100. Bishop Ussher may have been off by a few years, but certainly not by a few thousand! Doesn’t the Bible plainly give the literal ages of each father when his son was born, straight through from Adam? 10,000 years resolves no issues of YEC, unless there are some written records in between. But it makes it look like Challies may not take all the “begats” literally.
    2: He goes on to say that the Biblical writers believed it. “When the subject of creation arises elsewhere in the Bible, I see no evidence that the writers held to any position other than literal six-day creation. If we hold that Scripture interpets Scripture, I see the Bible confirming the simplicity of God creating all things in six literal days.”
    I won’t dispute this directly, but ask instead– speaking of Biblical writers– Why so few quotes from the Apostle Paul on this subject? On other topics, say, complementarianism or elder-rule, it’s Paul Paul Paul all the time. I can think of only ONE (may be forgetting some) DIRECT citation of Genesis 1 in Paul’s epistles. Which is: “For God, who said, “Let light shine out of darkness,” has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ”. He takes it FIGURATIVELY! He SPIRITUALIZES it! And he adds some words! BTW, the Apostle John says something really similar when he says, “The light shines in the darkness” — meaning JESUS as the light “in the beginning” who “enlightens every man”. Not some literal light of sun, moon, and stars! Scripture interprets Scripture.
    Off soapbox.

  145. Guys, I think we should welcome Laura. Probably most of us here wouldn’t agree with the Pearls, but surely she’s welcome to express her opinion.

  146. __

    “See or Sea?”

    hmmm…

    You can not use the scientific method to determine the validity or accuracy of the biblical account found in the book of Genesis.

    You can not use the scientific method to determine the validity or accuracy of the biblical stories, supernatural occupancies, or miracles, paranormal, or what have you… found in the pages of the Bible.

    Science simply does not work that way.

    Does the bible adequately define what “in the beginning” means?
    Does the bible adequately define what the Genesis account – “formless and void” means?
    Does the bible adequately define what “day” means, or the time period it contains?
    Does the bible adequately define what “God rested” means, other than He stopped his labor this instance?
    Does the bible adequately define what “walking on the water” means or entails?
    Does the bible adequately define what “raising the dead” means, or entails?

    Nether does science.

    The Bible DOES tell us that [God] was responsible for the creation of the universe, and all that it contains. The Bible also tells us that [God] ‘spoke’ these things into being. No existing science can collaborate or confirm these claim(s).

    Science simply does not work that way.

    The Bible says that [God] planted a garden east of Eden, and place Man (who He created with His own hands from the earthen material, and His own breath). No existing science can collaborate or confirm these claim(s).

    Science simply does not work that way.

    Science can not confirm the existence of [God].

    is that a problem?

    The answer is, no.

    Science is the product of the human mind. science is a tool man utilizes to understand and harness that which exists in the universe (i.e. the world around him).

    Faith is a product of the promises of [God], I.e. [God] said so, [Jesus] said so.

    Science equals tools, methods, discoveries…

    Faith believes as ‘fact’ God’s Words found in the Bible.

    [God’s Words] …they support Man’s successful ‘trek’ into eternity.

    Science simply does not work that way…

    And that’s O.K.

    huh?

    But without ‘faith’ it is impossible to please Him: for the individual that would come to [God] must first believe that He exists, and that He is a rewarder of them that would diligently seek Him.

    (E)ternity equals (M)an’s salvation times da (²)Square of (C)hrist crucified?    -snicker-

    What?

    God so loved (Y)OU that He gave His only (S)on.

    yep.

    (B)elieve in Him (Jesus) , and you will (L)ive (F)orever in a very good plaze, when your ‘evolv’in?’ body poops out.

    Simple as dat.

    (no decree(s) required, h-o-n-e-s-t!)

    ATB

    Sopy

  147. Some of you may be interested in the various writings of John Walton. E.g.:

    http://biologos.org/blog/john-waltons-world-tour-part-1

    His work completely defuses this debate. Which is probably why Ham refuses to share a podium with him. Ham and his ilk need the debate to run hot and furious. Walton turns down the heat.

    Walton’s book, The Lost World of Genesis 1, is a must read.

  148. Wayne wrote:

    Instead of stonewall the ID and creationist people, why not peer review their work, and let it stand or fall on its merits? Take it, look at it in the proper manner. if it’s deficient, hand it back to them…”Work on this here.” You know…basic fairness. I don’t think you are seeing clearly if you don’t think they are being shut out.

    Wayne, I could point you to numerous analyses of YEC papers on creation topics by fellow Christians who are also scientists in the appropriate fields. But any such criticism tends to be discounted by YECs with claims that the critics are following “uniformitarianism”, or that they don’t have the right interpretation of the Bible, or they’re influenced by “secular, evolutionary” science, etc. The scientific data is said by YECs to only be validly interpreted when looked at through YEC biblical lenses, so they won’t accept it if a critique starts with a different biblical interpretation.

  149. Kolya wrote:

    Guys, I think we should welcome Laura. Probably most of us here wouldn’t agree with the Pearls, but surely she’s welcome to express her opinion.

    Absolutely…I liked what she said about only taking what was useful because the concept she quoted actually was useful.
    (Of course, I think the Pearls should be physically prevented from ever giving child care advice ever & all their books burnt in orphanage fireplaces to warm children as that’s the only warmth kids will get from them…but I digress).
    Hi Laura!

  150. In other news, Murray and Federer are just warming up in the Rod Laver Arena (8:34 GMT, 7:34 PM in Melbourne). Andy’s just back from a back injury, but coming into some decent form; Roger’s an Old Bloke, but coming into some decent form; this could go either way!

  151. I know we’re discouraged from discussing what does or does not land us in moderation,

    [[MOD: No. Not discouraged. It’s against the rules. And there are very specific reasons that are about us keeping things civil and keeping the SPAMers out. So please don’t try and discuss it.]]

  152. @ AJG:

    A very good morning to you! (Well it is over here.)

    The fact the exodus is only mentioned in the OT does not of itself mean it didn’t happen. I’m not sure just how much evidence from other sources such as archeology could be expected in the circumstances, it is so long ago. You would hardly expect a monument to a defeat to be found in Egypt! It’s not as though the pentateuch has no corroborative evidence from archeology at all.

    Similarly, the gospels claim to be eye witness accounts, for example the begining of Luke’s gospel. That should at least be the starting point in discussing them.

    I don’t claim scientific expertise on evolution, and don’t want to be a Richard Dawkins in reverse. But it has always struck me that the primordial soup molecules to man type evolution is in the unobservable past, and could only be inferred rather than regarded as established fact. This needs to be distinguished from descent with modification evolution and natural selection that has been observed and everyone agrees on, including Answers in Genesis.

    Using science either to defend of attack Christianity or the bible always entails the difficulty that all science is in a sense provisional, and liable to amendment or even refutation by later discoveries and theories, which means both sides can end up with egg on their faces if their supposed proof goes the way of all flesh when some numpty goes and shows it to be no longer tenable. 🙂

  153. Wayne wrote:

    The YEC folks have, in my untrained opinion, made good points that not all measures for the age of the earth point to the same age. That’s all they have to do. Science has to start from observable evidence and make the best conclusion it can. Starlight is an obvious one. But if a legitimate theory is offered to explain how a universe in which God intervenes is plausible according to the known facts, that’s of interest to me.

    But the YEC folks, specifically AIG and many others, are NOT open to other theories. No matter what facts anyone digs up. Read their statement of faith.
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/about/faith
    Espcially the last point. What it really means but doesn’t state explicitly is “Our (AIG’s) interpretation of scripture is correct and no fact can be found that will change our interpretation.”

    This means they are not doing science. In an way shape or form.

  154. Many years ago I read an article in National Geographic that had a timeline for the Big Bang and it said the was an infinitesimal pause just before it happened. I thought it might be perhaps a voice saying “Go!”

  155. NC Now wrote:

    But the YEC folks, specifically AIG and many others, are NOT open to other theories. No matter what facts anyone digs up. Read their statement of faith.
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/about/faith
    Espcially the last point. What it really means but doesn’t state explicitly is “Our (AIG’s) interpretation of scripture is correct and no fact can be found that will change our interpretation.”

    This means they are not doing science. In an way shape or form.

    By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.

    As opposed to scripture which is never subjectto interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information?

  156. NC Now wrote:

    What it really means but doesn’t state explicitly is “Our (AIG’s) interpretation of scripture is correct and no fact can be found that will change our interpretation.”

    Kinda ironic considering that a strong emphasis of Proverbs (one of the 66 ‘divinely inspired’ books of the Bible) is the ability to be open to correction and to accept it graciously.

  157. @ Estelle:
    What I’m trying to say is that AIG appear to be too sure that their interpretation of Scripture is correct and that Scripture seems to warn against this kind of attitude.

  158. Back to what I assume is Part 2 of the title, namely “What is Science?”. And for the purposes of this comment, I’m ignoring any and all controversies between “science” and “religion”, including – but not limited to – miracles, the age of the earth, and the resurrection.

    The latin motto of the Royal Society – among other things, the UK’s national academy of science, having been in existence for around 350 years – is “Nullius in verba”. This roughly translates to “On the word of no-one”, or, if you prefer, “Take nobody’s word for it”.

    It’s not a good idea to try to reduce a big and complex thing down to one sentence because you lose too much information in the process. But if I had to reduce the basic values of science down to one sentence, that would be it. A scientific theory is not good just because of its proponent’s wealth, eminence, gender or royal appointment, or the number of people who buy its books or come and hear it preach, lecture, sing or perform. It’s good because it rests on data that anyone can see and produces results that, other things being equal, anyone else can obtain. And it is entirely open to being disproved if wrong, especially by predicting phenomena that nobody has thought to look for before.

    In practice, a great deal of science needs a fair amount of subject-specific learning to understand. Past a certain level of specialism, you also need some fairly exotic equipment. In other words, when someone tells me they aren’t detecting the expected flux of solar neutrinos * , to a great extent I have to take their word for it. But I know that not everyone on earth has to take their word for it. There is more than one neutrino detector on earth, data for all of them is available for inspection, etc etc. Their results, if accurate, can be reproduced reliably elsewhere and often by different and corroborative means.

    In one sense, science itself doesn’t support any theories: ultimately, evidence supports theories. Science is the pursuit of evidence. But importantly, it’s not the pursuit of convenient evidence. It’s the pursuit of evidence that will prove or disprove. That’s what scientist mean by “true” – it could have been disproved, but it wasn’t.

    * This was a real-life puzzle in physics a few years ago, which is now broadly accepted as being evidence that neutrinos do in fact have a tiny amount of mass, and thus as having been solved.

  159. In other news: Federer has just won in four sets. I thought it would probably go to four sets, but only probably, and I didn’t know who would win, so I can’t really claim a successful call there.

  160. Dave A A wrote:

    Why so few quotes from the Apostle Paul on this subject? On other topics, say, complementarianism or elder-rule, it’s Paul Paul Paul all the time. I can think of only ONE (may be forgetting some) DIRECT citation of Genesis 1 in Paul’s epistles. Which is: “For God, who said, “Let light shine out of darkness,” has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ”. He takes it FIGURATIVELY! He SPIRITUALIZES it! A

    Awesome observation!

  161. Sopwith wrote:

    Science is the product of the human mind. science is a tool man utilizes to understand and harness that which exists in the universe (i.e. the world around him).
    Faith is a product of the promises of [God], I.e. [God] said so, [Jesus] said so.
    Science equals tools, methods, discoveries…
    Faith believes as ‘fact’ God’s Words found in the Bible.

    Science is a tool to discover the intricacies of God’s universe.And sometimes, science discovers things which appear to contradict the Scriptures-like the earth revolving around the sun. But that is OK. We are fallible people attempting to understand the God who created universes.

    I believe that the creation of the universe was a miracle. I believe that Jesus’ Resurrection was a miracle. I believe our salvation is based on a miracle-the direct intervention of God. There are other miracles. But most of what we see is God shaping of a cosmos in which we humans will spend eternity exploring and understanding-with awe and joy.

  162. E.G. wrote:

    Ham and his ilk need the debate to run hot and furious.

    I have some science friends who believe that Ham is banking off the controversy and that he knows he is offering bad “science.” Me-who knows…?

  163. Arlene wrote:

    The scientific data is said by YECs to only be validly interpreted when looked at through YEC biblical lenses, so they won’t accept it if a critique starts with a different biblical interpretation.

    I believe it was Wayne who said I was biased. Ham has used that claim effectively to throw people off who disagree with him. Ham’s science is unreviewed and therefore unacceptable so he only continues to exist by pointing away from himself.

  164. @ Kolya:
    Actually, I welcomed Laura awhile ago. These are not her first comments. Due to the problem that it appears that children have died due to the application of the Pearl method, I must object to anyone who promotes Pearl’s material. This goes beyond simple disagreement of theological or scientific concepts. The possibility of some misunderstanding and spanking little babies is enough for me to be strongly dismissive of any “positives” when it comes to the Pearls.

    Here is one such link. There are more.

    http://www.examiner.com/article/child-s-death-leads-christians-to-speak-out-against-michael-and-debi-pearl

  165. I think we need to start teaching critical thinking to kids from the earliest possible moment that the researchers tell us that the brain can deal with it.

  166. @ Beakerj:
    I would also hesitate to recommend the positives on marriage as expressed by Debi Pearl. Have you ever read the narrative about how her husband had to break her when they got married?
    It is deeply disturbing. She then promotes the following:

    “But Debi Pearl has also written a book called “Created to Be His Helpmeet”. Mrs. Pearl believes that women should radically submit to their husbands as the head of the house, putting up even with affairs and abuse “without words”. She recounts in her book a letter she received from a woman who was obviously being abused by her husband. This pregnant woman asks, “What should I do when he comes after me with a knife?” Mrs. Pearl replies: be submissive. “Avoid provoking him.” (UPDATE: for actual quotations about this incident, just read through the comments section of this post).”

    http://tolovehonorandvacuum.com/2012/08/submission-doesnt-mean-lying-over-and-taking-it/

    And on another child who was killed

    http://thewartburgwatch.com/2013/09/06/the-senseless-death-of-hana-williams/

    I cannot recommend anything by the Pearls. What they say is tainted by disturbing outcomes.

  167. NC Now wrote:

    Espcially the last point. What it really means but doesn’t state explicitly is “Our (AIG’s) interpretation of scripture is correct and no fact can be found that will change our interpretation.”

    I also love their denial that they are claiming that those who believe in an old earth can be Christians but the are in danger of denying the doctrine of the atonement. Now, guess what that means. Ham talks out of both sides of his mouth.

  168. Cranston wrote:

    Many years ago I read an article in National Geographic that had a timeline for the Big Bang and it said the was an infinitesimal pause just before it happened. I thought it might be perhaps a voice saying “Go!”

    Beautiful!

  169. gus wrote:

    As opposed to scripture which is never subjectto interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information?

    How our interpretation of Scripture changes! I spoke with a former YEC pastor who was a devotee of Ken Ham. (BTW-I will not longer attend a church which makes this an issue). I brought up the fact that our interpretation of Scripture has changed over time. I brought up Galileo and the church’s response. I argued that we may be in the same boat today. He became quite angry at me when I brought this up.

    I wrote the following post which garnered one of the most comments for a post ever.

    http://thewartburgwatch.com/2011/09/02/the-earth-is-fixed-and-the-sun-moves-real-christians-believe-it/

  170. Nancy wrote:

    I think we need to start teaching critical thinking to kids from the earliest possible moment that the researchers tell us that the brain can deal with it.

    Agreed. Many little children go to church and hear about the miracles in the Bible. We must be cautious that they do not apply these unique miracles too broadly. God is a God of miracles but we must live within those miracles. So, creation is a miracle. But we must now live as part of that creation and seek to understand the beautiful gift that God has given us.

  171. @ Ken:
    The Exodus is mentioned several times in the New Testament.
    As for the young earth/old earth debate, what is the problem? Someone is right and the other wrong. Maybe everyone is wrong. Until we know for sure deal with real problems. And when the answer is known, those who were mistaken will be able to look at the Bible in a new light and say “Ah, I see what that means now!”

  172. dee wrote:

    @ E.G.:
    Thank you for linking to Biologos. I heard of Walton’s book and have not read it. I plan to remedy that.

    I found Walton’s book to be very enlightening. I’m not sure I agree with all of it but it’s an extremely well thought-out analysis of Genesis 1. The most interesting part is that Genesis 1 is the story of creation cast in the framework of a temple inauguration. There are seven days in the process, with 7 being a number that, to the Israelites, signified completion or perfection, both of which would apply to God’s Creation. He draws an analogy to the inauguration of Solomon’s Temple, which was a seven day affair.

    The other argument he makes that I found intriguing was his discussion of the seven day and God’s “rest”. Walton argues that on the seventh day God did not kick back, read the newspaper, and watch a football game (Angels vs. Demons?). Instead, on the seventh day God came to rest on the Earth to assume his position of being in charge of the Earth. In a similar manner, at the conclusion of the Temple inauguration on the seventh day, God was believed to have entered the Temple and placed his ‘feet’ on the Ark of the Covenant, which is why 1 Chronicles 28:2 says

    “28:2 King David rose to his feet and said: “Listen to me, my brothers and my people. I wanted to build a temple where the ark of the Lord’s covenant could be placed as a footstool for our God. I have made the preparations for building it.

  173. Nancy wrote:

    I think we need to start teaching critical thinking to kids from the earliest possible moment that the researchers tell us that the brain can deal with it.

    What bothers me about how many churches teach children the Bible is how, in many cases, they never discuss the complete story, leaving kids to wonder about how good God can really be when they find out ‘the rest of the story’.

    For example, churches will tell the story and sing the song about Joshua and the Battle of Jericho, circling the walls seven times, blowing the trumpets, the walls coming down and Joshua wins. They then stop the story there. What they won’t discuss is the next action of the Israelites, which was done at God’s command in Joshua 6:21 “Then they devoted to destruction by the edge of the sword all in the city, both men and women, young and old, oxen, sheep, and donkeys.”

  174. @ JeffT:

    Well that would certainly be harder to sing and dance around the classroom with 6 year olds. Come on now. We want this to be fun. [/snark]

  175. Dave A A wrote:

    the Biblical writers believed it

    Where?

    The Bible doesn’t address the age of the earth. Asking “where?” when our “leaders” say something that doesn’t ring true would reveal a great deal about them and how they think. We need to stop tolerating the mishandling of the text.

  176. @ JeffT:

    Yeah, and it is even worse than that. Actually, the story of the fall of Jericho is one of the “difficult” pieces of scripture that each of the essayists must address in that book I am reading about different understandings of inerrancy within evangelical thinking. It seems that there is no adequate confirming archeological evidence, when the site has been dug, that the story as told in the Bible is historically accurate. And nobody at church is telling children or adults that some folks are using the lack of archaeological confirmation as a means to discredit the Bible and discredit Christianity. Then some adults runs into this information, entirely not having thought it through that such things happen, and next thing you know there is another “used to be” Christian. Wow.

    So, they don’t tell the children the whole story, and leave them vulnerable. And they don’t tell the adults the whole story, and leave them vulnerable. And then they think what? That the only way to keep the sheep is to lock the back gate? This after the fundygelicals have already taught people that the Bible is all there is–forget what the Catholics say about the Church, and ignore anything some Charismatic or Pentecostal may say about the Spirit, and anything beyond high school general science is probably the work of the devil–just the Bible. Talk about vulnerability.

  177. @ Nancy:

    Exactly! When Bart Ehrman’s book <Misquoting Jesus came out and explained how the text of the Bible has changed over time because of the discoveries of older and better manuscripts, there were many who apparently gave of the faith because it flew in the face of the inerrancy they had been taught that every last word in the Bible they possessed was God’s and said exactly what God wanted to say. Nevermind that the changes were small and affected none of the fundamental beliefs of Christianity. When beliefs become so rigid in the minute details that the contradiction of any tiny detail can cause one to lose their faith, something’s wrong with the teaching, not the Bible.

  178. Nancy & JeffT: when churches fail to address so many issues in the bible, it is small wonder that Christians get into difficulties with what they believe or can’t cope with challenges made. I have never over all the time of my church going actually heard anyone deal with the ‘devote to destruction’ passages in the OT, though I know of fellowships were you can get the tapes/CD’s of those who have.

    Similarly in dealing with the history of the text, this is a fascinating subject (for me!) and believers should be given at least some grounding in it. They should at least be able to cope with alternative translations and readings, the most important of which are found in the margin of any good literal translation into English.

  179. @ JeffT:

    If one’s faith is placed in an infallible, inerrant (although over 2000 years old, translated numerous times, from several ancient languages) book, instead of in Christ, problems arise.

  180. @ Nancy:

    Well, I must say that I refused to follow the mold and read the entire story of Sodom and Gomorrah as part of a SS lesson to 3-4 year olds. Whoever wrote the lesson certainly wasn’t thinking about the sexual content that they would be introducing to small children, or the questions that might arise.

  181. @ Bridget:

    Bridget, I don’t know how to say this exactly, but I would like to hear your take on this. I think, from my own experience and from observation of other people, that it is easier to “believe in” the Bible than it is to “believe in” Jesus. Jesus seems to have a mind of his own. He is hard to argue with and win. Hard to ignore. Basically impossible to hate. And fairly easy to misunderstand. On the other hand, I can and most people can, jerk around the Bible to prove most anything. The Bible is a “god” that can be tamed, so to speak.

  182. dee wrote:

    E.G. wrote:
    Ham and his ilk need the debate to run hot and furious.
    I have some science friends who believe that Ham is banking off the controversy and that he knows he is offering bad “science.” Me-who knows…?

    Heh… I’m one of your “science friends” (although I don’t think you knew that until now). Specifically, a Ph.D. biologist. I’ve been watching this for years. Both of the extreme sides of this debate – the Ham-ite 7-day bunch and the Dawkinsonian “there is no purpose and science can prove that” set – clean up in the book market and speaking circuit. They need each other. In contemporary parlance, they are frienemies.

    Those of the third way – religious and non-religious alike – get minimal press (S.J. Gould is the only exception that that rule that I can think of).

    Yup, read Walton, Gould, E.O. Wilson, Ross (with a grain of salt). Also, keep in mind that, in terms of biology, our origins are much less important than how we steward what God owns and has commanded us to care for. In that vein, I’d say come to peace with your view of origins and then get on to the real, and hard, work of creation care/environmental stewardship.

    There are plenty of organizations out there to help with that in a Christian context of Kingdom hope. These include:

    A Rocha
    Au Sable Institute
    Plant with Purpose
    the Evangelical Environmental Network

    Also, lots of great books by Matthew and Nancy Sleeth, Leah Kostamo, Steven Bouma-Prediger, Scott Sabin, and others.

    I have, as a biologist, generally begun to ignore the origins debate and turn queries around to asking how the inquirer is caring for what God has commanded us to tend, however the person feels about origins.

    dee wrote:

    @ E.G.:
    Thank you for linking to Biologos. I heard of Walton’s book and have not read it. I plan to remedy that.

    Yes, definitely read it. It’s short, easily accessible, and will change your thought paradigm on this topic.

    And check out a few of the authors that I mentioned above, if you have time. Like I said, origins is interesting. Although it’s pretty much an ivory tower debate of little long-term importance. What we do with God’s planet (and how our actions show love, or otherwise, to our neighbors near and far) is much more important.

    The latter also requires real boots-on-the-ground work, which is why many find it preferable to discuss origins… which is merely philosophical/scientific/theoretical. Practicalities are always tougher because they require a commitment.

  183. NC Now wrote:

    The quoting of the above seems messed up.

    It definitely is. I should have put a regular para between the blockquote for your own quote and the quote from the AIG website. It should have looked like this:
    NC Now wrote:

    But the YEC folks, specifically AIG and many others, are NOT open to other theories. No matter what facts anyone digs up. Read their statement of faith.
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/about/faith
    Espcially the last point. What it really means but doesn’t state explicitly is “Our (AIG’s) interpretation of scripture is correct and no fact can be found that will change our interpretation.”

    This means they are not doing science. In an way shape or form.

    Yes, and if you look at their last paragraph/last point:

    By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.

    Yes, evidence is subject to interpretation by fallible people.

    As opposed to scripture which is never subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information??

  184. @ Bridget:
    I have often thought about this. Many claim the the Bible is inerrant in the original autographs. But, and a big but, God did not see fit to preserve the original. We also know that there have been some issues with the translations, etc.

    So, how do we deal with this. If God did not miraculously preserve the original autographs, then should we not be a bit more circumspect as we discuss inerrancy? I prefer to say the Bible is authoritative as well as infallible in its purposes which is to tell the people God’s big story.

  185. @ E.G.:
    Hi “scientific friend.” I would like to do a post or 2 or 3 on Christians and the environment. So, have you ever considered writing something that might get Christians to think about this subject that means so much to you? Hint, hint…. dee@thewartburgwatch.com

  186. dee wrote:

    So, how do we deal with this. If God did not miraculously preserve the original autographs, then should we not be a bit more circumspect as we discuss inerrancy? I prefer to say the Bible is authoritative as well as infallible in its purposes which is to tell the people God’s big story.

    The problem is that evangelicals so diminish the human contribution to the Bible that they leave people to believe that essentially the Bible ‘fell from the sky, leather bound with maps attached’. Then, when they find out things like the fact that the story in the Bible about Jesus and the woman caught in adultery is not in the earliest texts and was, in fact a later addition to the Bible, many lose their faith entirely.

    In fact, this textual problem about the woman caught in adultary has been known for many, many years. There was a very good debate involving the text of the Bible involving Bart Ehrman and Dan Wallace. During the Q&A somebody asked Wallace ‘If this problem has been known for so long, why did it take someone like Bart Ehrman to bring it up?’ To which Bart Ehrman piped in and said ‘Yeah, I want to hear about this too.’

    Wallace went on the say that Ehrman has actually done a great service in this regard by bringing those issues up and evangelicals need to discuss them up front instead of pretending they don’t exist and cause people to question their faith when they hear differently.

    We all need to focus on exactly what you said, that the Bible is infallible in what it teaches and there are textual issues that need to be discussed.

  187. JeffT wrote:

    In fact, this textual problem about the woman caught in adultary has been known for many, many years. There was a very good debate involving the text of the Bible involving Bart Ehrman and Dan Wallace. During the Q&A somebody asked Wallace ‘If this problem has been known for so long, why did it take someone like Bart Ehrman to bring it up?’ To which Bart Ehrman piped in and said ‘Yeah, I want to hear about this too.

    Well this one is going to surprise you. It was this passage that caused me to have a faith crisis. This was also the story that caused Ehrman to walk away from his faith And guess who caused it? Dan Wallace! He came, at my request, to the class I was teaching to discuss his work in Bible translation. Yep- he came even though he knew I was the one teaching.

    I still remember him discussing this story not being in the Bible. I felt my face get hot and I began to panic. I wondered what else I didn’t know about the Bible. And that was the best thing that could have happened to me.

    I started with the premise that brighter folks than I knew this and still clung to the faith. So, I needed to start asking all the hard questions that I knew and find out if I could answer them. In fact, I promised dinner to anyone who could find a question for which I couldn’t find an answer. I also read atheists, Jewish works, Mormon stuff, Hinduism (I listened to the most of the Bhagavad Gita on tape- It was a bit of a drag because the producer kept ringing chimes after each profound thought and there are loads of profound thoughts.) I read theology books. And when people asked me questions that I didn’t know, I would stop and find the answers.

    True story: I was playing a video in an adult Sunday school class. I started to discuss the “sign of Jonah” and stopped dead in my tracks, right in front of the class (about 70 people). I said “Wait a minute-Jesus was not in the ground 3 days and nights. Have any of you got the answer?” We all looked like “deer caught in the headlights.” So, I said I would find an answer. I did and shared it with them and even wrote a blog post about it at TWW a long time ago.

    http://thewartburgwatch.com/2010/03/26/bible-answer-babes-corner-sign-of-jonah/

    Unlike Ehrman, I looked for potential answers instead of throwing the Bible on the trash heap. And answers I have found-not all of them but enough.

    So, I have a lot to thank Dan Wallace for. He was a kind friend of mine in Dallas. He never once lectured me on my “gender role”even though I know he has thoughts on the matter. Dan helped me to see how those with differences on secondary issues can love one another and still attend church together.

    PS In case he ever reads this: Dan, I still remember your beagle-Legion. I have told many people the origin of that apt name.

  188. @ dee:

    I’m jealous! Although I fall on the very liberal side of Christianity, Dan Wallace is one of my favorite scholars to listen to. Extremely engaging and knowledgeable, and someone I’ve learned a lot from, but my experiences have all been via downloads.

  189. @ JeffT:
    Its funny. Deb keeps telling me that she cannot believe all the experiences I had and how they have been relevant to our blogging. God has given me many adventures in my life and has introduced me to wonderful people. Funny thing: I didn’t go looking for any of this.

    I am so glad that you still embrace the word “Christianity,” no matter how liberal. He is present in those who seek His name.

  190. @ JeffT:
    PS: His kids went to the same school that I discussed in the comment under the complementarian post. Dan and his wife Patti do not fit the Dallas mode, thank heavens, and their kindness to me helped me navigate the rather interesting waters of Dallas. You should see his house. It is filled with books and books. It is an intellectual’s heaven. He is a good and decent man, although I know he would disagree with me and give me chapter and verse.

  191. @ JeffT:
    Sorry- a flurry of thoughts.

    I believe the reason you still embrace the name “Christian” is because you sense His presence in your life. And He is a gentle lover of our souls.There are many things with which we all struggle with in our lives and that is why He gives us His love in the form of radical grace. It is Him+nothing else. You did see the comment at the top of this post… I am glad you comment here.

  192. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    In other news: Federer has just won in four sets. I thought it would probably go to four sets, but only probably, and I didn’t know who would win, so I can’t really claim a successful call there.

    Currently watching a certain tennis match but, alas, I shan’t spoil it for my son 😉

    Can I make a request Nick?

  193. @ dee:

    I did see that quote and should have added that I don’t meet Dan Wallace’s definition of “liberal” for I do believe in the Resurrection. I’m “liberal” only because when fundamentalists trash a view as being “liberal”, more often than not it’s a view I happened to hold as well. I like to think of myself as just ‘Christian’.

  194. JeffT wrote:

    believe that essentially the Bible ‘fell from the sky, leather bound with maps attached’.

    Don’t forget the red letters. 🙂

  195. Nancy wrote:

    @ Bridget:

    Bridget, I don’t know how to say this exactly, but I would like to hear your take on this. I think, from my own experience and from observation of other people, that it is easier to “believe in” the Bible than it is to “believe in” Jesus. Jesus seems to have a mind of his own. He is hard to argue with and win. Hard to ignore. Basically impossible to hate. And fairly easy to misunderstand. On the other hand, I can and most people can, jerk around the Bible to prove most anything. The Bible is a “god” that can be tamed, so to speak.

    I think you may be correct. Salvation does not come from knowing and understanding the bible. The bible can only point to the Giver of Life. I do believe that each Christian’s personal story/experience/testimony of coming to know Jesus has much to do with their walk with him. These experiences are as varied as their are Christians. Some know nothing of scripture, yet they have an experience with Jesus. Some wonder if there is a God and actually seek him, by asking him to make himself known to them and they receive and answer. Some have dreams. Some are convinced by scripture that God exists and then believe.

    Here is a scripture I read recently that leaves a big question as to what salvation really means in God’s economy.

    “John said to Him, “Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons in Your name, and we tried to prevent him because he was not following us.” But Jesus said, “Do not hinder him, for there is no one who will perform a miracle in My name, and be able soon afterward to speak evil of Me. For he who is not against us is for us. For whoever gives you a cup of water to drink because of your name as followers of Christ, truly I say to you, he will not lose his reward.”

  196. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    Bridget wrote:

    Can I make a request Nick?

