I agree with what you said in a previous article Dee. Ken Ham is in it simply to make money (lots of it!) off of gullible Christians.

And here is the alternative view.

http://www.banneroftruth.co.uk/pages/articles/article_detail.php?473

Regards
Gavin

As I understand it, Piper, Driscoll, and Keller are all Old Earth.

And RC Sproul is in the “I don’t know” camp (though he does believe in a literal 7 days whenever it *did* happen).

Gavin, I get a kick out of you. Your link has the author starting out with what Calvin says about it. :o)

When you read Calvin on Genesis, you release he has quote an open mind on the subject.

Nicholas, you mean the earth isn’t the centre of God’s universe?

Regards
Gavin

Anon 1- I’m just saying that Piper isn’t on board with Ken Ham.

I have probably shared this before, but I think it adds to this discussion. A video on what constitutes scientific “peer review”, how the process works and where creationists fit.

http://bit.ly/U8r2CW

Here is an excellent 3 part interview with Dennis Gordon, a Christian marine bioligist, discussing Genesis and the YE/OE debate.
http://www.gci.org/_lib/playvideo.php?program=DIM/DIM007&title=Dennis+Gordon:+Exploring+Biblical+Creation+-+Part+1
He makes it understandable for non-scientists and is on the OE side.
Here is the site to go to for parts 2 and 3:
http://www.gci.org/media/dimensions

oldJohnJ

I agree. This is especially true when discussing evolution. The term evolution itself is frequently misused or is understood by the author to mean something other than its scientific definition, as are terms like “speciation”, “species”, “kind”, etc.

HippiMama,

On my favorite homeschooling forum, one of the moms is a physics professor. She says that intro textbooks for non-science majors are superior to high school textbooks on the same subject. So her kids do an intro physics text for non-science majors as their high school science.

Plus, you can often buy an older edition used online very cheaply. Once edition 12 comes out, the 11th edition may sell for only $5-10.

Nicholas is right, the astronomical debate was still not concluded in Calvin’s day re the position of the earth. However astronomy was by not means as primitive as pop-atheists like to make it. C S Lewis once pointed out that one of the fathers of astronomy (Ptolemy, I think) wrote that the distances between heavenly bodies was so great that the earth should be represented by a mere point. Hardly the “poky little universe” of Richard Dawkins.

BTW I don’t know if everyone saw that famous British astronomer Sir Patrick Moore died yesterday. Don’t know if people abroad had heard of him, but his astronomy TV programme was I think the longest-running TV series in the world.

Going back to Calvin, I have been rereading my Lion Concise Handbook of Christian thought. Whatever one thinks of Calvin, it seems to me now that a lot of the things which he was blamed for were actually the contributions of his followers. Lane points out for example in the Handbook that the Westminister Confession makes predestination more central than Calvin did, and likewise that Calvin himself does not appear to teach the doctrine of limited atonement. Similarly the position of some of the Puritans on assurance was different to that of both Calvin and Luther.

Koyla,

Best succinct and accurate definition I have come across is this:

Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in the frequency of alleles in the gene pool of a population over time.

Dear Jeff S
The five points were the summation of the conclusions of the Synod of Dordrecht.

Gavin

Has anyone else noticed that the national flags after our names are now reversed. I’m now a Brit and Gavin and Kolya are Yanks. Is it appearing this way for anyone else?

Then it must be the IP address that I’m using that’s causing it to appear differently for me. I’m certainly in the US. It is probably your IP address as well that causes you not to have a flag.

Sorry for the duplicate comment.

I live in Maryland, but south of the Mason-Dixon line. Quite a few people that like to fly the Stars and Bars around here. 🙂

Nicholas, you’re appearing as a US citizen from here 🙂

To complicate matters, I believe that at the Synod of Dort the Arminians denied that the 5 points being refuted were their own! In any case I believe Arminius was questioning not God’s grace or the need for it as such but rather whether it was irresistible, and the nature of predestination.

Fendrel, I think that is a very good definition of evolution.

RE: Hippimama on Mon Dec 10, 2012 at 12:11 PM,

So what do you do with someone who rejects TE, leans toward special creation [but no friend of Ken Ham], and who at the same time denies the doctrine of original sin and atonement as monstrous and more in line with chemosh & molech than the God of Jacob?

Nicholas – Yeah, I hear you… I used to live in the metro D.C. area and know that there are Lost Cause proponents all over the place… just thought you might be a bit further south.

(In NoVA, you don’t see anything like the enthusiasm for the Confederacy that many other Virginians hold dear. It’s not exactly Richmond, though there certainly are undertones of pro-Secession sentiment.)

Great post. I’ve heard the YEC claims about radiometric dating before but hadn’t read the specifics (I’d much prefer to bash my head against a brick wall!) so wasn’t aware just how minimal in relative terms the actual dating differences were. The fact that the YEC crowd happily swallows this I think points out just how problematic poor science and mathematics education is – and doubly so if all science taught is filtered through very narrow assumptions about the world and everything that doesn’t fit is discarded.

Thanks Pam,
I suspect the YEC folks feel they can say anything they want and won’t be held accountable. This is especially likely given, as you mentioned, the state of our public schools. Prior to writing the article I had not given a careful reading of the RATE writings. I was quite surprised to see the ages given by RATE were so close to the accepted dates.

Evolution is defined as descent with modifications.
It is the result of natural selection and can only happen when there is heterozygocity in the genetic make up of a population. (heterzygocity is having two different versions (alleles) of a gene.)

A couple of thoughts….

Evolution does not explain how life got started but merely explains the process by which species emerge from earlier species. This happens by the process of natural selection.

Evolution is continuing to happen and the changes that result in separate speciation have happened fairly recently.

Another tidbit, different theories of evolution have existed back to the time of the Greek philosophers. Darwin did not invent evolution but he contributed two great ideas namely that of natural selection and common ancestry of living things.
I’m glad some wise person here (forgot who) noted that the so called discrepancy is well within the standard deviatiion of the data. Generally, the more recent the age of the fossil or other object the radioisotope has a shorter half-life. Radio carbon, for example, can only date something up to, I believe, 60,000 years then a physicist will go on to another (forget but could find out) radio isotope with a longer half life but less accurate dating, this makes sense.

The thing I don’t get is those who have worked out a way to accept death per fall theologically (which includes Keller, Piper, and Driscoll, I believe) but won’t endorse evolution. I mean, that’s pretty much THE theological issue with evolution, right? If you are going to accept death pre-fall, why not just bite off the whole enchilada?

It’s a tough theological nut to crack, no doubt, but the more evidence there is, the more I think we have to challenge our theological system.

(I have no real stance on this issue except that I do believe in a literal Adam and Eve and that humans are a special creation).

Jeff, old earth creationists believe that the Fall brought death to humanity, not to other life forms.

Everyone should take a look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B._B._Warfield

@ Jeff:

The only remaining theological question I have about animal death pre-Fall is what the “creation groaning under the curse” verse means in light of an old earth.

Hester – I thought it was “bondage to decay,” not “curse”?

though maybe I’m misunderstanding; are you referring to Genesis or romas 8, or both, or neither? [confused face goes here]

Hi justabeliever,

So…maybe I am crazy, and I don’t think this will solve any theological problems necessarily- not for people who are afraid that the whole Bible is undermined if they can’t take it literally. But, when I read Genesis, I don’t actually see it stating anywhere that Adam and Eve are immortal to begin with. God tells Adam not to eat from the tree of knowledge because “on the day that you eat of it you shall die.” So God says, “on THAT day you will die”; not “now you are immortal and then you won’t be.” The tree of life would allow Adam to live forever, but it doesn’t seem to be stated whether Adam and Eve have eaten from that. In fact, they are evicted from the garden so that they won’t eat from it- so that they cannot both know good and evil and be immortal.

The curse makes life a lot harder, but I really can’t see how it brings death per se into the world. I know that it’s said that way in the New Testament sometimes, but also in the NT, death and the fear of death are often used kind of interchangeably.

Anyway, even if I’m just being dense about the wording vis-a-vis death, before Adam and Eve sinned, they were obviously capable of sinning, and they obviously couldn’t resist whatsoever. I don’t see why their story doesn’t just show the innate human condition- capable of sinning, incapable of resisting it on their own, destined to die, saved by Christ. I don’t see at all why it is “literally” necessary for Adam and Eve to have “literally” existed (let alone 6000 yrs ago) for Jesus to do what he was meant to do. We can see for ourselves the human condition and the necessity of Christ. Do we really need to set up fantasies of a young earth when the obviousness of human suffering and sin is all around us anyway?

Nicholas,

I don’t believe in biblical infallibility because this idea removes the Holy Spirit as the plumb line for truth. If the bible is infallible, man must conform to it, which is impossible, because biblical revelation can only ever be applied in the specific context of an individual. If not, then a person’s context is irrelevant. Which means the person is irrelevant. In other words, if the bible is infallible, then man is unnecessary. Man can only ever hinder the bible, he can never live it or conform to it because, by definition the fallible cannot apply the infallible. So bible can only be for God, not for man. Because only God can ever apply the infallible. Except, he’s God, so He doesn’t need the bible. Which makes an infallible bible also a redundant bible. Which is an impossible contradiction.

Welcome to the metaphysics of the neo reformed movement.

But the main issue is that the argument of infallibility is really a red herring. It can only ever confuse issues. Infallibility is pointless because the bible must be interpreted. And only God can interpret it so that the metaphysics and morality are both consistent and consistently REALIZED within the individual lives and situations of every person on earth. And if we admit that the Holy Spirit is the only One who can possibly do that, then we agree that it must be the Holy Spirit who is INFALLIBLE in truth, not the bible.

Both evolutionists and non evolutionists believe the bible is infallible. So, uh…who is right? And why is there a debate? Surely an infallible bible wouldn’t make the mistake of being unclear on the origins of man, would it? Surely a truly infallible bible would not lack clear truth on ANY issue in the universe. How is infallible synonymous with incomplete?

Please remember that “true” and “efficacious” are not the same thing as “infallible”.

Ann – Agreed on your take re. immortality vs. physical death in Genesis.

I wonder when – and how – assumptions started being made re. eating of the tree of life resulting in physical death. (Augustine, or even before him, or did it come after him, or… ???)

If the Hebrew indicates that there was no physical death prior to eating of the tree of life, that’s one thing, but I don’t know that it does… and I wonder what kind of death is meant by “You shall surely die”? Physical, or something in the mind/soul/spirit, or…?

These days I feel like I have many more questions than answers. 🙂

oh, and fwiw, the concept of “original sin” is not part of Jewish belief.

“Jeff, old earth creationists believe that the Fall brought death to humanity, not to other life forms.”

Right- I’m just saying, once you’re at that point, what’s wrong with evolution?

Thanks Dee! I’m not the only one that’s glad for TWW. It’s one of the few blogs dissenters can go to and not fear the rack or the stake.

Numo, agreed. And the trees are confusing anyway. The tree of life isn’t even mentioned until they’re leaving the garden, I think. So it’s like, wait, there were TWO special trees the whole time?

Ann – yep.

It’s the tree in the middle of the garden, per the text (knowledge). I’ve always pictured the garden as having many, many trees, so…

Galvin

You link was all about biblical interpretation. This post is about AIG using poor methods (bogus?) to try and discredit the scientific method.

I’ve always said that some people will believe in a 6 literal day creation. I think they are wrong but if you want to go with “God can do anything” then so be it.

But I loose all respect for and call stupid those who make up science to try and prove it.

Dear Argo and Lynn
I was pointing out a problem that both sides need to resolve and that is how do you explain the timescales without compromising either the inerrancy/reliability of Scripture or of science. I’m not in any way scientifically minded but the margin for error in some of these calculations seems too large to be termed accurate. Can we not just say that God did it but we’re not sure exactly how?’
Regards
Gavin

Dear Pam
I understand what you’re saying. It’s just that when I think of science I think of it as being ‘exact’ and it isn’t. I just wonder how an evolutionary old earth can be reconciled with the theology. I’ve read Warfield and other reformed theologians on evolution but I’m none the wiser.

Regards
Gavin

Gavin,
Science is a bit like that! Variation can be accuracy, it just depends on what it is you’re looking at. In my field, flooding, this is one of the most difficult issues, because we talk about risk and probability, which is fairly accurate but inexact – as in we can model how big a ‘1 in 100 years’ flood will be, but just because it’s called ‘1 in 100’ doesn’t mean it will happen exactly once every hundred years. That’s just the probable frequency. As words on paper (or screen) that doesn’t sound too complicated, but all our experience shows that many people struggle with it in the real world.
Another comparison: it’s summer here, but today was a fairly cool day. A couple of weeks ago we had some extremely hot days. Both were away from the average for this time of year, but were within normal range. In the same way, the dating of the rocks provided a range of results, but they were within a normally acceptable range.

Pam – your 4:04 AM comment is very helpful.
Gavin – Science is not exact. A big part of any science project is understanding and characterizing the sources of measurement error. Quantum mechanics shows there are intrinsic limits to measurement accuracy. Exact is not possible even in principle.

Specifically, for radiometric dating 1% errors would be very good. The RATE data I quoted is not that good, closer to 10% errors, but it most certainly does not call the entire radiometric dating process into question. The RATE data confirms the mainstream scientific dating indicating the Earth is about 4.5 billion years.

Science is incomplete. However, the fact that we can have a world wide discussion over the internet is result of the same science that supports radiometric dating.

I don’t lean one way or another on this issue, but both sides, or at least portions of both sides, argue in a way that I find problematic.

The young earthers tend to elevate the issue to a theological level of importance that is unnecessary and the old earthers elevate science in such a way that seems to ignore the fact that science corrects itself constantly, and therefore shouldn’t be the arbiter of ultimate truth. Obviously I’m generalizing, but I think if those two tendencies could be mitigated, the whole conversation about creation could be more useful.

Here comes the atheist with his “gotcha” questions again!

We have always believed that Cain’s wife would have been his sister. Abraham’s wife Sarah was also his half-sister. It was until Moses’ time that God forbade intermarrying with intermediate family. This is due to the degeneration of the human bloodline.