    As in, shut up with the In Other News slot? Hmm… dunno… the power is kind of addictive.

    Well, some of your other news is great.

    I’m just wondering what we will do about the upcoming Olympics? I might need to stop reading TWW for a few weeks. Unless . . . we can get you off your mini power addiction for a two week season. Whatdauthink?

  197. @ numo:
    OK, way off topic, Scott McKnight had a great link to a study on Dreams, and they are getting very good at reading our dreams through magnetic imaging. They can tell, now, when someone is Dreaming of a 4-legged animal, but not which animal, just by the part of the brain that lights up. Anyways, they feel that when our more rational/logical side is impaired (in REM), then our emotional side is like a Dream state, where nothing is logical. Anyways, some areas they are studying are post-traumatic stress and finding the nightmares we get from a terrifying event is our emotional brain processing the event, but in certain people, the Brian can’t seem to file the event – a suspected function of Dreams in the first place – and therefore re-live it night after night. It is a loooong way off curing, but it opens up the door to nightmares – recurring nightmares can be a sign of our brains inability to process heightened emotional events into specific “past” or “danger is gone” categories in our brain.

    Anyways, I am not sure Boyd is so much a practical counselling type of writer, he is very into abstract theories, so when the Bible mentions demons, what would they be in our modern era? How would we, in the west, experience what they were describing? Mental Illness? or would we just not experience them, because we don’t categorize insane-acting people as demonic, we only see, mentally ill or drugged out while an ancient greek would have seen a possessed person. It is interesting to see how they denoted demonic power back then – the demon had power – think if the girl who could prophesy until Paul kicked out her demon – they saw supernatural shows of strength (a young girl tossing a cow, for example) as evidence, or a person with prophetic abilities. Other cultures guarded the (what we would call) insane who had powers. It wasn’t someone walking around talking to themselves that they would say was controlled (not Jesus, just ancient Greeks, Jews, etc.) by a ‘god’ or ‘demon’, the person had to display bizarre behaviour they felt no human could do in their own power – strength, supernatural giftedness, etc. That said, I don’t think many of the mentally ill today would be called ‘demonic’ in the ancient world, since many don’t show any great supernatural power in their illness. Anyways, I haven’t read Boyd’s stuff on demons – just the one on the fall of satan vs. the fall of humans (which I liked), but that site closed down a while ago – but Greg’s writing is much more philosophic than pastoral advice in my experience. He can take on other theologians, but usually doesn’t get into counselling people in his writing, so he may have been taking a detached view of what ‘demonic’ meant in history and applying it today, rather than coming down on weather demonic possession of the past is actually mental illness today – something I don’t think is that easy an equation, actually.

    Sure, we could label every Bible episode this or that: boy whose father pleads with Jesus to remove the demon- epilepsy, man in the graveyard – schizophrenia and so on, but I am not sure that always equates. When I lived in India, in parts of India (Kashmir) the insane were revered as being closer to God, but in other parts of India and Nepal, insanity was feared and considered “unclean”, people didn’t want to be touched by those people. Likewise, as Jesus travelled into various regions, he met people with varying beliefs about demon-possessed. But my understanding is that in the pagan religions, demon possession was a good thing, and showed favour by the gods while in other areas, they more classified mental illness as possession, and feared it. So, Greg likely just tries to get at what they thought demonic possession was.

    Remember, Paul’s casting out of a demon on the prophetic girl doesn’t fit our modern day mental illness category – the child made her master’s money prophesying she isn’t recorded displaying bipolar or schizophrenic behaviours, but she was very aware of Paul’s power. So, I wouldn’t call that a modern-day mental illness – something else is going on there.

  198. @ Bridget:
    Question: Season 4 of Downton Abbey featured a serious situation in episode 2 that I thought I might discuss next month. But some people have not yet viewed it. What do you think would be a good amount of time to wait before discussing it? I have pondering this instead of practicing the French bustle which I should be doing right now.

  199. @ dee:

    “He gives us His love in the form of radical grace.”
    ++++++++++

    reading it all here, just haven’t had anything to add til now.

    dee, these words “radical grace”…. I’ve long ceased to able to process christianese words. “God’s glory” and “God’s grace” or “x,y, or z grace” being chief of them all.

    of course I can give you a stunning definition of grace in christianese theological speak. it just won’t mean anything to me. I’m better at being Teflon than a Teflon pan itself. And trust me, it’s not on purpose.

    in your most objective, raw word choices, can you describe the what, how and why of “radical grace”, and how it makes you feel?

    i’m actually content with thinking of God & “grace” in terms of simply a very gracious person, who welcomes a brat-jerk with hospitality & warmth, ignoring the brat-jerkiness.

    but I somehow think “radical grace” is too strong a word combination for what I just described.

  200. @ dee:

    A regular guilty pleasure of mine is Mayo and Kermode’s Film Review on BBC Radio 5 on a Friday afternoon. In which, you will not be overly surprised to hear, Simon Mayo and Mark Kermode review the films released in the past week. Since the material under discussion is invariably new and many or most listeners will not have seen it, Mayo and Kermode obviously come up against the “plot spoiler” question – namely, how long after a film has been released can one legitimately discuss plot details on air without spoiling it?

    They have not come up with a definitive answer. For instance, the film “Sixth Sense” was ruined for me when a television sit com character gave away the ending; this was a couple of years after the film came out but, since I hadn’t seen it, it still annoyed me. The creme de la creme, though, came when Mayo and Kermode discussed The Other Boleyn Girl and … er… spoiled the ending for a Dutch listener who wasn’t familiar with 16th-century English history. So they generally reckon that you have to leave it at least 500 years.

    On the other hand, I’ve not watched Downtown Abbey at all and am not that interested, so if you need to let off steam about it, by all means ping me an email.

    I hope this is helpful.

  201. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    In other news, I was at least 12 years old before I discovered that not everyone has permanent tinnitus.

    I do feel for you. My wife suffers from it due to playing in a brass band for a number of years….

  202. Hey Dee,

    First, thank you so much for writing this, when I hear people saying I can’t be a christian or don’t “get” the Bible, it is really frustrating.

    your article states: “Science is not (necessarily) Truth. When a scientific conclusion is supported or even when it becomes rigorously supported and gets labeled a Theory, or even when it becomes so ubiquitous and pervasive that is moves to be considered absolute fact, it is in fact not the same as ‘reality’ or ‘truth’. So the first thing we must recognize is that in the ultimate sense, the fact an idea is supported by science does not mean it is necessarily true. And, in an ultimate sense, the fact an idea is not supported by science does not necessarily mean it is false…”

    Actually, truth is subjective and therefore not really on the table, but just to quibble a little here: there are NO facts in science. There are Theories, even gravity is a theory (but I never hear Christians say it is “only a theory” about gravity). Gravity may have formulas, but those formulas aren’t facts either, they are formulas that torture high school students. So, gravity is a theory, evolution is a theory. Why? because science is always open ended, it isn’t about “truth” as much as about discovery. IF some more plausible explanation were to arise, then the Theory would change, and they have as our knowledge has expanded so has our understanding of both gravity and evolution.

    Darwin’s book (205 years old now) has some great observations about the fauna and fossils he found on his round the world tour, but it has quite a few hypothesis that are inaccurate or have been replaced by better explanations as more and more evidence and discoveries were added in Darwin’s day, for example, they didn’t know about modern day genetics, they had a theory of heredity, but that was incomplete, so it left a lot of speculation about how animals adapted to their environments, today, we no longer use the theory of heredity, but of genetics to explain how life reproduces, so a bunch of his insights into the “hows” of reproduction have long been dismissed, but he was correct in his observations that species evolve over time (not instantly).

    Gravity too has been updated, and things like black holes and pulsars have altered the original view of gravity somewhat (it was observed by Isaac Newton on earth, not in space, so a lot has been added and learned since then).

    So, if we were to state gravity or evolution were facts, then there could never be any added or altered information, that isn’t the case, however, when people say “it’s only a theory” they need to understand, the evidence has been making these theories stronger and stronger, so it is a theory that is growing in support, not vice versa. For evolution, the discovery of our genomes and (much) later mapping of them (by Dr. Francis Collins) has been shattering for opponents of evolution. Even if Darwin hadn’t been a scientist (or any of his colleagues/rivals who were also about to publish), modern genetics would have arrived at the same conclusion. We evolved from common life-forms over billions of years. If not, please explain why us humans (and all non-egg laying mammals) still have left over egg-yolk making genes (human eggs do not contain yolk, as we are placental mammals) lying defunct in our DNA?

    Sorry to quibble I just want to be clear about theories in science, since popular culture treats theories more like guesses.

  203. I consider myself a red-letter Christian. That is, I put the words of Jesus in the NT at the top of my consideration of the Bible and interpret everything else by the words (and behaviors) of Jesus. All apparent conflicts with the epistles or the OT get resolved so as to preserve the red-letters and the actions of Jesus to the fullest extent. Partly that is because the letter writers were generally responding to correspondence that we do not have, which could drastically affect the interpretation of what they wrote. And partly because what they were doing was interpreting Jesus to those to whom they wrote.

  204. elastigirl wrote:

    in your most objective, raw word choices, can you describe the what, how and why of “radical grace”, and how it makes you feel?

    I am so glad you asked. It gives me one more excuse for avoiding learning how to do the French bustle.

    I call it “radical” grace because it is totally free of the quid pro quo that is inherent in many relationships on this earth. He gives it to me with no expectation that somehow I will do something for Him. It is free of all strings. It springs totally from His deep love for me and there is nothing that I need to do that can make Him love me more.

    God’s love is so pure and free that there is little on this earth that I can compare it to. Of course, I love my children but there have been days that I have been irritated, frustrated and self absorbed and that has affected my expression of love to them. God loves us so purely and this is exemplified in His grace-His willingness to sacrifice His Son to win me to Him.

    Because I am human, I cannot love as purely nor ever be fully free of the issues that I deal with. But God is free of all of that. So, because it is something that I cannot truly understand and imagine and because I am human, to me it appears so different that i call it radical because it is different from me.

    I know. These words have been overused. But this has been the way that I have always expressed it. It is something profound… I just stopped writing and went to the thesaurus to see if there was another way to say “radical.” Lo and behold-“profound” is one of those synonyms.

    So, perhaps I will stop saying “radical” and instead use the word “profound” as a better adjective. Thank you for pushing me to think. You have a knack for doing that! 🙂

  205. @ dee:

    Hmmm? I was just about sceaming at the TV with that event! You could easily let readers know that you intend on discussing a certain episode and ask if anyone has objections . . . say in the banner at the top of the blog? They could send you an email if it would be a spoiler for them.

    BTW – are those decorative ribbons, or is it taking that many to hold up the train? That’s a lot of ribbons! Would love to see a pic of this french bustle!

  206. @ Val:
    And that is why I have Jim and Old John J help me with this stuff. Hopefully they will see this comment and comment. Thank you for outlining this stuff so well.

  207. Dee,

    Not only is God’s grace profound, but it includes a great offer of forgiveness, merely for accepting the gift, and with it the prospect of forgiveness throughout life, again the only requirement being to accept the gift.

    BTW, all gifts have to be accepted or rejected. No one can force a gift on you. Even a gift by will or heirship can be rejected, and generally to receive it requires signing a release, a positive act to accept! So, all that is required to have what God wants to give to us, is to say Yes!

  208. Arce wrote:

    I consider myself a red-letter Christian. That is, I put the words of Jesus in the NT at the top of my consideration of the Bible and interpret everything else by the words (and behaviors) of Jesus. All apparent conflicts with the epistles or the OT get resolved so as to preserve the red-letters and the actions of Jesus to the fullest extent. Partly that is because the letter writers were generally responding to correspondence that we do not have, which could drastically affect the interpretation of what they wrote. And partly because what they were doing was interpreting Jesus to those to whom they wrote.

    Pretty much where I stand as well, which makes us heretics in the eyes of the inerrancy crowd. In fact, they hate red letter Bibles because they say that, even though there were human authors, every word in the Bible is exactly what God wanted it to say.

  209. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    In other news, I was at least 12 years old before I discovered that not everyone has permanent tinnitus.

    Sorry for that 🙁

    In other news, Nick isn’t going to spoil the Olympics for the rest of the us!

  210. Actually, the top dogs of inerrancy say that the part that is inerrant is the original “autographs” which we do not have. What we have is copies of copies of copies of copies (likely resulting in omissions and additions, word changes, etc.), followed by translations. And the translations are based on a Hebrew to English or Greek to English dictionary that has been influenced by the theological views of the people who created the dictionary, so that the meanings they put on some words are questionable. And we have the issue of understanding Hebrew and Greek grammar, which is exceedingly different than English grammar. So, the actual words in our Bible need to be taken a little skeptically and a great deal of grace needs to be given to those who find a different understanding of what a passage may mean.

    And EVERY translation suffers from the same limitations. It is the nature of the starting materials, the process, and the people involved. That anything approaching what God would have us to know, actually makes it through that process is a miracle itself!

  211. dee wrote:

    @ Bridget:
    I have often thought about this. Many claim the the Bible is inerrant in the original autographs. But, and a big but, God did not see fit to preserve the original. We also know that there have been some issues with the translations, etc.
    So, how do we deal with this. If God did not miraculously preserve the original autographs, then should we not be a bit more circumspect as we discuss inerrancy? I prefer to say the Bible is authoritative as well as infallible in its purposes which is to tell the people God’s big story.

    I believe the Bible was inspired and has a purpose and is a help for us today in understanding God. Is that the same as “authoritative as well as infallible in its purposes which is to tell the people God’s big story?” I wouldn’t call the Bible infallible. I would call God infallible. I can’t in good conscious attribute something to the Bible that I believe belongs to God alone.

  212. Arce wrote:

    That is, I put the words of Jesus in the NT at the top of my consideration of the Bible and interpret everything else by the words (and behaviors) of Jesus.

    But, without Paul to look back from the other side of the Cross, we could be stuck in a works oriented faith. Hear me out.

    Jesus often appeared to making things worse when he discussed the Law. For example, Jesus kept going at the Pharisees by extending the Law. They would be proud that they hadn’t committed adultery and then He tells them that they have since they lusted in the hearts they have. How is that “Good News” for most people since most have struggled in this area?

    He says that those who ignore the poor will not inherit the kingdom of heaven and then he tells the rich man to sell everything and follow him. This wasn’t particularly appealing and it was definitely guilt inducing.

    Jesus pushed the people to understand that we were totally unable to keep the Law. This was vital because He had a solution and He wanted people to joyfully understand that solution when it occurred. When He went to the Cross, He freed us from the consequences of the Law because no matter how hard we try, we still fail if we use the Law for measurement.

    The 3 year period of Jesus’ ministry was spent showing us how even the holiest of leaders were basic screw-ups. Since Jesus loves us, why was this necessary? It was necessary because he alone understood what was about to happen and He was preparing everyone to rejoice at the solution.

    Paul looks back from the view of the Cross and Resurrection and says “See, this is how he solved my problem.” Paul was a Pharisee of Pharisee and he understood that he could not keep the demands of the Law which Jesus seemed to keep extending by making issues of the heart as bad as the outside behavior. And, I don’t know about you, but I am not sure that I would be real pleased to always being judged on the state of my heart. I have good and bad days and sometimes the bad can seem to outweigh the good.

    Let me be transparent here. I feel guilty when I read Jesus’ words about taking care of the poor. I know that I do not do, and will probably never do, enough in this area. There is a streak of selfishness in me. But Paul comes along and tells me that Jesus understand this. That Jesus was telling me how hard it is to serve the Law and be successful. In fact, the way things are written, it is impossible. Jesus came to take care of my problem.

    Paul is the one who points always to the Cross. If you look at Paul’s letters, he rarely, if ever, speaks of Jesus’ miracles. Instead he laser focuses on the Cross. For him, the Cross/Resurrection was the answer for his problems and dilemma.

    That is why I love Paul in the big picture. I do struggle with some of his words in certain areas but boy do I love his focus on the Solution.

  213.     __

    “On A Proverbial ‘Magical Scripture Ride’, Perhaps?”

    huh?

    (an example)

      The Bible lends a fair and certain amount of credence to the possibility that Man’s science will be used by the questionable actions of certain men, in the foreseeable future, to devastate a third of this planet, both land and sea…

    (sadface)

      Note: This first became a remotely distinct possibility, July 16, 1945, with the completion of the scientific work carried out at the Trinity testing grounds, in New Mexico, USA.

    Coincidence? Spoof? or a Practical Joke, perhaps?

    What?

    “I like to dream, 
    Yes, Yes…
    Right between the sound machine,
    On a cloud of sound,
    I drift at night, 
    Any place it goes is right,
    Goes far, flies near…
    To the stars,
    Away from here?”  ~John Kay

    hmmm…

      For if they do these things when the science is green, what shall be done when it is dry?

    And, 

       The purposes of the ‘Christ’s’ Church in the field of Orthodox Christianity, cannot in any real or enduring way be achieved by coercion.

    Sopy
    __
    Video: Trinity, 1945
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QbZmFqsGBbk
    Video: Additional scientific testing performed in1953
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZSjZfAyYB4
    *
    Comic relief: Billy Joel – ‘You May Be Right’ – New Year’sEve, 2014
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAHixzBVPcA

  214. @ Bridget:
    Good point. I was thinking about a friend in college, John, frat boy to the max and President of his fraternity- well known for his wild antics. After Christmas break, he came back different man. He started Bible studies in the frat and insisted on serving others. He sought out a church and met with the pastor to learn more about the faith

    On his way home for Christmas (upstate NY) he was trapped in an airport for 24 hours. He had nothing to do. A New Testament was sitting all by its lone self next to his seat. He picked it up and read it cover to cover. The words, given by the Word, caused him to reach out to God.

    So, could you help me how to say the following better-in a way that makes sense? John, through the Bible, had an encounter with Christ who changed his life.

  215. @ Val:
    Boyd literally means that the person in question is being attacked by demons, in *exactly the way that spiritual warfare-type charismatics understand it.

    He strikes me as a strategic-level spiritual warfare type for the slightly more highbrow set. Seriously.

  216. @ Val: Maybe what you’re saying more or less comes out to “These are the facts, insofar as we know them.”

    I do not think truth is subjective, but that’s a debate for another day!

  217. Arce wrote:

    And EVERY translation suffers from [a shedload of issues]… That anything approaching what God would have us to know, actually makes it through that process is a miracle itself!

    You know what would be really handy? If Jesus were still alive. Or if, say, the Holy Spirit were still present. Then God could talk!

    Wouldn’t that be the coolest.

  218. Yep, that is what it takes, the Holy Spirit guiding us as we read. So I pray for that guidance whenever I read, and I do the necessary digging to get the meaning out of the passage.

  219. dee wrote:

    @ E.G.:
    Thank you for linking to Biologos. I heard of Walton’s book and have not read it. I plan to remedy that.

    Dee, and EG…they did a series off Walton’s book at Fairfax Community Church. When they announced the Creationist topic I had heartburn and was in knots. I feared this AIG approach.

    Here is the sermon series

    http://www.fairfaxvideos.com/sermons/origins/part4

  220. dee wrote:

    @ Bridget:
    Good point. I was thinking about a friend in college, John, frat boy to the max and President of his fraternity- well known for his wild antics. After Christmas break, he came back different man. He started Bible studies in the frat and insisted on serving others. He sought out a church and met with the pastor to learn more about the faith

    On his way home for Christmas (upstate NY) he was trapped in an airport for 24 hours. He had nothing to do. A New Testament was sitting all by its lone self next to his seat. He picked it up and read it cover to cover. The words, given by the Word, caused him to reach out to God.

    So, could you help me how to say the following better-in a way that makes sense? John, through the Bible, had an encounter with Christ who changed his life.

    John had an encounter with Christ. The Bible was a vehicle that God used. Jesus has a way of meeting people where they are 🙂

    and this

    Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    You know what would be really handy? If Jesus were still alive. Or if, say, the Holy Spirit were still present. Then God could talk!
    Wouldn’t that be the coolest.

  221. YEC arguments often center around the literal meaning of Hebrew words, such as yom, and operate under the assumption that certain words force the text into certain meanings. However behind this argument is a bigger assumption, namely that the books of the Torah are guided by the bounds of modern historical narrative.

    Nothing could be further from the truth when examining Old Testament texts such as Genesis and Joshua. These texts were not composed in the modern period, and did not conform to modern expectations that history is a reconstruction of the exact chronology of a sequence of events. These texts correspond to no modern literary genre that we typically work with, and in fact they should be understood according to the conventions of writing in which it was written.

    The short of this is that in the context of Genesis 1, for instance, narratively “yom” meant day, sunset to sunset. Yet it is a faulty assumption to limit this narrative to a one-to-one correspondence with actual days in prehistory. This is an bad way of reading, equivalent to taking Milton’s Paradise Lost and declaring him to be a heretic because his story does not precisely correspond to an accepted doctrinal formulation. Storytelling, myth and narrative are the oldest and most important form of human reasoning. Ancient texts should not be forced in the modern categories of history, which is only made possible through the growth of modern science and the printing press.

    Perseus (James)

  222. AJG wrote:

    Orion’sBelt wrote:
    Consider the story of the Exodus and for a moment take the story at face value. How many times did they see quantifiable, measurable acts of God beyond anything you and I may have ever seen or will ever see? Did it make them believe or have faith? Not even a little bit. Not in the majority. That is in many ways the point of that story, and it is true in all of our lives. If what God does do in terms of meeting us in the heart is not sufficient to draw us to Him, then neither will a whole host of physical manifestations and miracles. It is part of who we are, part of what keeps us from Him. We will always doubt and have doubts. The last miracle will fade and a new one will be needed. Unless we are able to have faith.
    Of course, I think the Exodus story is myth in that no physical evidence of a migration of a million+ Hebrews has ever been found in the Sinai Peninsula. A migration of that size would have left some trace, yet despite decades of searching, none has turned up. And I would argue that Moses certainly was swayed by god’s miraculous revelation to him in the burning bush, so I’m sure many were convinced by the plagues and miracles of god.
    In the NT, Paul expects us to accept what he is saying on faith, yet his conversion supposedly required a miraculous revelation by Jesus on the Damascus’ road. Why are we expected to just accept by faith the amazing things stated in the bible when men like Paul and Peter had to be convinced with their own eyes? That certainly seems like an impossible burden laid at the feet of all those who never saw these things first hand. Eyewitness accounts are among the most unreliable evidence which is why people are rarely convicted of a crime based solely on eyewitness testimony.
    John 20:29 was almost certainly written to stop people from asking these questions and to just accept these things on faith. Think how much more blessed you are because you didn’t see Jesus and yet you still believe! It’s a built-in defense mechanism for Christianity and it has been an extremely successful one.

    Sorry for the delay. And my oh my, there is no way I’ll have time to read through what follows with my schedule and field more than just a few comments where I might have something useful to say – so please accept my apologies!.

    In my comment, I had assumed you would not accept the Exodus story as a real event, that is fairly standard for someone in your position, That is why I asked you to “for the moment, take the story at face value”. Even IF the story is myth, myth’s still have a great power to teach us about ourselves. In fact, that IS how myths were handled in the ANE world. True/False wasn’t really the point. The point was what they teach us. And in this case, there is true comedy in the story in terms of how over and over and over again God does something that so many of us would claim would prove to us forever there was a God, and just a few hours or days later the entire crowd is in despair and wanting to return to their former life in Egypt living with the false gods who had no power at all.

    And even if this is myth, what it teaches us about who we are in relationship with God still stands. It’s a timeless truth. We are doubters. And it takes work to have faith when things go wrong or they do not add up.

    I then ask you to consider the following. The God of the Bible would be a being created all that there is from our perspective, matter, energy, time, everything. He created it simply by ‘speaking’ it into existence – an accommodation which I would think points to some sort of what we would understand as an act of will coupled from His ‘mind’ to ‘reality’.

    But to be such a being implies He is not of the stuff he created, He is outside it in some significant way. And so your approach of ‘nothing that can’t be examined through interaction with the physical will be regarded as at best indeterminate at worst non-existent” necessarily separates you from ever, apart from His direct intervention, knowing that He is. IOW, it is philosophically sound to acknowledge that the God of the Bible would necessarily be unknowable per the scientific method. And that to know Him one must pursue some other course – a course that fundamentally depends on His willingness to be understood.

    Zeta (Jim)

  223. Not to hijack the thread…but did you guys see this story on CNN?

    http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/21/us/florida-teen-suspended-porn/?hpt=hp_t2

    An 18 year old high school student was suspended for making gay porn. Due to the family’s financial status he made the porn to help support his family and pay some of their bills. His mother knew that he was doing this and why. The other day on Facebook I saw a post among several Christians about the plight of female porn actors. I pointed out that there is also a large gay porn industry to and was there any compassion or concern for those who make adult gay porn? It got silent very quickly. I wonder…how many Christians would have stepped up to help this family? Would Christians have helped them financially or is the fact that this involves gay porn going to be too much of a stigma?

    Stories like this are incredible opportunities to show love and grace…but knowing how many evangelicals and other Christians typically react…this will be another lost opportunity.

  224. @ elastigirl:
    I forgot this part of my answer. You asked how this makes me feel? When I focus on profound grace, it makes me feel light and free. The love for Christ and the push of the Holy Spirit makes me want ( I really mean want) to obey Him and to lovingly reach out and serve others. Then, when things don’t go well or I screw up, instead of dwelling on my failures, I confess and get going once again feeling light and free because grace has taken care of the tough stuff.

    I am the sort of person who really gets on myself when I do something, especially something that hurts another person. If left to my own devices, i beat myself up on a regular basis. However, because of grace, I turn it over to Him because I understand my weakness. And turning it over makes me light and free once again.

  225. Nancy wrote:

    I think we need to start teaching critical thinking to kids from the earliest possible moment that the researchers tell us that the brain can deal with it.

    Evangelicals need to learn critical thinking skills. All too often Christians are taught what to think not how to think. This is why Christians can’t practice discernment. They don’t know how. If Christians did topics like this and people such as Ken Hamm, CJ Mahaney, Mark Driscoll, Joyce Meyer, Joel Olsteen, Mark Dever would be solved.

    Issues like Harvest Bible, Acts 29, Stephen Furtick’s Elevation Church, SGM, etc… would not be issues anymore.

    But don’t hold your breath…many evangelicals are very intellectually lazy. Education is key its why communist and fascist states sought to control education.

  226. Steven wrote:

    Dave A A wrote:
    the Biblical writers believed it
    Where?
    The Bible doesn’t address the age of the earth…

    Where? Good question. The only thing YEC’s can do is add up the generations, ASSUMING that each father is a literal father and not a forefather. Then they can ASSUME that the 7 days are literal 24 hour periods –including the one when God rested, interpreted in a FIGURATIVE, SPIRITUAL way by the author of Hebrews. BTW, did God go back to work on the 8th through 13th literal 24hr periods and rest again on the 14th? (They must also assume no gap between vs 1 and 2 or between vs 2 and 3.)
    Then we have “the Biblical writers believed…” as if they all had some systematic theology and cosmology to which they subscribed, and all had a uniform view of creation. Nebuchadnezzar was a Bibilcal writer. Should we believe all the stuff he did?

  227. The thing about creation, well the thing about human bodies, which is all I can claim much knowledge about–the thing is that you can’t take it with you. Not now, anyhow. And if that’s all there is to being human, then how we came to be pretty much is not too important. Interesting maybe, but basically irrelevant in the long run.

  228. (off topic)
    After the interview with Tullian Tchividjian, Mefferd interviews some guy from “SheepDog Seminars.” He talked about violence in churches.

    The guy in the interview says there are more shootings/acts of violence in churches than there have been in schools.

    Janet Mefferd Show – 1/20/2014

    According to the Mefferd broadcast, there have been over 100 dead bodies found in American churches.

    The guy said sometimes people commit suicide in churches, not only during services, but sometimes when the churches are empty. So you show up in the morning to find a dead body.

    Sometimes, the guys shooting people in churches during services are husbands in the midst of a divorce who storm into the church building to shoot their wives dead.

    He told one story of a teen who invited a 54 year old guy to her church. They went to church, and he ran her over with a car ad killed her, I think.

    Mefferd also asked him about how churches can keep children safe from predators.

    One thing I liked about the interview is he stressed that Christians need to wake up and stop being superstitious, thinking they are more protected just because they are in a church.

  229. Eagle wrote:

    Not to hijack the thread…but did you guys see this story on CNN?
    http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/21/us/florida-teen-suspended-porn/?hpt=hp_t2
    An 18 year old high school student was suspended for making gay porn. Due to the family’s financial status he made the porn to help support his family and pay some of their bills. His mother knew that he was doing this and why. The other day on Facebook I saw a post among several Christians about the plight of female porn actors. I pointed out that there is also a large gay porn industry to and was there any compassion or concern for those who make adult gay porn? It got silent very quickly. I wonder…how many Christians would have stepped up to help this family? Would Christians have helped them financially or is the fact that this involves gay porn going to be too much of a stigma?
    Stories like this are incredible opportunities to show love and grace…but knowing how many evangelicals and other Christians typically react…this will be another lost opportunity.

    In the 1980s was teaching in the Houston area and had a student stripping. 18 yrs old, senior. We thought she was doing it to help the family, and the faculty offered pass the hat to help so she wouldn’t have to dance nude. ( BTW the administration said nothing.)
    She turned us down saying she was doing to buy a Datsun 300 sports car….she had bought it by the end of the year…..she moved to Florida to attend college. I assume she danced to pay her tuition….
    Sometimes there is more to the story than we care to know…..

  230. @ numo:
    Good Point, I don’t mean “truth” in a general sense, I mean science doesn’t deal with/without “truths” of the universe, it doesn’t seek to write a final word (aka a Bible) on the mechanics of the material universe. Truthfulness is essential to science – honesty in research, honesty in giving credit (especially to women), etc. – but Science isn’t out to declare one current understanding as ‘truth’, it uses careful observations and credible (note I said credible, not conspiracy driven) hypothesis to set up experiments that test those hypothesis (all requiring truthfulness, of course), but the final chapter of a Theory’s “Bible” is never written, it always remains open to add or correct information as it is uncovered.

    Hope this clarifies (sure there is truth out their, but science isn’t worried about spiritual, non-material truths, it isn’t set up to validate or disqualify miracles that happened 2,000 years ago on a starry night in Bethlehem or 2,500 years ago on the Nepali/Indian boarder when a certain famous Eastern Holy Man was said to be born a virgin (sound familiar?). Science isn’t a tool to validate God, Buddha or Atheists (ignore Charles Dawkins too) but it can test and observe and check and retest the created material world, and it is pushing the boundaries of knowledge of the created, material universe further and further back in time and out in space and that alone causes enough problems for certain people.

    I personally don’t mind the view of earth ever changing, our views on the Bible evolve with the times. See Rachel Held Evan’s latest post about famous quotes regarding interracial marriages, women’s suffrage, the orbit of the earth in space to see what believers used to view as essential for Christians to believe. So, like the Apostle Paul said about 2,000 years ago “I know nothing except Christ Crucified” (to which I would add ‘and risen’). The rest of truth is shifting through history. For example, if you believe children are born of their father’s seed, then your view of motherhood (as “soil” for men’s seed, rather than an actual biological parent of a child) is faulty, so your view of lineage is faulty. Islam’s prophet made a law that a child should always go with his father’s family (on that faulty view, that a child was only the offspring of his or her father). The writer of Hebrews makes a faulty conclusion when he/she argues that Levi was in Abraham’s loins when Abraham gives his offering to Melchizedek (since they thought all human ‘seed’ was in Adam, and then inside Seth was the rest of the Human’s race, followed by his sons (‘seed’ to them, was just like Russian dolls, where inside each min-son was the seed’s for the even min-nier grandsons. So, to me much truth shifts as we gain more knowledge, hence general, material truth is subjective based on our current knowledge and understanding.