Morality is absolute because it is decided by God. It was a sin for an Israelite in the OT to not circumcise his sons, but it is not a sin in this age for a Christian to not circumcise his sons. Same thing with the dietary law.

Nicholas,

I don’t know why you call them “gotcha” questions, they are legitimate questions if you want to claim that your belief system has some internal consistency to it.

Your answer doesn’t wash, because if God’s nature is unchanging, then absolute morality must also carry with it the concept of the eternal. If an action is immoral, then if it comes from an eternal, unchanging, perfect being, then the decree must carry the same properties.

Secondly, to declare that the reason God forbade intermarrying was because of genetic issues is to presume that your reason would have been the same as God’s reason…is there any biblical support for what you claim is God’s reason…no.

As a former teaching of statistics, with a background in both chemistry and radioactive waste management, as well as epistemology (how do we “know” things) let me try to explain the issue with the variability of measurements, sometimes called the “standard error of measurement” where “error” does not mean “wrong” but variability.

To date really older items being dated by radiometric methods, the isotope being used must have a longer half-life, since essentially all of shorter half-life radiation will have occurred in that item. There is a bit a variability in every measurement that science makes. When measuring small quantities of chemical species that are radioactive, that variability, relative to the measurement value, increases as the quantity or concentration of the measured specie shrinks.

When the half-life is short, a little variation in concentration is overwhelmed by the effect of the short half-life. When the half-life is long, e.g., hundreds of years, a tiny variation in concentration can result in a large variation in the predicted age of the item.

Good science includes figuring out what a the variability in the measurement system means for the value being determined. Again, that is called the “standard error (variability) of the measurement”. To do that generally requires a good deal of effort, either making many measurement or doing a lot of detailed work on each step of the process, and generally both.

Note that regardless of which estimate of the age of rocks reported by scientists is used, the earth is a very old planet and the universe is yet much older.

Nicholas,

Actually the Mosaic law, as a means to salvation, is no longer required, but nowhere does the Bible imply that not doing them is no longer a sin. Are the 10 commandments nullified then? As a means to salvation, yes…but as a moral code isn’t violating one of the 10 commandments still a sin? If not, why not? If yes, then why should the rest of the Mosaic law be treated differently?

Dear Nicholas and Fendrel

I quite like the answer given in the Midrash

‘Indeed, Cain and Abel1 had to marry their sisters, considering that there were no other women around. King David writes, “The world was built with kindness.” Our sages explain that this verse is referring to G‑d’s kindness in allowing Adam and Eve’s children to marry their own sisters in order to populate the species.

The Midrash tells us that Cain was born with a twin sister and Abel was born with two sisters.They each married the sister who was born with them. According to one opinion, it was actually a quarrel over who would get to marry the third sister that led to Cain slaying Abel.

The third generations of humans had no need for this loophole, because marriage between first cousins is not considered incest according to Torah law.

So why are these daughters not mentioned in the Torah? They are. Later in Genesis6 we are told, “And the days of Adam after he fathered Seth were eight hundred years, and he fathered sons and daughters”—though we are not informed of their identities. The Torah only records the names of those who were leaders of note, those who played a role in the biblical narrative, or the men who formed the chain of lineage connecting Adam to Noah (and later Noah to Abraham).’

Regards
Gavin

Sorry, Muff. I didn’t mean to imply that anyone who holds a YEC/special creation view has a fear-based theology. Rather, that the mean-ness I hear spouted by Ken Ham and his fan-club MAY be a result of fear, rather than a considered and principled interpretation of the early chapters of Genesis. For what it’s worth, I tend to believe in special creation, have doubts about original sin, and am currently thinking hard about what the Bible says/implies about atonement.

Ann (previous comment):

And the trees are confusing anyway. The tree of life isn’t even mentioned until they’re leaving the garden, I think. So it’s like, wait, there were TWO special trees the whole time?

Permit me to assist if I may… Genesis 2:9 goes thus:

The Lord God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground — trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

It’s not mentioned again until Adam and Eve are ejected from the garden. Easily missed, but it’s there. And it doesn’t appear again, as such, until Revelation! (Unless you count proverbs like “Hope deferred makes the heart sick, but a longing fulfilled is a tree of life”.)

There was, interestingly, no prohibition on eating from the tree of life to begin with. And there was nothing physically to prevent Adam and Eve eating from the tree of KG+E. But once they were separated from God, God evidently deemed it necessary at all costs to stop them from living forever in that state. A lot more could be said on that one, of course. But it’s a big part of why I believe the bible teaches what is termed annihilation (i.e. that those who enter eternity at enmity with God – however you describe that, and again, much could be said, but I have to take my daughter to gymnastics in a minute! – do not consciously suffer forever, but rather their existence is ended forever).

Many good men and women believe differently, of course. But hey. The only point of doctrine is to test whether we really love one another.

Joey,

Science will also never correct itself to the point of saying that virgin births can occur in humans nor will it ever say that people, dead for 3 days, can come back to life…but that doesn’t stop many non YECs from believing it…same line in the sand.

Dee,

Yes, science corrects itself by refinement, but it also corrects itself by discovering previously unknown facts that fundamentally change its previous positions. This has happened countless times in history. Scientific “fact” looks a lot different now than it did 500 years ago. Who is to say 500 years from now it won’t look totally different than it does now? I suspect that it won’t. That’s the nature of science. It changes as new factors are introduced.

Besides that, as our friend Fendrel (his ignoring of lengthy and well reasoned explanations of the issue of the law aside) astutely alludes to, if miracles are part of one’s worldview, science cannot be the final authority on truth anyway. Or else no virgin birth, no resurrection, etc.

So science must be secondary, and in service of, faith in word of God for the Christian. Logic (don’t laugh Fendrel) demands it.

If science appears to contradict Scripture, that could show us we have been interpreting it wrong, certainly. But when it comes to a clear choice between what current scientists say on one hand, and what Scripture teaches on the other, the Christian (think of Puddleglum in the Silver Chair) chooses Scripture. (I don’t think the Bible says much about the age of the earth personally.)

Good points raised by Fendrel and Nicholas.

There are two views that seem popular at the moment. One is that Adam and Eve were not the only humans, but rather were made representative by God in some way, whether simply chosen or chosen and endowed with that which allowed them to be “created in God’s image”, ie truly human as opposed to simply hominids. The other is that Adam and Eve were indeed the only humans, and as Nicholas says, marriage within bloodlines was allowed in the earliest generation.

I throw this open for comment. In the field of zoology, assuming that a new species or even simply subspecies/breed starts off with a single individual as the result of a mutation, would it not be the case that initially the bloodline would be incredibly small to start off, even just a pair of individuals from the same population? In that case, surely there would be some inbreeding to start with until there were enough variations in the gene pool and enough distance between individuals to allow outbreeding?

Or is it the case that mutations tend to occur according to a statistical pattern, occurring not just once but several times (ie the same mutation), and thus a moderately-sized pool of individuals of a new species/breed would be available?

This question is compounded in vertebrates, for whereas invertebrate populations can be extremely prolific, vertebrates tend to be less so, producing few offspring on the whole. Some fish and amphibians produce large numbers of eggs, but most terrestrial vertebrates seem to produce (I stand open to correction here) 20 or less offspring per clutch/litter, and some (esp. humans!) only a pair or even a single individual.

Re an earlier remark about differentiating animals from humans, I have pondered this quite a lot. I am not an animal rightist and don’t automatically equate a child with a puppy: I don’t believe for example that using animals in medical research is unethical, provided they are otherwise humanely treated. But it’s interesting to see that as one ascends a sort of evolutionary ladder of development (according to the fossil record) some animals seem to come closer and closer to human consciousness. Sponges and protozoa have no nervous system to speak of, most molluscs have a few nerves but cephalopods (eg octopus and squid) actually have a brain similar to our own, and octopus in particular are capable of solving complex puzzles. Vertebrates have much in common with us and many, not just mammals, seem to have a power of reasoning. Whether of course they can mentally stand outside of themselves in the same way as humans can is perhaps a matter for debate. God tells us in Genesis that he has made man in his image. He has not told us that of the animals, but then he has not told us much about the animal kingdom other than that it is part of his created order. As someone said, the Bible gives us the truth we need to know, not what we would necessarily like to know, esp in our moments of intellectual curiosity.

Joey,

And their “science” falls far short of proving anything except for maybe their passion to prove their case. They routinely use out of date information, are famous for quote mining and taking things out of context, sometimes to the extent that the original article was saying exactly the opposite of what they try to make it appear it is saying.

Their calculations are often found to be in error, not only in their assumptions but also in the mathematics itself. They misuse terminology…basically they are trying to “convince”, not other scientists or experts in the field, but rather the general public who is often ill equipped to recognize the deceit.

Thanks Jeff, excellent.

“Science will also never correct itself to the point of saying that virgin births can occur in humans”

Fendrel, you have to add the word NATURALLY for this statement to be true. And of course no one believes miracles are natural.

Virgin births can indeed occur non-naturally and science would affirm they could happen through artificial insemination.

Kolya wrote

He has not told us that of the animals, but then he has not told us much about the animal kingdom other than that it is part of his created order.

Yep – there’s a whole enormous world out there, and very little of it has anything to do with humans. We tend to look at creation from our own vantage point, rather than wanting to see it as something of which we are a part.

There are so many species in the world that thrive and live and do whatever all they do with just about zero – if any – interaction with humans. (Most sea creatures, for one.)

I have this sneaking suspicion that many of our views on other species are about as correct as thinking that the sun revolves around the earth.

(fwiw, I am an animal welfare person, but don’t have much in common with the more radical animal rights folks – and I do eat meat.)

I think we mostly tend to regard other species in terms of what kind of value (monetary or otherwise) they have for us, rather than as sentient beings with lives and purposes of their own. If we look at an animal for its utilitarian value (ugh!), I think we’re missing the point.

But again, that’s just me. And, Temple Grandin fangirl that I am, I do keep in mind that Grandin has worked *very* hard to make slaughterhouses less frightening and more humane.

As for an animal having less worth than a child, well… how often are we in a position to choose one over the other? There is so much we can learn from animals, whom I believe to have intelligence(s) very different from our own.

Dee, that kind of thing is making evangelical Christians scientifically illiterate and brings reproach on the name of Christ.

I know you’ve been busy, but did you get the two e-mails I sent?

Dee,

I was speaking generally of science versus scripture. If science is currently saying “x” and the bible says “not x” then the Christian sides with with Bible. the use of the word “current” was simply emphasizing the ongoing/changing nature of the field of science, as opposed to God’s unchanging word.

As I stated before, I don’t think the age of the earth is a “science says ‘x’ and bible says ‘not x'” scenario.

I was simply commenting on where I disagreed with the way old earth Christians approach this topic at times. It doesn’t take away anything from the overall point of the post that young earth scientists need to be honest etc. And it wasn’t an argument for young earth.

Fendrel,

I am not well read on this topic, so I have no idea if you are accurate in your portrayal of young earth scientists or not. Most of the arguments I have heard in favor of a young earth are theological in nature. The other arguments I have heard have been along the lines of “the flood would have messed up the fossil record anyway” type arguments…also not scientific in nature as much as simple postulations of lay people.

Adam and Eve being the first human beings created in God’s image is a hill worth dying on, the age of the earth is not.

“Once you allow for a God who is omnipotent and not bound to time or the laws of nature, doesn’t the distinction between the very concept of “reality” and “fantasy” dissolve into nothingness?

You have lost the basis to make a rational distinction between what is real and what is imaginary…if God can do anything at anytime…then everything becomes a possibility.”

I’m not following you here. Just because anything is possible (and it is, except for God to act contrary to his nature) doesn’t mean we have lost the basis to distinguish between reality and imagination.

Science is about observing and drawing conclusions from what is natural and repeatable in our world. When we identify things that are repeatable, we use science to explain it.

“but the difference is that with God, no other “evidence” is required to assert something as true or real other than a statement that “God could have done it”, while in science, some type of empirical evidence must be produced.”

The other thing here is, whether we can assert something is true or real has no bearing on whether it is. Something can be true and we be unable to prove it, and we can, with our imperfect powers of observation, deduce something to be true that is, in fact, not.

Those who believe in the Bible have common ground with other believers to assert the truth of scripture. Quite frankly, I don’t expect anyone who doesn’t believe the Bible to believe any of the truth contained within it. Why would they? I believe the miracles recorded in the Bible and I am quite skeptical of all others unless there is someone I know personally and trust involved.

Fendrel, what statement?

TE means “theistic evolution.”

Fendrel –

Once you allow for a God who is omnipotent and not bound to time or the laws of nature, doesn’t the distinction between the very concept of “reality” and “fantasy” dissolve into nothingness?

You have lost the basis to make a rational distinction between what is real and what is imaginary…if God can do anything at anytime…then everything becomes a possibility.

No, one has not lost any rational basis for anything. If a God who is not bound to the laws of time/nature, Does Stuff that contravenes the everyday random operation of said laws – that Stuff he Does must still be visible and verifiable. I don’t see the missing link (deliberate pun) in your reasoning there. I’ve never claimed, nor have I met anyone who claims, that they imagined something and this proves God exists.

Belief that everything – or any particular thing – has become a possibility is hardly the same as belief that everything – or any particular thing – has happened. I’m sure it’s possible for a woman who has NOT been a part of a massive state-orchestrated program of drug abuse to run 400m in less than 48 seconds. The current best time by a woman who was not from an “Eastern Bloc” state remains, however, at 48.25 (Marie-Jose Perec). At such time as this is broken, it will not be fantasy; it will be verifiably recorded.

When someone tells me that they prayed, and nothing discernable happened, which shows that God answered “No”, I don’t accept that; to me, they just haven’t developed their prayer very much. But when someone hobbles into a room on crutches, and walks out carrying them (I’ve seen this), or someone I know well, and trust, tells me about how severe fractures to both heels (his own, I might add) disappearing over a weekend, to the great mystification of a highly-qualified, competent and experienced hospital consultant, I consider that to be evidence that is at least worthy of interested pursuit (and I think you grasp the difference between “evidence for” something – c.f. 3-sigma – and “proof of” something – c.f. 5-sigma).