  231. Did you guys see the Desiring God post for today!?! 😯 Whiskey Tango Foxtrot!! Deebs this can be a post….it involves none other than Pope Piper the First..and his guidelines on clothing. While John Piper didn’t write the post the author quoted from John Piper’s new book! 😛

    http://www.desiringgod.org/blog/posts/what-we-confess-with-our-clothing

    John Piper writes, in his brand new book of devotionals, A Godward Heart: Treasuring the God Who Loves You, “God ordained clothes to witness to the glory we have lost.” Clothes were part of the wrath of God against our rebellion. They are a loud stamp of disapproval upon a disobedient people — people who before had been pure, innocent, shameless, and naked. There was no need or purpose for Gap or Old Navy prior to the fall, but now we wear clothes at all times — fall, winter, spring, and summer.

    So does God ordain which tie I’ll put on in the morning? What about what pair of pants I use? How personal does this get…? Does God ordain the pimple that appears on one’s forehead? Or how the sweat roles off someone when they exercise? 😯

  232. Eagle wrote:

    God ordained clothes to witness to the glory we have lost.

    He should see my sweats! Glory to God is not my first thought in wearing them. But boy are they cozy! And when I smile the world is a little brighter.

  233. @ Eagle:
    Here is another quote. You are right-it deserves a post.

    “Clothing confesses our sinful desperation.”

    I wonder how he feels about cute shoes!!!!!!

  234. @ Eagle:
    “As we get dressed and undressed hundreds of time every year, we should have an awareness of the painful reason we wear anything, a sobriety and modesty in how we dress, and a hope in the promise of God to clothe us in Jesus’s perfect righteousness.”

    Yep-I feel like that when my best jeans feel tight! Sober moment and all…

  235. @ dee: gah! All that over spiritualizing is nuts, even without the conclusions he comes too.

    Clothing is practical, first and foremost. And a place where creativity can be put to work, not to mention taste (good, bad, indifferent). I think this guy needs to spend some time in the real world, outside of his enclave of admirers and yes men.

  236. dee wrote:

    @ Eagle:
    Here is another quote. You are right-it deserves a post.

    “Clothing confesses our sinful desperation.”

    I wonder how he feels about cute shoes!!!!!!

    I feel like someone needs to tell these guys that sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

  237. I keep hoping for a new post, because I wanted to post that a new supernova (possible type 1a) has been discovered in galaxy M(Messier)82 (aka the “Cigar” galaxy) which is a mere 11.5 million light years away on the cosmic scale of things. Currently, it’s very dim at around 12th magnitude and can’t be seen except with a telescope, but in about two weeks it should brighten up to about 8th magnitude. That will make it visible in binoculars on a clear night outside of the city. It’s still not the naked eye supernova in the Milky Way that I’ve been waiting for since I was a little girl, but for now it will do.

    I have to wonder how Young Earth Creationists explain things like supernovae, because it’s phenomena like this which show the universe is quite old, not a mere 6,000 years young. I’m just waiting for the Ken Ham explanation (oh, God created the light, etc., etc.,) when the real explanation is just so much more simpler and elegant (at least to me).

  238. I’m reading Zondervan’s Five Views on Biblical Inerrancy. The first chapter was by Al Mohler. It was very enlightening. I used to think this whole debate really was about science. I used to think that origins was a peripheral doctrinal issue, but for many people, YEC is non-negotiable because it is inextricably tied to their view of inerrancy, the rock on which all their doctrines rest. The Evangelical Theological society voted in 2004 to make the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy their official stance. Article 13 of the CSBI states, “We further deny that scientific hypotheses about earth history may properly be used to overturn the teaching of Scripture on creation and the flood.” So there you have it, enshrined in the document that for many people is the boundary marker and litmus test for sound Evangelical theology. Science “properly used” cannot challenge the “plain meaning” of the traditional interpretation. Trotting out the scientific evidences will continue to be a waste of time until we get a better Evangelical formulation of inerrancy or ditch it as a doctrine altogether. That’s where the real debate is people.

  239.   __

    “Alaczam! Poof?”

    AJG

    Orion’sBelt

      …to render the Hebrew Book of Exodus ‘fiction’,’myth’, or ‘fantasy’, is to remove the foundation of all Western law, including the basis for the American Constitution, ratified, May 29, 1790.

    hmmm…

    …did the winter wind perhaps, topple over Wartburg’s proverbial Don’s John, with some unfortunate soul left inside?

    …an immersive and captivating experience? 

    What?

    “…it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.” ~ Jesus

    Sopy 
    __
    Comic relief:  “Why is the Koolaid always gone?”
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xR0h6FGCBY

  240. Southwestern Discomfort wrote:

    I keep hoping for a new post, because I wanted to post that a new supernova (possible type 1a) has been discovered in galaxy M(Messier)82 (aka the “Cigar” galaxy) which is a mere 11.5 million light years away on the cosmic scale of things. Currently, it’s very dim at around 12th magnitude and can’t be seen except with a telescope, but in about two weeks it should brighten up to about 8th magnitude. That will make it visible in binoculars on a clear night outside of the city. It’s still not the naked eye supernova in the Milky Way that I’ve been waiting for since I was a little girl, but for now it will do.
    I have to wonder how Young Earth Creationists explain things like supernovae, because it’s phenomena like this which show the universe is quite old, not a mere 6,000 years young. I’m just waiting for the Ken Ham explanation (oh, God created the light, etc., etc.,) when the real explanation is just so much more simpler and elegant (at least to me).

    You are stealing my thunder SD! 🙂

    I had not heard about the new SN. I’ve been too busy I guess. M81/82 are a beautiful pair in a small or large telescope – I’ll have to take a look at the new SN!

    Most YEC’s turn to some sort of changing or perhaps even asymmetric speed of light, either that or Humphreys’ ‘model’ where the universe exists at different ages depending on how far it is from the Earth. None of these is self consistent or truly consistent with the facts, but they serve the purpose I suppose of offering at least some possibility that the YEC reading might have a chance.

    Although it would take a lengthy essay to show just how big a problem the SN are, suffice it to say there is a LOT of history recorded in the heavens, SN being just one small aspect. And 99.9% or more of it is false if YEC is true.

    I’ve always wondered why the YEC would prefer the easiest rendering of Genesis be hyperliterally true over God creating an entire universe that is one giant hoax. Seems very odd to me. Why not just accept God left a little mystery in the text for us to puzzle upon as we grow and learn.

    Zeta (Jim)

  241. @ Christy:

    All right one last post before bed. The problem with many evangelicals is that many have the Bible an idol. The Lord isn’t God…no the Bible is. This is a common problem today, and it creates a lot of problems in the bigger scheme of things as I’ll touch on in a minute. Another idol which I think is rooted in evangelical insecurities is the doctrine of inerrancy. By claiming the Bible is inerrant evangelicals set themselves up for failure and have painted themself into a corner. They do this two ways:

    1. They make themselves irrelevant. Since many fundagelcials are stuck on YEC and can’t move past that…when science and society are debating human cloning and other issues that we can’t think of right now many evangelicals won’t be able to contribute to the debate. Why? They’re still stuck on YEC and since they can’t move beyond that they will become further and further isolated.
    2. Next by dying in the hill of inerrancy repeatedly over the course of time this gives birth to bad theology. For example…look at the post by Rachel Held Evans on the Bible being “clear” By a long and honorific track record of using scripture to defend slavery, protect blue laws, maintain segregation, bad interracial dating and marriage, order of the universe, etc… they have made themselves irrelevant to many Christians and groups of people. This allows many to blow off scripture and ignore it, which is what I think many emergents do. This leads to policy and doctrine that is highly questionable in many forms.

    But what Al Mohler and others are showing is their insecurity in scripture and God in needing such a statement.

  242. @ Eagle:

    I kinda agree with RHE’s post to a degree, but as far as your #2, some Christians go too far in the opposite direction, and believe the Bible can mean whatever they want it to mean.

    They view it as clay to be shaped however they want it to, they will ignore verses that don’t mesh with their favorite pet doctrines or social values, etc.

    That is the opposite of holding too tightly to inerrancy, and is just as bad/dangerous, IMHO.

    When the Bible says whatever you want it to say, it says nothing, it loses all objective meaning.

  243. Daisy wrote:

    @ Eagle:
    I kinda agree with RHE’s post to a degree, but as far as your #2, some Christians go too far in the opposite direction, and believe the Bible can mean whatever they want it to mean.
    They view it as clay to be shaped however they want it to, they will ignore verses that don’t mesh with their favorite pet doctrines or social values, etc.
    That is the opposite of holding too tightly to inerrancy, and is just as bad/dangerous, IMHO.
    When the Bible says whatever you want it to say, it says nothing, it loses all objective meaning.

    Yep. I think folks like Enns (who RHE is a big fan of) have done a fine job deconstructing inerrancy and pointing out how it has led to some twisted, unhealthy things in Evangelicalism. But what I have not seen come out of the whole discussion is a new model that explains HOW we are to posture ourselves under Scripture, not over it, once inerrancy is sidelined. It’s all this nebulous stuff about the power of the narrative, and truth “incarnate” in the word of God, and mediating the historically situated, culturally conditioned messiness, etc, etc. That’s all well and good, but it all leaves me wondering how do I figure out what I am supposed to obey?

  244. Perseus wrote:

    YEC arguments often center around the literal meaning of Hebrew words, such as yom, and operate under the assumption that certain words force the text into certain meanings. However behind this argument is a bigger assumption, namely that the books of the Torah are guided by the bounds of modern historical narrative.

    Nothing could be further from the truth when examining Old Testament texts such as Genesis and Joshua. These texts were not composed in the modern period, and did not conform to modern expectations that history is a reconstruction of the exact chronology of a sequence of events. These texts correspond to no modern literary genre that we typically work with, and in fact they should be understood according to the conventions of writing in which it was written.

    The short of this is that in the context of Genesis 1, for instance, narratively “yom” meant day, sunset to sunset. Yet it is a faulty assumption to limit this narrative to a one-to-one correspondence with actual days in prehistory. This is an bad way of reading, equivalent to taking Milton’s Paradise Lost and declaring him to be a heretic because his story does not precisely correspond to an accepted doctrinal formulation. Storytelling, myth and narrative are the oldest and most important form of human reasoning. Ancient texts should not be forced in the modern categories of history, which is only made possible through the growth of modern science and the printing press.

    Perseus (James)

    Drat. Darn. Blast.
    You stole the perfectly briliant post I was planning on making by making it FOR me. And saying it better than I would have done.
    I will go bang my head against the wall now.
    (Actually, I won’t do any such perfectly brainless thing. I’ll just sit here, & continue to sputter under my breath about Whippersnappers–grrrrrrggggghhhhhhhhh).

  245. Southwestern Discomfort wrote:

    I have to wonder how Young Earth Creationists explain things like supernovae, because it’s phenomena like this which show the universe is quite old, not a mere 6,000 years young. I’m just waiting for the Ken Ham explanation (oh, God created the light, etc., etc.,) when the real explanation is just so much more simpler and elegant (at least to me).

    They don’t. Remember their statement of faith. Since no facts can emerge which contradict their understanding of scripture their explanation is the SN isn’t what it seems. End of discussion.

  246. Christy wrote:

    “We further deny that scientific hypotheses about earth history may properly be used to overturn the teaching of Scripture on creation and the flood.

    For “the teaching” read “my teaching”.

  247. dee wrote:

    @ Eagle:
    Here is another quote. You are right-it deserves a post.
    “Clothing confesses our sinful desperation.”
    I wonder how he feels about cute shoes!!!!!!

    I bought some fabulously wonderful but also stupidly ridiculous heels in the post-Christmas sales a few weeks ago. Down to $35 from $200, they’re black with crystals on them and 3 inch heels (which isn’t that high compared to some shoes but really huge for my little feet) and are completely over the top. I’m sure they confess some hideously awful sin. Like how I’m powerless against very pretty things on sale for massively reduced prices.

  248. dee wrote:

    @ Southwestern Discomfort:
    YOu know the schtick. God created the light on route to the earth. He has an explanation for everything. Note: I did not say a good explanation.

    The other one they’ve come up with is that the speed of light was much greater in the past so the light reached the earth much sooner back then than it does today. Of course, like all other ‘scientific’ claims by the AIG crowd, they create junk science to try and make it sound legitimate and YEC laypersons swallow this stuff hook, line, and sinker as being ‘scientifically proven’.

  249. @ Nancy:

    Oops.

    Mark Twain — ‘When we remember we are all mad, the mysteries disappear and life stands explained.’

  250. Dee. did you come right with the French bustle? I’m sure all will go well and wishing you all a very happy celebration on Saturday.

  251. Christy wrote:

    t all leaves me wondering how do I figure out what I am supposed to obey?

    More importantly than figuring out what to obey is figuring out who to obey. I believe that the Holy Spirit enters the lives of the believers. From there, He helps us to interpret Scripture.

    For example, the entire Scriptural narrative speaks against deceit and speaks for honesty. Therefore, do not be deceitful or dishonest. B

    However, the Scripture says that the mustard seed is the smallest seed in the world. It’s not-I think its some lily in the Amazon. So, do we ignore the entire example? No-Faith as like a grain of mustard seed and it will accomplish wonderful things in our life.

    We have a gazillion manuscripts and we have a pretty good idea what the Scriptures were in the early church. However, throughout the life of the church, the Scriptures have been misused to justify racism to black and discrimination against Jews. It has been interpreted to say the sun revolves around the earth and then jail men like Galileo for being against Scripture. It was used to justify slavery and bans on interracial marriages.

    The Scriptures are authoritative and tell us the big picture stories we need to here. A Creator God, a rebellious creation, a grand Solution, and a coming resolution. It is really not so hard for many things. But, in some things, there is a debate. But, there has always been debate, even amongst those who are inerrantists. Inerrantists have Calvinists, non-Calvinist, paedobaptists, believer baptism, a whole range of eschatology, different views on communion, gender role debates, etc. Every last one of those folks *know* that their interpretation of the inerrant Scripture is correct.

    So, how do you know which of those to follow? You are smart and faithful.You read the Scriptures, look at varying views and choose which to follow. Nothing really changes so long as you view Scriptures in an authoritative manner.

  252. @ Val:
    Val, I am having some problems with your terminology in the referenced comment. Somehow, I feel you are using the word fact in much too strong a way, perhaps more like I would use theory or law as I will try to explain.

    For the purpose of explanation I want facts to be the starting point. It is fair to define facts as repeatable measurements or observations. Facts most generally will be quantitative. When many facts are available we begin to perceive patterns in them. This leads to a hypothesis that attempts to intuit a common cause for these facts. The hypothesis suggests additional measurements to make. If these new facts suggested by the hypothesis agree with it’s predictions it indeed makes the hypothesis more plausible. After sufficient testing and continued confirmation our hypothesis may begin to be considered a theory. The final step would be declaring it a law when there is no conceivable way to show an exception.

    Lets consider gravity an example of this general scheme. In the 16th and 17th centuries astronomers such as Copernicus, Galileo and Kepler produced evidence, facts, that set the stage for Newton. Newton established his theory of mutual attraction and invented the mathematics allowing him to make accurate predictions of motions of celestial bodies. By the end of the 19th century small discrepancies between predictions from Newton’s gravitational theory and observations were being found and verified. Resolving these lead Einstein to his theories of relativity. In the almost 100 years since his publication describing general relativity (GR) the theory has been sustained by all of the rapidly increasing body of data produced by modern astronomy. It is true that at some future time a theory may extended GR but the observational evidence, facts, that make such a theory necessary don’t exist. Still, Newtonian theory is adequate for explaining the gravitational interactions we experience in our daily lives and GR would provide the same explanations. One exception might be the Global Positioning System (GPS) that uses GR to calculate your positions on Earth. Without GR the GPS could not yield usefully accurate results.
    As a general rule, a more advanced theory will explain what the older theory explains well while it also satisfactorily explains more extreme facts that the older theory can’t. This brief exposition is simply another description of the scientific method in a considerably idealized way. A one line summary might be stated:
    facts -> hypothesis -> theory -> laws
    Evolution and genomics deserve to be considered a theory even if they are not mathematically expressed as precisely as GR and their supporting evidence is not as numerically precise as astronomical observations. GR is mature but evolution and genomics are very much a work in progress. Lack of understanding of science such as that exhibited by YEC is going to severely limit the moral influence of large parts of Christianity on the use of rapidly genomics technology.
    I have purposely not used the word truth which I believe carries theological meaning,not a scientific one. From a scientific viewpoint even laws could be subject to updating if some experimental evidence, facts, were shown to be in disagreement with it. This “official” tentativeness sets science apart from truth, God’s perfect knowledge.

  253. @ Pam:
    Post a picture. Since Piper is now discussing clothes, it is a spiritual value for us to discuss which clothes indicate that we are living our lives in quiet desperation. We could even start a new clothing line “Quiet Desperation.” Motto: Live out the Fall in haute couture.

  254. @ JeffT: They drive me batty. Since God can do anything, they play on that. So, “God did it that way. Are you claiming that God couldn’t do it that way? What are you? Some sort of heretic or what?” Case closed.

  255. Nancy wrote:

    Mark Twain — ‘When we remember we are all mad, the mysteries disappear and life stands explained.’

    Awesome quote!

  256. Estelle wrote:

    Dee. did you come right with the French bustle?

    No-I have procrastinated and now have no further excuses. This afternoon is D Day. I will post a picture of the ties and bustle at some point. You can be sure it will be funny! Thank you for asking. I do not possess great fine motor skills and I am a bit of a klutz. I always felt inadequate when my kids needed costumes for school plays.

  257. dee wrote:

    Estelle wrote:
    Dee. did you come right with the French bustle?
    No-I have procrastinated and now have no further excuses. This afternoon is D Day. I will post a picture of the ties and bustle at some point. You can be sure it will be funny! Thank you for asking. I do not possess great fine motor skills and I am a bit of a klutz. I always felt inadequate when my kids needed costumes for school plays.

    Don’t they make a clip-on one like they do for bowties? 🙂

  258. Christy wrote:

    Daisy wrote:
    @ Eagle:
    I kinda agree with RHE’s post to a degree, but as far as your #2, some Christians go too far in the opposite direction, and believe the Bible can mean whatever they want it to mean.
    They view it as clay to be shaped however they want it to, they will ignore verses that don’t mesh with their favorite pet doctrines or social values, etc.
    That is the opposite of holding too tightly to inerrancy, and is just as bad/dangerous, IMHO.
    When the Bible says whatever you want it to say, it says nothing, it loses all objective meaning.

    Yep. I think folks like Enns (who RHE is a big fan of) have done a fine job deconstructing inerrancy and pointing out how it has led to some twisted, unhealthy things in Evangelicalism. But what I have not seen come out of the whole discussion is a new model that explains HOW we are to posture ourselves under Scripture, not over it, once inerrancy is sidelined. It’s all this nebulous stuff about the power of the narrative, and truth “incarnate” in the word of God, and mediating the historically situated, culturally conditioned messiness, etc, etc. That’s all well and good, but it all leaves me wondering how do I figure out what I am supposed to obey?

    This is where I am too Christy. It is, in fact, I think the struggle between Law and Grace. Paul speaks on the one hand that the Law cannot save, cannot transform, can only show us our needful, sinful state. Likewise a Law based rendering of scripture. And yet, Paul also counters, “should we then sin all the more, that grace might abound?”. Likewise “what I want to be the case” ‘interpretations’ of the scripture.

    In so much as one is seeking to become as God would have us be with a heart of submission to His will and humility in regards to ourselves, open to the guidance of the Holy Spirit, we will find in scripture a true and powerful guide to Christ, who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. But in so much as we are seeking justification for who we are, corrupt and unchanged, then we will find in scripture what we want to see, and miss its capacity to connect us with the Christ, who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

    Zeta (Jim)

  259. @ dee:
    I had to google it to find out what a French bustle is. I am sure the dress will turn out stunningly and your daughter will look radiant. I suggest she practises walking and sitting with the bustle before the Big Day. My best friend wore a hooped dress for her wedding and she was very glad I made her practise.

  260. Orion’sBelt wrote:

    It is, in fact, I think the struggle between Law and Grace.

    I have been reading for the past year or so some stuff in the general category of “let’s be sure we understand what Paul meant when he used the words “law” and “grace” and “righteousness.” Some of what I have read has been a real eye opener for me. Basically, like a lot of words and a lot of concepts, meanings change with time, with different cultures and of course from one language to another. And, of course, the same word, even with the same or similar meaning, may have a different connotation based on context, target audience, and based on prior comment on the same subject (an as-I-was-saying effect.)

    This is not an attempt to disallow scriptural authority. It is an attempt to dig a little deeper into actual meaning so as better understand.

  261. dee wrote:

    Christy wrote:
    More importantly than figuring out what to obey is figuring out who to obey. I believe that the Holy Spirit enters the lives of the believers. From there, He helps us to interpret Scripture.
    … Nothing really changes so long as you view Scriptures in an authoritative manner.

    I don’t disagree with anything you are saying, and I think “it’s messy” is overall a better answer than “it’s simple,” but I sometimes get the feeling reading the more progressive/emerging type authors that in their rejection of Fundamental biblicism (which is good) they have lost the sense that our response to the God’s word should at times be much like Peter’s response to the Word, “This is HARD teaching…but you alone have the words of life.” It seems to me with some of them, that if it’s hard, than it’s not relevant to me. I get uncomfortable with the whole, “The Bible is authoritative, but only the parts/messages I decide actually matter” kind of attitude. There is a really good NT Wright lecture from the 80s that speaks about how the Bible can be authoritative (without inerrancy arguments) but it depends on the concept of an authoritative community. http://ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Bible_Authoritative.htm With the Church being as fractured as it is and with so many young post-moderns not really seeing much point in affiliating with one, it is a problem.

  262. JeffT wrote:

    Don’t they make a clip-on one like they do for bowties?

    Hee hee, JeffT. Wish they did! But it’s ribbons you sew on the inside of the skirt at the back so that you can have a long train and then tie the ribbons together to shorten the train so you can dance without tripping over it and the back of the dress looks très élégante.

  263. Christy–much in agreement with your last post. It has been so helpful to me to learn that to the Jews of Biblical times, both old and new testaments, the law was seen more as a delight than an awful burden. It is certainly true some elevated opinions on the law to a burdensome state, and Jesus did call them out on that. But He always did it in a way that still upheld the law.

    I look around me at the awful mess the world is in, at the number of truly miserable and depressed people, and find that it is not the keeping of the law in the Bible that caused the mess. It appears much more that the unhappy ones are those that decide they will be a law unto themselves. Sin truly does have consequences, and God lovingly tries to keep us from experiencing them. When we ignore His warnings and metaphorically touch the hot stove, why do we cry foul when we get burned?

  264. linda wrote:

    It has been so helpful to me to learn that to the Jews of Biblical times, both old and new testaments, the law was seen more as a delight than an awful burden.

    Exactly! In fact, there is an annual Jewish celebration called Simchat Torah that occurs when the annual cycle of readinbgs from the Torah have been completed. As part of this, the congregants hold up the scrolls of the Torah and dance around the synagogue/temple

  265. Speaking of law and grace, it seems to me that people are more comfortable talking about law than talking about grace.

    People will approach the scripture more as a procedure manual of sorts with some degree of comfort, but will slip and slide all over the place when the conversation turns to grace. We are more comfortable with “obey” than with “forgive.”

    Some examples: It is apparently easy to put planks in a political platform to enforce this or that morality (OK) but where is the plank about rehabilitation of the former prisoner for example? (not OK.) On this thread nobody has said “what do you mean by law?” but some people have said “what do you mean by grace?”

    I think this is off balance. Skewed. Of course people need to clean up their act and stay out of trouble. But “the Bible says” that we can’t get that done. That leaves grace or nothing. It is a pity that the neo-cals have preempted that word to mean something like God chose me but not you. We can’t let them have the word. Grace is the hope of mankind.

  266. @ dee:
    I’m probably more sympathetic to YEC than you are. During the initial creation, the current laws of physics did not exist, the creation brought them into existence. So what is true now, that mature trees for example cannot grow in a ‘day’ was not true then necessarily, as God is not subject to the physical laws he created.

    It is one thing to say Genesis does not need to be interpreted literally, but another to say God could not have created the world that way and recently. The latter is unbelief. This might be why some with a more fundamentalist mindset see long ages for Genesis as a sign of apostasy and are so resistant to other interpretations.

    Whatever your view, the whole creation was ‘all in a week’s work’ from God’s perspective. I wonder if that is really all he wishes to say since it is easy to for us and the original audience to relate to this, so we shouldn’t need to speculate exactly how long a week was back then, and get tied up in knots – rather like some people do when making up bustles …..

  267. @ JeffT: Can I be pedantic for a quick second? Some Jewish people dance at that time (mostly, from what I understand, Hasidic Jews), but others simply carry the scrolls in procession around the synagogue, have small parties in celebration, etc.

    Like any other religion, there are many combinations and permutations of practice.

  268. @ Ken:
    Are you aware that current YEC beliefs actually stem from some of the “visions” experienced and written down by Ellen White, the “prophet” of the early SEventh Day Adventist church?

    if not, then Google… there’s even a good mainstream book on the development of current YEC beliefs and practice. They are not at all the same thing as similar beliefs in previous centuries.

  269. @ linda:

    I think that Jesus preached that it was not the “doing” but the “not doing” that was the significant breach of the law, failing to keep the thou shalts though complying with the thou shalt nots! The proscriptions are generally pretty easy to obey, at least in behavior if not in our hearts and minds, but the prescriptions are more difficult — to do justice in the since of taking care of widows, orphans, and those otherwise not able to take care of themselves. Thus his ongoing contests with the Pharisees and teachers of the law.

  270. NC Now wrote:

    Southwestern Discomfort wrote:
    I have to wonder how Young Earth Creationists explain things like supernovae, because it’s phenomena like this which show the universe is quite old, not a mere 6,000 years young. I’m just waiting for the Ken Ham explanation (oh, God created the light, etc., etc.,) when the real explanation is just so much more simpler and elegant (at least to me).
    They don’t. Remember their statement of faith. Since no facts can emerge which contradict their understanding of scripture their explanation is the SN isn’t what it seems. End of discussion.

    Someone upthread referenced Lisle. He claims that the light from the supernova was created IN TRANSIT so that it looks like it came from millions of years ago. IOW, his god is a trickster god, like Coyote.

  271. @ numo: actually, there’s more than one good book out there, but for a brief overview, check the BioLogos site (link in this blog’s sidebar).

    “Visions” are not exactly science, no matter who has them.

  272. @ nmgirl: It’s obvious that these people don’t have a clue as to what Einstein’s theories are really about, or else they’d hold back from making up such ridiculously dumb stories to “explain” things.

    Next thing you know, they’ll become flat earth proponents…

  273. An Attorney on–agreed! Which leads us back to the idea that God giving us laws is not simply so we will know we sin and need a Savior. That is of course part of the law’s purpose. But we really are supposed to strive for the doing. And part of grace is the infilling of the Holy Spirit. By God’s grace we can and should be doing the keeping of the law better as time goes by. I doubt any of us would argue that God cannot save a murderer. Of course He can! But I also doubt any of us would buy it the murderer kept right on murdering, and when called on the carpet for it just informed us he was “under grace, after all.” Indeed, Christ calls us to so go beyond murder that we strive to eliminate unjust hatred from our hearts by His mercy, grace, and aid.

  274. numo wrote:

    Simchat Torah

    You are correct, it’s not a universal thing but seems to be more of a congregation-by-congregation thing, although I think it’s much broader that primarily a Hasidic practice, but my knowledge of Judaism is pretty general so I’m not going to plant a flag on that :-). At any rate, Simchat Torah means “Rejoicing in the Torah”, so however they practice it, the law is something to be rejoiced in for Jews rather than feared.

  275. @ Christy:

    “…a new model that explains HOW we are to posture ourselves under Scripture, not over it, once inerrancy is sidelined. …how do I figure out what I am supposed to obey?”
    +++++++++++++++++++++

    we obey the laws of the land. do you seriously want to reduce knowing the God of the Universe intimately & walking in the light of His countenance with a list of things to obey?

    The bible is good, parts of it amazing (ie, the latter part of Ephesians 1 compared to Leviticus). But it’s not God.

    I reckon popular Christian culture has replaced learning how to know a dynamic, living but invisible being with a text book. I have to admit it is more convenient that way.

    (& it creates jobs and opportunities for revenue)

    but it’s quite the detour.

  276. nmgirl wrote:

    IOW, his god is a trickster god, like Coyote.

    Awful hard to have a rational discussion involving YEC ‘scientists’ when their response to every objection to their beliefs based on science is to cry “miracle!” surrounded by some scientific terms just like this cartoon that I think was discussed upthread:

    http://star.psy.ohio-state.edu/coglab/Miracle.html

    Better that, I guess, than examine whether their interpretation of the Bible might be wrong.

  277. linda wrote:

    I look around me at the awful mess the world is in, at the number of truly miserable and depressed people, and find that it is not the keeping of the law in the Bible that caused the mess.

    if keeping of the Law was the solution to the mess, then why did Jesus call the Pharisees snakes who heap burdens on the people of God? And why did Paul, who said he was a Pharisee of Pharisees point always towards grace?

    I disagree that it is the keeping of the Law which keeps the mess down. We can’t do it, no matter how hard we try. And that is the real problem. You are pointing to the “big ticket” items-the outward mess. I contend that there is, and has been, a constant mess in all of our souls and that we mistake “keeping the Law” with individual purity. Mankind is no different today than we were at the Fall and we are certainly no worse today than yesterday. We just like to point to the outward mess because it is easier than pointing inward to ourselves.

    We cannot keep the Law. Period. We are a mess now just as were 500 years ago, etc. Look at what was going on even 150 years ago: racism, slavery, forced child labor, back alley abortions, mistreatment of labor, etc.And let’s not forget about Hitler.

    Nah-we just looked better. But, we conceal our sins quite well and look so good on the outside. I learned an important lesson from a historian who taught some Sunday school classes with me. What we are today comes out of what we were yesterday. The riots of the 60s came out of the 50s in which people lived the white picket fence life but underneath had serious problems that no one talked about. That time produced James Dean-Rebel Without a Cause- mad about something but not sure why. But we Christian know why.

    Back in those days pedophilia was not discussed. Today we have priests, pastors and the Florida SBC getting convicted of this. In the 50s, a black man could not enter a white church. Today we have black pastors like Tony Evans who is followed by people of all races. We even have a black president (this is not a discussion of politics-merely an observation). Back in the 50s, we did not talk about substance abuse, mental health issue etc. Suicide was a hidden shame in families. Now, we talk about it openly and have support groups. We speak sympathetically when well known people like Rick Warren’s son commits sucide.

    Back in the 50s we had lynchings of black men and the police looked the other way. Today, that would not happen. Back then we had rampant STDs and many people died of tertiary syphillis. We found the cure for the disease but not for the underlying issues. Today we have AIDS. No different.

    I am going on and on. But the Law has never been the Solution. It was a yardstick to show us that we were screw-ups and we needed a solution which we have in Jesus. And in each day, as we face our shortcomings and outright sin, we can be grateful that we are on the other side of grace and don’t have to pretend that we are “good.” That is the truth that sets us free.

    I prefer to be like the great American philosopher, Popeye, with one addition. “I yam what I yam and thank God I have Jesus.”

  278. Ken wrote:

    It is one thing to say Genesis does not need to be interpreted literally, but another to say God could not have created the world that way and recently. The latter is unbelief.

    Technically, that might be described as unbelief if anyone actually said it. I’ve not read round the subject exhaustively, but I’m not aware of anyone who argues God could not have done it. (There is an argument that says such an act would have been basically deceitful and thus incompatible with God’s character, and in that sense, God “couldn’t have done it”; but that’s not the same thing.) Rather, everyone I’ve read who rejects the idea that God created a universe that looks old, rejects it because they don’t believe he did.