So yes, I believe anything is possible. But that hardly equates to living in fantasy land. My standards for believing the unprecedented has happened are, I assure you, every bit as high as yours.

P.S. – sorry, Fendrel; I must correct my last paragraph. Of course I am not privy to your private thoughts. I should have said: My standards for believing something has happened are as high as I would reasonably expect yours, as a vocal supporter of the scientific method (something of which I, too, approve), to be. So I think they’re as high as yours.

@Fendrel

Science will also never correct itself to the point of saying that virgin births can occur in humans

Ah, if you define virgin as never having sexual relations then we can do virgin births now. Requires some precise instrumentation and skills but it can be done.

Nick,

The “result” of God’s action may be measurable, but because you can measure the “result” does not in any way imply a supernatural source. I believe that you misunderstood my intent. I did not intend to imply that someone’s imagined reality can or should be used as evidence of God.

Let me see if a far fetched example might help clarify what I was trying to say.

If a stranger walks up to you on the street and tells you that last night they cut down a large oak tree in their backyard with a chainsaw, chopped it up and stacked it as firewood, but when they woke up this morning the tree was reassembled, alive, without any sign of having been cut down, growing right where it was the day before and the chopped up pieces and all the sawdust from yesterday was gone.

On what basis can you decide if it was God who magically intervened and put the tree back, or if the stranger has a few bolts loose, or maybe if a stranger played the greatest practical joke of all time?

How can you tell if anything that you are told is true or not if you believe that a supernatural being could have done what was claimed and then, in a whim, set everything back the way it was.

and the preponderance of evidence says there is no supernatural.

If you “celebrate a miracle for what it was” it means you have given up looking for a natural explanation, because you prefer to believe in the supernatural, sans evidence.

I give up.

“and the preponderance of evidence says there is no supernatural.”

Maybe your evidence. Not mine. I think I was quite clear that “the evidence” I was talking about was my own experience.

@Joey

I was speaking generally of science versus scripture. If science is currently saying “x” and the bible says “not x” then the Christian sides with with Bible.

The problem with this kind of logic is that interpretation of the Bible gets real messy at times. Is the circumference of a circle 3 times it’s diameter? Is the earth held up by pillars. Does the earth have 4 corners? Do people have LOGS in their eyes? We easily jump to the conclusion that these are allegories and methods to illustrate a point. But when it comes to Gen 1 suddenly many people say now way can this be allegorical or the entire Bible falls apart.

@Gavin (sorry about the Galvin)

I was pointing out a problem that both sides need to resolve and that is how do you explain the timescales without compromising either the inerrancy/reliability of Scripture or of science. I’m not in any way scientifically minded but the margin for error in some of these calculations seems too large to be termed accurate.

As others have pointed out, these are not large margins of error when you look at the total picture. I’m doing yard work and it is important just now for me to know to a reasonable degree where my borders are so I don’t tear up my neighbors’ yards. One line was surveyed by a crew for the new house being built next door. They mentioned that one of the “hill to die on” pins was off by 3″ which in their mind was very close to dead on given the tech when they were driven. But if I’m putting up trim molding in my house a 3″ error would be comical. The point is the errors you talk about are reasonable given the total measurement. But would be out of line in determining the age of my dog.

Can we not just say that God did it but we’re not sure exactly how?’

But does that mean we ignore what we find. What many don’t understand is that the scientific methods that give us the age of the earth at 14.5 or so billion years also is used to design our smart phones, GPS systems, all these neat flat screen TVs, the older tube TVs, that MRI or CAT scanner that saved your life, and on and on and on. It works everywhere else but fails utterly (per AIG and their supporters) when applied to the age of the earth/universe. I just don’t buy it.

Again, my position is if you want to think the earth is 6000 or so years old you better be willing to not talk about science or decide it was created old. And that digs up a whole nuther set of issues.

oldJohnJ – Indeed! I also think it’s because the emphasis is off the uniqueness of humanity… no more human-centric universe.

so, not just the immensity of the universe, but that fact that we’re a bit like specks of dust in it. Probably very bit as disconcerting as Galileo’s insistence that our solar system is heliocentric.

Jeff T

I am afraid that you are correct in this statement. So many people are afraid of science because it is complex. I am not a scientist and I used to be afraid of the complexities. However, God provided me with awesome friends and a husband who understand these things and they explain it to me in a way that helps me to understand. (Thanks, guys, you know who you are).

But it takes time. How many are willing to take the cheap way out and listen to a guy who sounds good but is scientifically questionable? Besides, if he throws in the salvation card, well that does it for most folks.
“their audience doesn’t care because they are being told what they want to hear and it sounds ‘sciencey’ enough to give them something to fall back on when mainstream science gives a different view.” Well said!

I do wonder if there will come a point when someone will say ‘Enough – Fendrel is playing games with you’. The clue is in ‘I was a Christian for over twenty years and then decided that I wasn’t.’ If that is true, you never were, but you probably know all the arguments.

To quote Dee (of me) ‘ you are one slippery dude.’

I didn’t take offence. I hope you don’t either.

Regards
Gavin

My beliefs as a Christian are faith-based but my reasoning as a Biologist is evidence-based. I must question everything. If I am writing a paper to be submitted for publication, I had better support every statement I make with citations or work that can be repeated with the right equipment and conditions anywhere on this earth.

I believe that Mary was a virgin when Jesus was conceived.

Is there a Biological explanation?

NO

NO!!!!!

In fact, and you complementarians take notice, THIS is WHY Jesus being male may be important because if He were female, I might be able to argue away parthenogenesis because it happens (not in mammals to our knowledge but in cordites and other animals.

But Jesus was/is a man, He needed either a Y chromosome or something male-derived to be able to be a man. Mary had to be a virgin and Jesus had to be a dude to give this a profound wow factor.

Is there any way for me to prove this happened? No, I can’t that is why it is a miracle and a sign that God was up to good. As a Christian, I believe it but as a Biologist, it isn’t considered because it cannot be observed, analyzed, or proven.

Koyla got into a few things about invertebrates. Sponges and jellyfish and the sort have neural nets but not a centralized nervous system.

Mollusks have a CNS and octopi have a relatively complex CNS. Their eyes are very highly evolved (Eyes are thought to have evolved 50-100 independent times and octopi have eyes very similar to human eyes.)

Common ancestry is an important concept in Evolutionary Biology and the common ancestor that is thought to have given rise to everything that has a CNS was a worm-like critter named Urbilateria and likely evolved its simple “brain” 550 to 600 million years ago. It was thought there were four major ways that centralized nervous systems evolved independent of one another but now because we can study the homology (similarity) in the genes, it becomes apparent that everything from simple flatworms to human beings are descended from a common ancestor (Urbilateria). If anyone is interested in this, I can link a couple of peer-reviewed journal articles for your reading pleasure

Some speculation: Perhaps one hang up of YECers caused by current cosmology is the unimaginably large and ancient characterization of our universe. Our planet is circling a very ordinary star among the billions in our ordinary galaxy which is itself just one of billions. Maybe the YEC community is looking for something more than the Word of God to make us seem a little less insignificant. – Old John J

so, not just the immensity of the universe, but that fact that we’re a bit like specks of dust in it. Probably very bit as disconcerting as Galileo’s insistence that our solar system is heliocentric. — Numo

So in order to retain their personal importance in the face of Deep Space and Deep Time, YECers must shrink the Universe into a 6016-year-old, Ending Tomorrow, Earth-and-some-lights-in-the-sky Punyverse.

Which is a real kick in the head when you realize that of the three Abrahamic faiths, Christianity is best equipped to deal with Deep Space and Deep Time through the doctrine of the Incarnation. No matter how deep Deep Space becomes, no matter how deep Deep Time becomes, no matter how big God has to be to be bigger than that deep deep Cosmos, God remains on a one-to-one human scale through Incarnation as Jesus Christ.

But it takes time. How many are willing to take the cheap way out and listen to a guy who sounds good but is scientifically questionable? Besides, if he throws in the salvation card, well that does it for most folks.
“their audience doesn’t care because they are being told what they want to hear and it sounds ‘sciencey’ enough to give them something to fall back on when mainstream science gives a different view.” — Jeff T and Dee

How does that differ from all the fringe pseudoscience types you hear on Art Bell at 3 Ayem? And their followers?

How does that differ from all the fringe pseudoscience types you hear on Art Bell at 3 Ayem? And their followers? – HUG

It doesn’t, but there supposedly learned seminary professors with Ph.D’s that will repeat this junk science as ‘gospel’ to their students to justify their YEC/anti-evolution views, creating more ignorant ministers who pass it along to gullible congregations. Damn good thing these people don’t run the country, otherwise, we’d most of our scientists under house arrest for heresy like Galileo.

I’m one of those fools who “prefer to believe in the supernatural, sans evidence.”
A few years back my doctor ran some tests. He became very concerned. More doctors ran more tests and became yet more concerned. Something large and dark and ominous showed up on the x-rays. I was concerned, as well. People in my church laid hands on me, annointed me with oil, and prayed for me. The doctors took more x-rays. Nothing there. They ran more tests– all normal. I suspect “the supernatural” was involved, but cannot convince the skeptic.
I may be lying. I may be mistaken or delusional. Space aliens may have abducted me and operated whilst I slept. The doctors may have been mistaken at first and I was always well (or mistaken later, and I’m still sick and will shortly drop over). My body may have naturally resolved the issue, coincidentally with the prayer. Other people have prayed and died, someday I will pray and die, etc etc.
Bottom, line: ANY amount of evidence may alwys be explained away somehow– thus I believe “sans evidence” since it’s scientifically impossible for me to replicate the experiment. Same with the beginning of the universe, and of humans, and of me, and of my faith in Jesus. So foolish me will throw away my life following a dead man, who some say is alive, “sans evidence”. I coulda been somebawdy

@ Lin:

“When we began to HS in the mid 80′s…secular ‘unschoolers’ was the norm. In fact it was hard to obtain Christian HS materials. Calvert Academy (Roman Catholic) and Rod and Staff (Mennonite) were commonly used in the ‘Christian’ community. Also, John Holt was an early advocate of HS….I believe he was Seventh Day Adventist. IMO, it was the influence of HSLDA that brought about the more radical Christian HS movement into the spotlight and eventually overtook the unschooling movement.”

Exactly what I said…it was hijacked in the ’80s. HSLDA types then became the dominant force in homeschooling for about the next 15-20 years, and are only now starting to lose their grip on the culture. (They are NOT happy about it in many circles, to say the least.) I think this explains at least some of the reactionary/weird behavior we’re witnessing in patriarchal groups – they’re circling the wagons to protect their children from the heathens who have invaded the playground they used to dominate. It’s also part of why they’re so worried about the second generation “falling away” or not reproducing in sufficient numbers for the multigenerational militant fecundity faithfulness plan.

What I object to is the impression many give that fundy Christian homeschoolers arrived on the homeschool scene recently and “took over.” Anyone who has been in the culture longer than five years or so can tell you that just isn’t true.

Fendrel
And you don’t believe simply because of the evidence?

Regarding science options for homeschooling, here are a couple links with advice:
http://oldearthcreationism.blogspot.com/
There are curriculum pages for various ages.

http://www.reasons.org/education/educators-help-desk/overview

Also, the ASA website has a whole section called “Whole Person Education”, covering a wide range of creation/evolution/education issues:
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/index.html

They were trying to develop a specific homeschool science resource section, but apparently that’s not working out(from the project administrator):
“I assumed that different publishers would be glad to share about their specific vision and underlying theological perspectives, so we could describe their curriculum accurately and fairly. They are not. I assumed that it would be easy to obtain review copies of popular homeschool science textbooks for ASA members to review. It is not.”

Once you allow for a God who is omnipotent and not bound to time or the laws of nature, doesn’t the distinction between the very concept of “reality” and “fantasy” dissolve into nothingness?

uh, no. It stresses even more the distinction between ‘known reality’ and ‘unknown reality’. The use of the word fantasy creates an either/or that doesn’t necessarily exist.

Much of evolution occurred by one time events, mutations. We have evidences that they have happened, but we haven’t observed those specific events. We have observed similar events; but that does not constitute proof that the earlier event happened in the same manner. But given our knowledge of the observed events, we can reasonably assume that the earlier un-observed event happened in a like manner.
Given the known event, Dave’s example (healing); can we not reasonably assume a documented event in the past (miracle) could have happened in a like manner?

bobson,

no we can’t. Unlike genetic mutations which can analyze, test and even produce on demand, we have zero scientific evidence for Dave’s healing.

Now, if God would care to regrow someone’s severed and lost arm in front of medical witnesses, preferably on film under controlled conditions…I might have to reconsider.

Secondly in my above quote the word “reality” covers both known and unknown, so it is not a false distinction to add “fantasy”

Muff – Love ya!

Dave

Here’s an interesting experiment, get a copy of your x-ray both pre and post “miracle”. Send them to me (block out your name of course). I will take them to a couple different radiologists and get a reading of the two. All I will tell them is your gender, age and dates of the x-rays…nothing of the circumstances or of our discussions here.

Let’s do our own little experiment…if they agree with the consensus your doctors gave…maybe we can do some research and see what other possibilities there might be in way of an explanation. Dee could write it up for a church service.

“no we can’t. Unlike genetic mutations which can analyze, test and even produce on demand, we have zero scientific evidence for Dave’s healing.”

Fendral, do you understand that not all of our knowledge and beliefs come from scientific evidence? In fact, I’d wager most of the things you personally believe are not based on scientific evidence that you possess.

Science is of great value to the world and gives us a lot, but fundamentally we learn many truths we accept apart from science, and those are some of the most important truths we rely on. Our interactions with those we love and who love us are not based on scientific study or empirical testing, but rather trust, experience, and intuition.

Dee,

I am unaware of any Scripture that teaches that the sun revolves around the earth. There are plenty of verses that phenomenologically describe the sun rising and setting, or in Joshua, refer to it standing still. But those verses have no scientific claims in them. When I tell my two year old that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west I am not saying “x” when science says “not x”, I am describing the way something appears. Joshua didn’t care, or have any idea, whether the sun moved around the earth or the other way around…he was describing the fact that the day was miraculously lengthened by God, also not a scientific claim. The Psalmist was writing poetry, not a science manual.

Show me where Scripture actually taught (as opposed to phenomenologically describing like everyone does every day) that the sun revolves around the earth and we’ll have a bible says x science says not x situation.

The resurrection is a good example of a real disagreement between science and the Bible. Adam and Eve being the first human beings made in the image of God is another. The age of the earth is not.

Dang…didnt close that bold tag again…sorry

There is no philosophy, even atheism, that can be proven by “empirical” evidence. The lie is that atheism is more empirical. However, all world views are rooted in meaning, and meaning can never be scientifically verified. The only way a philosophy can even approximate empiricism is via metaphysical reason.

Fendrel claims that he might be persuaded into a belief in God if he could see limb grown back. However, there is no way to empirically arrive at a belief in God from this; that is, how is the growing of a limb scientific evidence for God exactly? All that can be empirically proven is that “nature” acted in a way that he did not expect. If we accept that all matter in the universe came into being without God, then how can a belief in God be generated via an act which is utterly consistent with atheism? That ALL things which ARE exist and occur without God.

God can only be “disproven” via metaphysical argument. Never by debating empirical evidence, because there is no rational connection. And thus all philosophy is faith outside of this evidence, even if the philosophy does not include a God.

In defense of atheists, though, modern reformed theology isn’t even metaphysically consistent, and I submit that cries for empirical evidence are really cries for a theology that makes sense and doesn’t root itself in impossible doctrinal contradiction. Modern reformed Christianity isn’t rational on ANY level, and that’s what is turning people away.

In other words, reformed theology is in fact a cult of death, and this is clearly seen by non believers who refuse to subject themselves to ideas that are only designed to remove people from the equation of their life in service to the power of a few Gnostics. Non believers don’t always ask the right questions, but they are not stupid or depraved. They are understandably resistant.

Dear Fendrel: what is your response to this? Watch “Magnificent” on the “Andies Isle” website. Random chance? Chaos? You may not want to worship God, or accept His authority..but to say he is not there also makes you just “high class slime” in the sense that you are a product of time plus chaos plus chance. You are made in the image of God, whether or not you want to believe He is there. When you create a universe, you get to make the rules.

“Could you please tell me the critical issues that are involved in Genesis besides God as Creator of all and Adam and Eve with the Fall of man?”

Dee, there’s the critical issue of how death entered the world and how it relates to Romans 5. IMO, it’s the biggest hurdle to overcome when looking at ET. I’m not saying that different views on how to resolve this are invalid; just that it’s a pretty big deal because it relates directly to the work of Christ on the Cross (and his resurrection!) overcoming death, so it certainly warrants a careful examination of the text and a good deal of discussion.

Jeff S,

No aggression intended at all. I am merely pointing out the logical conclusion of a theology that roots itself in the irrelevancy of human life. Humans are merely a means to an end, and that end is “God”, which is impossible…thus God becomes whatever the ecclesiastical authority tells you it is. To arrive at this destructive conclusion one has to create a cohesive theology that is based upon premises that are contradictory on every level, but particularly on the metaphysical (e.g. Man exists as a functional extension of God, to the salvation of Himself, for Himself…in other words: election). Non believers see this for what it is: a faith rooted in the suspension of disbelief. When we tell people that they must abandon all reason as the plumb line for TRUTH, we are declaring them irrelevant. Doctrines like election, total depravity, biblical “roles” are all designed to place human beings outside of themselves. The functional outcome of such a philosophy is the reduction of the value, to zero, of human life and makes human existence the basis of all evil. This is why reformed theology is a cult of death, and why more and more people, I think, are turning to atheism. The natural reaction to a summary dismissal of human life is to assume that true life must be found outside of the Christian “faith”.

Jeff S,

With all due respect, spoken like a true Calvinist. “If you can’t say anything nice about “sound doctrine” don’t say anything at all”.

Since Calvinism lacks rational consistency, TRUTH is measured by how inoffensive a perspective is. Of course, THEY are the ones who get to define what is “aggressive”, what is “offensive”, what is “unloving”, what is “gossip/slander”. And on and on. All Calvinism is is bludgeoning people into accepting that they get to define all the terms and root premises of every debate and discussion. Only then will they engage, which is why they always abuse and condemn before they ever concede to seriously argue the consistency of their theology.

And when the destructive outcomes of the doctrine are realized, as in SGM, they always say: that’s not what I believe.

How very convenient.

Jeff S, you can’t reason with unreasonable people.

But that I meant people who call Calvinism a “cult of death” and who link to “Paul’s Passing Thoughts” (a feverishly anti-Calvinist blog) on their own blog.

And I’m not a Calvinist btw.

Dee,

This will be interesting…what do think Adam was…

H. habilis
H. gautengensis
H. rudolfensis
H. georgicus
H. ergaster
H. erectus
H. cepranensis
H. antecessor
H. heidelbergensis
H. rhodesiensis
H. neanderthalensis
H. floresiensis
H. sapiens

Adam, according to genesis seemed to have the power of speech, certainly the ability to understand complex concepts, etc. You don’t think that evolutionary theory and the idea of a literal Adam are in conflict? Especially when genesis treats Adam as a special creation and evolutionary theory does not.

The problem with this kind of logic is that interpretation of the Bible gets real messy at times. Is the circumference of a circle 3 times it’s diameter

I believe the problem here is not that we should round of what the Bible say, but that we do not read the words closely enough.

The brim was (1 Kings 7:26) “like the brim of a cup.” Cup brims are often turned slightly outward, if anything about them is mentionable. The next expression, the one featuring lilies, could be tranlated “shaped like a lily”, which would also say the brim is turned outwards.

1Ki 7:23 And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.

With a widenened brim, something could accurately and without approximation be “ten cubits from brim to brim” and “thirty cubits around, without messing with the value of pi. “Around” will not be measured at widened brim height – have you ever tried to put measuring tape round the widest part of an object without it slipping?

“With all due respect, spoken like a true Calvinist. “If you can’t say anything nice about “sound doctrine” don’t say anything at all””.

I didn’t say anything about “sound doctrine”. I’m respectful of your views– what can you not be respectful of mine? There are ways to disagree without labeling another person’s views a “cult of death”. That’s far beyond “not saying anything nice”.

“Since Calvinism lacks rational consistency, TRUTH is measured by how inoffensive a perspective is.” 

I’m not talking about measuring truth. I’m talking about respect between people of different ideas.

“Of course, THEY are the ones who get to define what is “aggressive”, what is “offensive”, what is “unloving”, what is “gossip/slander”.”

 If I have been aggressive or offensive, please let me know how. I sincerely try to be respectful of other people’s views, and I’m not trying to redefine terms.

“All Calvinism is is bludgeoning people into accepting that they get to define all the terms and root premises of every debate and discussion.” 

Calvin isn’t that at all to me. Calvinism to me is a systematic way of understanding scripture in a way that shows my salvation to be based fully on the grace of God. I don’t see how I’ve bludgeoned people or defined terms and root premises by holding that personal belief. On the contrary, it appears that in this conversation your are requiring me to hold to your definition of terms for my beliefs, which I have not asked anyone else to adopt or even agree with.

“Only then will they engage, which is why they always abuse and condemn before they ever concede to seriously argue the consistency of their theology.”

 I don’t believe I have abused or condemned anyone.

“And when the destructive outcomes of the doctrine are realized, as in SGM, they always say: that’s not what I believe.”

SGM is not the realization of Calvinism. The doctrines surrounding predestination have very little to do with their actions. People holding competing doctrinal views have perpetrated many of the same offenses with the same causes.

Then we aren’t doing our job of letting people know the choice is not Calvinism or reject Christianity. Calvinism isn’t the only game in town. — Linda

It is to the Truly Reformed, Young Restless and Reformed, and other Hyper-Calvinists. “Calvin, Calvin Uber Alles…”

“I AM WITH PAUL!”
“I AM WITH APOLLOS!”
“I AM WITH LUTHER!”
“I AM WITH CALVIN!”

“Men are different than animals and I think we should not conflate the two. let the fireworks begin.”

Well, I think it’s a valid viewpoint, however I would struggle with this: for ET to work and Eden to represent God’s perfect, sinless paradise, it means that in this perfect world survival of the fittest reigns. That the weak animals were slaughtered and destroyed by stronger ones. This doesn’t seem consistent with God’s character. It’s far easier to accept in a fallen than as part of God’s original Creation.

I’m not saying I disagree (or agree), but for me it’s a difficult theological issue to work through and the consequences are not insignificant.

Arlene 12:32 AM, Dee
Yes I did see the post. I suspect that a publisher being unwilling to give evaluation copies of a textbook to the ASA is a pretty strong admission that they are not representing science.

FWIW I am also an ASA member. Perhaps this will allow you to say >1 ASA members are concerned about this topic.

Dee,

To make a leap of faith is, by definition, to exceed the limits of proof and accept as true that which cannot be proven. I admit that I may be wrong about God’s existence, but I also know that to accept it as fact in the absence of substantial proof is foolishness.

I do sometimes go a bit overboard in asking questions and poking fun at some ideas, but I do it, not to be mean spirited, but with the hope that maybe someday, someone reading those questions and answers might see the incredible amount of “spin” required to reconcile belief in the supernatural and specifically the Bible, with reality as we know it.

If you say that you are happy with your beliefs, I cannot argue with that, nor would I try, but as you know, I think people, and the world in general, would be better off without religious, i.e. supernatural beliefs and “holy” books.

Dee –

How is your husband’s recovery progressing? We haven’t heard any news recently.

Fendrel,

Since you recommended some reading to me earlier…may I suggest you give Kierkegaard a good read? Reason only takes you so far…everybody leaps.

Ehh blast it, forgot the link!

http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/12/11/a-marshall-mcluhan-moment-with-creationist-paul-nelson/

Nicholas,

as I have stated before, I was heavily involved in apologetics for many years, I finally realized that while applying logic and reason to the specifics of Christian theology I had never put my initial assumptions on the table, i.e. the existence of God. Once I was able to do that (and it wasn’t easy), I realized that I was being dishonest…that there wasn’t any empirical evidence for God, and that it made no logical sense to commit my intellect to a belief in something for which there was no evidence. I had simply deluded myself for many years and buried all those nagging doubts that every Christian deals with.

Re the sudden fashionable interest with unicorns ;-), perhaps we should discuss the concept of falsifiability here. I think it was Popper who pointed out that something could not be proved not to exist, so to speak – unicorns might still exist (theoretically) in some part of the world, but nobody has ever seen one. So until someone produces a real live unicorn (not a mutated horse with a stick of rock stuck to its forehead) nobody can prove their existence, but on the other hand nobody can prove they don’t exist either. If I have misrepresented the argument, someone please tell me! (Wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability).

I wouldn’t go so far to call Reformed theology a “theology of death”, although it seems that some churches practise it that way. I’ve already pointed out here that not all Reformed theology is the same, and that Calvin’s followers added stuff to or shifted stuff in his writings. To talk about all Reformed theology that way is as unfair as saying that all Arminianism is Pelagian. We haven’t even touched on men like Zwingli who started the ball rolling.

I find it very unfortunate that YEC-ism has become so associated with dishonesty or at least special pleading. It is unfortunate because it is a bad witness to consistent Christianity, and also because I knew a young earther who was honest, just as Kurt Wise in his own way was also honest (even Richard Dawkins said so!). Unfortunately what SWD calls “lying for the Lord” has a sad and unjustifiable history in some parts of the church (even Luther slipped up here), but it is reprehensible as being against the ninth (?) commandment and also because sooner or later a lie unveiled comes back to bite the originator.

Re the history of Russia and the Bible, this is a telling point in my opinion. The fact is that marginalising and ridiculing religion, and promoting “scientific atheism” (not sure how scientific it was!) over a course of 70 years – three generations – did not make people freer or happier, or cause the extinction of faith in its various forms. If anything, Soviet Marxist-Leninism came more and more to resemble a religion itself, with its own organised beliefs and education of the young. However from what I saw in the 1980s it could not offer real, existential hope to people, who however good or right they might feel about themselves, had no hope for their own personal survival (in the metaphysical sense), no matter how much their lives might have made a difference to the State or the world. German Nazism incidentally had a similar position, namely that the individual “lived on” in the memory of the living or the life of the nation, but certainly not as an individual soul. Once Gorbachev lifted the restrictions on religion in the USSR, churches began to draw more people in and atheism seemed to be largely forgotten. Ironically what stifles religion in Russia today is not State repression but the allure of consumerism.

Southwestern Discomfort:

Been where you are, done that, and have the tee shirt to prove it.

But there really are other games in town than what you seem to have encountered.

I’ve found the folks at the UMC and ELCA very willing to deal with the hard questions. I’ve found folks at the seminary level of the rather fundamentalist seeming at times Church of the Nazarene very willing to look at the hard questions.

I’ve found the scholars in some branches of the Roman Catholic Church very willing to consider things most Protestants fall out in a common fit over.

My friend the Episcopal priest and I have some spirited, loving, searching debates that usually wind up changes BOTH of our minds about what the Scripture says.

I personally believe God does indeed make things perfectly clear. But then, I don’t believe we have to take the Bible as literally as some do.

Literal Adam? Yes, but the word really means mankind, and I literally believe we humans exist.

Jesus as my Savior? Absolutely, but I lean more to Christus Victor than penal substitution. Trinitarian? Been told I am, but the metaphor I’m given by trinitarians is definitely more modalist.

I love the mystery of God, savor knowing I can never all there is to know about Him, and absolutely enjoy the process of getting to know Him.

All without checking my brain at the door, shutting up because I am happily female, or walking away from his Bride.

And no, SWD, God is not obliged to humanity. We worship God because He is God, and He ought to be worshipped. For that reason alone we worship Him.