    It’s as well to bear in mind the point in the original post. That is not whether YEC is true, but whether science (which might be one big satanic deception) shows it to be true. And in point of fact, to say that God created a universe that looks old is essentially to say that science does not support YEC. If it did, the universe would look young! It appears old because that’s where the available evidence points, and that’s all science can do: follow the available evidence.

  279. One other thing and maybe someone can research this and find it…but a while back I watched an interview with Jeffrey Dahmer. It was after he became a Christian in prison and was baptized in the whirl pool. He still talked about how he still had desires which led him to murder. But..and I find this interesting not that I agree with it, Dahmer said that the reason why he committed all those murders in Milwaukee was becuase he believed in evolution which he believes cheapens life.

    Now I never thought of evolution cheapening life..its an interesting thought to chew on. (Bad pun!) That said, I am committed to evolution and and Old Earth.

    And while we are talking about Dahmer I’ll say this…I used to love going to a hobby shop in Butler, WI called Sommerfelds Trains & Hobbies. One day when I went there one of the guys there told me that when he worked in a hardware store in downtown Milwaukee he sold Jeffrey Dahmer an industrial sized barrel. He was puzzeled as to why he needed it and it wasn’t until after everything came to light that he was horrified.

  280. @ JeffT:

    “Don’t they make a clip-on one like they do for bowties?”
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    you’re funny, mr. jeff!

  281. @ dee:

    dee, I really appreciate you taking the time to answer well. French bustles, wafting tulle & all. what a day to remember it will be.

  282. @ JeffT: Agreed re. the main point! (Very much so, in fact.) But Jewish interpretations of the scriptures tend not to be as (loaded word coming) “legalistic” as ours, on the whole. (and now I’m *really* broad-brushing!)

    It used to be that only Hasids and some other orthodox danced on Simchat Torah; now it’s a much more widespread thing, but it did come from them, and I think many congregations would be uncomfortable with it.

  283. Eagle wrote:

    becuase he believed in evolution which he believes cheapens life.

    I’ve heard this a lot. But only from Christians. Atheists have the reverse opinion.

    Christian view point as seen by a non-Christian.
    Our earthly life doesn’t matter all that much since everything will be much better when we get to heaven. Which is why they don’t like Christians in charge of wars and such.

    Non-Christian view point as seen by non-Christians
    Our earthly life is very important since it’s all we have. Once we get born that is. But why let people live in agony if that’s all they will ever know.

  284. @ oldJohnJ:
    Guess what? I screwed something up behind the scenes and it had absolutely nothing to do with you or what you said. GBTC just called me in filled me in on my fatal error. Your comments got stuck in my mistake. It is now fixed and I’m going to delete the thread, along with my assumption that it had nothing to do with me! It did.

  285. Let me add one more part to the comment. You see, I want to keep the Law. I want to do everything that I know I should. I want to follow Jesus and be righteous. I want to keep the commandments, care for the poor, give everything away and on and on. But, I know I can’t and won’t. Oh, I’ll make a stab at it because I want to but I will fail. That failure could lead to depression, sadness, and hopelessness.

    Instead, because Jesus died and was resurrected, I am at peace. I still have the “want to” but I no longer need to be sad because I can’t do it all right, not will I ever. I am free because Jesus took care of the problem and gave me the solution. As one of my pastors said “We can now tell those who point out our faults that they don’t even know the half of it” and be joyful in that becaus of the greatest gift of forgiveness and freedom. 

    My father had a deathbed conversion. His last words on this earth to me were “Its going to be alright now, dear.” And that is what Jesus says to all who follow Him. “It is alright now.”

  286. Ken wrote:

    @ dee:
    I’m probably more sympathetic to YEC than you are. During the initial creation, the current laws of physics did not exist, the creation brought them into existence. So what is true now, that mature trees for example cannot grow in a ‘day’ was not true then necessarily, as God is not subject to the physical laws he created.
    It is one thing to say Genesis does not need to be interpreted literally, but another to say God could not have created the world that way and recently. The latter is unbelief. This might be why some with a more fundamentalist mindset see long ages for Genesis as a sign of apostasy and are so resistant to other interpretations.
    Whatever your view, the whole creation was ‘all in a week’s work’ from God’s perspective. I wonder if that is really all he wishes to say since it is easy to for us and the original audience to relate to this, so we shouldn’t need to speculate exactly how long a week was back then, and get tied up in knots – rather like some people do when making up bustles …..

    The issue in this case is never what God ‘could’ do. A YE is a viable option as long as your stance is the it only ‘appears to be a universe that evolved over 13.7 billion years’. That is, that when God made it, He made it look as if it had formed per the processes He established when He made it.

    That is NOT the YEC stance. They say that there is credible scientific evidence that SHOWS us God created it within the last 10,000 years. That is a very, VERY different kind of statement. And one that is false.

    The reason most YEC types reject the former in favor of the latter is that for God to have made the universe that way, He has created a massive hoax and fiction. And that present a fairly significant problem theologically. I think a far more significant one than the theological issues that drive YEC’s away from TE or OE.

    But worse than either of these two is actually lying about what the evidence from creation is. And, of course, lying is a strong word, and most of what most YEC’s do is really a kind of self deception – they only look at what the big guns provide them, nevertheless, at some point along that chain it moves from simple ignorance to out and out lying/deception. I have it on good authority from a former big gun YEC turned TE (Glenn Morton) that the folks at the top, especially the one’s with Ph.D’s, know there are major problems with what they sell.

    Zeta (Jim)

  287. elastigirl wrote:

    @ Christy:
    “…a new model that explains HOW we are to posture ourselves under Scripture, not over it, once inerrancy is sidelined. …how do I figure out what I am supposed to obey?”
    +++++++++++++++++++++
    we obey the laws of the land. do you seriously want to reduce knowing the God of the Universe intimately & walking in the light of His countenance with a list of things to obey?

    I don’t reduce knowing God to obeying a list of rules. But I do think those who truly encounter God in Christ recognize the proper response to him is one of submission and obedience. I don’t think you have discipleship without obedience to a master and the Great Commission itself says “teach them to OBEY all that I have commanded you.” So I question any idea of discipleship doesn’t involve obedience as a major part. Intimately walking in his countenance is great, but until you reach the point of perfect sanctification where all your desires are in line with the Spirit, you will still be struggling with the desires of your flesh and will need discipline from outside yourself to spur you to make righteous choices despite your lack of internal motivation. For all of Christian history, disciples have looked to Scripture to provide that corrective against their sinful impulses with the assumption that what it says has a right to form a person not just inform a person.

  288. Orion’sBelt wrote:

    I have it on good authority from a former big gun YEC turned TE (Glenn Morton) that the folks at the top, especially the one’s with Ph.D’s, know there are major problems with what they sell.

    And our mutual friend, DC, has been saying that for years.

  289. Christy wrote:

    teach them to OBEY all that I have commanded you.”

    When you find a Christian who has been that obedient, let me know. In fact, my guess is that many of us are “cooking the books,” pretending we are “following the commands” yet knowing, deep down inside, that we aren’t faring well in the heart department. Or maybe it is just me. I know I am a screwup and I no longer have to pretend that I am not. And I find great peace in that.

    Perhaps there are awesome people out there who are doing a “bang up” job in doing all the right things. Perhaps their worst sin is driving 5 miles over the speed limit and eating two hot fudge sundaes at a sitting, or getting just a bit snippy with the DMV employee or being a continuationist because all “biblical” scholars know that is wrong. If anyone would like to witness to their ability to almost “conquering” it all, let me know. I will post their story.

  290. Dee–I want to be sure I understand you correctly. Are you saying it is ok to abuse children, to engage in pedophilia, to enslave other human beings, etc because “we are what we are and thank goodness we have Jesus?”

    Or are you siding with some of the hyper reformed crowd that there is no hope for a truly changed heart this side of heaven? That, for example, if I were an adulterer the best I could hope for is to continue in adultery and “keep it under the blood for forgiveness” as one pastor I knew put it?

    I think you missed the part of my post that agreed that one use of the law God intended was to show us we could not keep it perfectly and drive us to Him.

    I freely confess I am part of the reformed movement, but the “other side” of it that includes many Lutherans (confessional type) and pretty much all reformed Wesleyans. I believe there is such a thing as regeneration: that when God says we are reborn, that the old creature has died and we are a new creation, He means it. It is, I admit, a fine line. I agree with you that there is no such thing as sinless perfection in this life if sin is defined as falling short of the glory of God. If, as I believe the RCC church teaches and certainly Wesleyans, it isn’t willful rebellion it is possible to be a miserable human being but not held accountable for sin in the specific act. (Like if I literally were having coffee with you at Starbucks and accidently kicked you on a sore shin. You would hurt, I would feel remorse, but no sin.)

    And yes, I still believe keeping the law tends to happier lives. I’ve never yet met a blaspheming, murdering, lying, adulterous coveter who was happy. That doesn’t mean all unhappiness is due to personal sin. My sin might make you very unhappy if it harms you. And we all suffer in a fallen world due to the sin in the garden of Eden.

    But coming from the reformed side of the Wesleyan camp (pretty close to what Charles Stanley holds) I believe grace is not JUST in play for forgiveness of sin. Of course, God’s freely given grace is necessary for faith, for salvation, for that regeneration I wrote of. I also believe it is available to change our very nature, cleanse us, and give us the desire and with His aid the ability to not sin in the specific instant. (By that I mean, going back to coffee at Starbucks, of course if I were angry at you I COULD sin and punch you in the nose, receive a punch in return, and get arrested. OR I could, had I that kind of temper, breathe a quick prayer for help and receive the empowering of the Holy Spirit, and walk away.)

    I’ll sum up: some believe grace is only for forgiveness. Some of us believe it precedes that forgiveness (prevenient grace), brings that forgiveness AND REBIRTH (regeneration), continues to grow and change and aid us (sanctification) and will ultimately change us to conform to the image of Christ (glorification.)

    Your response to me either has you misunderstanding what I said, or me misunderstanding what you said I would suspect, because I don’t think either of us truly falls into the category Paul addressed when asked if we should continue in sin that grace would abound and he replied may it never be.

  291. Orion’sBelt wrote:

    Ken wrote:
    @ dee:
    And, of course, lying is a strong word, and most of what most YEC’s do is really a kind of self deception – they only look at what the big guns provide them, nevertheless, at some point along that chain it moves from simple ignorance to out and out lying/deception. I have it on good authority from a former big gun YEC turned TE (Glenn Morton) that the folks at the top, especially the one’s with Ph.D’s, know there are major problems with what they sell.
    Zeta (Jim)

    This goes back to what I have been saying for years: in certain corners of Christianity, the ideas and policies put out by leaders do not stand up to scrutiny. So that leaves only a couple of options for people at the top. They are either lying or they are ignorant and unworthy of having such a position of power. There are many ways of lying: some convince themselves based on fear of God or judgement, some lie to themselves to keep their jobs and life, and a few lie knowingly just for the sake of power. But you always have to the fundamental questions: who does this position benefit? Is it open to criticism? Is it in service to others? Or is it for vanity or money? Usually motives are mixed of course, but asking these questions you can sniff out what the priorities of the leaders are.

    Perseus (James)

  292. For almost 40 years I’ve tried to understand what motivates the push for YEC. From en.wikiquote.org H. L. Mencken: “No one in this world, so far as I know — and I have searched the record for years, and employed agents to help me — has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people.” I think much of the Answers in Genesis push for YEC is due to Ken Ham’s better understanding of this quote than anyone since P. T. Barnum.

  293. It seem to me the YEC/inerrancy crowd says “God is perfect. So God cannot give us a revelation that doesn’t live up to my idea of perfection, which is error-free and factually true.” That view has issues because the a priori commitment is not to who God reveals himself in the revelation to be, but to human idea of perfection. But then the other side says, “God is love. So God cannot mean anything in his revelation that doesn’t live up to my idea of what love is.” So again the a priori commitment is to a human idea of what counts as loving. Both sides make the same mistake in different ways, and both stand OVER God’s special and natural revelation instead of UNDER it. The inerrantists “reject” science when it doesn’t conform to their ideas of what is biblical, but I have seen over and over again the progressive bloggers “reject” what the Bible says because it doesn’t fit their natural intuition of what God must be like. I’m all for understanding the cultural and functional context of the harder parts of Scripture to try to make sense of it and challenging long held interpretations in light of new scholarship, but for me it has to be a more rigorous process than just, “That’s mean. Let’s skip it.”

  294. dee wrote:

    When you find a Christian who has been that obedient, let me know. In fact, my guess is that many of us are “cooking the books,” pretending we are “following the commands” yet knowing, deep down inside, that we aren’t faring well in the heart department. Or maybe it is just me. I know I am a screwup and I no longer have to pretend that I am not. And I find great peace in that.

    I think God has given us laws to obey that will make life on earth as good as it can be, all of which require loving God and loving neighbor, which requires a change in our heart. We can never do this perfectly no matter how hard we try, which is why I’m ever so thankful for God’s grace.

  295. __

    The Divine: A Cross Court Serve, Perhaps?

    (What is Fact, and what is Speculation?)

    hmmm…

    Jesus did not question,
    Nor discount – the Law,
    The prophets,
    Or the writings.

    (…this makes up the whole of the Jewish Old Testament, by the way…)

    huh?

    In fact, He said,
    They would continue,
    Until ‘all’ be fulfilled.

    What?

    By ‘modern standards’,
    It has been suggested,
    That Jesus,
    Either did not know,
    He was possibly ignorant,
    And certainly uneducated,
    Or He was just plain s-t-u-p-i-d…

    (bump)

    But what’ll happen,
    If He was plain right?

    Splattered egg-faces, in vogue?

    (grin)

    hahahahahaha

    Sopy

  296. dee wrote:

    @ Southwestern Discomfort:
    YOu know the schtick. God created the light on route to the earth. He has an explanation for everything. Note: I did not say a good explanation.

    That’s just last Thursdayism, or the Omphalos hypothesis. *shakes head*

  297. JeffT wrote:

    Exactly! In fact, there is an annual Jewish celebration called Simchat Torah that occurs when the annual cycle of readinbgs from the Torah have been completed. As part of this, the congregants hold up the scrolls of the Torah and dance around the synagogue/temple

    One of my friends is a Jewish atheist (actually I have several friends who are Jewish atheists). Anyway, he LOVES Simchat Torah and dancing with the Torah. It’s his favorite Jewish holiday. To him, Simchat Torah is like a celebration of the survival of his people, even if he doesn’t believe in God.

  298. nmgirl wrote:

    Someone upthread referenced Lisle. He claims that the light from the supernova was created IN TRANSIT so that it looks like it came from millions of years ago. IOW, his god is a trickster god, like Coyote.

    Yeah this. See, to me, the physics of a Type 1a supernova is just so much more elegant and satisfying than “it was created on the way here.” (Not saying I understand the physics all that well, but I find it fascinating.)

  299. Eagle wrote:

    But..and I find this interesting not that I agree with it, Dahmer said that the reason why he committed all those murders in Milwaukee was becuase he believed in evolution which he believes cheapens life.

    Now I never thought of evolution cheapening life..its an interesting thought to chew on. (Bad pun!) That said, I am committed to evolution and and Old Earth.

    As for the cheapness of life remark, I think Dahmer was putting one over on his interviewer, playing to the interviewer’s biases. (Just My Personal Opinion.) Atheists I know see life as being very precious, because it is the only one they’ve got. There is no other. So it can be argued both ways.

  300. dee wrote:

    @ Pam:
    Post a picture. Since Piper is now discussing clothes, it is a spiritual value for us to discuss which clothes indicate that we are living our lives in quiet desperation. We could even start a new clothing line “Quiet Desperation.” Motto: Live out the Fall in haute couture.

    Piper’s constant whinging about sobriety is so depressing. Does he ever spend time enjoying stuff? What did he think of John Stott’s bird watching? Good time wasted on trivia?
    I’d be utterly terrified to see a clothes range that he felt was suitable…think of all the ways you can limit women using clothing – we could come up with a new ‘holy’ form of footbinding, ensuring no women can be athletic etc Quiet Desperation : the new Submitted Woman range, coming to a store near you.(Can only be purchased by husband/father)
    I am basically Piper’s nightmare. I think clothes should be functional, art & fun if possible. Like my cow onesie, or biker boots 🙂

  301. I wonder what polar exploration was like in Piper’s day.

    Though I have to say: Beakerj wrote:

    Like my cow onesie

    Sorry, Beaks, but there are no ethical grounds for wearing a cow onesie. Onesies don’t even suit my daughter, and she’s beyond adorable.

  302. What I get from reading this post is that….people who believe in YE are really basically stupid, and if I was really smart I would understand that……chaos creates order, that death begets life after a looooong time, that the Bible doesn’t really make sense if read literally, that somehow everything that I see – the order, design and complexity of the universe…..just happened over many years. I don’t buy it. It doesn’t make sense to me….that random time plus chance equals complexity. If evolution is true, then God is not really all that great…and the heavens don’t really reflect the glory of God…it’s all just something coming out of nothing.

  303. @ Sopwith:

    Also of note in that “all be fulfilled” statement, that He Himself perfectly fulfilled the law as was necessary to be the spotless sacrifice for sin. So when he declared himself Lord of the Sabbath, for instance, we still believe that, and we do not observe the Jewish Sabbath laws. The question is, how far does this idea take us, or not.

    One commenter is referencing Wesley’s ideas, but has stopped short of the issue that Wesley called imputed righteousness “imputed nonsense.” The issue is, of course, whose righteousness are we talking about. Does God see us as righteous because of Christ’s righteousness or do we become personally righteous by progressive (or some say climactic) sanctification. Or some combination of the two.

    We will not solve that here. Arguments arising from this have fragmented prior Methodism into many different camps and the issue is still not solved in that tradition. I, for one, think we need to tread carefully here.

  304. It’s hard to believe this thread is so long. But then, I suppose it is not hard to believe. People will wrangle over these subjects for years, taking sides, on-and-on. Bottom line for me is, I have no problem accepting the creation story as it is written in the scriptures. And I really do not give a twit of what some scientist says if he believes something different. He’s entitled to his opinion, and I am entitled to mine. And if you have a hard time with the scriptural account of Creation, well, isn’t accepting the fact that a man was born of a vrgin, rose from the dead after being in a tomb for three days, and then visibly ascended to heaven, as those same scriptures say? Seems any reasonably scientifically-minded person would call that far-fetched and come up with a more “reasonable” explanation. Don’t you agree?

  305. linda wrote:

    Dee–I want to be sure I understand you correctly. Are you saying it is ok to abuse children, to engage in pedophilia, to enslave other human beings, etc because “we are what we are and thank goodness we have Jesus?”

    Linda, do you really think that atheists and agnostics think child abuse etc. is OK? Or that accepting evolution as a fact and a theory means that child abuse etc is OK?

  306. @ justabeliever:
    If you actually bothered to try and understand the majesty and complexity of natural processes, you wouldn’t say it dismisses god. In fact it is way more amazing than “POOF” as per gen 1 and 2.

  307. @ TedS.:
    And my response is that there is no evidence that the Jesus story is true either. I can refer you to tens of thousands of papers that support evolution.

  308. @ E.G.:

    E.G.,
    One thing I found dismaying with the biologos site is that most of the discussion is for the highly trained specialist in the field(s), namely genetics and biochemistry. To be fair, I think that they made an admirable attempt with Dennis Venema’s articles to educate laypeople in the evolutionary paradigm. But even so it soon got this layman bogged down in jargon and a lack of nuanced knowledge of what’s being said and what’s going on. It was a lot like me (my background is in math) trying to explain integration by parts to those who have only a cursory knowledge of basic Algebra.

  309. @ dee:

    Hi Dee, sorry, I know you always welcome people. And I am not criticising your stance on the Pearls’ teaching one bit.

  310. @ nmgirl:

    So?
    I’d rather cast my lot with the scripures than with all your thousands of papers.

    I believe that a lack of evidence of God’s existence is not the true reason people reject belief in God. People reject belief in God due to a desire to live free of the moral constraints He requires and to escape the guilt that accompanies the violation of those constraints. As the scriptures state: “The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them…men are without excuse…their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools…”

    So if you consider those like me “fools” for believing in the God revealed the ancient scriptures, I am okay with that.

  311. TedS. wrote:

    And I really do not give a twit of what some scientist says if he believes something different. He’s entitled to his opinion, and I am entitled to mine.

    Yes, you’re entitled to your opinion…but what evidence are you basing it on? The reason scientists espouse evolution is becuase the physical evidence is overwhelming.

    I thinl qualia soup does a good job of explaing evolution in this video:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XdddbYILel0

  312. TedS, hi. The fact is that Jesus’ virgin birth and resurrection were clearly miracles, and we accept them as such. Also the narrative format of the Gospels is quite clear that this is presented almost as “reportage” (for want of a better word).

    I don’t think any of us are denying that God could have created the world 10,000 years ago if he so chose. However the issue seems to be that the earth, and indeed the universe, have this appearance of great age. Philip Gosse (a respected naturalist) tried to get around this conundrum in the 19th C by suggesting that God had created the earth with the appearance (but not the reality) of great age, in his treatise Omphalos. However it was rejected by Christians at the time because it seemed to imply that the Lord had, for whatever reason, woven deception into his creation.

    Eagle, re your comment on Jeffrey Dahmer, I think unfortunately the scientific theory of evolution is often hijacked by this sort of philosophical nihilism. But I think there is an a priori assumption in the mind of one who takes that stance, and that is the absence of any God. Dostoyevsky summed it up so well in a discussion in the Brothers Karamazov when one of the brothers, Ivan, claims that if there is no God then anything is permitted (evolution didn’t even come into the discussion, if I remember correctly). Most of the monks are scandalised, but the wise old Elder Zossima agrees with him.

  313. TedS, I am going to make a further suggestion, and I stand open to correction here as well as to comments from others. In Romans 1 (whence you quoted) Paul’s argument is not necessarily to do with evolution or whatever. It is simply that people can see the evidence for God by the very fact of being, i.e. that they, creatures, are living in a universe subject to moral laws and the voice of their own conscience. But even then it’s notable that many of them (according to Paul) didn’t become atheists or evolutionists – rather they worshipped images of creatures instead of the true and living God. Chesterton summed it up well: when men cease to believe, they believe in anything.

    If anyone thinks I am being untrue to the Scriptures I would appreciate their comment.

  314. TedS. wrote:

    People reject belief in God due to a desire to live free of the moral constraints He requires and to escape the guilt that accompanies the violation of those constraints.

    Sigh…actually, many of us leave the faith because we find the claim that the Bible is the word of God to be unsupported. I have no desire to try and base my life on a book that has many contradictions within it’s manuscript history. Let alone, the contradictory moral advice it gives.

    I will gladly go back to church and give every last cent and life force I have if it can be shown to be true. But simply calling those of us who served faithfully as Christians as moral deviants who lack restraint now that we honestly air our doubts, is judgemental-in my opinion.

  315. @ TedS.:

    Romans 1:18-32 deals with some very specific issues which you left out of your quote. Paul here says that the divine nature of God is evident in that which is created, but humanity has ignored that because of ungodliness and created images resembling that creation (mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things) and by that exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator…

    Nobody is building idols in order to worship creation. Nobody is worshiping creation with or without idols. Not the young earth or the old earth people. Not the most literal of the literal among the YEC nor the evolutionary scientist who may or may not be a believer.

    Now if we are intent on debating something here it is. There are those who seem to think that they believe in Jesus because of what they read in the Bible, as they understand it to be. On the other hand, there are those who say this is not so, that people only believe in Jesus because of a divine and supernatural work of grace in that person’s heart. Certainly these differing ideas concerning belief might lead to very different reactions to the current origins debate.

    But calling people fools, or claiming that one is being called a fool is, well, hmmm. Not OK.

  316. justabeliever wrote:

    it’s all just something coming out of nothing.

    I understand the feeling you are expressing, but has not the Genesis story been understood to mean that God created everything out of nothing?

  317. (Quick aside-why does Mohler allow the over-the-top, almost creepy adulation from Mahaney? See the latest from Thou Art the Man.)

    “With a ruler, you can lay the flattery on with a trowel.”
    — Benjamin Disraeli, 19th Century British Prime Minister

  318. Bridget wrote:

    Sometimes it appears that leaders in Christianity possibly believe that they need to help God along in his redemptive plan.

    Because God would fail and the Devil win without such Mighty Spiritual Warriors/Menagawd to fight His battles. Maybe that’s why they’re so shrill — they’ve made God so weak and the Devil so powerful that deep down inside they’re afraid they’re on the losing side.

  319. Muff Potter wrote:

    @ E.G.:
    E.G.,
    One thing I found dismaying with the biologos site is that most of the discussion is for the highly trained specialist in the field(s), namely genetics and biochemistry. To be fair, I think that they made an admirable attempt with Dennis Venema’s articles to educate laypeople in the evolutionary paradigm. But even so it soon got this layman bogged down in jargon and a lack of nuanced knowledge of what’s being said and what’s going on. It was a lot like me (my background is in math) trying to explain integration by parts to those who have only a cursory knowledge of basic Algebra.

    As someone who has slogged through more than a few Venema papers hoping something will stick, I agree. You can’t talk about the technical complexities of a sub-discipline of science on a fourth grade reading level like you can talk about Creation science. But then it makes it even more humorous when Challies implies he has personally examined the evidence and found it unconvincing. Really, Tim? Because I have examined the evidence and found it incomprehensible, but that’s not the same thing as unconvincing. At some point, it just comes down to who you decide to trust. The theology and philosophy and history of science papers are usually fairly accessible though.

  320. Kolya wrote:

    Eagle, re your comment on Jeffrey Dahmer, I think unfortunately the scientific theory of evolution is often hijacked by this sort of philosophical nihilism. But I think there is an a priori assumption in the mind of one who takes that stance, and that is the absence of any God. Dostoyevsky summed it up so well in a discussion in the Brothers Karamazov when one of the brothers, Ivan, claims that if there is no God then anything is permitted (evolution didn’t even come into the discussion, if I remember correctly). Most of the monks are scandalised, but the wise old Elder Zossima agrees with him.

    Have you read Camus’ The Rebel? It’s a bit dense, but it specifically discusses these sorts of philosophical issues. Camus was an absurdist rather than a nihilist, so rather than thinking life is meaningless his position was more that it’s not possible to know if it has meaning or not. But in The Rebel, which references Karamazov extensively, he argues that lack of a god doesn’t have to mean life is meaningless and anything goes – in fact, he’s highly critical of all deterministic thinking. It’s an interesting read.

  321. Beakerj wrote:

    Piper’s constant whinging about sobriety is so depressing. Does he ever spend time enjoying stuff? What did he think of John Stott’s bird watching? Good time wasted on trivia?

    He has eaten the ascetic cake and digested it. Total withdrawal from the World and the Flesh, until he’s tearing his face to scar tissue and gargling lye alongside St Rose of Lima. Or joining the New England missionaries to Hawaii on the “dark, grey, drab, joyless path of Salvation.”

    I’d be utterly terrified to see a clothes range that he felt was suitable…think of all the ways you can limit women using clothing – we could come up with a new ‘holy’ form of footbinding, ensuring no women can be athletic etc

    Five words: “Harrison Bergeron” by Kurt Vonnegut.

  322. TedS. wrote:

    So if you consider those like me “fools” for believing in the God revealed the ancient scriptures, I am okay with that.

    All too often in my experience, SCRIPTURE(TM) = The Party Line, Comrades.

    Or Extreme Islam’s thoughtstopper of “IT IS WRITTEN! IT IS WRITTEN! IT IS WRITTEN!”

  323. dee wrote:

    What we are today comes out of what we were yesterday. The riots of the 60s came out of the 50s in which people lived the white picket fence life but underneath had serious problems that no one talked about.

    And the white picket fence life of the Fifties (and don’t even think about rocking the boat) came out of the Great Depression of the Thirties and World War II of the Forties. After 20 years of total economic collapse (including famine) and global war, the culture wanted to get as far away from that as possible.

    And (being the child of Depression babies and talking to other kids of Depression kids), in the Thirties, you were too concerned with where your next meal was coming from (or even if you were going to have another meal) to bother with any “serious problems” that weren’t immediate life-or-death. Like Third World survival mode vs First World problems. You sucked it up, held it in, and pushed on because otherwise you could die. And it was hard to open up after a life-or-death “education” like that.

  324. doubtful wrote:

    Sigh…actually, many of us leave the faith because we find the claim that the Bible is the word of God to be unsupported. I have no desire to try and base my life on a book that has many contradictions within it’s manuscript history. Let alone, the contradictory moral advice it gives.

    I will gladly go back to church and give every last cent and life force I have if it can be shown to be true. But simply calling those of us who served faithfully as Christians as moral deviants who lack restraint now that we honestly air our doubts, is judgemental-in my opinion.

    I can only second this statement, as it also reflects my history and interactions with the church and its history and alleged truths.

  325. TedS. wrote:

    People will wrangle over these subjects for years, taking sides, on-and-on.

    It is particularly difficult for Christians such as myself who are called heretical or “barely Christian”for believing in an ancient universe. It is also sad to see young people walk away from the faith because they have been taught that they must believe in a young earth in order to be a Christian. Perhaps you have successfully avoided observing such incidents but they occur, regularly.

    I am sad that you consider scientists who believe in evolution “twits.” Galileo was imprisoned by the church for refusing to believe that the sun revolved around the earth, just as the Bible says. He was considered a heretic yet he was correct. Scientists are the ones who have discovered insulin, antibiotics and treatments for childhood leukemia that have resulted in a greater than 90% survival rate. There are many people of faith in the sciences and good people who want to discover this beautiful creation.

    Francis Collins, a great scientist (Human Genome Project and head of the NIH)as well as an MD, and is also a Christian. He has a great ability to reach out to those in the scientific community who have been told they cannot believe unless they believe in a young earth. Christopher Hitchens considered Collins a friend.

    This is a subject which matters. Al Mohler and many well-known Christians make it an issue. And when someone like Mohler and others claim that i cannot believe in a Christian God and also believe in evolution, then it matters to me. Could God have created the earth in 6 days. Of course, he could have created it in a nanosecond. I don’t think that he did and I do believe in the Resurrection, the Creation, and the miracles that are in the Bible. One can believe in a Creator God, evolution, the Virgin birth, the Resurrection and believe in miracles as well. I hope that you would not consider me a twit.

  326. doubtful wrote:

    But simply calling those of us who served faithfully as Christians as moral deviants who lack restraint now that we honestly air our doubts, is judgemental-in my opinion.

    I do not think of you as a moral deviant. I respect your search for the truth. It is better to question honestly as opposed to pretending. There are many people sitting in churches that rarely question what is going on. How people can sit in a church in which pastors plagiarize and act like third grade bullies or in which pastors build huge mansions, etc and never question is beyond me.

    Both sides need to understand that there are brilliant people who are atheists and brilliant people who are Christians. It is through dialogue and challenge that we grow and change. I am glad that you come to this blog. You are very welcome here.

  327. Nancy wrote:

    but has not the Genesis story been understood to mean that God created everything out of nothing?

    It does. It is the expressed belief of Christians that God created ex nihilo or, as I like to say, God spoke and the universe leapt into being.

  328. @ Kolya:
    Actually, I think you may be a bit kinder than I am and I appreciate that. There are times when I just can’t take anymore nonsense and the Pearls are, in my book, lower than the Westboro Baptist creeps because the whackos of Westboro do not recommend beating infants.

  329. doubtful wrote:

    The reason scientists espouse evolution is becuase the physical evidence is overwhelming.

    And that evidence is what convinced me to reexamine my thoughts on the matter. The thing that through me over is the existence of transitional species. I had been told that there are none by Christian “leaders.” Darn- are they wrong.

  330. Southwestern Discomfort wrote:

    I can only second this statement, as it also reflects my history and interactions with the church and its history and alleged truths.

    I can only hope that you will find some Christians here who are kind.

  331. justabeliever wrote:

    If evolution is true, then God is not really all that great…and the heavens don’t really reflect the glory of God

    I can understand what you are saying. Yet, there are great minds like Francis Collins who believe it is possible. Why do you think that is?

  332. @ oldJohnJ:
    I completely agree old JohnJ – it takes me 5 min. to completely undo their confidence in Biblical Literalism, I simply ask them if they believe in a geocentric universe, and if they say “no”, then I ask them how Joshua’s stopping the sun (whatever that could mean) could have lengthened the day? They try all sorts of answers, but even if God miraculously stopped the sun (again, what is that?) it still wouldn’t lengthen the day. I grew up in the sub-acrtic with 24 hr. daylight, but this sun was at high-noon all day and night, not dipping low in the Northern sky, so they can’t even us a giant axel tilt to justify it. Now, if the sun’s stopping wouldn’t really lengthen the day, then I ask them if they can really be a literalist. Lots of back peddling occurs. I am sure they are itching to sneak out their phone and check the AIG sight for an answer to people like me, but I alway say, lets not quote any organization or article, just the Bible to let me just show you you aren’t a literalist. The famous answer after this is, “I choose to believe the Bible” to which I sometimes reply; which part?

  333. @ Christy:

    I guess my feeling is that a person can do a fabulous job of obeying all that he has commanded. And still be an arrogant bastard. Or as Rachel Lynde from Anne of Green Gables would say, “Meaner than 2nd skimmings!” Usually with a sweet smile.

    Even if it were possible to “obey all that he has commanded” (& the like via Paul, Peter, James, John, etc.), one would end up quite the twisted contortionist. And still having to “rejoice in the Lord always”, while gritting their teeth.

    My feeling is that an emphasis on obeying words in a book won’t change a person, but God himself will. My thinking is that the corrective and discipline outside oneself to make right choices is really God/Jesus/Holy Spirit himself/selves, not the book. I think the bible can be a vehicle and a catalyst, but it is God in me & in my midst and me learning to recognize him, hear him, adjust to him, and draw ability from him where my ability runs short.

    I also think that humanity (& creation in general) is far too complex for conforming to a rigid set of dos & don’ts, shoulds and shouldn’ts, black and white. I am not saying morality is relative. I am saying there is deeper truth in seeing the forest than there is in examining each tree. Wisdom and understanding in how to apply what’s in the book come from knowing God/Jesus/Holy Spirit apart from the book.

    Abraham, if he was as he is described, knew God quite well. He had no book.

    Chances are you agree with at least some of what I’m saying. And I apologize for coming on a bit strong earlier.

  334. @ Val:
    But, even if they can admit they aren’t completely literal, AIG’s weird fear-tactics scare them into doubting Old Earth and Evolution (not the same thing actually).

  335. @ dee:
    Thank you Dee…I very much appreciate the respect you have shown me and others that are not/no longer Christians.

    I feel the same way about Christians. There are many good hearted, decent, and intelligent Christians. Mutual respect does not have to be based on agreeing on everything.

    By the way, you are not a twit 🙂 …

  336. oldJohnJ wrote:

    For almost 40 years I’ve tried to understand what motivates the push for YEC.

    People want simple answers. Given a choice between a bad simple answer and a good complicated one most people will go with simple.

  337. justabeliever wrote:

    What I get from reading this post is that….people who believe in YE are really basically stupid, and if I was really smart I would understand that

    I and the author of this post are very reluctant to call anyone stupid. But if you’re not willing to dig into the science then you have to accept a position that may not be valid or correct. I don’t know about you specifically but most people that don’t dig deep into this topic seem to pick the side that makes them the most comfortable in their life. And maybe not the one that’s correct.

    So do you take the opinion of a few people with even fewer advanced degrees or competence in the needed fields of science or do you look to a vast pool of people who have done the science for years and have come to very similar conclusions about the age of the earth?

    And there is a problem with this topic when it comes to science. There is a lot of interrelated information swirling about. Geology, quantum physics, astronomy/astrophysics, chemistry, biology, linguistics, etc… And there’s maybe a handful of people on the planet who COULD master all or most of this. Maybe not. So you have to work with groups of people who have merged their knowledge together to make sense of it all.

    And if someone don’t like complicated answers it can be an easy path to switch to a side with the simple answers. Even if they don’t fit the facts.

  338. TedS. wrote:

    And I really do not give a twit of what some scientist says if he believes something different.

    I disagree with TedS and what he says about this topic but he did NOT call anyone a twit.

  339. Kolya wrote:

    I don’t think any of us are denying that God could have created the world 10,000 years ago if he so chose. However the issue seems to be that the earth, and indeed the universe, have this appearance of great age. Philip Gosse (a respected naturalist) tried to get around this conundrum in the 19th C by suggesting that God had created the earth with the appearance (but not the reality) of great age, in his treatise Omphalos. However it was rejected by Christians at the time because it seemed to imply that the Lord had, for whatever reason, woven deception into his creation.

    In my mind it gets worse. If God could have created the world/universe 10000 years ago with a history that implied 4.5/14 billion years, then how do we know he didn’t create it 1000 years ago?

    100 years ago?

    Yesterday?

    To me this implies that we’re just an experiment. Create the initial conditions, start the process, study the results.

    BTW, AIG explicitly states they do NOT believe the universe was created recently with an appearance of age.

  340. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    I wonder what polar exploration was like in Piper’s day.

    Though I have to say: Beakerj wrote:

    Like my cow onesie

    Sorry, Beaks, but there are no ethical grounds for wearing a cow onesie. Onesies don’t even suit my daughter, and she’s beyond adorable.

    Nick Nick Nick – are you calling me a sinner for wearing my cow onesie – my ‘moo-sie’? I still feel ethical when I wear it. And you know what’s beyond ‘beyond adorable’? Me. Yup, me in my moo-sie 🙂
    (Is this because I left a ‘comment’ on your blog? )

  341. doubtful wrote:

    But simply calling those of us who served faithfully as Christians as moral deviants who lack restraint now that we honestly air our doubts, is judgemental-in my opinion.

    I’m sorry you took it that way, but I don’t think TedS quite meant it like that, not as a personal attack. The point being made in Rom 1 where Paul diagnoses the human condition looking at the pagan culture of the time is that men don’t believe in God because of the moral implications of this, that is, the existence of the biblical God makes requirements of us to change our ways. That is what they don’t want to do. All of the professed Christians I have known personally rather than through google who abandonned the faith did so because there was something the bible said they didn’t want to obey. (In all cases sex was the problem).

    I’m not saying that was the sole reason or that there were no other doubts that needed addressing. I’m also not saying that although this tendency to suppress the truth about God seen supremely in paganism is universal, there are no unbelievers who want to live a more moral life than paganism. But Paul’s diagnosis rings true – in the modern West, as Christianity has decreased, immorality, greed, breakdown in human relationships etc, all the vices listed in Romans 1 have increased.

    Paul makes the fact of creation the end of any legal defence anyone could have for not believing God exists (‘without excuse’). The problem word in Genesis is the word God in verse one, but Christians and non-Christians alike get distracted away from this into discussing whether ‘day’ it literal or figurative.

  342. @ Beakerj:

    Nope – it’s in! Because it was your first comment, WordPress automatically sent it into moderation. It’s the simplest form of spam filter. WordPress also sends me an email to notify me, but since you posted just after I’d booted down for the night, I didn’t see it until just the noo.

    If you comment again, your comment will appear straight away since you’re now on the “trusted commenter” list! Unless you comment under a different name, email address etc, or you violate my own “spam filter” rules. But since I’m a lot less famous than The Babes here at TWW, I rarely get comments 🙁 and so my spam filtering is pretty low-key.

    P.S. Are you working nights the noo? Otherwise, what exactly were you doing posting at 4 in the morning (apart from testing out your onesie)!?

  343. @ TedS.:

    Of course we are all entitled to our opinions. You would even be entitled to hold the opinion that there are faeries at the bottom of the garden if that helped you to feel good. But other children brought up in the same house would be equally entitled to go and look at the bottom of the garden.

    Others have replied to you here as well and I don’t want to restate what has already been well stated. But there is actually nothing sinful or faithless about doing exactly what God told the first humans – made in his image – to do, which is fill, rule over and subdue the earth. To do that, we have to investigate it, and that includes seeking out and learning to apply what we have heard from God.

    There are many “ancient scriptures” claiming to be from “God”. As it happens, Jesus wasn’t by any means the only “Messiah” figure in his time. But he didn’t try and prove himself by repeated assertion; he did things only someone with God’s authority could have done. It’s very convenient for Biblianists that their “God” is long gone, and no longer speaks, heals the sick, raises the dead or anything similar, but is confined to a book. It’s even more convenient that only they can properly interpret that book, and that that is how “God speaks” today. Oddly enough, Revelation 17 describes a beast that once was, now is not, and yet will come. That’s eerily similar to many Christians’ view of “God”. I am much more interested in the God who was, and is, and is to come. Jesus did many other wonderful things in the presence of his disciples that, if they were all written down, would more than fill the world with books. In other words, the God revealed in the Bible is bigger than it is, and it will take eternity to know him fully, and it is appropriate to make a start on that now.

    So if you consider those like me “wicked” for believing in the God revealed the ancient scriptures, I too am okay with that.

  344. There is something disconcerting about the fact that the folks who make adherence to the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy a deal breaker are the same folks who would not be caught dead in the same worship service with one of the historic Christian creeds.

  345. TedS. wrote:

    As the scriptures state: “The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them…men are without excuse…their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools…”

    It is not difficult to understand this passage differently than you do. “What may be known about God” also includes the world S/He created. Nature, too, reveals God’s character and concerns. Refusing its lessons narrows people’s thoughts, and eventually those thoughts become circular and futile. Thus, they “suppress the truth by their wickedness” and are without excuse because they exist in this world that God made—it is all around them and they are part of it.

    Such people’s ability to see scripture will eventually decrease, too, because they have developed the bad habit of insistent blindness. This darkens their hearts until they think they are wise when they aren’t.

    The truths in nature can never contradict God because they are Hers/His. Anything we discover that we find jarring is either because it’s not yet the complete story (we’re still exploring) or because our ideas of God need broadening.

  346. justabeliever wrote:

    What I get from reading this post is that….people who believe in YE are really basically stupid,

    Just a quick note: I made the point if one wishes to believe YE and argue it fully from the Bible, they will get no protest for me. However, the moment anyone makes scientific claims, then the argument must be science and not a default back to theology.

  347. @ TedS.:
    I am so sorry. I am frazzled over the wedding we are throwing this weekend and I misread your comment. You did not call scientists “twits.” You said you don’t give a twit about what they say. Please forgive me. I need to slow down a bit.

  348. NC Now wrote:

    I disagree with TedS and what he says about this topic but he did NOT call anyone a twit.

    I agree and you can see my apology. I need to take a deep breath and slow down. I am sorry.

  349. Ken wrote:

    All of the professed Christians I have known personally rather than through google who abandonned the faith did so because there was something the bible said they didn’t want to obey

    That is not the case for the many that I have known. Ken wrote:

    In all cases sex was the problem).

    Heck, there is no problem with sex failures and staying with the faith. Look at all of the churches who hide pedophiles. Look at sGM. Nope-no problem there.
    Ken wrote:

    But Paul’s diagnosis rings true – in the modern West, as Christianity has decreased, immorality, greed, breakdown in human relationships etc, all the vices listed in Romans 1 have increased.

    Yep- and I see them in the church as well. Christians seem to do a good job at ignoring the Spirit and indulging in greed and sexual immorality. See comment about SGM.

  350. In other news, the BBC’s weather forecast for Tuesday – when I’ve booked the day to go hillwalking – is pretty good over Scotland. That is not a good sign as the BBC’s “day five” weather forecast is always wrong. I’d better take flippers and a snorkel.

  351. Simply rejecting the literal interpretation of early Genesis that leads to YEC is not adequate. An alternative interpretation must be accepted. John Walton’s temple imagery has been mention in these comments. I would like to add a second possibility I find attractive due to Conrad Hyers that appeared in the ASA journal PSCF: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1984/JASA9-84Hyers.html . This interpretation is based on the necessity of rejecting polytheism and idolatry by His chosen people which plagued them throughout the OT. This is still advice just as applicable to our modern culture as it was in the OT.

  352. elastigirl wrote:

    @ Christy:
    I guess my feeling is that a person can do a fabulous job of obeying all that he has commanded. And still be an arrogant bastard. Or as Rachel Lynde from Anne of Green Gables would say, “Meaner than 2nd skimmings!” Usually with a sweet smile.
    Even if it were possible to “obey all that he has commanded” (& the like via Paul, Peter, James, John, etc.), one would end up quite the twisted contortionist. And still having to “rejoice in the Lord always”, while gritting their teeth.
    My feeling is that an emphasis on obeying words in a book won’t change a person, but God himself will. My thinking is that the corrective and discipline outside oneself to make right choices is really God/Jesus/Holy Spirit himself/selves, not the book. I think the bible can be a vehicle and a catalyst, but it is God in me & in my midst and me learning to recognize him, hear him, adjust to him, and draw ability from him where my ability runs short.
    I also think that humanity (& creation in general) is far too complex for conforming to a rigid set of dos & don’ts, shoulds and shouldn’ts, black and white. I am not saying morality is relative. I am saying there is deeper truth in seeing the forest than there is in examining each tree. Wisdom and understanding in how to apply what’s in the book come from knowing God/Jesus/Holy Spirit apart from the book.
    Abraham, if he was as he is described, knew God quite well. He had no book.
    Chances are you agree with at least some of what I’m saying. And I apologize for coming on a bit strong earlier.

    I was not offended. I realize that many people on this site have had negative experiences with legalism, hypocrisy, and abusive churches. I have had a largely positive experience with Evangelicalism, growing up in a highly grace oriented church, attending an intellectually rigorous Christian college, working in an organization where surrounded by justice-oriented people who get out in the world and love people well at great personal sacrifice. I don’t have the same baggage. Sometimes it seems to me like people throw the baby out with the bathwater any time authority or obedience is mentioned. So, I’m just trying to be the minority voice that reminds people those are still Christian concepts, no matter how unrighteously they have been implemented in some people’s experience. 🙂

  353. @ Nancy:
    “as Christianity has decreased, immorality, greed, breakdown in human relationships etc, all the vices listed in Romans 1 have increased.”

  354. oldJohnJ wrote:

    Simply rejecting the literal interpretation of early Genesis that leads to YEC is not adequate. An alternative interpretation must be accepted.

    Well, yessss… if origins is the only problem. But if one rescues some form of inerrancy by some alternative explanation of the Genesis stories, that still leaves other statements in the Bible that have to be “rescued” also. (Rescue is my word-not saying that you said that.) There is right much written about quite a few things in scripture, both from a historical standpoint and also from the more fundamentalist viewpoint that tries to reconcile various events and various apparent inconsistencies with historical or scientific findings-and some of the arguments are sadly ludicrous.

    I think that the YEC people have chosen to focus on Genesis because it is seen as a crucial test case for a whole pyramid of theories and understandings of scripture. If that pyramid topples they think that it will destroy the faith of millions and maybe even the foundations of western civilization. I read Al Mohler’s web page, and that is pretty much what he says about the inerrancy thing, and for that matter about sex and sexuality. All of this is inextricably linked in that mind set. They really do think that if people think that the earth is old (never mind the whole evolution idea), then people will not believe in God and will totally run amok (mostly in sexual ethics) and all will perish.

    My concern is that current believers come to some sort of reconciliation in their own minds of the findings of science, historical research, theological scholarship, etc so that they do not have to declare themselves former Christians or used-to-be believers.

  355. Nancy wrote:

    I read Al Mohler’s web page, and that is pretty much what he says about the inerrancy thing, and for that matter about sex and sexuality. All of this is inextricably linked in that mind set. They really do think that if people think that the earth is old (never mind the whole evolution idea), then people will not believe in God and will totally run amok (mostly in sexual ethics) and all will perish.

    “sex and sexuality…”
    “(mostly in SEXUAL ethics)…”
    Ever notice a lot of preachers are as obsessed with S*E*X as a Nymphomaniac on Spanish Fly?
    Plus the “I’m not allowed to, so I’ll Make Sure Nobody’s Allowed To!” factor.

  356. I’ll start off my saying that I am a young earth creationist. In studying this subject over the past 25 years, I have grown in my understanding of the Bible, and science. One of the most important matters in this entire topic of conversation that everyone must first realize is that BOTH sides START off with BIAS.
    A young earth creationist’s bias is that he/she believes that the universe was created by a Creator.
    An old earth evolutionist’s bias is that he/she believes that the universe came about by natural circumstances.
    From a purely biblical perspective, without any influence whatsoever of evolution, A person that believes the bible cannot jump to the conclusion of billions of years for anything as the Bible does not provide ANY information relating to billions of years. The Bible’s ONLY reference to time in creation are six days of creation for the entire universe. That’s it. (FYI, I’m also a Hebrew linguist … a “yom” is always a 24 hour period in the context of time).
    From a purely evolutionary perspective the assumption that they start off with is that evolution is TRUE (Big Bang, billions of years, etc.) and that the universe came into existence naturally with no creator. So their bias automatically dictates that it HAD to take billions of years for the universe to get to the state that it exists today. They then can ONLY answer questions from a scientific perspective that is full of BIAS. Their solution then has to find evidence to support their bias. Thus, billions and billions and billions of years to support their evolutionary process.
    So, although it’s been a long and interesting road for me, here is why I’m a young earth creationist.
    From a pure scientific perspective, I need PROOF that science backs up billions of years of existence for me to believe in evolution. So here are just SOME of my questions that evolutionary science cannot provide me an answer for:
    1. Regarding our moon, if it has existed for billions of years there should be dust on the surface of the moon that should have been measured in feet. Instead the dust on the moon surface can be measured in centimeters. We know the rate of dust that accumulates on the moon in a year. Simple math would suggest feet of dust, not centimeters of dust. How is that possible if evolution were true?
    2. If the big bang theory holds true, how can our solar system have planets that orbit the sun … in opposite directions? How can these same planets in one solar system be made of completely different materials if they all spun off from the big bang? How is that possible?
    3. If evolution is to hold true … how could species copulate during the “billions of years” of development when their reproductive systems were in the process of evolving? They would have died off during that process! Evolutionists can’t answer this … AT ALL.
    4. If evolution of billions of years were true, how can there still be comets in our solar system? They should have been burned up eons and eons ago.
    5. Regarding the Big Bang, what existed to cause the Big Bang? What was before the Big Bang? Did the Big Bang really come from NOTHING (which is what they believe). How is that “scientifically” possible?
    6. If evolution were true wouldn’t the fossil record on earth have millions and millions of examples of intermediate transitional forms of fossils showing one species evolving in to another? They have exactly ZERO fossils that support evolution. How can that be?
    I have found it interesting to note that the ONLY difference between the fairy tale of the princess kissing a frog and turning it in to a man and evolutionary theory is TIME. In evolution, a frog (reptile) slowly evolved in to man over billions of years. In the fairy tale it was just a kiss from the princess. Time.
    Here is my challenge to the Christians on this board. If you believe in evolution (or hold an old earth view of creation) you have ultimately bought in to the BIAS thinking of evolutionists. Evolution is NOT backed up at all in scripture. Evolutionist try to support their BELIEF by saying that science supports their claims. Unfortunately for them, they have had to change their evolutionary “facts” time and time and time again once science has proved them and their theories wrong. Stop trying to struggle with the lies of men and woman that do not even believe in a God because you somehow think that they have science on their side. They don’t! You have the time tested true Word of God to claim as your own that wonderfully explains the origins of the universe and has science (which God created) on its side.

  357. @ Ken: you know, he was making a much larger rhetorical point that doesn’t hit its “punch line” until chapter 2. He paints gentiles as absolutely horrific people, piling one terrible thing on top of another for his Jewish hearers, and then proceeds to pull the rug out from under them. It’s *not* really about Those People being *so* evil… If you read it in that light, the emphasis changes quite a bit.

    Paul was big on exaggeration, irony and occasional sarcasm. All are present in the early part of Romans.

  358. Ken –

    But Paul’s diagnosis rings true – in the modern West, as Christianity has decreased, immorality, greed, breakdown in human relationships etc, all the vices listed in Romans 1 have increased.

    These things have not increased . . . they have been with us non stop since Adam and Eve and their murdering child.

    Have you not seen art from the time of Christ? Pedaphilia was part of the culture and portrayed in art? Yet, today, it is outlawed . . . along with child abuse, child labor, selling children, slavery, etc.

  359. @ Kristin:
    Kristin wrote:

    I gotta say, I feel bad for YECs. I can’t imagine a life where you can’t enjoy going to a planetarium, or visiting the grand canyon, or going caving, or glacier hiking, all because the tour guide will tell this totally offensive concept of old earth. Maybe i’m a heathen but being “right” about every little detail of faith is not that important to me. I find a lot of joy in learning about natural history and celebrating creation in that way.

    Kristin,

    Just the opposite of what you wrote, as a YEC I tremendously enjoy all aspects of nature, the universe and all things created under the sun. It regularly allows me to praise the Creator that made all of these things for us to enjoy! I LOVE studying natural science, however I just don’t buy in to the evolutionary bias that the universe happened naturally and was not created by God. To this day I am completely amazed by God’s creation! It’s outrageously incredible!!!

  360. Somewhereintime wrote:

    An old earth evolutionist’s bias is that he/she believes that the universe came about by natural circumstances.

    You are wrong. OEC/EC believe that the universe and the stuff in it came about by a creator God.

  361. Somewhereintime wrote:

    A young earth creationist’s bias is that he/she believes that the universe was created by a Creator.
    An old earth evolutionist’s bias is that he/she believes that the universe came about by natural circumstances.

    First off you’ve split the debate into two areas that I doubt most of us would go along with. I’m old earth. But I’m not a random natural selection evolutionists.

    And throughout your post you use the word evolution in a way that most of the OE Christians I know who study this issue would have strong disagreement with. To most of us evolution is a term applied to biology. Not physics and geology.

    As to your points.

    1. Moon dust. I’ll let AIG answer this one for you.
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/topic/arguments-we-dont-use

    2. Big bang and planet orbits and make up.
    Sorry but you seem to have little understanding of mainstream theories of how solar systems and planets form.

    3. Evolution and reproduction.
    Again you seem to have a very overly simplistic view of the subject. But if you’re dead set against natural selection -> evolution maybe you should study the papers at Reasons to Believe.

    4. Comets
    Again, you don’t seem to understand how comets work.

    5. Big Bang. What was before it? No one knows. But many of us on the Christian side of the debate feel this is what happened when God created our universe. You seem to make it that if you believe in the Big Bang you can’t believe in God.

    6. Transitional Forms for Fossils.
    There are 1000s of transitional forms. And more found every day. Over time the holes give filled in with more and more transitions. But many on the YEC side claim they aren’t. So here we’re at a stalemate.

    Your final argument about changing the facts is just absurd.

    Most of your points are more about setting up false choices (in my opinion) not showing an option between a biblical view and a scientific one.

    And I’m sure there are others who can more directly answer your issues.

    Some questions. Is the earth the center of the universe? Are there 4 corners to the earth? Is the circumference of a circle 3 times it’s diameter?

  362. @ Bridget:

    Bridget,

    I think scripture would support that there is nothing new under the sun. Sin has been with us from the Adam and Eve and it exists to this day. Is it worse today than before? No, I think it’s the same. Evil still exists and plays out it’s horrific plight on humans. I think that there have been times in which evil was more hidden than other times, but I don’t believe we can say it’s worse today than it was x years ago. So … in essence I agree with you. 🙂

  363. @ dee:

    My comment was to pure evolutionists. The “crime” of OEC/EC is that you have bought in to the lies of a theory-based process that eliminates the existance of God from the get go. You somehow believe that science is on your side to explain why the universe is how you see it today. Science is not of the side of evolutionists. Even the various evolutionary sciences conflict with each other in their own explaination of evolution.

    Just so that I am clear, YEC or OEC has nothing to do with one’s salvation, but it has EVERYTHING to do with one’s belief of scripture and how it plays out in your life. If you buy in to evolutionary thinking you buy in to its falsehoods.

  364. @ NC Now:

    NC,

    I’ll just touch on one topic for now … transitional fossils. Please provide to me ONE example of a transitionary fossil. ONE!!!!

  365. @ Bridget:
    I didn’t mean to give the impression that Romans 1 has not always been true of fallen man. My point is that the effect of the Christian gospel in the West was to restrain some of the worst of these vices, but it clearly never elimated them. However, as the West has suppressed Christian truth to an increasing degree – this is true in the UK particularly after WW1 – such things have become more common. Man simply starts showing his rebellion against God more openly. Think of today’s unprecedented financial greed.

    Things that used to be considered wrong are now openly celebrated.

  366. Somewhereintime wrote:

    ere is my challenge to the Christians on this board. If you believe in evolution (or hold an old earth view of creation) you have ultimately bought in to the BIAS thinking of evolutionists.

    No we haven’t. We are intelligent and devout people who believe the science and believe the science and the Bible can be reconciled.

    I will leave our readers to answer your easy question about the moon dust. I have a wedding to pull off.

  367. Bridget wrote:

    These things have not increased . . . they have been with us non stop since Adam and Eve and their murdering child.

    Bingo. Wish I could say more. Just found out my daughter asked a junior bridesmaid and didn’t tell me! Ack!

  368. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    In other news, the BBC’s weather forecast for Tuesday –

    in other news, the Tuesday forecast in my part of the world is precisely he same as today– and last Tuesday– and the Tuesday before that. We’re trapped under a massive inversion, with no sun by day and no moon and stars by night. No clouds (plural)– just cloud. No rain, no sleet, no snow. No warmth, no wind, no———- weather! Just cold, very dry, and very, very gray. Like the church would be, if the whole body were a mouth, with no varieties of manifestations and gifts!

  369. On a brighter note: the local SBC mega has a pre-K through 12 school with a student population not exclusively drawn from the local church, and they teach both creationism and old earth/evolution in their science curricula, using secular curriculum material for the evolution part of that program. They pride themselves as an academic college prep school with kids going to most of the major colleges in NC. This can be done–a well rounded education I mean. Kids need to know what is going on and why–both sides of the quarrel.

  370. @ JeffT:

    I suspect he’s going for the ruler argument.

    I need a ruler to measure something.
    Here’s one marked in 1/4s.
    Not accurate enough.
    Here’s one marked in 1/8s.
    Not accurate enough.
    Here’s one marked in 1/16s.
    Not accurate enough.
    Here’s one marked in 1/32s.
    Not accurate enough.
    …..
    Here’s one marked in 1/2048s.
    Not accurate enough.

    Rinse lather repeat.

  371. Somewhereintime wrote:

    In studying this subject over the past 25 years, I have grown in my understanding of the Bible, and science.

    Reading a few pamphlets or web-pages by YEC conspiracists does not count as studying. 25 years’ experience can very easily by one week’s experience 1250 times over, and judging by the lack of scientific knowledge in your questions, the evidence (there’s that word again) in this context points in that direction. (I cannot account for how anyone who had studied the relevant science for 25 years would not know where comets come from.)

    Somewhereintimealso wrote:

    (FYI, I’m also a Hebrew linguist … [elipsis in original] a “yom” is always a 24 hour period in the context of time).

    The most cursory glance at a Strong’s Concordance (which conveniently lists all the uses of “yom”) reveals that neither of these claims is true; 1) “Yom” clearly has both literal and figurative uses, and 2) you are not a Hebrew linguist. Neither am I – hence the elementary research method cited – but at least I did some research, and in a reference source which palpably has no bias for or against creationism, evolutionism or anything else. And to the degree that I do understand human language, it would be extremely unusual for any unit of measure in any language to have no figurative use, especially when used in poetry (which accounts for significant portions of the OT).

    You were kind enough to challenge us as Christians, and there is nothing wrong in that. Let me return the favour by submitting the opinion that your case would be strengthened, not weakened, were you to be who you are instead of claiming to be someone you are not.

  372. @ dee:

    Dee,

    Do me the favor and list ONE. The problem is that you can not do so because THEY DO NOT EXIST. Not a single solitary one shows a transitional species. They are all 100% fully formed and fully functional species that are 1) still alive 2) are extinct.

  373. @ Ken: again, I think you’re missing the points Paul was trying to make – and keep in mind that chapter/verse divisions aren’t anywhere to be found in the ancient manuscripts, but are much later additions.

    Essentially, Roman Isa letter, and Paul’s first points don’t really start in the opening paragraphs, since those are, well, opening paragraphs.

    The church in Rome was made up of both Jews and gentiles. Just as there is a long section later in the letter that is explicitly addressed to the gentiles in Rome, so there are sections of the letter that were being addressed to Jews, and Paul very deliberately plays on Jewish prejudices toward gentiles in the part of the letter that you’re referring to. His “Gotcha!” moment comes a little bit later ( but obviously during the same discussion), in chapter 2. (“And such are some of you,” etc.)

    fwiw…

  374. @ Somewhereintime:
    I have emailed my friends to answer you. I am going to a wedding rehearsal. My daughter (a believer in TE and a Christian) is getting married tomorrow. And she is so deceived that she and her husband have asked for no presents and, instead, asked for donations to Heifer International.

    So, here is the deal. I know that you are wrong on this and my friends need to stand in my stead until Monday. Sorry because I love this debate

  375. @ NC Now:

    Exactly. It’s a typical anti-evolutionary move. The chain is never complete enough, they always want another link in between in order to show a transition. It’s like asking someone to move two objects together so they touch by moving them closer to each other by half the distance between them each time.

  376. @ NC Now:
    You are 100% correct about this. In fact, that is one of the best explanation I have seen on this matter. Thank you.

  377. @ Somewhereintime: I think you’re stuck with us, as Dee’s daughter is getting married tomorrow and she is crazy busy.

    You’ve already gotten some good replies and links, and there’s plenty of info for you to digest.

    Besides, yelling isn’t going to get you very far. If you can just join the Congo, that would be great!

  378. Somewhereintime wrote:

    Do me the favor and list ONE. The problem is that you can not do so because THEY DO NOT EXIST. Not a single solitary one shows a transitional species. They are all 100% fully formed and fully functional species that are 1) still alive 2) are extinct.

    Huh? Do you even understand this?

  379. @ Ken: can you please give us some historical background to back up your claims? (I’m not being facetious or sarcastic; this seems like an incredible broad-brushing of history and social mores, and I would really like to see you flesh things out a bit…)

  380. @ Somewhereintime:
    First, your post demonstrates a remarkable confusion between cosmology and evolution. Cosmology is a study of the large scale structure of the universe. Evolution is the description of the biological development of life on our planet. Until you recognize this confusion and incorporate it into your intellectual framework any serious discussion is probably not possible. You completely fail to substantiate any of your points with references supporting your claims. In this forum, predominately OE/TE such references are mandatory. If you are not simply trolling to start a flame war please provide evidence to support your claims about science. In spite of these flaws I’ll try.

    Re 3) Bacteria don’t copulate now and presumably never have.

    Re 5) The 1978 Nobel Physics Prize (Penzias & Wilson) was for experimental evidence, the 3 degree Kelvin background cosmic microwave radiation, confirming the Big Bang, the birth of our universe. The 2011 Nobel Physics (Perlmutter, Schmidt & Riess) was for astronomical observations indicating the expansion of universe is accelerating, not decelerating. Our universe had a moment of creation but does not appear to have a built-in end. There is no support for an infinite repeating cycle of universe creations and deaths. Our universe is a unique event. This suggests there may be something “outside” of the observable universe and is seen as very troubling by many scientists.