Nadezhda Mandelstam wrote in ‘Hope Abandoned’

‘The mere existence of places like Lefortovo and the Lubianka is fantastically educational and the lessons will not be lost even on several generations to come. It deprives people of their will and their capacity for free choice-in fact, of their basic human qualities. We have all made small compromises and many, or rather the majority, have gone on to make major ones. In a primitive tribe man was bound by rituals and customs intended to strengthen its unity. People were set free by Christianity but, having tasted freedom,they abandoned it and turned to atheism with its sprinkling of skeptical phrases and the pseudo-rational formulae of a pitiful humanism. There is a glaringly obvious connection between the loss of inner freedom and the abandonment of Christianity, but it escapes the blind and those who deliberately close their eyes. Yet this is the basic feature of our times and could not have been demonstrated more dramatically. There has never been a worse spectacle. Shame and disgust are all that are left to us. The only mitigating human feeling was pity but not many were capable of it.’

Welcome to the brave new world of the atheist, the scientific humanist, the dialectical materialist. That is where the cult of death lies. It does not lie in Christianity, nor in Calvinism, nor in the Creeds of the Church.

Regards
Gavin

Nicholas – Perhaps you do not yet know as much as you think you do?

most people go through crises of faith at some point. Perhaps you will, too – and then you will understand Southwestern Discomfort’s pov much better.

*

Argo – dude (I’m talking like a “South Park” character!), calling something a “cult of death” is a pretty extreme statement.

imo, you are totally entitled to your pov on that, but please – can we chill a little?

Nicholas – I was not meaning to sound arrogant or hostile toward you, but… some of us (many of us here, I think) have been there and done that and it is *really* hard.

SW Discomfort is no different to most other xtians – and many, many non-xtians – in his/her experiences and need to re-evaluate what they believe.

Signed – one of the Been There, Done That – and Still Going Through it crew,
n.

Ah…a chill pill. Yes, that’s the right move, of course, when the sexual abuse of children and a myriad of other atrocities are being perpetrated upon the “barbarian masses” in the name of sound neo reformed doctrine.

A chill pill is decidedly in order. Wouldn’t want to wound delicate sensibilities in the interest of dismantling one of the world’s most destructive philosophies.

I fully realize most people will not take reformed doctrine to its logical outcome. However, that doesn’t change it fundamentally. The theology is designed for one purpose: to rule the bodies and minds of men and women. To take what is God’s and give it to men.

Argo – I’m done.

Thanks for writing that article, Jeff S. Being a Christian is a unity between creed and deed. You cannot have just one and be a Christian.

Now, what do I have in common with Fendrel? We both have an immortal soul, even if he does not believe it. I am glad that he is here. Remember, in order for him to debate, he has to read what we write. And one never knows…  ~ Dee ~

As I’ve written before, I too reject the concept of an immortal soul [but for different reasons than Fendrel] and take the Judaic view [pre-Hellenism] that body and soul are an integral unit and that no such bifurcation between the two exists. I too am glad that Fendrel is here and my commonality with Fendrel would be phrased as: …We bleed the same blood, laugh the same laughs, and cry the same tears…

This blog is different from other Christian blogs. We allow anyone to comment and even cut those who do not believe as we do some slack when it comes to language, etc. We have had people say they would not come back because we allowed atheists. We have had people asking us to get rid of the link to RHE. I have been called a heretic for quoting Henri Nouwen. ~ Dee ~

I cannot reiterate enough Dee, I am soooo glad that TWW has a policy of tolerance, some of us would have no place to go if it were otherwise. I am also incredibly grateful that you, Deb, and TWW in general are not like Norman Geisler who left the Evangelical Theological Society in 2003, after it did not expel Clark Pinnock, who advocates open theism.

Val –

What I am seeing is that when most modern day believers call a belief “orthodox,” they really mean doctrines from the time of the Reformation. This equates to saying that doctrines which came from the time of the Reformation are the orthodox beliefs of the Church. I don’t believe that all the doctrines set forth during the Reformatiom are in keeping with New Testament Church doctrines. It seems you are using “orthodox” to mean the teachigs of the original Churches which would have been started by the Apostles. Am I understanding you?

Anon1,
Yes. Exactly.

A about 5 years ago I left the church for a year.B.B.G went on a journey to find out what my faith was about and what was real.It was a really tough year yet it was also one of the best years I ever had as a christian.This is what I discovered …..Jesus loves me this I know for the bible tells me so yes Jesus loves me.Life is so good no matter how lousy things can be.

Fendrel
I have empathy for how you,Doubt can be very difficult to deal with.
I’m simply going to pray for you over your unbelief.

BBG,

I appreciate then sentiment, but there is no doubt here, and while I won’t pray for you, I do hope that one day you’ll join who believe that reason not superstition should rule the day.

I’ll catch up with other comments later, just got back from tennis match..tired.need food…need beer…need Star Trek episode

Thanks all

Fendrel – how’s your knee holding up?

Dee – so glad to hear that Mr. Dee is feeling lots better!

numo,

Well it seems to like taking turns with various parts of my body in seeing which one can hurt more lol

Right now my elbow is in the lead, but the knees are in close second lol

Just a side note before I go to bed, I actually think that Christians do their faith a disservice by trying to justify it with logic and reason. After all, if reason and logic lead you to the same conclusion as faith, then what does faith have to offer? – Karl

Mormons make the mistake in saying the God is just like us-meaning he has a physical form that makes him look human.

Should we now talk about belly buttons?

Naw. Lets just let that one pass. 🙂

@Retha Faurie

OK. I think you’re counting angles on heads of pins but so be it.

When the sun stopped for Joshua did it literally stop? Or what did happen to the rotation of the earth? And if either “stopped” what did they stop in relation to? (Sorry about the bad grammar.)

OR OR OR did the land stay lit as or almost as day during what would normally be night?

Kzinti

When I read the comment the name on it was off the top of the screen. I immediately thought this has to be HUG.

Who else around here is a fan of Niven, Neutron Star, and the Ringworld series. 🙂

Are we talking a literal human being or a literal first person with a soul or something else?

Bridget – I think so. To be clear, it seems there are several meanings of orthodoxy floating around out there. When I first started reading some of the Calvinista and Calvinist blogs, commenters would call this and that “orthodox” and it took me a while to clue in that they weren’t talking about Eastern Orthodox views, but Reformation views.

TGC and Mohler’s crew seem to use the word Orthodox for whatever they think it should be. So, suddenly a “Liberal” Presbyterian would now not be Orthodox. Which makes me sort of go hmmmm? Presbyterians are, like, children of the reformation and Calvinist too, how could they not be Orthodox? So, to some Orthodox now means (and if you aren’t American like me, we are really in trouble) voting Republican – see the difficulty if one doesn’t live in the US, one cannot be Orthodox, I guess – being repulsed by any idea of Homosexuals being human, and really wishy washy if you think they deserve our love etc. and totally against women holding any sort of position beyond whatever Wayne Grudem feels is acceptable in a church – coffee making and secretarial work might be fine. So, innocent Rachel Held Evens is now not Orthodox. I personally don’t know if she is Reformed or what – she was raised in a Bible church and that is sort of hard to pin down – but she is not Orthodox to them because of her views on women in leadership, gays taking communion, and not voting Republican. Oh, and one crazy thread said she wasn’t because she used the word “vagina” in her book.

At this point, I suspect the word “Orthodox” is being hijacked to mean Southern Baptist Reformed (i.e. Calvinista) Republican. So it is sort of hard to say what it means anymore. I use it as a description of the earliest Apostolic Church – with full knowledge we don’t have the entire picture of what that was exactly, but we have a pretty good idea.

It sort of rescues it from the Calvinista’s attempt to redefine it to suit themselves. And never fear if you are called “Not Orthodox” by them, I doubt Jesus would line up either.

Jeff S, that was a good post on “They shall know us by our doctrine….” Well done sir!

Jeff S – marvelous post!

I could cite the Independent Fundamental Baptist movement or Calvary Chapel as “proof” that anti-Calvinism is responsible for child abuse, using the same hysterical “reasoning” we see from Argo.

How dare anyone actually point out that when someone believes that the only good anyone ever does ever is actually God doing “through” them, then that makes the human being expendible refuse, by definition. Oh, but that’s not what Calvinists believe; oh no, Calvinists spend soooo much time talking about how wonderful people are. It’s all hysterics from Argo. When SGM pastors tell the parents of a child who was just killed in a senseless argument that there is no guarantee the child is in heaven because the “inerrant” bible doesn’t say anything about it…but that’s not doctrine. That isn’t the doctrine of biblical infallibility at all. It’s Argo being a hysterical meanie.

Please explain to me, oh wise Nicholas, the divine king of discerning motives and dispositions, how that isn’t doctrine.

The child is in Heaven.

Sorry for saying “hysterical.”

@me

Atheists look at the intentional scientific fraud from people like Ken Ham and the legions of YEC hacks and call Christians “liars for Jesus” on account of these activities. Thus these intentional liars like the Ken Hams of the world do nothing but bring reproach on the name of Christ, and all for popularity and a quick buck. I think its been firmly established that Ham himself is in it primarily for the money.

Nicholas

You might get a kick out of this video…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ghtoPiAE1sA

Hi Numo, do you mean the Czech 1996 film? No, it’s a bit more basic than that, but good thinking!

Argo,

Kirrrrrrrrk!

Ahem! Respectfully, It is the mis-use of the root premises of reformed theology that can beeeeeee destructive. Just like the missssssssss-use of any man made system. 

Ideas don’t hurt people, people hurt people. Ideas don’t hurt people, people hurt people. Ideas don’t hurt people, people hurt people. Ideas don’t hurt people, people hurt people. Ideas don’t hurt people, people hurt people. Ideas don’t hurt people, people hurt people. Ideas don’t hurt people, people hurt people. Ideas don’t hurt people, people hurt people. Ideas don’t hurt people, people hurt people. Ideas don’t hurt people, people hurt people. Ideas don’t hurt people, people hurt people.

Right now Argo is hurting people!!!!!!!

I am sick of it. So are many others.

Argo never seems to build anything, Argo just tears down.

Now Argo is tearing broken people up.

Bad idea: Breaking Wartburg’s prime directive?

Bee festive! Bee constructive!

Sopy

And I have not attacked people. I have attacked ideas. I am the one who is being hurt personally, if I may say so. Not one person has criticized my ideas, but me, personally…my motives, my attitude, my disposition. I haven’t done anything like that. My criticisms have been, again, limited to philosophies.

Guy,

Of course. It has run its course. Thanks for your patience…you are long suffering, I know.

I will end with this, then I will from now on limit my ideas to my own blog, where I suppose they belong:

There is always a way to blame anything but the ideas. The ideas are never the problem, it’s just that we don’t have the right “authorities” doing the doctrine properly; we’d all be happy to submit if we just had the right leader that wasn’t actually too depraved to make it work.

The irony in that thinking is just something I cannot even wrap my head around.

Take a moment and think his through. If the doctrine is perfect…if it isn’t the root premises, if “orthodoxy” is indeed Biblical, which means infallible, and instead its the leaders…the leaders, the men who have been appointed by God to carry out a doctrine doing it wrong, then this means that they have no hope of ever doing right, by definition of the VERY doctrine which condemns them to failure. Well,then how can we ever expect not to be abused. If this is truly what we believe…that indeed, man IS the problem, then plumb line for truth is measured by the suffering. The more we suffer, the more we realize that man IS the problem, not the doctrine, and the doctrine is proved correct by the suffering. The more the pain, the more the doctrine is affirmed. And indeed, as a former member of SGM, this is EXACTLY what we are seeing.

This is the premise we are up against. I’m not trying to hurt anyone. I just want to know this: if it is not the doctrine, not the ideas, but man’s sin, then what exactly are we all hoping for? By definition we can hope for no change because change is certainly impossible if this is our religion.

Justsomeguy

Well, good question, especially since I can’t seem to get to sleep at 4:00am…so here goes.

Dee and other have proposed from time to time, that when God performs a miracle, that He does so via natural mechanisms…I do not consider those types of “miracles” to be sufficient, since they can just as easily be explained by natural phenomena as by supernatural intervention.

This sets up the question, for if I can observe any type of miracle, then I must be able to observe it via the natural world in which I live, and if that’s the case how can the event rationally be assigned to a supernatural source?

However, given the need to at least try and define something, here goes. I would say that evidence must, at the very least consist of the following in order to get my attention:

1. An event which contradicts what we know about the normal operation of the world we live in.

2. An event for which there is no natural, or more rational explanation available (see para. #1 for issues)

3. If possible, an event which occurs under controlled conditions, with both professional and random witnesses (including myself).

4. Ideally, an event which God would be willing to repeat, on demand.

While those may seem overly restrictive, I would ask that you consider what it is we are trying to accomplish. We are trying to “prove” than an observable event in nature, was somehow caused by a force which exists outside of nature, a supernatural one. The stipulations I have listed would be roughly the same as what we would expect to prove even a natural event.

Some examples of what God might do include.

A person born without arms in the presence of a medical team and other witnesses, in a modern hospital setting, with recording devices active, causes the person’s limbs to regrow into fully functional arms over the course of 5 minutes or so.

Take the city where I live and uproot it from the ground, causing it to levitate 100 meters off the ground for a period of maybe a week or so, then gently settle it back in. Oh, it would be nice if all the utilities kept functioning while in the air and afterwards too. Must be visible to anyone who passes by, and open to examination.

and, if I must be open to subjective experience as well, then while no one else is around, and I am working on my car, I’d consider belief if when I was looking at the rust holes in the floorboard of my car, and I prayed, if I could observe those holes, some 3″ in diameter, rebuilding themselves and closing before my eyes.

I do not think those are too outrageous, and they certainly would, at the very least, cause me to seriously consider the question of God’s existence.

Now, let’s suppose they did happen…aren’t there still questions left unanswered…for example:

1. What God did that, if one exists then certainly it’s possible that more than one exists.

2. Almost any other proposed “magical” explanation would have to receive equal credibility, such as super powerful aliens from space, invisible creatures here on earth, may the devil himself…point is how would you distinguish?

So as not to end on a cynical note, if I were to be convinced absolutely that God existed, I can also tell you it would have a profound effect on my life. I would literally drop everything I am and everything I do, and exchange it for a life of evangelizing 24 hours/day 365 days a year and I mean constantly, with time only for eating and sleeping. Everything else would completely lose any value or meaning, it would be a find of monumental proportions…it would be a transforming event.

I do not think that is an unreasonable response for a human if they truly believed, in the same sense that they believe boiling water is hot. Which also makes me think that people who say they believe in an omnipotent, omniscient God, do not really believe on that level..the very idea would drive a human insane…but that’s just my opinion.

Fendrel,
There is a thread on empirical evidence in http://thewartburgwatch.com/2012/11/08/is-the-sovereign-grace-ministries-pyramid-collapsing/
starting with a post of mine Nov 11 at 2:51 PM that answers your reply to justsomeguy. This contains reference to empirical evidence for a beginning to the universe and also empirical evidence that our present universe is not the current incarnation of an infinite series of universes.

I would hope after this post you will accept that YEC is not a required part of Christian belief.

The empirical evidence for a single, one time creation of the universe is sufficiently strong that you are making a statement of faith in atheism that is as strong as we professing Christians make.
Please offer empirical evidence supporting your position or a least acknowledge that you are in actuality making a statement of faith in your claim to be an atheist.

OldJohnJ

I thought I already commented on your prior post, I have copied my original response here for your convenience.

OldJohn,

Good comment and I will definitely research more, However I will try and make a couple of observations in advance (always a dangerous thing)

1. While it may be “empirical evidence” for how the universe began (at least as far back as we are able to go), it does not necessarily imply a God or divine being.

2. Maybe off topic, but if you accept the theories surrounding the big bang, then of necessity, you must reject the time scale of young earth creations who want to peg the age of the universe around 10k years old.

3. There are extant, multiple pending theories that in fact support a cyclic or rebounding universe, so simply because we can trace ours back to a single point in time, that does not necessarily imply a different, outside cause for that singularity (ref below to Wiki article).

More to come…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclic_model
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bounce
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loop_quantum_cosmology

You also seem to be under the impression that I think YEC is a required believe to be a Christian…I do not, I simply think the YEC group is more consistent about their interpretation of Genesis, spinning the first few chapters of Genesis creates other theological problems in the NT

Lastly, and I have made this point so many times in the past, atheism is not a matter of faith. Withholding one’s assent to a premise does not require anything resembling faith. Atheism is neither a statement in favor of God’s existence nor against it. It is the absence of making an intellectual commitment to a given proposition pending more evidence.

One of my favorite quotes…to end humorously

Atheism is related to faith in the same way as abstinence is a sex position.

Hello again Argo

I can see that your view is a kind of (pre-)determinism that offers no hope, because as you say, man is left as an irrelevance to his own existence and future. However, all I can say I’m defence of my reformed chums is to quote an early church father who said that the Atonement “is a multi-faceted precious stone.” Personally I don’t think we should restrict God’s work to one aspect only. Would you not get a better picture if you looked at it as if God freed us from being prisoners of Satan, which is the early church view? Or that Christ paid a ransom to free us from the bondage of failure and gave us the possibility of eternal life. And then add it to the idea, if you wish, to paying the penalty for our sin. I can’t look at it any other way because each one is true in its own way.

Having said that, I think maybe the real issue for you is the idea of predestination. You can have single, double predestination or somewhere in between. My opinion on this is(and its only an opinion) is that no-one has the right to be prescriptive because no-one can comprehend the mind of God. It’s difficult enough grappling with the “idea” of God without thinking we are clever enough to tell our friends what He’s thinking and why He did this or that. We need Him to reveal Himself to us and that brings me back to the Word He has spoken, the Son He has sent, and the Spirit He has given. And then, in the agreement of all three, we can formulate our answers. And ultimately that leads us to make a decision to follow Christ or to remain in our sin.

Regards
Gavin

Gavin,
With great respect and no offense intended, the idea that we cannot know the mind of God is, to me, akin to the notion of biblical infallibility. It is a red herring of an argument that people use to defend all kinds of theological and doctrinal inconsistencies in their quest for personal power.

Now, I’m not saying you are doing this…I believe you are likely a victim of this kind of thinking; as are most of us; as was I.

It is like saying “all things are possible with God”. While true in some respects, this is not a license to employ suspension of disbelief as the functional core of our faith.

If God is indeed perfect and if He is omnipotent and omniscient and omnipresent then there are certain metaphysical consistencies that He MUST adhere to, whether we can know His mind or not; whether all things are possible or not. His perfection does not allow Him to be a redundant hypocrite, by definition.

The most obvious metaphysical premise He must adhere to is: There are only two things which exist, God and Creation. By definition God cannot then create something to do a thing He can do better Himself; which is everything, as His omnipotence demands. His perfection always demands also that God is constantly in pursuit of the perfect objective, Himself. And Himself is everything in regards to the meaning and purpose therefore of ALL He does. Therefore there is nothing which He can create that He can possess. Thus, anything He creates must be have been made with the singular notion that it is intended to be what it is, according to itself, apart from God. This includes man. Man man must be free to choose God of his own reason and volition because this is the only way man can metaphysically exist. If this is true, man cannot be totally depraved. If God indeed elects, then He must be the force which compels man into heaven. In other words, He must subvert man’s will, or create him without one…which amounts to the functional possession of a created thing in service to the perfect goal, God Himself. This is utterly redundant because God needs nothing to pursue Himself.

The reformed doctrine of election is impossible because it denies God’s perfection on the metaphysical level. No appeal to the mind of God can change the fact that He is perfect, which means man must be always and truly free to independently access his own reason in service to choosing or not choosing Christ.

JustSomeGuy,

Well, I was just posing those as the next series of questions that you’d have to logically ask, wouldn’t you agree?

But that is kind of what I’ve been saying all along. Even if God performed the floating city miracle, unless you come into the discussion already believing that the Christian God exists and He’s the only one that does, the miracle itself, as impossible as it seems, really doesn’t tell you anything about it’s source.

@Fendrel

Yes I do agree. That’s exactly the point… you choose to believe or not to believe because you want to.

For instance, let’s say that all those things you described or similar events happened. They may satisfy you, and everyone during the time period where they occurred and turn you all into super apostles. Then let’s say oh… 2000 years pass.

Would people of the later time period still deem those old events as valid, or simply myth and legend?

Would God be obligated to repeat absurd miracles every few millenia, for the sole purpose of convincing people to believe again because they regard the earlier events as ancient myths?

It’s an impossible scenario. But reality is this:

Those who believe see God everywhere and working in everything, because they want to.

Those who don’t believe see God nowhere and nonexistant, because they want to.

It all comes down to faith, whether or not you call it that. Faith in the seen or faith in the unseen.

The Real McCoy?

Argo, 

Hey,

Sit, Walk, Stand…or Opt Out. Strictly your “choice”.

(easy as wip’in youze proverbial smart@zz. You can do dat rightz?)

_____“Theology”? 

Jesus said: “Follow Me…”  🙂

Might wanna Buckle Up, n’ hold on ta somethin’…

Datz do N’ follow, not do-do N’ dwaddle!

-snicker-

Mucho Bless’ins!

hahahahahahahaha

Sopy

Argo,

I accept your apology.

I have use irony to make a point. Your pretty smart. You know this.

Ahem! Everyone knows you are using TULIP/Calvinistic extremes as a club.

What is your purpose?

What is your satisfaction?

Jesus brings life, the Spirit brings life.

What are you bringing?

Could you be a bit more constructive. There are hurting folk here.

I’ll go back to draw’in in da sand…

Peace out!

(grin)

Sopy

I am a YEC, but I have read that people on the secular side of old earth/ darwinism beliefs have sometimes been dishonest about these topics, even passing off fake models as being genuine fossils, and so on.

Oh Come All Ye Faithful: Please Tell Us Of Christ The King!”

Argo: “Do you want to play a game?”

Sopy: “What”

Argo: “It is called theological therbal nebular war”

Sopy: “Naaaaaa”

Argo: “Why not?”

Sopy: “The only way to win is not play the game”

Argo: %#%€£%#£*

*

Jesus: “I am the way, the truth, and the life…”

Hail the Word made flesh!

The babe the son of Mary!

Merry Christmas!

(grin)

jingle bells, jingle bells, Wartburg’s making’ christmas cookies…

cheeeeeeeeeese…

IHS

Sopy

Daisy,
The principle point of this (as a guest thanks to the blog owners) post was to counter egregious statements by one particular YEC supporter where claims of science fraud are rampant. The science community is very serious about the quality of their publications and effectively polices themsselves. I showed case of fraud in the hard sciences and how it ended. I also dealt with claims made by AnswersInGenesis and showed how data they produced support the accept science age of the earth.

If you haven’t read the article you might find it interesting. If you have other questions post a comment and I’m sure one of us other readers will help you find answers.

OldJohnJ

Daisy,

not to try and overwhelm…but here is an excellent, and short video on how the peer review process works and some of the issues with those proposing a young earth.

http://bit.ly/U8r2CW

Something a little more lighthearted, I think most of you will get a kick out of this…proof that Intelligent Design is real –
https://twitter.com/religiouscritic/status/280518776812892163/photo/1

What would happen if in every science classroom, the teachers put up a large poster which blatantly ridiculed intelligent design as an example of terrible science, pointing out the misinformation, lack of process, lack of peer review and in many cases out right lies.

Would the ID camp protest, and if they did, on what basis?

Since they “claim” that ID is science and not religiously based, then they should have no grounds on which to protest, they have given up their right to “protection” since it is not, according to them, a religious ideology.

Dee,

Heading toward TN anytime before Christmas, love to have that cup of coffee with you and thank you in person for your many kindnesses and friendship.

You cannot believe the number of people who would answer that there is a vast scientific conspiracy to sit on the “proof” of a young earth. Dee is now banging her head against a all. — Dee

“If your Conspiracy Theory doesn’t fit the facts, Invent a Bigger Conspiracy.”
— Kooks Magazine

“The Dwarfs are for The Dwarfs! We Won’t Be Taken In!”
— C.S.Lewis, Chronicles of Narnia: The Last Battle

Don’t forget the ASA, an organization of professing Christians that also subscribe to science, not YEC. A link is under blogs on the TWW home page.

Fendrel, it’s nice to see that we are on the same side of at least one topic.

A thorough investigation into the finances of the AIG “GenesisWorld” entertainment empire might prove to be very enlightening.

While touting YEC beliefs is not as damaging to our faith as spiritual or sexual abuse by clergy it still is a substantial negative to many people.

I still don’t get how a person can reject a YEC version of creation because it conflicts with what we have learned from science and at the same time embrace a virgin birth, resurrection from the dead, walking on water, turning water into wine, etc. and not blink an eye. — Fendrel

Funny, Fendrel. Both you and Ken Ham agree that YEC is linked to all the core beliefs of the faith, and for much the same reason. They all stand or fall as a single package deal. You just came down on completely opposite sides of the issue.

You should start pointing this out to hardcore YECs. Mess with their minds…

Fendrel,

Dee does not pummel. Have you seen how I have inserted myself on this blog. LOL!

They are the most patient, kindest, and long suffering blog owners in the world.

As an athiest, your views do not seem strange at all. They are quite sensible. And I don’t think you’ve offended anyone at; you have been very temperate in your disagreements from what I’ve read. Better than me, truly.

I would simply say that I continue to believe that you seek a scientific treasure in a metaphysical shipwreck (modern Protestant theology mish-mash). I don’t want to offend anyone, but as Christians, if we can’t even be philosophically consistent, we will have very little luck convincing you of much. It is hard to convince an atheist that the “truth” is rooted in a suspension of disbelief. Talk to Eagle. I think he has basically said as much (though I could be wrong).

Again, no offense to anyone. Remember, I believe in Jesus as Lord, too.

If you were my dear and trusted friends, and I sent you a Christmas card, and in it I told you that I baked some homemade bread in three hours…you would believe me, right?
If I told you I painted a watercolor sunset over the sea in one afternoon, you would believe me, right?
And if I labored on some special landscaping and a garden for one whole day, you would believe that too, right? Why? Because we have a relationship built on truth and trust.

I love and trust the LORD. He says He created the world and everything in it in six days. I believe Him.

Hi Dee,
Here are my thoughts, humble though they are…please know that I’m just answering as best I can. Everyone is responsible for their own thinking on this matter, and the perspective they have toward the logical consistency of the Bible and the power of God.

I believe that the Bible is speaking of literal 24 hour days.

Each day during creation has “an evening and a morning” and is also numbered, first day, second day…which is how we would describe a literal day today, in any culture.

I’m in finance, and it is standard practice to number the days and weeks in a business month. Today was Week 4/Day 1 for me at work. Man’s own work week is patterned after the creation week according to Scripture (work 6 days, rest on the 7th).

As far as “in the day that you eat of it you will surely die” Gen 2:17b… I’m not an expert, so I want to be careful, to me this phrase has no evening or morning, it doesn’t say “that very day” or “the first day you eat it”. I remember reading that a literal translation of the Hebrew is “dying, you will die”. It makes sense to me that it means man is cursed with death from that day forward, and Adam in his own day (his time/age) will surely die.

I agree that Yom/day has different meanings depending on the context (and internal consistency throughout the Bible).

The bottom line for me is that God’s Word is immeasurably superior to all of the theories that mankind comes up with to explain things. I realize that a vast number of highly educated and respected people scorn the creation account entirely. Let’s be frank, they usually scorn Jesus Christ and salvation too.

When folks are motivated, they can come up with many reasons why not to believe the thing they don’t want to believe. And they can publish it, “prove” it, and award each other Nobel prizes. I’m not being sarcastic either. Man colludes with man (and woman) to “be all they can be” without God.

But the LORD Himself is no respecter of persons, and His thoughts are infinitely above men’s and women’s thoughts (mine included). For those of us who believe… I just ask…why should we try so hard to conform the Bible to scientists’ theories that were originally posited to explain things without God? Why do we think that rebellious man has the total picture, the full answer that defines the Word of God, when it should be the other way around?