  381. @ Nick Bulbeck:

    Nick,

    I guess 6 1/2 years of collecting a paycheck with the National Security Agency as a HEBREW LINGUIST would not be enough in your book to be able to call oneself a linguist. Oh well …

    Reagrding your points on the hebrew word “yom”. The word Yom is used both literally and figuratively in the Old Testament. In the context of the first few chapters of Genesis it is neither used in the context of poetry or figuratively. Please be reminded that the thought of “yom” being ANYTHING beyond a 24 hour period in these verses never existed prior to Christians making a feeble attempt of integrating an atheist belief in to scriptures because there is a “belief” that science does not support a YEC.

  382. @ oldJohnJ:
    \
    OldJohn,

    Although biology is the core essence of how evolution is explained in science, evolutionary science has been used in almost EVERY field of science to provide explanation on everything from the age of a rock to how the universe came about.

    This is why Christians accepting evolutionary thinking are walking on dangerous grounds. It’s a man-made belief (not science) that is formed 100% on a bais that God does not exist. The science that we can see, feel and measure today supports creationism, I would argue, MORE than it does evolution. Evolution is NOT science. IT’s a belief system.

    I love science! However, if I start out with the premise that God does not exist and that it took billions of years for us to get where we are today, then the age of that rock of that fossil in that cliff MUST be at least 1.5 billion years old! Why? Because I found it in a layer of rock that is 1.5 billion years old. How do you know it’s 1.5 billion years old … because I found a fossil in it. in a section of rock from the Jurassic period in it. So the fossil must be 1.5 billion years old? Why? Because the

  383. got cut off …

    It’s all circular reasoning. What is the SCIENCE that provies that it is that old?

  384. Somewhereintime wrote:

    Please be reminded that the thought of “yom” being ANYTHING beyond a 24 hour period in these verses never existed prior to Christians making a feeble attempt of integrating an atheist belief in to scriptures because there is a “belief” that science does not support a YEC.

    Yes, yom in Genesis 1 likely means a 24 hour day. No, Genesis 1 is not Hebrew poetry. But neither of those means that Genesis 1 cannot be read as a type of parable that uses a seven-day framework because seven is a number that the Israelites believed signified completion or perfection.

  385. oldJohnJ wrote:

    Re 3) Bacteria don’t copulate now and presumably never have.

    OldJohn,

    I never said bacteria copulated. Species copulate. Please explain how a fish created another fish in the past when it’s sexual organs were not even developed.

    I’m not here to start a flame war. I’m just concerned for Christians who have allowed the infiltration of atheistic belief in to their world views of life. That’s all.

  386. @ JeffT:

    I apologize if I wasn’t clear … the point is that all fossils found are either species that exist today (i.e. bats, bugs, leaves, etc.) or species that are extinct (T-Rexes, etc.). All fossils that have EVER been found are fully formed and show NO transitions from one species to another.

    I humbly ask that someone show me ONE transitional fossil.

  387. Somewhereintime wrote:

    owever, if I start out with the premise that God does not exist and that it took billions of years for us to get where we are today,

    I don’t weigh in much at all about content. It’s not my job. But Dee is gone and needs to have her laptop turned off for the next 2 days.

    You need to quit implying that people who believe the universe/earth is billions of years old do not believe in God. Many hold to both beliefs. If you keep it up it will be treated as a personal attack.

    Everyone else. Don’t engage on this issue.

  388. Somewhereintime wrote:

    @ JeffT:
    I apologize if I wasn’t clear … the point is that all fossils found are either species that exist today (i.e. bats, bugs, leaves, etc.) or species that are extinct (T-Rexes, etc.). All fossils that have EVER been found are fully formed and show NO transitions from one species to another.
    I humbly ask that someone show me ONE transitional fossil.

    I posted a link just upthread to one entire list of transitional fossils.

    [[MOD EDIT: I think I fixed the quoting to make it reflect the intent of the comment. Let me know if I’m wrong. GBTC]]

  389. @ Somewhereintime:

    BTW, I apologize if my response stating that I didn’t understand what you were saying sounded less that gracious. I doubt we will ever agree on the issue but I do appreciate civil discussions with others who disagree, if nothing else, it can lead to those who disagree not seeing each other as evil incarnate.

  390. Somewhereintime wrote:

    I’ll start off my saying that I am a young earth creationist. In studying this subject over the past 25 years, I have grown in my understanding of the Bible, and science. One of the most important matters in this entire topic of conversation that everyone must first realize is that BOTH sides START off with BIAS.
    A young earth creationist’s bias is that he/she believes that the universe was created by a Creator.
    An old earth evolutionist’s bias is that he/she believes that the universe came about by natural circumstances.
    From a purely biblical perspective, without any influence whatsoever of evolution, A person that believes the bible cannot jump to the conclusion of billions of years for anything as the Bible does not provide ANY information relating to billions of years. The Bible’s ONLY reference to time in creation are six days of creation for the entire universe. That’s it. (FYI, I’m also a Hebrew linguist … a “yom” is always a 24 hour period in the context of time).
    From a purely evolutionary perspective the assumption that they start off with is that evolution is TRUE (Big Bang, billions of years, etc.) and that the universe came into existence naturally with no creator. So their bias automatically dictates that it HAD to take billions of years for the universe to get to the state that it exists today. They then can ONLY answer questions from a scientific perspective that is full of BIAS. Their solution then has to find evidence to support their bias. Thus, billions and billions and billions of years to support their evolutionary process.
    So, although it’s been a long and interesting road for me, here is why I’m a young earth creationist.
    From a pure scientific perspective, I need PROOF that science backs up billions of years of existence for me to believe in evolution. So here are just SOME of my questions that evolutionary science cannot provide me an answer for:
    1. Regarding our moon, if it has existed for billions of years there should be dust on the surface of the moon that should have been measured in feet. Instead the dust on the moon surface can be measured in centimeters. We know the rate of dust that accumulates on the moon in a year. Simple math would suggest feet of dust, not centimeters of dust. How is that possible if evolution were true?
    2. If the big bang theory holds true, how can our solar system have planets that orbit the sun … in opposite directions? How can these same planets in one solar system be made of completely different materials if they all spun off from the big bang? How is that possible?
    3. If evolution is to hold true … how could species copulate during the “billions of years” of development when their reproductive systems were in the process of evolving? They would have died off during that process! Evolutionists can’t answer this … AT ALL.
    4. If evolution of billions of years were true, how can there still be comets in our solar system? They should have been burned up eons and eons ago.
    5. Regarding the Big Bang, what existed to cause the Big Bang? What was before the Big Bang? Did the Big Bang really come from NOTHING (which is what they believe). How is that “scientifically” possible?
    6. If evolution were true wouldn’t the fossil record on earth have millions and millions of examples of intermediate transitional forms of fossils showing one species evolving in to another? They have exactly ZERO fossils that support evolution. How can that be?
    I have found it interesting to note that the ONLY difference between the fairy tale of the princess kissing a frog and turning it in to a man and evolutionary theory is TIME. In evolution, a frog (reptile) slowly evolved in to man over billions of years. In the fairy tale it was just a kiss from the princess. Time.
    Here is my challenge to the Christians on this board. If you believe in evolution (or hold an old earth view of creation) you have ultimately bought in to the BIAS thinking of evolutionists. Evolution is NOT backed up at all in scripture. Evolutionist try to support their BELIEF by saying that science supports their claims. Unfortunately for them, they have had to change their evolutionary “facts” time and time and time again once science has proved them and their theories wrong. Stop trying to struggle with the lies of men and woman that do not even believe in a God because you somehow think that they have science on their side. They don’t! You have the time tested true Word of God to claim as your own that wonderfully explains the origins of the universe and has science (which God created) on its side.

    Hi there somewhere (has a funny ring to it eh?)

    The items you list are very well work PRATTs (Points Refuted A Thousand Times) from the Young Earth Spin Machine.

    1) The Moon dust has been around a really long time. There is inflow, but there is also outflow. The most recent measurements based on current dust accumulation on solar panels of devices left by the Apollo Astronauts do appear to show accumulation rates that would match the current dust accumulations in around 20,000,000 years, but that is still quite the problem for YEC. Why it’s not more than it is? Well as I said, there is infux and outflux, and conditions vary over time. A system like this is not a very good clock to start with. That is why we use radiometric dating.

    2a)It doesn’t. You’ve confused this with something else. All eight planets and pluto (for posterity) orbit in the same direction and the same plane as would be expected for a system which formed from a dust accretion disk – as we see other planetary systems forming (look up Formalaut B for a nice picture). There are moons with retrograde orbits, but this makes perfect sense in that those moons were likely captured later in a way that allowed for a retrograde motion.

    2b) Different materials???. Same stuff, different places of formation, different masses and temperatures. An accretion disk will have different environments, and densities. closer to the sun only the rocky substances that do not vaporize at the warmer temperatures are involved in planet formation. Farther out, more elements are solid and you can get more variety in the composition of the planets themselves. Likewise different densities in the disk allow for larger masses in some places which can hold and retain larger amounts of lighter gases – hence the gas giants Jupiter and Saturn.

    2c) The Big bang happened 13.7 billion years ago, the solar system formed about 4.5 billion years ago. Not a whole lot of correlation there. By the time the solar system was forming, the BB was ancient history.

    3) That is a very, very silly question. evolution is an ongoing process. Copulation would have evolved from other processes over large spans of time. Evolution doesn’t happen in massive jumps. Populations evolve. We can see on the Earth right now all sorts of different methods by which life manages to reproduce itself. The specific path to the mammalian form may or may not be able to be established as mostly what we have are the hard parts, and that process typically does not involve any hard parts. We might find clues however through genetic analysis.

    4) Ah, the old “no more comets” line. There are two sources of pristine comets. One is the Kuiper belt, which we can see and analyze, the other is the Oort cloud, which we can only infer by the constant influx of long period comets. Basically, gravitational perturbations send us new comets from all directions on a fairly regular basis. Sometimes these pass close enough to an outer planet to have their orbits changed and they are re-vectored into a shorter term orbit. Poof – no comet problem.

    5) Well here you have a good point, and you have the reason so many Atheists scientists at the time (and even now) are really annoyed that the universe had a beginning. But that is not an issue for a Christian. It does seem odd that the YEC crowd is so hostile against one of the best scientific evidences for an unknown ’cause’ which is for all practical purposes beyond scientific scrutiny. A perfect segway into “In the Beginning, God …”

    6) We do. Every fossil is in fact an intermediate form. Futher, and not to be trite, any NEW fossil that should be considered an intermediate is generally met by the YEC crowd by questions about where the missing intermediates before and after the new one are.

    Ultimately, the fossil record is sparse. Fossilization is rare, and the stresses that push changes in form can be sporadic and of shorter duration that the average time between fossilizations. So we can only get so much granularity out of fossils.

    But ask yourself this. Look at what the fossils from 500 million years ago look like. Then look at the ones from 400 million, then 300 million, then 200 million and so on.
    Heck, cut it down to 10,000,000 year jumps. What do you see? A continuous progression of change over time with a history in a time frame of literally billions of years.

    Pick your process to explain that one. Evolution fits better than anything else we have, but whatever way you go, this history of life on this planet is far too numerous and far to varied, and there are just too darn many carcasus (e.g. cliffs of Dover) for this to be something left behind over the last 6,000 years or so.

    And now, go back and look at Genesis. God commanded the Earth and the Seas to create life. That is the form in the Hebrew. So life came from the Earth in obedience to God. Evolution fits that quite well. We, mankind, were formed from the dust of the Earth – that fits well too, with the caveat that God was directly involved with us, as opposed to the other animals. There is a good bit more, but I’ll stop here for now.

    Zeta (Jim)

  391. Somewhereintime wrote:

    I never said bacteria copulated. Species copulate.

    I’m not a biologist. My biology stopped in high school. (I did keep up with a lot of reading later in life.)

    Bacteria come in species. Your statement makes no sense in terms of biology.

    As to how did we get from asexual to bi-sexual reproduction. Good question. biologos.org and http://www.reasons.org can offer some views. Secularists have other views. (Warning none agree with each other.)

    But if we roll back the clock 100 years we could be having similar debates about nuclear reactions. Quantum physics was not widely accepted at first. It took a while to work out the details and become the best explanation for what was happening at the sub atomic level.

    Same thing is going on with species formation. Answers will come.

    But not from people who don’t understand that bacteria come in species.

  392. In other news, as Nick says, have you all been following the neuroscience research? Some of it is so exciting so far. Everything I learned in school about the brain seems to be totally in error. If some of what they are saying at this point holds up under further investigation then there are some tsunamis coming in some areas of religious thought. Like the ideas so far about free will, free won’t or not. Like if stuff really does originate below levels of conscious awareness, and like when we think that we are thinking we are not actually thinking–maybe. Wow. When I get a chance I am going to read a lot more of their stuff. But there are potentially huge implications for humanity in this research.

    I’m guessing that neuroscience has the potential to become the new “antichrist” even surpassing earth age and origins.

  393. JeffT wrote:

    Radiometric dating to cite just one.

    Radiometric Dating’s basic premise is that the rate of decay has always been constant. SCIENCE has proven that this is not the case. Actual SCIENTIFIC studies have have shown that nuclear decay has been OBSERVED to rapidly occur at accelerated rates when dating was applied to lava rocks. So, there is a FALSE ASSUMPTION in the “science” of radiometric dating that is being used by evolutionists in stating the age of rocks. Today we OBSERVE a slow rate of decay in rocks. However, we have scientifically PROVEN that the slow rate of decay DOES NOT HAPPEN. Why? Because we used SCIENCE and it SHOWS that the premise is WRONG!

    Again, Christians … don’t believe in a world-view of the universe. It’s base comes from men who do not believe in God. A YEC has science on his/her side. Remember, BIAS is the name of the game when it comes to evolution. The ONLY assumption evolutionary thinking can take is that God did not create the universe leaving the only option of “tweaking” all experiments with the assumption that this universe is billions of years old.

  394. GuyBehindtheCurtain wrote:

    You need to quit implying that people who believe the universe/earth is billions of years old do not believe in God.

    Guy,

    I never implyed that Christians that believe in Old Earth Creation are not Christians. I have said that Christians that believe in OEC are doing so based on a faulty assumption that science has proven evolution when in fact science has NOT proven it. I am asking Christians who believe in evolution to REEXAMINE their understanding based upon facts, not evolutionary BELIEFS.

    So that everyone is clear … YEC and OEC will be in heaven together if they have been saved by the Blood of the Lamb. 🙂

  395. Somewhereintime wrote:

    Actual SCIENTIFIC studies have have shown that nuclear decay has been OBSERVED to rapidly occur at accelerated rates when dating was applied to lava rocks. So, there is a FALSE ASSUMPTION in the “science” of radiometric dating that is being used by evolutionists in stating the age of rocks.

    I think you need to very carefully read the Weins article on radiometric dating I referred to in my 1:07P today comment before making statements such as I quoted. If you cite a fully peer reviewed article in the science literature backing up your claims that be most helpful. Claiming conspiracy against YEC “science” is an admission that there is no such evidence.

  396. Somewhereintime wrote:

    SCIENCE has proven that this is not the case.

    Not legitimate science. YEC opponents of radiometric dating, such as the Creation Institute’s RATE project, do not ground their criticism in legitimate science. They do NOT publish their claims in any mainstrean scientific journals, they do NOT present their claims at mainstream scientific conferences, they refuse to participate in any way in the mainstream scientific discussions on the issue. These are the only ‘scientists’ who refuse to accept the validity of radiometric dating. That’s because YECs have no real interest in what science can tell us in this area. All they want to do is try to create enough doubt in the minds of laypersons so they won’t question the YEC view of Genesis 1.

  397. @ numo:

    It can be turned off, but sometimes results in slower communication. The autocomplete is worse than the autocorrect.

  398. Somewhereintime wrote:

    GuyBehindtheCurtain wrote:

    I never implyed that Christians that believe in Old Earth Creation are not Christians. I have said that Christians that believe in OEC are doing so based on a faulty assumption that science has proven evolution when in fact science has NOT proven it. I am asking Christians who believe in evolution to REEXAMINE their understanding based upon facts, not evolutionary BELIEFS.

    Here are the facts on evolutionary biology, from ASA scientists who do not share the scientific naturalism belief that evolution is unguided or pointless, which I assume is what you mean by evolutionary beliefs.
    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates
    Included are your transitional forms too: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates

  399. oldJohnJ wrote:

    You’ve shown no inclination to deal with my serious questions about your motives and competencies

    OldJohnJ,

    My Motive: Long term Wartburgwatch reader. Ex-SGMer. I believe in TRUTH. I believe in SCIENCE. I do not believe in science that does not have truth as its core. Evolutionary science is based on the premise that GOD DOES NOT EXIST. Christians who believe in evolutionary science may well be born again, but they have fallen in to the trap that men of great knowledge know what they are talking about because they are so smart and have multitudes of degrees to back it up. Science is science. However, when one brings his/her BIAS to the table, science can become opinion and it’s not backed by real science. Evolutionist have had to change their FACTS a gazillion times over the years because they were found not to be correct. These “facts” were passed on to people in grade school, high school and college. Their premise is … “we found out more information. Evolution is still true, but our fact is no longer a fact.” Facts are facts people. Understand the BIAS that a person speaks and it will help you understand what they are saying.
    Scientific fact: Newton’s First Law: “An object that is at rest will stay at rest unless an external force acts upon it. “ Everyone can agree to this because we observe it and have been unable to disprove it.
    Unscientific “fact”: Radiocarbon dating proves the age of the earth. No it doesn’t. The premise used in radiocarbon dating BELIEVES that the rate of decay has always been constant. Scientifically this has proven NOT TO BE THE CASE as scientists have recorded the rate of decay for molten lava initially is HIGHLY accelerated. You see, there is a BIAS to this dating method that cannot be scientifically proven. In fact, science proves the opposite of this evolutionary thinking “fact”.

    Competencies: I’m not sure what competencies one must have to be able to intelligently discuss this topic with other individuals on this board (as if one must have a degree in Theological Studies to intelligently talk about the wonderful news of how a person might be saved or how CJ Mahaney is an ungodly man because he blackmailed a fellow believer). So if you are looking for a PhD from myself in Biology, you won’t find one. However, I have spent much time studying science. I make every effort to honestly look at both sides of the argument to make my decisions. However, as I said before, if you state a “fact”, it better be a real fact. Otherwise your “fact” becomes an “opinion” or “theory”.

  400. I was thinking… Does it matter what the Hebrew word “yom” means today? Isn’t it more important to know what it meant when the word was originally penned as the OT was being written down for the first time? My limited understanding is that all languages have gotten more exact in modern times, and we all think in terms of our linguistic context.

    So much of this debate seems to be over the meaning of this one word, and the larger question of how we interpret the Bible. How literal should we be?

    Just trying to generate some comments on this rather quiet thread.

  401. JeffT wrote:

    They do NOT publish their claims in any mainstrean scientific journals, they do NOT present their claims at mainstream scientific conferences

    Come on Jeff … do you really think that an industry built on the premise that evolution is true would even publish let alone invite AIG to conferences? I hope you are not that naive. They are freaking out now because Bill Nye the Science Guy is debating Ken Ham.

  402. @ dee:

    Dee,

    What parts of the Law can we keep, of any? And if we can’t keep the Law perfectly, is it because we choose not to, or because we cannot as a function of our very nature? And if it is the latter, how can you accuse anyone of sin? If sin isn’t a choice, then it must be our existence. In which case you are a hypocrite to accuse anyone of ever doing wrong. It isn’t their fault by definition. Grace as you define it is the absolution of ALL actions stemming from mans evil existence, whenever they occur and in whatever manner. There is no righting of wrongs, there is only declaring that wrongs don’t really matter.

    And if it is the former then how is the solution Jesus? The solution to the sin of choosing disobedience is choosing obedience.

  403.   __

    “Picking Da Right Spiritual Recipe: ‘Treading Carefully’, Or ‘Baking Little Double Chocolate Cakes’?”

    Nancy

    hmmm…

    Thank-you, for your response!

    [comment clarification Sopwith] I was attempting to reference the amazing accuracy of the scriptures, and God’s determination to fulfill it. (appropriate for this post, yes?) 

    An example would be the entering of Jesus into Jerusalem, on what we would call Palm Sunday. It happened at the exact hour predicted by a Old Testament Hebrew Prophet. The Hebrew Old Testament is filled with such predictions, all, one by one, have come true. I suspect it’s track record to continue, unabated by the unbelief demonstrated by certain folks today. We learn from scripture, that when God speaks, His word or words always find their fulfillment at precisely the right moment. 

    …at the right time Christ died for us… ~ Paul, The Apostle

      As per your topic concerning ‘righteousness’, how it is possessed, that is an easy one. The answer is found in The New Testament Book of Hebrews,chapter eleven; …and Abraham believed God, and it was accounted unto him as righteousness. Today – the same can be said for all those who believe Jesus, their faith is accounted as righteousness, not a righteousness possessed of ones-self but a covering not unlike the precious shed blood of Jesus, which covers every little one in His household. A thing to behold, indeed!

    The scripture tells us that the Law was designed as an educator, to bring us to the feet of Jesus. It is He who, as you so faithfully declared, fulfilled the Law for us, –doing what we could not, This He Did. 

    Amen!

    Now Jesus asks us to believe in Him, to do His words. Our Lord of the Sabbath, as you know, summed up the Law in two commands, Love God With All, and love our neighbor as ourselves. He Is quite happy ta do the rest. 

    He is certainly able.

    Come unto Me all that are heavy-laden, and I shall give you ‘rest’ , The master said.

    Whew!

    …count me in, Lord!

    (grin)

    Chocolate Cake, Yum! Can I lick da spatula? 

    God’s word… hum, hum, hum…

    Tis a lamp unto ma feet..

    Yahoo!

    Sopy

  404. @ Gary:

    It would be nice to have that original document. No one knows for sure that the word in that original document was “yom”, we can only assume (“believe” as Somewhereintime might say) that the same word is in the oldest available manuscript, which is hundreds, perhaps thousands, of years later. The earliest available manuscripts suggest a writing during the exilic period, approximately 500 or so BC. In fact, almost all of the OT books seem to have been written or rewritten or copied, perhaps with amendments, during that period, with a few exceptions of the post-exilic history and prophecy (e.g., the return to Jerusalem).

  405. Somewhereintime claims to be an expert in ancient Hebrew based on his knowledge of modern language!!!!!

  406. I have several comments on the subject. I will try to keep them short. First is that 6 day creationists do something I refer to as “Drive by Science”. They quote some paper (possibly out of context) as saying that they have support for some position, they then ignore all the further research that proves their interpretation is wrong, and leave their audience believing something that is clearly untrue. I believe in most cases they also know what they are doing is wrong, but believe it is OK because they have a bigger point to make. This is clearly wrong, akin to bearing false witness.
    The other is what I think is kind of funny. For about 100 years we have known that time does not flow at the same rate for all observers. This is well known, well tested (and if it were not corrected for, our GPSes wouldn’t work). As a result, it is possible for one observer to see something as taking 13.8 billion years and another observer as seeing it take place in 6 days. So in some sense, the “6 day creationists” are right – as are two day creationists, 8 year creationists, 80,000 year creationists – and the current 13.8 billion year creationists. Of course in OUR reference frame the 13.8 billion year creationists are correct.

  407. @ Somewhereintime:

    That’s a cop-out. The fact that a scientific claim may be ridiculed has never stopped those who believe it to be true. They were perfectly willing to duke it in the arena of mainstream science. It’s always been that way. Claims that upset a current mainstream scientific paradigm always face significant opposition. In fact, many scientific debates through history have resembled academic cage matches more than a debate, with some getting very vicious and personal, but that never stopped them from bringing it before the mainstream scientific community.

    No, I think it’s more the case that the YECs know their claims are scientifically dubious and are only interested in giving their claims a ‘scientific’ patina for YEC laypersons to use as a crutch and not have to question their YEC worldview.

  408. another comment – anyone who thinks that Genesis 1 is prose is pretty clearly wrong. It has a refrain “and it was good”, and is clearly repetitious. I believe that makes it poetry.

  409. @ Gary:

    Gary,

    If you take that approach you can then apply that to the entire bible. Do we really need to be born again? Do we really have to abstain from fornication? Do we really have to love our neighbor?

    Where does it stop? The issue with the word “Yom” in Genesis is that OEC take it to mean long periods of time so it can support their evolutionary view that the earth is billions of years old. YEC will point to the word “Yom” to establish that the UNIVERSE was created in six literal days. That’s crazy to an evolutionist because they NEED billions of years to make their “science” fit their BELIEF. Evolutionists do not believe in God. Christians that believe in evolution do so to support the incorrect “facts of science” that are built upon faulty assumptions (there is no God, the universe formed naturally).
    As a creationist, that’s crazy to me! How in the world did the complexities of life that are so complicated come about by “chance”?
    Even atheistic evolutionists have stated that there appears to be intelligence built in to what they see. No kidding. Who do you think put it there.
    Again, Christians should use scripture to guide their beliefs, and not the faulty, changed facts of man.

  410. An Attorney wrote:

    Somewhereintime claims to be an expert in ancient Hebrew based on his knowledge of modern language!!!!!

    Exactly my question. Back in college, I learned to read Old English pretty well. Even within a few hundred years, our language has changed considerably. I can only guess at the changes to the Hebrew language over thousands of years. Hopefully some of you will know. Since this whole discussion revolves around an ancient Hebrew text, and one word in particular, it seems relevant.

    I know what it’s like to want all the answers, to want to be certain about the details. At this point in life, I have a bias towards mystery.

  411. An Attorney wrote:

    Somewhereintime claims to be an expert in ancient Hebrew based on his knowledge of modern language!!!!!

    Attorney,

    Is that a “flame” towards me? Is that allowed on Wartburg? If so I have some great attorney cracks I can throw your way. I never made such a comment that I am an expert in Hebrew. I do know modern Hebrew quite well and have a fair amount of training in ancient Hebrew. Guess what? “Yom” in Ancient Hebrew is the exact same as it is in modern Hebrew!

  412. Not a flame. Just a point that you cited experience in modern Hebrew in stating your qualifications to deal with the meanings of “yom”. That would be like me citing my experience in industrial chemistry as a background that would give me expertise in interstellar chemistry and physics.

  413. Gary wrote:

    I can only guess at the changes to the Hebrew language over thousands of years.

    Gary,

    You are actually correct with your example. There are many differences between modern and ancient Hebrew. Especially in the conjugations.

  414. NC Now wrote:

    Some questions. Is the earth the center of the universe? Are there 4 corners to the earth? Is the circumference of a circle 3 times it’s diameter?

    If we construe 4 corners to mean 4 distinct and arbitrary points in Cartesian 3-space, then yes, the Earth does indeed have 4 corners, because we can easily derive a sphere from the 4 points so long as the 4 points are not co-planar.

    For those interested in a discussion of pi and the Bible, here’s a link to Elizabeth Stapel’s math site, at which in her own words, she “puts this old chestnut to rest
    http://www.purplemath.com/modules/bibleval.htm

  415. One hears from the scientific community the constant refrain of “we have this information, and we think such and such, but there is more to know so give me some more money for research and let me see what I can find.” I am good with that. It is honest and forthright. Building the next set of information on the current set of information is valid so long as the current information is valid.

    One hears from the religious community, “we already know all we need to know, so don’t dare question any of our answers.” This, in spite of the fact that Paul stated clearly that we know in part, as in do not have all the answers. What is wrong with this picture?

  416. @ An Attorney:

    The differences between Modern and Ancient Hebrew are not as vast as the differnce between industrial chemistry and astrochemistry. By stating my experience in Hebrew I do believe that I can easily articulate the word “yom”, as opposed to discussing polymers and plastics and then making the jump to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in comets. It’s not as a difficult jump in Hebrew. Believe me.

  417. me wrote:

    another comment – anyone who thinks that Genesis 1 is prose is pretty clearly wrong. It has a refrain “and it was good”, and is clearly repetitious. I believe that makes it poetry.

    I know nothing of Hebrew but have read and listened to enough to accept that Genesis 1 is not poetry. Genesis 1 use the waw-consecutive which is a marker of Hebrew narrative, it something used to move a story along. But, just because it’s a narrative doesn’t make it a literal historical narrative, it could also be figurative.

    Here’s the best explanation for laypersons like me that explains the issue:

    http://theecclesialcalvinist.wordpress.com/2013/04/05/the-waw-consecutive-canard-and-the-historicity-of-nathans-fable/

  418. @ Somewhereintime:

    Actually, I know a great deal about polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, because one of the industrial chemical families that I deal with were polychlorinated biphenyls, polychlorinated single benzene ring compounds (toluene, e.c.,) and the mechanisms for dechlorinated and destroying those molecules. My research field was non-aqueous acid-base systems, including polycyclical hydrocarbons. BTW two ways to do it: extremely strong bases (metallic sodium) at moderately high temperature, and incineration at extremely high temperatures with substantial excess oxygen. And that was pre-Ph.D., which was in a different field.

  419. Somewhereintime wrote:

    I never implyed that Christians that believe in Old Earth Creation are not Christians. I have said that Christians that believe in OEC are doing so based on a faulty assumption that science has proven evolution when in fact science has NOT proven it. I am asking Christians who believe in evolution to REEXAMINE their understanding based upon facts, not evolutionary BELIEFS.

    Somewhereintime: you seem to be unaware that many here are perfectly capable of doing the bit of thinking – looking at the assumptions/pre-suppositions behind various positions on science & evolution that you seem to be saying people are getting fooled by. I, for example, started as an atheist, became a Christian amongst Young Earthers but have rejected it for good reasons. You seem to be totally rejecting any idea of there being a way in which you can examine physical reality & accept some of the results of scientific endeavours without having to first make a faith commitment. Have you studied the history of science? Your assertion is nonsensical in its light. I firmly believe that much of ‘science’ is an innately neutral pursuit, that can then be co-opted by various positions. In fact I see more assumptions & sleight of hand amongst YEC than I ever have among bog-standard scientists.

  420. This distrust of atheists is misplaced. I recently had surgery, and it never crossed my mind to ask the surgeon about her religious beliefs. And I didn’t ask the anesthesiologist, though he “looked” different from me. And I certainly did not check out who had perfected the procedure in the first place and what that person’s religion or lack of it might be. And who did the research on the meds at the drug company? Surely it might not have been an atheist. That is just nonsense.

  421. @ Nancy:

    Thank you Nancy. My daughter recently had a big medical issue and is doing great now. I am so thankful for medical doctors and people who work in research labs. Christians and all mankind benefit from these advances in fields where likely most people are atheist/agnostic. Do you think I cared if her surgeon was a Christian?

  422. Bunsen Honeydew wrote:

    fields where likely most people are atheist/agnostic.

    Um, well, er….that was not my assumption at all. I am merely stating that for the purposes of surgery, anesthesia, pharmaceutical research and such it does not matter what one’s religious position is. I don’t actually have any statistics on the religious affiliations of health care industry personnel.

  423. Somewhereintime wrote:

    As a creationist, that’s crazy to me! How in the world did the complexities of life that are so complicated come about by “chance”?

    I have the same problem in reverse.

    By the way, I don’t think chance can account for the complexities of life. And don’t know much about biology… That department always smelled weird. But I do have a passing interest in astronomy.

    Which causes me to ask, how in the world did the complexities of them universe come about in a mere 6000 years, in a way that allows us to see them? If the stars and galaxies were simply created in place, and photons started flowing at that point, we would only see a small part of our galaxy, and nothing of the billions of galaxies beyond. Unless God created the photons already in motion, knowing it would mislead us into thinking the universe was seriously old. Deception on a cosmic scale. And I have heard the time dilation idea, which might work in Earth were at the center of a black hole,where gravity would slow our to a relative crawl. But that has other, obvious problems.

  424. Somewhereintime wrote:

    Radiocarbon dating proves the age of the earth. No it doesn’t. The premise used in radiocarbon dating BELIEVES that the rate of decay has always been constant. Scientifically this has proven NOT TO BE THE CASE as scientists have recorded the rate of decay for molten lava initially is HIGHLY accelerated.

    You are partially correct on this one since C14 has a half life of about 5700 years and is useful only back 30,000 years or so, not for cosmological time spans, billions of years. The “molten lava” sentence is meaningless and could only be resurrected if you were to provide a citation to your source for it.

  425. @ Nancy:

    I don’t have stats either but as someone who worked in a research lab at a cancer center/teaching hospital, I am pretty sure I was the only person who would identify as Christian among a fairly large group I got to know. I thought surveys have shown public academia (regardless of subject) as largely non-religious and also left leaning? Then there’s the issue of Christians being minority anyway, depending on region. Didn’t mean to put any words in your mouth, just was adding my own thought.

  426. @ Bunsen Honeydew: err, what do you mean there re. “public academia”? And what kind of Christianity are you referencing, as well?

    I mean, lots of evangelicals don’t view Catholics, Orthodox – or even high-church Protestants – as “xtian,” so I think we need to define some terms here.

    “left-leaning” is yet another loaded one, imo.

  427. Somewhereintime wrote:

    Unscientific “fact”: Radiocarbon dating proves the age of the earth. No it doesn’t. The premise used in radiocarbon dating BELIEVES that the rate of decay has always been constant. Scientifically this has proven NOT TO BE THE CASE as scientists have recorded the rate of decay for molten lava initially is HIGHLY accelerated. You see, there is a BIAS to this dating method that cannot be scientifically proven. In fact, science proves the opposite of this evolutionary thinking “fact”.

    The only statement here that’s correct is that radiocarbon dating doesn’t prove the age of the earth. That is correct, as old JohnJ pointed out, because Carbon-14 is good only for dating back to about 30,000 years. However, other isotopes with very much longer half-lives are used to determine the age of certain types of rock. Here’s a good discussion of the issue, showing how it does work:

    http://ncse.com/rncse/20/3/radiometric-dating-does-work

  428. @ numo:

    I think there is probably a lot of truth in what she(?) is saying. There is no malice or hostility in her tone of voice, so to speak. Being the only self-identified Christian in a group of people on the job is a hard row to hoe. I like how she says it. If I had worked in her hospital we could have had coffee some time. I am assuming from the name that this is a woman. Sorry, sir, if I am mistaken.

    University hospitals are certainly a secular setting, and they have their own subculture and customs and ideals. IMO, if a Christian of any sort cannot function in that setting without passing out gospel tracts in the cafeteria, then they may be in the wrong job. Ouch! OK, this is an issue with me.

    @ Hanni:

    Hanni, I don’t remember your name? Do you have a story to tell us?

  429. Public academia–colleges and universities supported with tax money and therefore no religious affiliation

    Christian–My statement would include Catholics, Orthodox and anyone who would who define themselves as Christian because I’m not in the business
    of defining who is and who isn’t

    Why is “left-leaning” necessarily a loaded term? “Right” and “left” are commonly used all over the place in neutral ways to describe political beliefs/affiliations.

    Would you disagree? Do you think public academia, in terms of professors, employs more Christians than atheists? That would surprise me.

    But, we’re getting way off my main point and agreement with Nancy. I really don’t care if my doctor is a Christian or not. I care about their ability and expertise. And, I appreciate what people of all belief systems are doing for mankind in the area or research and medicine.

  430. @ Nancy: I know (no hostility); it’s just that when terms like this have been thrown around in comments in the past (not by Bunsen, but by others), weird things tart to happen.

    It’can be every bit as confusing and contentious as the use of the word “gospel” by many, which is well-documented here (and seems to mean whatever they want it to mean).

    Also, I think academia varies greatly by where a school is, what kind of school it is (private, public, owned by a denomination and/or larger religious group – cf. Jewish, and if so, what segment of Judaism; Muslim – ditto; etc.).

    It’s just a much more complex subject than it might appear at face value. (imo, coming from a semi-academic family and having more than a few years’ experience in living in that world myself.)

  431. @ Bunsen Honeydew: Leftist has been thrown out by some commenters here (not you) as an insult, and recently. But getting into the whys and wherefores of it would mean a political discussion, which is something the blog’s owners don’t permit. (For good reasons – it’s ahrd enough to discuss religion, no? 🙂 )

  432. Bunsen Honeydew wrote:

    I really don’t care if my doctor is a Christian or not. I care about their ability and expertise. And, I appreciate what people of all belief systems are doing for mankind in the area or research and medicine.

    Same! My apologies for going off-topic.

  433. Pam wrote:

    Have you read Camus’ The Rebel? It’s a bit dense, but it specifically discusses these sorts of philosophical issues. Camus was an absurdist rather than a nihilist, so rather than thinking life is meaningless his position was more that it’s not possible to know if it has meaning or not. But in The Rebel, which references Karamazov extensively, he argues that lack of a god doesn’t have to mean life is meaningless and anything goes – in fact, he’s highly critical of all deterministic thinking. It’s an interesting read.

    Hi Pam, a long time ago I thought I should read some Camus. Now I will! No doubt there’s a fairly inexpensive Kindle copy 🙂

  434. I’m always curious as to what I might be missing when I come across ideas like highly accelerated radioactive decay in lava. Certain specific types of radioactive decay do depend on the environment of the nucleus, after all. So I did some digging.

    The best I could come up with was the fact that fully-ionised Rhenium undergoes decay a billion times faster than neutral Rhenium. Now, unsurprisingly, this was seized on by the author(s) of a creationist website I came across. What they neglected to mention was that this phenomenon only works if the Rhenium is fully ionised – that is, its innermost two electrons are removed. This corresponds to a temperature of around 800 million degrees; that will happen to a small proportion of atoms in the core of a nuclear device at the point of explosive disassembly, and much more so in the core of a supernova, but probably not in lava.

    So I still don’t know where the uber-radioactive lava idea comes from, unfortunately.

  435. numo wrote:

    Leftist has been thrown out by some commenters here (not you) as an insult, and recently.

    I wouldn’t call myself “leftist”, but taking the vector sum of my socio-political views, I am left-leaning. (I work with the unemployed.)

  436. I respect most YECs I know, even if I disagree with them. We worship the same God, we are saved by the same Lamb, we are indwelt by the same Spirit, we read the same Scriptures and often attend the same church!

    So I don’t want to start getting into an “us-and-them” mentality.

    For what it’s worth, my own interest is in herpetology and palaeontology relating to that. I got into the subject about 15 years ago. At the time I was less sympathetic to the evolutionary position than I am now.

    My own take, and belief, is that there are transitional fossils which show characteristics of two otherwise unrelated taxonomic divisions. For example, the early amphibian Ichthyostega shows fish-like characteristics, as does the more recently discovered Tiktaalik. Archaeopteryx does have reptilian features (such as teeth) not found in modern birds. Some prehistoric reptile fossils (NOT dinosaurs) show mammalian features. When we talk about these transitional fossils generally we are referring to features of the skeleton rather than just saying “well, it looks a bit like a fish”. Recent finds from China show reptiles with bird-like characteristics (not pterodactyls and their kin btw, which as far as I know have never been considered transitional to birds – the wing configuration is totally different for a start).

    I think any Christian view of the universe must hold God to be the Creator, and the universe as a temporal thing in eternity. But within that framework I think the various views expressed here all have a grandeur about them that testifies to God’s glory. Or as a minister friend of mine once put it, “some of us like a nice old earth, and some of us like a nice young earth!”

    Night all…. 😉

  437. One last comment for the night. After all that talk about okra, and considering the sorry state of my kitchen, I went out and bought a Fry-Daddy at Walmart so I can do my own deep frying, including but not limited to fried okra. Eat you heart out!

  438. Nancy,
    That is wonderful. The only deep fry I eat are fish, shrimp, okra, onion rings, hushpuppies (little balls of corn meal dough with onion bits in them for the Brits), and potatoes. And my uncle used to cook them all together in the basket in a five or ten gallon fryer.

  439. There are places where radioactive change occurs at widely different rates than the standard decay rates that are published. One is in the interior of a star. A second is in a nuclear reactor. And the third is in a nuclear explosion. In addition, but in the distant past, during the Big Bang.

    “In beginning, God created the universe. He said, ‘Let there be a big bang’. and there was a very big bang, and the universe sprang into existence.” That is the original source of all of the radioactivity in the universe, but some is still being created in the stars, including our local star, from existing elements.

  440. @ Bunsen Honeydew:

    “I thought surveys have shown public academia (regardless of subject) as largely non-religious and also left leaning?”
    +++++++++++++

    continuing the tangent because I can’t contribute to the leading conversation. and I like to go off road and explore. if the tangent is closed, no problem.

    (but if not…) my question is what is “religious / non-religious” in this context?

    I’m left-leaning, would not go to church if not for my kids, have a dynamic friendship with God that is at its thriving best ever, pray once a week with a few friends extra-ekklesia, if I worked in public academia would reserve all conversations about God for hours not on my employer’s dime, find it hard to imagine any academic subject I wouldn’t be able to teach to the full due to a conflict with my views on God.

    Am I religious?

  441. Dostoevsky’s book “The Brothers Karamazov” was quoted many, many comments ago in connection with morality. For what it’s worth, it also contains a memorable argument on behalf of the literal YEC interpretation of Genesis.

    Context: Gregory is an older servant who has been raising a child servant named Smerdyakov. In the past Gregory has been physically and verbally abusive to Smerdyakov, but now he decides to teach him the Bible:

    “Gregory taught him to read, and when Smerdyakov was twelve he began to teach him the Scriptures, but nothing came of it. When they were on the second or third lesson, Smerdyakov suddenly snorted scornfully.
    ‘What’s the matter with you?’ Gregory asked, looking at him threateningly over his glasses.
    ‘Nothing. But if God created the world on the first day and the sun, the moon, and the stars on the fourth day, where did the light come from on the first day?’
    Gregory was horrified. The boy was looking at him and grinning. There was scorn in his look. Gregory lost all control.
    ‘This is where it came from!’ he yelled, furiously slapping the boy’s face.”

    That was 1880. Today we have live-stream debates with Ken Ham and Bill Nye. Perhaps it could be advertised as Gregory vs. Smerdyakov II.

  442. Nancy,
    That is wonderful. The only deep fry I eat are fish, shrimp, okra, onion rings, hushpuppies (little globs of corn meal dough with onion bits in them for the Brits), and potatoes. And my uncle used to cook them all together in the basket in a five or ten gallon fryer.
    (previous comment on okra in moderation due to use of a word that must be on the bad list.)

  443. @ elastigirl:

    perhaps some would ask “is she Christian??” what is Christian? sorry — thinking out loud here. sort of a tangential blue alert (not quite red yet)

  444. @ elastigirl: I really like these comments of yours, and see myself in them.

    Besides, “agreeing with” what’s taught isn’t what teaching is about. That’s like saying that only French haute cuisine should be taught in cooking classes and chef schools. While some might prefer it, and might have great expertise in it, that doesn’t mean it’s the only food worth cooking/eating! (Keep in mind that my academic training is in art and art history, so there’s plenty of room for subjectivity – sure, there is information, but it is not at all the same thing as dealing with the scientific method and research protocols).

  445. Somewhereintime wrote:

    Do me the favor and list ONE. The problem is that you can not do so because THEY DO NOT EXIST. Not a single solitary one shows a transitional species. They are all 100% fully formed and fully functional species that are 1) still alive 2) are extinct.

    This is a rigged argument, and I’ll show you how it’s rigged:
    1) Dig a handful of coins out of your pocket. These represent a finite number of fossils.
    2) Put two of these coins about half a meter apart on the tabletop.
    3) YEC points to gap between the two. “Where’s the transitional form?”
    4) Put a coin between the other two.
    5) YEC points to the two gaps between the three coins. “Where’s those transitional forms? Huh? Huh? Huh?”
    6) Put two coins into the two gaps.
    7) YEC points to the four gaps between the five coins. “Where’s those transitional forms? Huh? Huh? Huh?”
    8) Continue (6) and (7) until you run out of coins. (Remember, there are only a finite number).
    9) Watch YEC point to all the gaps between all the coins and crow in triumph.

  446. dee wrote:

    Christy wrote:

    teach them to OBEY all that I have commanded you.”

    When you find a Christian who has been that obedient, let me know.

    Dee, I’m sure everyone who unloads that verse on you DOES know a Christian who HAS been that Obedient, that Righteous, that Godly.
    Usually they know only ONE.
    Guess Who?

  447. Somewhereintime wrote:

    Gary,
    If you take that approach you can then apply that to the entire bible. Do we really need to be born again? Do we really have to abstain from fornication? Do we really have to love our neighbor?
    Where does it stop?

    Could it stop when we try to understand biblical language in its original context? When we ask how the original readers/hearers would have understood a word or a phrase or a figure of speech? And when we realize that the further back we go, the harder this gets? When we admit that there are some things in the Scripture that we won’t understand fully? I know that there have been efforts to demythologize the scriptures, or to turn the whole OT into a big non-literal figure of speech. And that the opposing view attempts to take everything completely literally. Maybe it stops when one studies interpretive methods?

    For me, everything stops when its time to go to the gym and climb imaginary stairs to nowhere.

  448. @ numo:

    “Keep in mind that my academic training is in art and art history, so there’s plenty of room for subjectivity – sure, there is information, but it is not at all the same thing as dealing with the scientific method and research protocols).”
    +++++++++++++++++

    yeah….. like, what’s the rubric for inspiration?

  449. @ elastigirl:

    Yes.

    You state you are religious, and I don’t know if you identify with Christianity, but I will add something. I think there there are a number of Christians who are left-leaning, who don’t attend church or at least are uncomfortable with church, who also could teach a number of subjects at public schools without an internal conflict.

  450. Actually, the dark side of the moon is inhabited by Nazis waiting to reinvade the earth. Saw it in the documentary “Iron Sky”…
    @ dee:

  451. wrote:

    The word Yom is used both literally and figuratively in the Old Testament. In the context of the first few chapters of Genesis it is neither used in the context of poetry or figuratively. Please be reminded that the thought of “yom” being ANYTHING beyond a 24 hour period in these verses never existed prior to Christians making a feeble attempt of integrating an atheist belief in to scriptures because there is a “belief” that science does not support a YEC.

    While some do not see Gen 1 as poetry, it certainly reads that way to me. The balance between the stanzas, the repetition, for example.
    I wonder how you view days 1, 2, and 3. Are these 24-hour days, in your opinion? And how does day 4 inform your view of the previous days?

  452. Somewhereintime wrote:

    As a creationist, that’s crazy to me! How in the world did the complexities of life that are so complicated come about by “chance”?

    If it was simple chance, you’d have a valid point. But it’s not random chance, there is a very non-random element – selection. Selection has let us turn wolves into beagles, collies, and St. Bernards. Though this is not the same process (we are not changing the DNA to get these out of wolves), it does serve to illustrate power of selection by a criteria over random chance. Beagles, Collies, and St. Bernards would have almost no chance of being extracted from wolf DNA via simple chance mating events between wolves.

    So Natural Select acts (with a different criteria) as a massive filter on random mutations – focusing their effect. (Grossly over simplifying) NS only lets the good ones through and eliminates the bad ones. So even if the ratio of good to bad is 1,000,000 to 1, NS still gives that 1 a much bigger chance of getting fixed in the population that 1/1,000,000. If that 1 actually helps the animal to survive, and helps all his children and grandchildren to survive, then that 1 has a very high probability of hanging around. Whereas all the other 999,999 get eliminated at the first round.

    So NS changes the story by many, many orders of magnitude in terms of what kinds of changes an evolutionary process can produce over the time frames we are talking about.

    Simple chance calculations don’t describe the process at all.

    Zeta (Jim)

  453. Ray wrote:

    Actually, the dark side of the moon is inhabited …

    Though, strictly speaking, there is no dark side of the moon as the moon is tidally locked to the earth, but not to the sun. 🙂

  454. @ Ray:

    Sorry, but the documentary Nazis at the Centre of the Earth made it very clear that robohitler is in a secret bunker that can only be accessed from Antarctica.

  455. GBTC somewhereintime included “Long term Wartburgwatch reader.” in his 3:24P 1/24 comment. Is there any way to confirm this from your logs?
    Thanks in advance.

  456. Somewhereintime wrote:

    I guess 6 1/2 years of collecting a paycheck with the National Security Agency as a HEBREW LINGUIST would not be enough in your book to be able to call oneself a linguist. Oh well …

    Somewhereintime – apologies for not responding to this important point earlier.

    Yes, 6+ years of being paid by the NSA as a Hebrew linguist would certainly constitute strong evidence that you are a Hebrew linguist. Previously, the only evidence I had to go on was an inaccurate statement you had made. And actually, one inaccurate statement isn’t enough to support a broad generalisation like the one I made, so I apologise for the bad science on my own part. And more so for what I now see to be an unfair criticism of you.

    Still… I’m not completely sure what I should do with this new evidence. After all, it might be that the NSA paid you as a linguist but that this was merely a cover for another, secret, role. Should I disregard your “yom always means 24 hrs” claim as a “very tiny mystery”, like the famous polonium radio halos? Or should I regard it as the smoking gun that undermines the great mass of evidence apparently pointing the other way?

    Well, I have to be consistent. I’ll go with the weight of evidence. I accept that you are a Hebrew linguist and that your first statement was a blip.

    The interpretation of “yom” and other words/ideas in the context of Genesis 1 is a separate discussion, and an interesting one, but this comment is long enough!

  457. oldJohnJ wrote:

    Is there any way to confirm this from your logs?

    Riffing on the US Dept of the Navy, It is our policy to neither confirm or deny such things. Unless it resolves a severe problem we don't disclose the history of those who visit here.

  458. GuyBehindtheCurtain wrote:

    Riffing on the US Dept of the Navy, It is our policy to neither confirm or deny such things. Unless it resolves a severe problem we don’t disclose the history of those who visit here.

    I accept this as an answer knowing I also benefit from such a policy. Still, the whole interaction felt to me more like a troll encounter than with a sincere long term reader. Thanks again.

  459.   __

    “Faith, and Reason?”

    hmmm….

    The scriptures tell us there are three things that are eternal.

    However, ‘Reason’ is not listed among them.

    What?

    The universe consists of finite matter. – We understand now that Matter is stored energy. Einstein told us that the universe is made up of stored energy, hence his famous formula. 

    The bible tells us that [God] took matchless, meticulous painstaking, extremely careful and precise
    care in preparing a place for Man to live, He called that place Earth. The Apollo Astronauts call (the Earth) it a blue marble in space. God saw fit to prepare it (the Earth) especially for His grand purposes with the first Man, Adam, that He created with His own hands, and breath. 

    huh?

    This Divine Being is so powerful that He can speak ‘things’ into existence. 

    (We don’t understand this very well. It is somewhat beyond the purview of reasoning.)

    Does that make it not possible? For some, I suppose. but datz ok. God’s purposes are not hindered by Man’s inability to comprehend God’s works. 

    But, but, but… ?!?

    One day, our Lord will roll the universe up like a scroll, and make a new one. A new Heavens, a new Earth as well. These will exist as long as He purposes it to be so.

    Skreeeeeeeetch!

    (bump)

    …What came before Man’s creation, we only have scriptural ‘glimpses’ of what was. 

    (Krunch)

    God made Man for His purposes. Now Man makes his own purposes, many apart from God, and His purposes. 

    But that is ok, it does not hinder God’s purposes. 

    When God sent His precious Son to the Earth as a Man, God’s purposes were not hinder because Jesus was destroyed by human beings with purposes other that God’s own. 

    But that was ok, God  was not hindered. 

    God’s purposes to redeem Man continued, when He raised His Son from the dead. 

    Whew!

    For some two thousand plus years, Man has pressed against this truth, and that is ok, God is not hindered in the least; He will patiently present the good news about His precious Son, and what He purposed in Him, until this good news go throughout the whole world. 

    And that is ok, God’s purposes are good and true, and will be accomplished – all in good time. 

    And this is ok.

    The eternal, will one day have it’s day,

     Faith, Hope, Love.

    @ da feet of Jesus,

    (grin)

    ATB

    Sopy

     

  460. oldJohnJ wrote:

    Still, the whole interaction felt to me more like a troll encounter than with a sincere long term reader.

    I respectfully beg to differ there, Elderly John; Somwhereintime doesn’t strike me as a troll. (S)he argues for a position I don’t agree with, and I could live without the shouty capitals, but (s)he has at least taken a consistent viewpoint and that’s a hard thing to do when you’re nearly the only one doing it. In that context, I think his/her conduct has been reasonable here.

    By contrast, Wax-Jacket Wayne (whose last comment was the despicable “you really hate me, don’t you, xxx?”) – he was a troll. The consistent purpose of all his comments was to stir up strife and personal ill-feeling. Somewhereintime has not done this.

  461. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    I respectfully beg to differ there, Elderly John; Somwhereintime doesn’t strike me as a troll.

    I agree there is plenty of room for disagreement on this which is one reason why I was looking for additional evidence.

    On a different note, my maternal heritage is from Scots in SE Ontario. I enjoy the local color you add to your comments.

  462. Nancy wrote:

    One hears from the religious community, “we already know all we need to know, so don’t dare question any of our answers.” This, in spite of the fact that Paul stated clearly that we know in part, as in do not have all the answers. What is wrong with this picture?

    And from the religious community still give me all your money so we can buy billboards and publish books that call all sceintists liars.

  463. steve wrote:

    Gregory was horrified. The boy was looking at him and grinning. There was scorn in his look. Gregory lost all control.
    ‘This is where it came from!’ he yelled, furiously slapping the boy’s face.”

    I had forgotten that part of the book, Steve, thanks! Although Smerdyakov was one of life’s nastier cynics. The book portrays him doing morbid and cruel things in his childhood before he graduates to taking on Ivan Karamazov’s philosophy (no doubt in a half-baked form) and commits murder.

  464. oldJohnJ wrote:

    … I was looking for additional evidence…

    I like your style, naturally! (And should have followed suit earlier ..!)

    Oddly enough, I’m not aware of any Scots ancestry (though baith ae’ the weans were born here). But I do have relatives from Ontario!

  465. @ Nick Bulbeck:

    Along with a bunch of other people from Scotland some Campbells settled in the northwest corner of NC and have maintained their name and heritage. My daughter-in-law’s grandmother was one of those Campbells. We go up to the Highland Games at McRae’s Meadow frequently, but I have never met any of the actual Campbells. Met lots of other folks though. That whole thing of a bunch of folks around here having originally come from Scotland is part and parcel of the local culture. We are proud of it, even if most of us were from elsewhere. I think it is the music that makes converts of the rest of us. When you see/hear fifteen or twenty guys with pipes rise up over the edge of the meadow and take the field it is an overwhelming experience, even if it is just a performance.

  466. Sopwith wrote:

    One day, our Lord will roll the universe up like a scroll, and make a new one. A new Heavens, a new Earth as well. These will exist as long as He purposes it to be so.

    Even if we agree or disagree on the mechanics, the end result will be the same and it will most certainly happen. Thanks Sopy!

  467. When approaching origins and other questions of knowledge there are three major classifications of knowledge justification. These are coherence, correspondence, and consilience. Coherence is the most basic, in that it is how we think and rationalize our actions in everyday communication. Coherence refers to the idea that true knowledge can be formed into a series of ordered propositions and predictions, that it is logically consistent, that it follows chains of cause and effect, etc. In other words, it is not a random association of words that have no relation to each other. Theories about the world which are coherent can be measured and can be used to produce predictions: they are not correct only because we got lucky and said the right thing at the right time.

    Now coherence is only the most basic step, of course, because we can produce many different theories that are coherent explanations of the world. Creationism and Evolution are coherent, in their own way. Coherence is important in measuring theories; it is an extremely important for humans attempting to articulate an idea or viewpoint to be able to understand coherence, and to be able to assess flaws in their own thought.

    Coherence, however, only produces candidates for truth. It is correspondence and consilience that winnow the coherent ideas into the true ones. Correspondence is relatively straightforward: does the idea correspond to measurements of the real world, observations and experience in real life? Over time science has determined that this can actually be a very tedious and rigorous process, to actually determine whether ideas and hypothesis correspond to actual data. Yet over the past few hundred years science and statistics have greatly improved the process of obtaining carefully measured data, and eliminating many of the biased and errors that creep in.

    Correspondence narrows the field of coherent ideas. Those that show no relation to the data get tossed out. If you make a prediction that eating ketchup makes basketball players score more points, and if you feed a bunch of players ketchup before games and nothing happens, then we discard the theory.

    Yet correspondence alone is not enough. Just because data corresponds to a prediction doesn’t mean that prediction is the cause of the data. A famous example is the observation that people who eat oatmeal have more heart attacks. You could thus make a theory that oatmeal causes a higher risk of heart attacks, and therefore we shouldn’t eat it. This theory fits the data at hand. But as we all know, oatmeal doesn’t cause heart attacks. Where’s the discrepancy? It turns out that more elderly people eat oatmeal than young people, and since the elderly population has a higher risk of heart attack than young people for reasons completely unrelated to oatmeal, we can say that this correspondence is not indicative of causation.

    This last step is where consilience is very helpful in determining truth. Consilience says that if independent sources of data arrive at the SAME conclusion, our theory is now much stronger. One source identifying a correspondence gives small justification to a coherent theory. Multiple sources drastically increase the chance that we have a theory that is true, and this is what we look for in science when confirming a theory as true.

    As highlighted by Jim in the article,this is the problem YEC faces. They bring together a coherent theory (YEC) with a belief that God also endorses such a theory, and declare it true.

    This can be tough to fight because if you insist on problems with consilience and correspondence, YEC can claim the road of divine omniscience and infallibility, thus the data or data takers (scientists) are faulty. After all, God must be proved true and every man (or woman) a liar, right?

    The flaw in this argument is it assumes that it forgets on simple truth: CONSILIENCE is ALWAYS involved in Biblical interpretation. It always has been. The disciples did not expect Christ to be resurrected, because this was not self-evident in the Old Testament. It could be read retroactively, after experiencing the CORRESPONDENCE with the text with the resurrected Lord. But it could not have been anticipated. Who could possibly expect God to become a human being, then die in the most shameful way possible in the Roman world, as a common criminal, and then rise up from the dead?

    This pattern of surprise occurs over and over again in scripture, not just with Christ but throughout the Old and New Testament, but also in church history as well. There are a near infinite number of coherent theories one can generate from a text like the Bible, and many of them we never think of beforehand. It is only after experiencing some dramatic new encounter with God that God’s people come to recognize something in the text that could not have been anticipated, something profound that God had in mind for his people.

    This observation means that we should not be surprised when we have to adjust to new revelation, whether it be scientific or otherwise. It also means that you can’t just claim God’s mandate without any reckoning with the actual lived creation. We are always in a process of listening and subjecting our mind and understanding to God, to Scripture, to other people, AND to the natural world. Our faith is not dependent on our own understanding, but on God’s faithfulness and love. God never stops surprising and moving his people: it is the glory of God to make mystery; the glory of human being to discover those mysteries. Scientists are doing the work of God, they are seeking truth in the universe, and we should always be searching with the for the glory of God in all life, wherever it might be found.

    Perseus (James)

  468. @ Perseus:
    Weins (reference given upthread) in Table 1 lists 8 radioactivity decay sequences that can be used to date rocks in the billions of year age range. Would agreement within experimental accuracy of two or more of these in the same rock sample be correspondence or consilience according to the definitions you have given?

  469. Perseus wrote:

    When approaching origins and other questions of knowledge there are three major classifications of knowledge justification. These are coherence, correspondence, and consilience. Coherence is the most basic, in that it is how we think and rationalize our actions in everyday communication. Coherence refers to the idea that true knowledge can be formed into a series of ordered propositions and predictions, that it is logically consistent, that it follows chains of cause and effect, etc. In other words, it is not a random association of words that have no relation to each other. Theories about the world which are coherent can be measured and can be used to produce predictions: they are not correct only because we got lucky and said the right thing at the right time.
    Now coherence is only the most basic step, of course, because we can produce many different theories that are coherent explanations of the world. Creationism and Evolution are coherent, in their own way. Coherence is important in measuring theories; it is an extremely important for humans attempting to articulate an idea or viewpoint to be able to understand coherence, and to be able to assess flaws in their own thought.
    Coherence, however, only produces candidates for truth. It is correspondence and consilience that winnow the coherent ideas into the true ones. Correspondence is relatively straightforward: does the idea correspond to measurements of the real world, observations and experience in real life? Over time science has determined that this can actually be a very tedious and rigorous process, to actually determine whether ideas and hypothesis correspond to actual data. Yet over the past few hundred years science and statistics have greatly improved the process of obtaining carefully measured data, and eliminating many of the biased and errors that creep in.
    Correspondence narrows the field of coherent ideas. Those that show no relation to the data get tossed out. If you make a prediction that eating ketchup makes basketball players score more points, and if you feed a bunch of players ketchup before games and nothing happens, then we discard the theory.
    Yet correspondence alone is not enough. Just because data corresponds to a prediction doesn’t mean that prediction is the cause of the data. A famous example is the observation that people who eat oatmeal have more heart attacks. You could thus make a theory that oatmeal causes a higher risk of heart attacks, and therefore we shouldn’t eat it. This theory fits the data at hand. But as we all know, oatmeal doesn’t cause heart attacks. Where’s the discrepancy? It turns out that more elderly people eat oatmeal than young people, and since the elderly population has a higher risk of heart attack than young people for reasons completely unrelated to oatmeal, we can say that this correspondence is not indicative of causation.
    This last step is where consilience is very helpful in determining truth. Consilience says that if independent sources of data arrive at the SAME conclusion, our theory is now much stronger. One source identifying a correspondence gives small justification to a coherent theory. Multiple sources drastically increase the chance that we have a theory that is true, and this is what we look for in science when confirming a theory as true.
    As highlighted by Jim in the article,this is the problem YEC faces. They bring together a coherent theory (YEC) with a belief that God also endorses such a theory, and declare it true.
    This can be tough to fight because if you insist on problems with consilience and correspondence, YEC can claim the road of divine omniscience and infallibility, thus the data or data takers (scientists) are faulty. After all, God must be proved true and every man (or woman) a liar, right?
    The flaw in this argument is it assumes that it forgets on simple truth: CONSILIENCE is ALWAYS involved in Biblical interpretation. It always has been. The disciples did not expect Christ to be resurrected, because this was not self-evident in the Old Testament. It could be read retroactively, after experiencing the CORRESPONDENCE with the text with the resurrected Lord. But it could not have been anticipated. Who could possibly expect God to become a human being, then die in the most shameful way possible in the Roman world, as a common criminal, and then rise up from the dead?
    This pattern of surprise occurs over and over again in scripture, not just with Christ but throughout the Old and New Testament, but also in church history as well. There are a near infinite number of coherent theories one can generate from a text like the Bible, and many of them we never think of beforehand. It is only after experiencing some dramatic new encounter with God that God’s people come to recognize something in the text that could not have been anticipated, something profound that God had in mind for his people.
    This observation means that we should not be surprised when we have to adjust to new revelation, whether it be scientific or otherwise. It also means that you can’t just claim God’s mandate without any reckoning with the actual lived creation. We are always in a process of listening and subjecting our mind and understanding to God, to Scripture, to other people, AND to the natural world. Our faith is not dependent on our own understanding, but on God’s faithfulness and love. God never stops surprising and moving his people: it is the glory of God to make mystery; the glory of human being to discover those mysteries. Scientists are doing the work of God, they are seeking truth in the universe, and we should always be searching with the for the glory of God in all life, wherever it might be found.
    Perseus (James)

    I really, really like what you have said here Perseus (James). Well done.