Dee, thanks for asking, it was helpful for my faith to think about it and write it down.

Sorry Carol, but I have to jump in here. I thought about responding to your first comment, but decided to bite my tongue. But when the grand science conspiracy stuff comes up, I won’t be silent.
I’ll give you the response I thought of to your first comment. If you wrote to me and said you’d spent three hours making homemade bread and I knew you enjoyed baking, of course I’d believe you. But if I knew that you didn’t have an oven, I wouldn’t believe you, even if you were my best friend, because the evidence wouldn’t support your assertion. The evidence doesn’t support a young earth.
On to the grand scientific conspiracy, your suggestion that we’re all in cahoots to only prove what we want to prove, only publish what we’ve colluded on, and give each other prizes and pats on the back. With respect, can I ask if you know many people who are scientists? I ask this because I think people who don’t know (m)any scientists often have a skewed and simplistic view of them, either as almost superheroes or as sinister bad guys. The truth is much more mundane. Scientists are the nerds who just never stopped asking ‘why’? They tend to be pretty invested in what they do, often to the point of weirdness (seriously, dinnertime conversations with two academics for parents are not like a normal family), and many of them have big egos and competitive natures. To be honest, there simply isn’t enough camaraderie in the scientific community to uphold a long term conspiracy and suppression of data.
Finally, many scientists are religious, they follow all sorts of religions. Many are Christian. If you look back through history, you’ll see the same thing. Many early scientists were monks, and they saw their work as praising God through studying his creation. To suggest it’s as simplistic as scientists = anti-God is just incorrect.

Argo,

Thanks for the comment, I guess it didn’t come through quite the way I had intended. When I said Dee was going to “pummel” me, it was intended as tongue in cheek. Dee is a good friend and I know she would never actually try to “pummel” someone. Was just an attempt at a bit of humor, that’s all. 🙂

Pam,

Interesting background, my son is majoring in Physics at college now, so it’s always nice to know others in the field. I appreciate the distinction you made between science and applied science, it goes unspoken or unnoticed in many discussions.

I also appreciate your response to being accused of being involved in a conspiracy. I it roughly the same response I have to give when people say that if I am an atheist now, then I couldn’t have ever been a “true” Christian before.

Carol,

Actually, I would believe you only in part because we had a relationship of trust, but equally because the things you mentioned are feasible within the framework of how I understand the universe to work.

On the other hand, if you came to me and said your house cat sprouted wings last night and could now fly or that your pet dog had a litter of kittens instead of puppies, then friendship or not, I would think you were either losing it, pulling my leg, or for whatever reason, outright lying to me.

The same would go for God.

oldJohnJ,

Actually I would say that the early chapters of Genesis were meant to be understood literally, primarily because humans, at the time it was written, would have had no basis on which to interpret them otherwise, which would put God in the unenviable position of having intentionally deceived them about the nature of the universe’s origins.

I appreciate the good-natured kindness in the responses to what I said, even though we are strangers to one another.

First, to clarify, I’m not accusing all, or even the majority of individuals in the science community of conscious or deliberate falsehood.

Rather, I’m trying to express a Biblical truth (to follow) and how it relates to the science establishment in general, i.e. the politics and motivation behind professional acceptance, peer respect, rewards, fame, publicity, positions of honor etc., and how scientists are naively perceived by the general population as having supreme authority and insight into the origins of the universe and man.

Here is the biblical truth:
Mankind is in utter denial about their sinfulness and pitiful weakness before a Holy and Almighty God.

Mankind is grossly limited in knowledge, ability and longevity… a wisp of smoke, a blade of grass, and a fading flower.

Mankind is corruptible and in rebellion. If not saved by the grace of God through Jesus Christ, each person lives his or her life in the way that is “right in their own eyes”.

People are motivated to justify themselves, and I’m talking about all of us, even our peaceable, friendly and charitable friends.

Thus my statement regarding the “collusion” in the science establishment, a group of people who mostly reject Jesus Christ, through whom all things were created.

Their goals, in respect to explaining origins, almost unanimously focus on the deliberate rejection of special creation by God, especially as He Himself tells it. And through their work and organizations, they seek to reinforce that and convince others likewise.

So my rhetorical question is again this: Why do believers embrace and revere the word of unbelieving scientists, as if they are God – and reinterpret the word of a holy God, as if He were human?

By the way, I have a BS in Biology, an MS in Accounting, and I’m a professional in corporate finance. My mother and sister have science degrees also. I respect operational science, engineering and medicine. I reject unbiblical speculations of origins.

Sure, a person can know if a friend doesn’t possess an oven in their home. You can physically verify that fact. Does a cat sprout wings? No, of course not. (But the evolutionary theory of punctuated equilibrium makes that absurdity a possibility. Just sayin’.)

Does it follow that a human scientist can verify that they know everything in the universe, and can rule out God’s power and explicitly stated actions? Every person on this planet can be proven to be limited and fallible. Therefore I don’t accept that any man/woman, no matter how honored by others, is an authority above God’s own word.

Dee does not pummel. Have you seen how I have inserted myself on this blog. LOL!

They are the most patient, kindest, and long suffering blog owners in the world.
~ Argo ~

You got that right. They even allow a Pelagian heretic (Muff Potter) to participate. I love TWW. It’s kinda’ sorta’ like Al Andalus before the Spanish Inquisition took over.

carol

Briefly, a small snippet from Scholarpedia:

As is often typical of any new idea, punctuated equilibria sparked considerable discussion and generated significant controversy. One aspect of disagreement was the disconnect between what biologists and paleontologists meant by “rapid change.” To a paleontologist, the 5,000 to 50,000 years typical for a speciation event would seem incredibly rapid, especially due to the limits of resolution in the fossil record and in the face of millions of years of otherwise morphological stability. By contrast, to a biologist, the 5,000 to 50,000 years that Eldredge and Gould consigned to speciation events seemed like a tremendous stretch of time: more than long enough to accommodate “gradual evolutionary divergence.” Because of the disconnect between what “rapid” meant to biologists and paleontologists, some biologists were inclined to view punctuated equilibria as necessitating effectively instantaneous evolutionary change (which was incorrect). Also, and in a related vein, Eldredge and Gould (1972) and Gould and Eldredge (1977) were careful to stipulate that only relatively small morphological differences separated closely related species, and in particular that different species were not separated by unbridgeable evolutionary gaps; however, there was also confusion and controversy on this point as well.
Finally, there was some disagreement as to how stasis should be defined. Some who challenged punctuated equilibria held that any amount of change within a species lineage over time was enough to disqualify a particular example as evidence for stasis. Eldredge (1989), Lieberman et al (1995), Lieberman and Dudgeon (1996), Gould (2002), and Eldredge et al (2005) argued, by contrast, that the primary test for stasis should be no net change. The pattern of no net species change could match obdurate morphological stasis or a pattern more akin to morphology following a random walk; such differences would be informative about the types of mechanisms that might cause stasis, and both would be compatible with stasis itself.

Plus a cat sprouting wings would also conflict with the idea of common descent.

I think we can all agree that science is nothing more than a grid we have imposed upon reality in order to make sense of it. Throughout human history good scientists have used meticulous measuring techniques utilizing the best measuring tools of their day to arrive at a grid.

The grid is never wrong, but on occasion, conclusions derived from the grid can be dreadfully wrong.

Case in Point:

From the 2nd cent. until the time of Copernicus and Kepler, Ptolemy’s Almagest reigned supreme in any discussion of astronomy and cosmology. Its mathematical rigor was unassailable and it was the defacto standard for instruction in all of Europe’s great medieval universities.

Kepler began to notice that Ptolemy’s model could get very complicated and even produce what he felt were absurd results. So he set out to see if there was a simpler model based on observable data and he found one. And the rest is as they say, history.

Science is and always has been a harsh and fickle mistress who has no qualms whatsoever about cutting both ways.

P.S.: When the moon is full and at its zenith in the night sky, I’ve found myself being tricked (visually) into literally seeing the sky as half of a sphere.

That people believe it to literally be that makes a great deal of sense to me, since it certainly can look as if it’s exactly that. (The mental image I had was of a half-sphere made of something very hard and clear, like crystal but unbreakable.)

RE: Arce on Tue Dec 18, 2012 at 04:57 PM,
Would you be willing to put the Pauline texts under the same microscope you’ve placed Torah?

OldJohnJ

Yes, but the problem with that idea is that you have God, knowingly giving incorrect information to those people who lived, well more than a few hundred years ago.

Whether or not they had the capacity to understand the scientific details, certainly you are not saying that an omnipotent God couldn’t write a simply creation story which wasn’t technically incorrect.

Even with my poor writing skills, I could have written Genesis in such a manner that people 4000 years ago could have understood and which was still technically accurate.

For example, there was no reason to use the word “day” at all. Why not just use ordinal numbers, First, I created…, next I made the…. and after everything was done, creation was complete and I rested from my work. I should let God know that if He ever needs a ghost writer, to give me a ring.

RE: numo UNITED STATES on Tue Dec 18, 2012 at 04:38 PM,

I’ve seen the same thing in the night sky. So did Ptolemy, and he systematized it over many years of careful observation, measurement, and mathematical rigor.

Hi Carol,
In your response above, I was pretty much with you until the line about collusion. Yes, people are imperfect. Yes, people make mistakes. Yes, nobody fully understands everything about any given topic – there are always, to borrow Donald Rumsfeld’s phrase, unknown unknowns. But the leap from that to where your position is, just is too far. Sure, we don’t know everything and we don’t get everything right – but we aren’t without knowledge, we aren’t completely ignorant and unable to get anything right. The way you’ve framed your argument tends to suggest that people are incapable of anything much at all in the way of investigation and knowledge, but clearly humans – whether they believe the Bible or not – have been and are capable of incredible thought and discovery.

Just back to the ‘excluding God’ concept, science, by its nature, deals with what is observable and measurable. As such, I’d say God isn’t so much overtly excluded as simply not possible to be part of the discussion. What I mean is God isn’t measurable in the way that a scientific experiment is measurable. So the existential questions of religion are not part of the realm of science, and have no place there. What is measurable is the world around us. In those measurements God/religion will sometimes come up, in that we can test whether what we measure matches what the Bible says (or one interpretation of it), or if it matches Dreamtime mythology about the Rainbow Serpent, or anything else. It’s not so much that scientists set out deliberately aiming to reject special creation, it’s more that science, as a conceptual framework, doesn’t really care about religious debates. It’s job isn’t to discuss theology, but to observe and understand the world. Does that explanation make sense?

Last, a book recommendation. I recently read Peter Enns’ The Evolution of Adam. He goes through some of the science versus Genesis debate, and does it in an understandable way without too much technical detail. It’s worth a read if you’d like some thoughtfully researched answers to your questions.

Fendrel,
It was an oral tradition for hundreds of years. Written down post Moses, lost, found, copied over hundreds of years. Destroyed. Recreated from memory (likely with elisions and insertions, different word choices, etc.) by scribes in Babylon ca 500 BCE. To claim that it is the inerrant WORD OF GOD is a bit strange. HOWEVER, what is retained is very much like a New Testament parable. A story with theological truth but not literal truth. And the theological truth is the most important.

What is that theological truth: Jehovah is the Creator of everything, including everything that the neighbors of the Israelites worshiped. The Creator made a good creation. God caused man to exist and seeks to fellowship with man. Man chose to disobey the Creator and thus has a more difficult life than the ideal.

BTW, the whole flood sequence, Tower of Babel, story of Abraham, etc., falls into the same problems of oral tradition, etc.

Fendrel,
There is a lot of difference between the Messiah preaching and an oral tradition over thousands of years. Ever play “telephone”? Oral tradition tends to migrate, every generation it changes a little. So what is now is not what was. Logically, one cannot say what the original actually said. Thus, I have no interest in the choice of words, etc. in the Pentateuch. I do have interest in the theological truths therein — the result of the meta-analysis.

Now when you get to the NT, there is a totally different set of issues and assessments that must be made. Of course, a parable does not have to be literally true, because it is a teaching story. But it must be true in terms of what it sets out to teach.

Fendrel, intersting thought experiment. Of course, it presupposes no bodily resurrection or ascension which does tend to answer your own question as it would mean Jesus was only human and therefore cloneJesus would only be human. If we exclude those assumptions, though, hmm, I’m not sure. I’ll ponder, but I don’t know if my pondering will go anywhere.

Hi Pam,
I do agree with you that mankind is “capable of incredible thought and discovery”.

I disagree with the statement that “It’s not so much that scientists set out deliberately aiming to reject special creation…”

On the contrary, it is the plainly stated mission of many scientists and organizations. There are many examples, here are 3 quotes:
***
“NCSE (National Center for Science Education) provides information and advice as the premier institution dedicated to keeping evolution and climate change in the science classroom and to keep out creationism…”
***
“NCSE’s Friend of Darwin award is conferred annually to people (and occasionally organizations) whose efforts to support NCSE and advance its goals have been truly outstanding.”
***
“Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain bigotry. “ Theodosius Dobzhansky “Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution”, American Biology Teacher vol.35 (March 1973)
***
And yet many Christians remain gripped with overwhelming awe and deference for scientists, no matter how naturalistic their attitude is.

“The Pentateuch, the testimony of the distributed copies.”

@ Arce Dec 18;  04:57 PM 

Hello,

“The Pentateuch was destroyed during the fall of Jerusalem, and recreated from memory during the Babylonian exile, about 5 centuries BCE. ” Arce

Question: “How do we know that the Torah we have today is the same text given on Mount Sinai?”

Answer: “The Torah was originally dictated from God to Moses, letter for letter. From there, the Midrash (Devarim Rabba 9:4) tells us: Before his death, Moses wrote 13 Torah Scrolls. Twelve of these were distributed to each of the 12 Tribes. The 13th was placed in the Ark of the Covenant (with the Tablets). 

If anyone would come and attempt to rewrite or falsify the Torah, the one in the Ark would “testify” against him. (Likewise, if he had access to the scroll in the Ark and tried to falsify it, the distributed copies would “testify” against him.) How were the new scrolls verified? 