    Zeta (Jim)

  470.   __

    “Faith In God’s Word Places Us In A Very Favorable Plaze?”

    hmmm…

      The bible infers that the ‘source’ of creation (i.e. the universe) is outside creation, and separate from it.

    What?

    Hence, no tool of reason (the mind of Man) can uncover a consistent path beyond creation (the universe).

    huh?

      Since The God of the Hebrew Old Testament scriptures is outside and independent of Particulate Matter, the tool of Faith is necessary to bridge this gap. 

    The God, presented in the Hebrew Old Testament scriptures has made that a bit more redly accessible by His entering the relm of time, space, and matter, – all of His own creation. 

      It has been since He formed and fashioned the first Man out of Earthen material and imparted His very life to that Man, to purposefully enter His creation (Matter) to extend fellowship to this Man and his posterity. 

    Whew!

      When things went south for Man, his Creator could have easily created a new Man. 

    He did not. 

    His choice was to redeem Man, He said so with His first Old Testament promise, which He fulfilled when He sent His precious Son into creation to restore Man unto Himself. 

    This is a process which Faith in Jesus Christ produces: ‘restoration’. 

    Those who believe in Jesus, though their bodies poop out & die, yet they shall live. 

    This is the promise that Jesus has made to all who believe in Him. 

      Science and Reason, – no matter how extensive they become, will ever extend a coherent and suitable platform for an acceptable bridge to the Devine. 

    (God has provided His word, to accomplish what we can not, to bridge the world of Matter with an understanding of the Devine.)

    This is why ‘Faith’ and ‘Trust’ are so important, – we have the possibility of eternal life because God so loved us that He gave His only Son, that if we would simply believe in Him (Jesus) , He has assured us eternal provisioning beyond Physical Matter.

    God’s generous offer is still open to all who will accept His Son. 
    Please do so today, as you will be very glad you did!

    (Please see the Bible for details)

    ATB

    Sopy

  471. @ Nick Bulbeck:
    GuyBehindtheCurtain wrote:

    s there any way to confirm this from your logs?

    I’ve been reading The Wartburg Watch now for at least 2-3 years. I have always found the reading to be enlightening and full of incredible perspective when it comes to God’s word. I was a member of a Sovereign Grace Ministries church for almost 25 years. I fought tooth and nail against CJ Mahaney and the rest of the ungodly men that led/lead that organization. I believe I did so biblically, but nonetheless, I left having honored the Lord’s word. During the time in which I was engaging senior pastors and leaders, I would regularly read The Wartburg Watch, especially when this website dealt with SGM. I enjoyed it and still do.

    I jumped in to the Evolution/Creation discussion because I love science, the bible and I am firmly convinced that God’s word is fully ” profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.”. It doesn’t take a back seat to anything when it comes to understanding the world we live in or even in understanding creation. As I’ve said, I love science. It truly draws me closer to the Lord as I become more and more amazed of His incredible creation which is just a partial reflection of just how awesome our God is!

    I’ll cool off on the captial letters. I just use them to highlight a particular emphasis on what I am writing as there are no underlines or highlighters with the blog.

    By the way, I am a “he”.

    The basic premise of my stand is that science should always stand on it’s own. “Facts” should be facts and not beliefs. A scientific fact should be recognized as such from someone in Boise, Idaho all the way to Cairo, Egypt or Mubai, India. “Facts” don’t change. Gainging knowledge of facts can change, but the basic fact always remains the same.

    Evolutionists have changed their “facts” time and time again. I wouldn’t mind as much if they held on to them as theories, but the so-called “fact” of evolution is truly the “belief” of evolution.

    An additional premise to my stand on the evolution debate is solely from the perspective of a Christian. I firmly believe that God’s word can stand on its own for all matters that it touches upon. When Christians comprimise away from God’s word when where it speaks, you immediately go down the slippery slope that leads to the diminshment of God’s word in one’s life.

    Sola Scriutura. I believe that God’s word is inspried, carries the full authority of God, is clear on all matters that it touches upon, it is empowered by the Holy Spirit and is sufficient to me for all matters that it provides teaching. Do I still have questions? Yup. Do I still not clearly understand things that it teaches? Yup. However, that has to do with ME. Not the Bible.

    The Bible DOES clearly teach on the creation of the heavens and the earth. Therefore I am fully certain that I can trust what God actually says about creation and believe what He says.

    When science is brought in to the discussion, I absolutely am all eyes and ears. God created science so I have zero problems with ANYTHING (oops … sorry for the capital letters) that it brought up from a scientific perspective. However, one must first understand the bias of the one who is providing the information.

    Evolutionists (non-Christian) do not believe in God so they automatically remove any possibility that the heavens and earth were created by a Creator. By taking this biased position, their only answers to address any questions regarding creation will only be from a naturalist perspective. So, from the get-go, they say “there is no God” so the world being created by a supreme being is not plausible.

    Christians, not fully believing the Word of God where it states matters with authority, have left the sufficiency of the Word of God and have clinged on to the premise that the evolutionists are correct because they have science on their side. Christians should no better that Satan will use any tactics and any means possible to dispell belief on the authority of God’s word.

    Now, when I begin to discuss science and Creation, I have to seperate scientific fact from scientific belief. Surely we can all agree on true scientific facts, but I will argue beliefs when those “facts” are stated as part of the evolutionists belief system.

    I hope this clarifys to some of you of who I am and why I have jumped in to the conversation. I don’t mind being the only one on the side of creationism and YEC and I surely don’t mind the OEC discussions as well.

    I welcome all thoughts and opinions. Thanks!

  472. oldJohnJ wrote:

    BTC somewhereintime included “Long term Wartburgwatch reader.” in his 3:24P 1/24 comment

    OldJohnJ,

    I think that I have probably only responded once or twice as a logged in subscriber to this blog and on those accounts it was in relation to comments on Sovereign Grace Ministries. From a pure reader I have been reading TWW for at least 2-3 years, of which I have enjoyed it tremendously.

  473. @ oldJohnJ:
    OldJohnJ,

    I did read the article and greatly struggled through it due to my lack of a full understanding of everything that he discussed. However, the one point that I made previously I will ask again and hopefully you or someone else can clarify … Is it the doctor’s premise that radioactive decay has always “processed” at the same rate that we see today and that it has always been at the same rate from the beginning of time?

    As I reread the article it appears to me that this is his premise. My previous post regarding radiometric dating touched on the decay from molton lava in which the rates of decay were not the same. So to me, the doctor has made an “assumption” to back his study that he has no way of knowing it is true. In fact, the rate of decay of molton lava would clearly suggest just the opposite.

  474. Somewhereintime wrote:

    Now, when I begin to discuss science and Creation, I have to seperate scientific fact from scientific belief. Surely we can all agree on true scientific facts, but I will argue beliefs when those “facts” are stated as part of the evolutionists belief system.

    I’d like to understand your distinction between scientific fact and scientific belief. For the purpose of such a discussion lets limit it to the single topic of radiometric dating using the Wiens reference I have listed at least twice in these comments. Specifically what is scientific belief and scientific fact in his presentation and if make such a distinction, why? Radiometric dating appears to be completely independent of any of the biological processes postulated to be part of evolution.

  475. oldJohnJ wrote:

    Well, spelling his name correctly helps, is now been given twice.

    Yeah, this is a perfect example of consilience, where multiple pieces of evidence all point toward the same fact…that the earth is really really old. To explain away each piece of data becomes highly improbable.

  476. Somewhereintime wrote:

    I’ll cool off on the captial letters. I just use them to highlight a particular emphasis on what I am writing as there are no underlines or highlighters with the blog.

    Uh, says who?

    <b>bold</b>
    <i>italic</i>
    <u>underline</u>
    <strike>strike</strike>

    More than this you have to do your own research.

    Just type the less than and greater than symbols with the code between them. These “codes” will disappear when your comment posts. And don’t forget the closing code or the rest of your comment will be something nifty like underlined.

    This comes up every year or so. All you have to do is a Google or Bing search to get the answers.

  477. @ oldJohnJ:
    Scientific fact: radiometric dating can show the rate of decay of radioactive isotopes in rocks.

    Scientific belief: The decay of radioactive isotopes in rocks has the same rate of decay that we observe today that they have had from the beginning of time.

    Why is it a belief? 1) Scientists have measured the decay of radioactive isotopes in molten lava and in the lava rocks of known age and it has shown that the decay rate of radioactive isotopes was greatly accelerated from its onset until the time in which it was stable.

    Scientific answer then? … Whereas science can show the rate of decay of radioactive isotopes in rocks today, they do not know the rate of decay in the past AND easily replicated science experiments with molten lava will show that the premise of steady decay from the onset of a rocks creation is scientifically inaccurate.

  478. Tim Challies: quote “The third reason I am a six-day creationist is that I believe this is what science tells us”

    I have no time to read through all the above blog but I would point out one thing to those who hold that creationism is ‘scientific’. Evolution may not be seen as truly scientific because it cannot or has not been repeated. The trouble with this is, neither can or is creation repeatable. Oh dear!

  479. Somewhereintime wrote:

    Why is it a belief? 1) Scientists have measured the decay of radioactive isotopes in molten lava and in the lava rocks of known age and it has shown that the decay rate of radioactive isotopes was greatly accelerated from its onset until the time in which it was stable.

    SWT – the above is at odds with all I know about radiometric dating. Please supply a citation or link of some form discussing this in detail.
    Thanks in advance.

  480. @ Somewhereintime:

    Somewhereintime, another scientist here.
    You keep saying how much you love science and yet you’ve spent this thread dismissing 99% of scientists. Can you see how that’s incredibly frustrating and, quite frankly, disrespectful? There are many, many scientists in all fields who are religious (Christian, Hindu, Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, Sikh, and so on), many scientists who believe in a god/gods. You’ve said multiple times that evolutionary and old earth science starts from an assumption that there is no God. That’s not true. What it starts from, and what it has to start from, is that the idea of God is irrelevant. Now before you get up in arms about that statement, let me explain why. Science (in every single field) can only work with what we can measure – science is inherently materialistic. God, and the entire concept of a spiritual realm, is outside of our ability to observe and test, so it’s outside of our scientific hypotheses. So while individual scientists will have personal opinions on questions of God and religion, an ethical scientist will not allow those to colour their scientific research.

  481. Somewhereintime wrote:

    @ oldJohnJ:
    Scientific fact: radiometric dating can show the rate of decay of radioactive isotopes in rocks.
    Scientific belief: The decay of radioactive isotopes in rocks has the same rate of decay that we observe today that they have had from the beginning of time.
    Why is it a belief? 1) Scientists have measured the decay of radioactive isotopes in molten lava and in the lava rocks of known age and it has shown that the decay rate of radioactive isotopes was greatly accelerated from its onset until the time in which it was stable.
    Scientific answer then? … Whereas science can show the rate of decay of radioactive isotopes in rocks today, they do not know the rate of decay in the past AND easily replicated science experiments with molten lava will show that the premise of steady decay from the onset of a rocks creation is scientifically inaccurate.

    Seconding the request for a source for this. But even if it is true, wouldn’t it only apply to igneous rocks? That still leaves a heck of a lot of the world’s rock.

  482. @ Pam:

    I’ve done some Google searching on this. And the entries I’ve looked at so far all come from AIG types of web sites. One site which had a Pro/Con debate style about this seemed to be saying that since some lava had “bad” results that showed the decay rates had changed. But these samples seemed to be a very small number compared to the overall samples from all over the planet. And thus seemed to be samples that were contaminated in terms of isotope concentrations. I did NOT follow the citation chains on that site. (Not my field and I don’t have the time tonight.)

    But it seems TO ME that the statement that decay rates in lava have changed is an inference from a small number of samples that give inconsistent results. And these samples are statistically insignificant compared to the total sample sizes in this area.

    Again as others have said, a citation of real data showing decay rates change in lava would be nice.

  483. Somewhereintime wrote:

    Radiometric Dating’s basic premise is that the rate of decay has always been constant. SCIENCE has proven that this is not the case. Actual SCIENTIFIC studies have have shown that nuclear decay has been OBSERVED to rapidly occur at accelerated rates when dating was applied to lava rocks. So, there is a FALSE ASSUMPTION in the “science” of radiometric dating that is being used by evolutionists in stating the age of rocks.

    Not true. The issue is known and has been compensated for:

    Thus the large majority of historic lava flows that have been studied either give correct ages, as expected, or have quantities of excess radiogenic 40Ar that would be insignificant in all but the youngest rocks. The 40Ar/39Ar technique, which is now used instead of K-Ar methods for most studies, has the capability of automatically detecting, and in many instances correcting for, the presence of excess 40Ar, should it be present.

    Here’s the link – a source I had posted upthread as well:

    http://ncse.com/rncse/20/3/radiometric-dating-does-work

  484. Somewhereintime wrote:

    @ oldJohnJ:
    Scientific fact: radiometric dating can show the rate of decay of radioactive isotopes in rocks.
    Scientific belief: The decay of radioactive isotopes in rocks has the same rate of decay that we observe today that they have had from the beginning of time.
    Why is it a belief? 1) Scientists have measured the decay of radioactive isotopes in molten lava and in the lava rocks of known age and it has shown that the decay rate of radioactive isotopes was greatly accelerated from its onset until the time in which it was stable.
    Scientific answer then? … Whereas science can show the rate of decay of radioactive isotopes in rocks today, they do not know the rate of decay in the past AND easily replicated science experiments with molten lava will show that the premise of steady decay from the onset of a rocks creation is scientifically inaccurate.

    I know others have addressed this, but I’ll drop my own spin on it.

    First, when you bring up something like 1), you need to be specific. We need to know what it is you are referencing (though I think most of us familiar with the YEC arguments know the specific instance you are referring too). If this is the one I know of, JeffT has addressed the issue.

    As for the ‘belief’ that decay rates are constant. First, lets get the terminology right. What is measured relative to radiometric dating is not the decay rate, but rather a ratio of parent isotope to daughter isotope. That is, the amount of radioactive material against the amount of residual or ‘daughter’ product of the decay. One of the more common long term dating methods is U/Pb, or Uranium/Lead. Lead (or more precisely, certain isotopes of lead) are what is left after Uranium decays. That ratio corresponds to a certain amount of time, per the decay rate.

    Second, the treatment of the decay rate as a constant is in fact a subject of much research and not a ‘belief’ like your belief the scriptures can be used in a technical fashion. This conclusion is the result of extensive testing and observation. Experiments have been done to try to force changes in decay rates with little success. Further, all measurements that could uncover a shift in decay rates in the past (Re: OKLO natural reactor”) and SN1987a) have failed to show any significant difference. And keep in mind that the Universe itself serves as a ‘way back’ machine were we can directly observed the decay of radioisotopes as they are produced in supernova. So far all we see are decay rates that match what we observe on the Earth. Given the extreme environment of a SN explosion, that is fairly significant. One would think if any natural influx of radiation or energetic particle could change a decay rate, it would happen in a SN explosion environment.

    Also, keep in mind that the natural decay rate of an isotope is tied to the fundamental nature of the universe itself. Changing the properties that affect decay rate have significant consequences to the habitability of the universe itself. For example, a change of just 4% to the fine structure constant would not allow carbon to be produced in stellar fusion. Imagine an universe w/o carbon.

    Zeta (Jim)

  485. oldJohnJ wrote:

    Somewhereintime wrote:
    Why is it a belief? 1) Scientists have measured the decay of radioactive isotopes in molten lava and in the lava rocks of known age and it has shown that the decay rate of radioactive isotopes was greatly accelerated from its onset until the time in which it was stable.
    SWT – the above is at odds with all I know about radiometric dating. Please supply a citation or link of some form discussing this in detail.
    Thanks in advance.

    The imprecise way he references this he could actually be referring to two different things. One is the RATE project were ostensibly excess helium found in zircons is treated as ‘proof’ decay rates were once 1,000,000 times greater than today (never mind that the heat from something like that wold melt the Earth’s crust), or perhaps the flawed dating of a lava flow in Hawaii which had known origin in the last century or so – which exposed and/or was subject to the issues JeffT mentioned wrt K/Ar vs Ar/Ar.

    Zeta( Jim )

  486. Orion’sBelt wrote:

    The imprecise way he references this he could actually be referring to two different things. One is the RATE project were ostensibly excess helium found in zircons is treated as ‘proof’ decay rates were once 1,000,000 times greater than today (never mind that the heat from something like that wold melt the Earth’s crust), or perhaps the flawed dating of a lava flow in Hawaii which had known origin in the last century or so – which exposed and/or was subject to the issues JeffT mentioned wrt K/Ar vs Ar/Ar.
    Zeta( Jim )

    Thanks for the clarification Zeta, this helps. I just wish this information could somehow be posted on every homeschool group and SBC website. I would like to think it would help…

  487. Perseus wrote:

    Orion’sBelt wrote:
    The imprecise way he references this he could actually be referring to two different things. One is the RATE project were ostensibly excess helium found in zircons is treated as ‘proof’ decay rates were once 1,000,000 times greater than today (never mind that the heat from something like that wold melt the Earth’s crust), or perhaps the flawed dating of a lava flow in Hawaii which had known origin in the last century or so – which exposed and/or was subject to the issues JeffT mentioned wrt K/Ar vs Ar/Ar.
    Zeta( Jim )
    Thanks for the clarification Zeta, this helps. I just wish this information could somehow be posted on every homeschool group and SBC website. I would like to think it would help…

    We’ve tried a few times to raise these issues on a local HS site when these kinds of discussions come up. Our posts get purged by the owner almost as fast as they go up!

    In fact, it is the norm on ‘Christian’ websites that have a bend towards YEC to censor non-YEC technical data and information.

    Zeta (Jim)

  488. Orion’sBelt wrote:

    First, when you bring up something like 1), you need to be specific.

    Zeta, Perseus and others. Thanks for contributing to this thread. I am aware of a few of the YEC claims that might be referred to by SWT. I was hoping he would refer to something specific but since this particular request has been made more than once and he hasn’t responded to it perhaps he can’t.

  489. I find it frustrating when Christians talk about loving science and then totally misrepresent it.

    Science is not dogma. It is not a creed. When you treat scientific inquiry like it’s a systematic theology then you’ve already missed the point.

    Saying that science has “changed it’s facts” is an example of looking at Science through the lens of dogma.

  490. In other news, I have finally bought some new laces to replace the almost-broken ones on my trainers.

    Unfortunately, the laces are pristine white whilst the trainers (which were white two years ago) are mucky greyish-brown, resulting in something of a sartorial anomaly.

  491.   __

    Ideal Conditions: “Delta V” ?

    What?

    …this is science:

    Man conquering Material Space…

    clip: Moon Machines: “The Saturn V Rocket”
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DqQmoJafQlg

    …this is faith:

    Jesus conquering Death…

    clip: “The Resurrection of Jesus” 
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipJ2ixY4Sg0

    Each requiring a different proverbial slide-rule.

    Each providing a  separate, yet measurable result.

    One finite.

    One eternal.

    hmmm…

    Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the conviction of things unseen…

    We walk by Faith, not by Reason,

    …in the service of the Divine?

    Perhaps.

    Sopy

  492. Pam wrote:

    What it starts from, and what it has to start from, is that the idea of God is irrelevant. Now before you get up in arms about that statement, let me explain why. Science (in every single field) can only work with what we can measure – science is inherently materialistic. God, and the entire concept of a spiritual realm, is outside of our ability to observe and test, so it’s outside of our scientific hypotheses. So while individual scientists will have personal opinions on questions of God and religion, an ethical scientist will not allow those to colour their scientific research.

    Respectfully, and please don’t take this as an offense to your professionalism and integrity as a scientist, but I think that what you’ve described is more in line with the current Zeitgeist of science rather than its historical underpinnings.

    Two of the intellectual titans of the Enlightenment Kepler and Newton, had no such qualms at all about extolling the Almighty as a prime mover and author of the mechanisms they discovered via the scientific method.

    Put another way and to employ a loose metaphor, present day science is a lot like a team of researchers trying to uncover the secrets of a 1718 Strad. They can poke and prod the violin and even the allegedly secret varnishes with every high-tech gizmo imaginable, but they are not allowed to point to the Cremonese master (Antonio Stradivari) himself as a valid explanatory cause.
    Perplexing.

  493. Muff Potter wrote:

    Pam wrote:
    What it starts from, and what it has to start from, is that the idea of God is irrelevant. Now before you get up in arms about that statement, let me explain why. Science (in every single field) can only work with what we can measure – science is inherently materialistic. God, and the entire concept of a spiritual realm, is outside of our ability to observe and test, so it’s outside of our scientific hypotheses. So while individual scientists will have personal opinions on questions of God and religion, an ethical scientist will not allow those to colour their scientific research.
    Respectfully, and please don’t take this as an offense to your professionalism and integrity as a scientist, but I think that what you’ve described is more in line with the current Zeitgeist of science rather than its historical underpinnings.
    Two of the intellectual titans of the Enlightenment Kepler and Newton, had no such qualms at all about extolling the Almighty as a prime mover and author of the mechanisms they discovered via the scientific method.
    Put another way and to employ a loose metaphor, present day science is a lot like a team of researchers trying to uncover the secrets of a 1718 Strad. They can poke and prod the violin and even the allegedly secret varnishes with every high-tech gizmo imaginable, but they are not allowed to point to the Cremonese master (Antonio Stradivari) himself as a valid explanatory cause.
    Perplexing.

    Hi Muff. I think you are missing the point a bit. God is a being that necessarily is beyond the scope of science. Science can’t discover Him unless He chooses to be discovered by it (and even then science could not validate the infinite and immaterial aspects of who He is). Science can only, and at best, analyse claims that He has in some way inserted Himself into the creation, and then the best science can do is characterize the event in natural terms.

    But what happens is people choose whether science is the only form of investigation into the world they will consider legitimate. And it is sometimes hard not to confuse this subtle distinction. But science is a limited form of investigation that has very rigorous rules of engagement. And it works very, very well if what we want to know about involves the material world.

    One of the rules of the game, so to speak, is that we don’t postulate supernatural causes as explanations for natural events. That is not what science is about, and any such postulate ultimately stops all scientific investigation about a topic.

    Had such an approach been taken by Galileo, or Newton, or Kepler, or so many others, we would still be pulling carts with horses. If we want to understand how the natural world works, we can’t go around postulating miracles to fill in the gaps of current knowledge. That doesn’t mean miracles don’t occur. It just means that if we want to understand a material process, we must deal with it on material terms.

    A Christian (or other believer in God) can marvel at what God has created and ordered as they learn. But Christian or non-Christian, all (should) do science the same way and as much as possible keep all personal opinions and biases out of the process- which includes opinions about Religion and God.

    Zeta (Jim)

  494. Somewhereintime wrote:

    The word Yom is used both literally and figuratively in the Old Testament. In the context of the first few chapters of Genesis it is neither used in the context of poetry or figuratively. Please be reminded that the thought of “yom” being ANYTHING beyond a 24 hour period in these verses never existed prior to Christians making a feeble attempt of integrating an atheist belief in to scriptures because there is a “belief” that science does not support a YEC.

    SWT – I asked this question earlier in the thread, but messed up the linking so you may not have seen it. From a literal reading of Gen 1, do you see days 1-3 as being 24-hour periods? How do the events of day 4 inform your view?

  495. Somewhereintime wrote:

    Please be reminded that the thought of “yom” being ANYTHING beyond a 24 hour period in these verses never existed prior to Christians making a feeble attempt of integrating an atheist belief in to scriptures because there is a “belief” that science does not support a YEC.

    I am back and I am not pleased with your Hamite arguing style. I have been the recipient of it in the past and I tire of it.

    There are far smarter scientists and theologians than you and me and they are neither feeble nor stupid. Yeah, right, Walt Kaiser is feeble… I will ask you to back off and make your point without insulting people either here or not here.

    I fully expect you to answer “but that’s not what I meant” or ” I didn’t say that.” Well, you did. This is typical as well. GBTC warned you when I was in the throes of the wedding and I will warn you now. Cut out the baloney and present your arguments without resorting to Ham tactics or head back to AIG and commiserate with people who refuse to open their research to peer review.

  496. Somewhereintime wrote:

    Christians, not fully believing the Word of God where it states matters with authority, have left the sufficiency of the Word of God and have clinged on to the premise that the evolutionists are correct because they have science on their side. Christians should no better that Satan will use any tactics and any means possible to dispell belief on the authority of God’s word.

    I would ask you to clarify this statement. It seems to me that you are equating Christians who believe in evolution as being influenced by the Evil One. And you are now saying that Christians who believe in evolution have “left the sufficiency of Scripture” and cling to the atheist evolutionists.

    I do not wish this discussion to go down this road. It is like pulling the Hitler card. The moment it is pulled, the discussion is over and we have entered “codswallop” territory. So please clarify this now or stop the discussion.

  497. At the risk of stating the obvious, no-one believes in the sufficiency of scripture.

    For instance: no preacher believes in the sufficiency of scripture, because if he did he would not dare to add to the Word of God™ by his own exposition. Calvin certainly scoffed at the very idea of scriptural sufficiency, as demonstrated by his addition of 600,000 words thereto in his “Institutes” alone. And, of course, one could go on.

    As a matter of fact, I reject the notion of the sufficiency of scripture outright, because I cannot – as a follower of Jesus and one who believes that scripture is inspired by God – in conscience accept that scripture is sufficient. Scripture itself declares that it is not the only resource made permanently available to the Church, so how can it be sufficient?

  498. @ Orion’sBelt:

    I never meant to construe or imply by any means that superstition or mystical speculation is a substitute for hard mechanistic investigation. The fact that Kepler and Newton pointed to the agency of an Almighty creator as the Author of mechanism is not the same thing and I’ll leave it at that.

  499. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    As a matter of fact, I reject the notion of the sufficiency of scripture outright, because I cannot – as a follower of Jesus and one who believes that scripture is inspired by God – in conscience accept that scripture is sufficient. Scripture itself declares that it is not the only resource made permanently available to the Church, so how can it be sufficient?

    Erasmus argued this very point in response when he was attacked stridently by a certain German friar in the 16th cent.

  500. @ nmgirl:
    Listen, I have been there and done that. I have been accused of being a heretic, in danger of denying the doctrine of the atonement, and listened to some insults that do not bear repeating. I have said this time and time again. If anyone wishes to believe “on faith alone” that the earth is whatever age they want it to be, so be it. However, when science comes up-then one must argue with science- reall peer reviewed science.

    Unfortunately, the science as presented on these sites is not peer reviewed, most likely due to the belief that there is a vast conspiracy of every last scientist out there to suppress the truth of the Gospel. The head of that conspiracy is Satan. Since i know many Christian scientists, I cannot allow that nonsense to continue.

    Besides, I am exhausted. I just put my last out of town guest on a flight before the impending southern snow storm and I am not in the mood to be called feeble, stupid or Satanically influenced (is that a word?). Back to picking up the house!

  501. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    Calvin certainly scoffed at the very idea of scriptural sufficiency, as demonstrated by his addition of 600,000 words thereto in his “Institutes” alone. And, of course, one could go on.

    Darn-that’s good!

  502. Hi all
    I will try to catch up in the next 24 hours! Glad to be back and glad to have a new son in my family.

  503. Perhaps we are arguing over semantics here. I think the formula we are looking for is not “sufficient” but “sufficient for salvation”. And I think that means that the Bible contains all we need to know for that (most important) aspect of our lives. I don’t think it is intended to be an encyclopaedia of all knowledge or an ancient equivalent of Google.

    Dee, congratulations on your new son 🙂

  504. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    At the risk of stating the obvious, no-one believes in the sufficiency of scripture.

    For instance: no preacher believes in the sufficiency of scripture, because if he did he would not dare to add to the Word of God™ by his own exposition. Calvin certainly scoffed at the very idea of scriptural sufficiency, as demonstrated by his addition of 600,000 words thereto in his “Institutes” alone. And, of course, one could go on.

    As a matter of fact, I reject the notion of the sufficiency of scripture outright, because I cannot – as a follower of Jesus and one who believes that scripture is inspired by God – in conscience accept that scripture is sufficient. Scripture itself declares that it is not the only resource made permanently available to the Church, so how can it be sufficient?

    Hee, hee, hee! I fear the “sufficiency of scripture” aficionados wouldn’t agree.

    Besides, if they actually believed in the “sufficiency of scripture” we could do away with all preachers 🙂 AND they could all stop writing books – Woot!!

    They are a quite conflicted group all in all. They believe in the sufficiency of scripture, yet we need pastors and teachers, but you best not speak of that third person of the Trinity to highly or you might be branded.

  505. Bridget wrote:

    Nick Bulbeck wrote:
    but you best not speak of that third person of the Trinity to highly or you might be branded.

    Or shown the door …

  506. @ Muff Potter: while I understand what you’re getting at, I think that science (and most other fields of study) are basically non-theistic. So in a way, your Strad comparison is a bit off the mark, although I wonder if people will ever stop trying to figure out that particular conundrum!

    I wonder if Newton believed in the God of the Bible, as he seems to have been fascinated with alchemy and related arcana. I can easily see him believing in a kind of creator who/that is very different to the one who is discussed in the NT, and in many parts of the OT, for that matter. But hey, it’s neither here nor there, now ius it? (Since he can’t answer directly.)

  507. numo wrote:

    So in a way, your Strad comparison is a bit off the mark, although I wonder if people will ever stop trying to figure out that particular conundrum!

    Numes, I hope not LOL! I for one would like to rest assured that violins in the future will be up to the task of bringing Beethoven’s Violin Concerto to full life in the hands of gifted virtuosos a thousand years from now.

    And yes by most accounts Newton was a fervent believer in the God of the Bible but he didn’t sign on to the doctrine of the Trinity for what he felt were corruptions of Scripture introduced by the Nicene Fathers. Back then it was dangerous to dissent from anything pronounced orthodox and infallible by ecclesiastical authority so he kept it to himself and a few trusted friends (John Locke included). So thin was the tolerance band for religious questions in his day that an 18 year old student, one Thomas Aikenhead, was hanged at Edinburgh in 1697 for denying the Trinity.

  508. Welcome back Dee!

    In other news (see what I did there?)I’m considering adding a ribbon laden bustle to my moosie. What do you think Nick?

  509. Newton did indeed reject the doctrine of the Trinity; he is frequently described in modern parlance as a unitarian. But he was no atheist; atheism wasn’t really a thing in those days and even if it had been, Newton may not have been attracted to it. Interestingly, he and his contemporaries set a trend for performing spectacular (for the time) demonstrations of practical “natural philosophy” as they called it. They had recently discovered electricity, and by creating large sparks, electrostatic repulsion, and so on, they demonstrated “active principles” in nature which they presented as proof of the existence of God. In effect, they believed these to be demonstrations of “signs and wonders”.

  510. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    Scripture itself declares that it is not the only resource made permanently available to the Church, so how can it be sufficient?

    But Tradition is ROMISH(TM)! NO POPERY!!!!!

  511. dee wrote:

    I do not wish this discussion to go down this road. It is like pulling the Hitler card. The moment it is pulled, the discussion is over and we have entered “codswallop” territory. So please clarify this now or stop the discussion.

    At which point we get into Dueling Scriptures —
    (to the tune of Dueling Bamjos):

    “QUOTE! QUOTE! QUOTE! QUOTE! QUOTE!”

    “QUOTE! QUOTE! QUOTE! QUOTE! QUOTE! QUOTE! QUOTE! QUOTE! QUOTE!”

    “QUOTE! QUOTE! QUOTE! QUOTE! QUOTE! QUOTE! QUOTE! QUOTE! QUOTE!”

    “QUOTE! QUOTE! QUOTE! QUOTE! QUOTE! QUOTE! QUOTE!”

    “QUOTE! QUOTE! QUOTE! QUOTE! QUOTE! QUOTE! QUOTE!”

    (guitar riff; both stop quoting and go at each other with teeth and fingernails)