An authentic “proof text” was always kept in the Holy Temple in Jerusalem, against which all other scrolls would be checked. 

Following the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE, the Sages would periodically perform global checks to weed out any scribal errors.”

http://www.simpletoremember.com/articles/a/torahaccuracy/

Carol,
I think this guy says it best:

“It often happens that even a non-Christian knows a thing or two about the earth, the sky, the various elements of the world, about the movement and revolution of the stars and even their size and distance, about the nature of animals, shrubs, rocks, and the like, and maintains this knowledge with sure reason and experience. It is offensive and ruinous, something to be avoided at all cost, for a nonbeliever to hear a Christian talking about these things as though with Christian writings as his source, and yet so nonsensically and with such obvious error that the nonbeliever can hardly keep from laughing.

“The trouble is not so much that the erring fellow is laughed at but that our authors are believed by outsiders to have held those same opinions and so are despised and rejected as untutored men, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil…How are they going to believe our books concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven when they think they are filled with fallacious writing about things which they know from experience or sure calculation?

“There is no telling how much harm these rash and presumptuous people bring upon their more prudent brethren when they begin to be caught and argued down by those who are not bound by the authority of our Scriptures, and when they then try to defend their flippant, rash, and obviously erroneously statements by quoting a shower of words from those same Sacred Scriptures, even citing from memory those passages which they think support their case, ‘without understanding either what they are saying or things about which they make assertions’ (I Tim. 1:7)” – St. Augustine in The Literal Meaning of Genesis

Regarding YEC in the classroom, can you define science and how Creationism counts as science?

(I believe in Creationism, but I don’t think it’s science).

Carol,

Not to keep it going, but no one said (that I could find) that scientists are perfect….of course they make mistakes, but its the peer review process that corrects those mistakes and of course ongoing research.

I do admire that fact that you are least consistent in your interpretation of scripture. I am curious though whether you treat all areas of Genesis the same.

We are told in detail how Jacob manages to alter the physical appearance of Laban’s flock. He takes branches from three types of tree, poplar, almond, and plane, and carves off strips of bark revealing the white underneath and thereby giving the branches a striped appearance (Gen. 30: 37).

Then, and this is seemingly crucial, he places the striped branches in the troughs where the flocks come to drink. Also crucial is the fact that the animals happen to mate in front of the troughs. So, according to Jacob’s logic, if the animals mate in front of these striped branches and drink from water that the branches have been placed in, they will give birth to striped or speckled offspring: “And since they bred when they came to drink, the flocks bred in front of the sticks and so the flocks brought forth striped, speckled, and spotted (Gen. 30: 38-39 ESV).

Now, if we take that literally, it would certainly through a monkey wrench into modern genetics, would you say?

Hey Fendrel, thanks for the follow-up, but I’ve checked out of this conversation now. Dee’s comments were too personal and uncalled for. I thank you and everyone else for your good natured debate. Iron sharpens iron. God bless, Carol

@ Carol  on Tue Dec 18, 2012 at 09:01 PM to Pam.

“I disagree with the statement that “It’s not so much that scientists set out deliberately aiming to reject special creation…” On the contrary, it is the plainly stated mission of many scientists and organizations.”  Carol

Carol, 

    Hello, 

 “the plainly stated mission of many scientists and organizations?”

As you are well aware, Creation and federal tax dollars don’t mix. Individuals who subscribe to creation as described in the Hebrew book of Geneses generally receive no federal funding.  Individuals who subscribe to creation as described in the Hebrew book of Geneses receive relatively little or no support from their fellow colleagues in the scientific community. It is common knowledge that many scientists give evolution the nod, i.e. lip service, yet when in private, believing something else entirely. They have stated that it is the price of admission in today’s scientific circles, the price one pays to do research. This is well documented.

Sorry to see your willingness to leave the discussion. The TWW kitchen can get quite hot at times, yet the”food” is normally quite good, and certainly worth the wait!

Happy Holidays,

IronClad

An unspoken assumption in this latest thread is that Genesis 1 and 2 are talking about science. Trying to make the initial chapters of Genesis into science has been the cause of endless discussion and extreme polarization of views between certain theologians and the science community. A paper interpreting early Genesis in the context of Israel’s surrounding cultures suggests that combating polytheism and idolatry was the actual intent. The article is “Dinosaur Religion:  On Interpreting and Misinterpreting the Creation Texts”, CONRAD HYERS, From: JASA 36 (September 1984): 142-148. link: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1984/JASA9-84Hyers.html

The article abstract: “Resolution of science/religion conflicts is often thwarted by polarization into extreme viewpoints, such as “scientific creationism” and “scientific naturalism.” Not only do the extremes attempt to dismiss each other; ironically, they often have much in common. They both place religious and scientific statements on the same level; they both try to draw religious and anti-religious conclusions from scientific data and theory; they both interpret religious texts, such as the creation accounts, in terms of scientific fact and model–either to defend the scientific truth of the Bible or to reject the Bible as primitive science. If one carefully distinguishes between the special literature and language of the Bible and that of modern science, resolution of apparent conflicts is possible”

Dee, Carol –

Hey this was a good conversation .. ok, everyone back to the table, have a shot of eggnog with some tequila floating on top (flaming of course), and let’s get back to the business of solving the universe’s problems.

I have to confess feeling sorry for Carol.She entered the conversation in good faith, endured a fair bit of personal criticism while being accused of dishing it out herself, when she wasn’t.

Because of the obsession with the Puritans, Calvinists, YEC-ers and anyone else of a reformed nature, I decided to read the Puritans by Carlo Bates. You can imagine how much I laughed when I read the following

‘A discussion full of cleverness and the adroit handling of words, yet which left Philip in the confusion of being made to realize that what to him were vital truths were to those about him merely so many hypotheses upon which to found argument’

That could become the mission statement of TWW, don’t you think?

Regards
Gavin

“‘A discussion full of cleverness and the adroit handling of words, yet which left Philip in the confusion of being made to realize that what to him were vital truths were to those about him merely so many hypotheses upon which to found argument’”

Gavin, Vital truths do not lead to burning women at the stake for trying to alieve pain in childbirth. Vital truths do not lead to wiping out INdians because they refuse to sell their land. Vital truths do not lead to a church state government and oppressive religion. I could go on,the but “vital truth” argument fromm a Puritan perspective is not really all that credible.

From my limited knowledge of NC wildlife I think the best way to catch a black crappie is to use a jig and lure, particularly as evening falls and they come closer to the river bank after the heat of the day.

Thank you for letting me know that such is your distaste for all things Puritan, that you dislike even fiction that mocks the Puritans.

I rest my case m’lud.

Well I never.

Regards
Gavin

Dee,
Since you have a blog, please go and learn what it means to speak graciously with others you disagree with about highly controversial subjects, while maintaining self-control and brotherly kindness.

People are sinners. Scientists are people. Ergo, scientists are sinners too, and capable of the follies, self-interest and unbelief common to mankind.

If you need to take that personally, and react in a harsh and mocking way, and then gloat about it…well I guess that’s what defines your attitude toward others you disagree with, and that’s too bad.

2 Peter 1:5-8
But also for this very reason, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue, to virtue knowledge, to knowledge self-control, to self-control perseverance, to perseverance godliness, to godliness brotherly kindness, and to brotherly kindness love.
For if these things are yours and abound, you will be neither barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Gavin,

John Cleese vs Sean Connery … hmm someone needs some new spectacles 🙂

thanks btw, i commented back

How did I miss the drinking?! Pass me the tequila and eggnog.

Carol wrote:

People are sinners. Scientists are people. Ergo, scientists are sinners too, and capable of the follies, self-interest and unbelief common to mankind.

Carol, the primary point of my original article which started this set of comments was to demonstrate that the hard sciences, (physics, astronomy, chemistry, biology), in particular are aware of our failings and tendencies independent of our religious beliefs and have set up processes to insure the accuracy of what is published. I contrasted the behavior of AIG in particular where there is apparently no peer review or standards of accuracy what so ever. Your refusal to consider the premises science is done under in spite of having them pointed out repeatedly calls, in my mind anyway, your intent in making these comments.

Carol wrote:

please go and learn what it means to speak graciously with others you disagree with about highly controversial subjects

Telling many of us that we are in collusion to deny Christ isn’t exactly what I’d call gracious.

Carol, your comments dishonour those many scientists who are also faithful Christians. People of good faith who love our Lord can disagree on the nature of origins and the interpretation of the early chapters of Genesis. For my part, I applaud Deb and Dee for calling on the carpet those who are using discredited and dubious methods to make their claims.

“People are sinners. Scientists are people. Ergo, scientists are sinners too, and capable of the follies, self-interest and unbelief common to mankind. ”

People are sinners. Theologians are people. Ergo, Theologians are sinners too, and capable of the follies, self-interest and unbelief common to mankind.

Theologians make mistakes too- ask Galileo.

@ Argo:
Hey Argo…I agree with your basic picture of calvinist/reformed theology…when pain burned away all the ‘can’t know the mind of God’ smokescreen, it all looked very much as you say, & is at the heart of my current…unease…erm…not sureness…feeling of being unsafe…that I have with God. It can be dressed up nicely, but when the rubber hits the road (for me, I know not everyone experiences this) anything that puts the goodness of God under this much pressure blows your confidence out of the water. If you could nuke calvinist theology off the face of the planet I would be a happy woman (apols to those this offends).
I have lurked at your blog & must do more. I did leave a comment once, but it never showed up.

@ dee on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 09:04 AM:

“Carol mentioned iron sharpening iron. What she really meant was for us to get sharpened while she stays the same. Same old, same old,,, ”  

Carol may be asking the age old question, “when should reason trump faith?”

Boy, have I missed some interesting comments over the past day or so!

With respect to Carol, I have read the argument that Christians should not accept “unbelieving” theories elsewhere. An article in an evangelical magazine not so long ago claimed that evolution had first been touted by the ancient Greeks who were “men without hope”, thus apparently trying to discredit them. I’ve never heard this argument applied to Euclidean geometry though!

Now I will say this in defence of Carol – one of the bases (as I understand it – OldJohnJ and Fendrel may be able to correct me!) of science is scientific naturalism. That is to say, science seeks to find a cause for something that can be explained in mechanistic or causative terms without invoking a supernatural reason for it. This does not rule out the possibility, eg that a global Flood or catastrophic event shaped much of modern rock formation (there are other problems with Flood geology but this isn’t one of them). Scientific naturalism is however NOT the same as philosophical naturalism – the latter is an a priori assumption that the supernatural or miraculous MUST be excluded or can NEVER happen. Scientific naturalism simply does not have a relationship to the miraculous, any more than colour influences the working of algebra.

I welcome any comments.

Beaker,
What?! So sorry about that. Please post again. I’m new at the blog thing. I probably hit the wrong button or something.

Thanks for reading. I really appreciate it, and would appreciate your input.

Yes, dismantling Calvinism is of an importance that cannot be understated. It destroys faith, truly. Rolling back Calvinist dogma is tedious, but not that difficult once you trace the “logic” to its metaphysical and moral conclusions. They are glaringly impossible once you strip away the equivocating and redefining of terms.

What I have found most difficult is getting people to accept that they hold incompatible ideas once it has been made plain. For some reason these are doctrines that people equate with God Himself. It doesn’t matter how irrational…and they will often agree that the doctrines aren’t particularly consistent, and yet still “die on the hill”. That, to me, is the most discouraging.

@ Beakerj:

Good question. Of course, if you are me you can easily answer this. Sin nature has nothing to do with biological birth. It refers to the awareness of the moral law via mans innate ability to reason. Thus, children are not under judgment for example because they have not reached full rational self awareness. They are morally innocent, which is the criteria of salvation.

Jesus’s Father was God. That’s why it was a virgin birth. There is nothing relevant about a biological sin nature.

Fendrel…very astute!

@ Fendrel:

Argo

The Catholic’s solution to this problem is to claim that Jesus’ mother, Mary, was miraculously conceived. In that conception, the chain of sin was broken and she was born without sin. Since she was without sin, then she was able to give birth to Jesus and not pass on the sin. Unfortunately for the Catholics, there is absolutely no evidence in the Bible for the belief. It also leaves the question that if Mary could be born without sin from sinful parents, then why not Jesus directly? The Protestants take a different approach. They argue that sin is only passed through the fathers. Since Jesus did not have an earthly father, he did not inherit Adam’s sin.

But that begs yet another question. If by having a sin nature that means we cannot help but sin, then how can we be responsible for our actions if they are sinful. In other words, if I can control my own impulse and not sin on a particular occasion, then why not on each successive occasion. What makes one instance different from the next…and of course if that isn’t the case and I cannot control my impulse to sin…then how is it moral to hold me accountable for my action.

Kolya

Yes, I believe that I agree with what you said, and I am glad that you pointed out that there are scientific problems with the idea of a global flood, and may I add, a virgin birth, a resurrection, pick your miracle.

Anne,

Great advice. Thank you. I will definitely take it into serious consideration.

Argo, I am an atheist, I reject the entire concept of sin as anything more than a control mechanism, a way to make people feel shame and accept that they have a need, for which the church has a remedy. Like any good salesman, first you must create the need, then offer the solution.

The vast number of people from various religions who have bought into that speaks to nothing more than our insecurity and need to be part of a group, to fit in, if you will.

Argo,,
reason guided faith, surely that’s got to be right up their with military intelligence and parting is such sweet sorrow as one of the world’s greatest oxymoron’s 🙂

Argo,

So do you believe that, in the absence of empirical evidence, the suspension of belief is not a more rational course of action then committing oneself to a proposition which has little or nothing to support it, especially in light of the fact that such a proposition will have a profound effect on your worldview and how you chose to live out your life?

Until you reject your denial of metaphysics, reason, and self-awareness, like I said, we’ll have to disagree. There can be no debate because you reject your own ability to even have a volitional perspective.

Kolya,

yes, and God could have created the universe exactly as it literally states in Genesis and then put it into a state which makes it look like it does today…a miracle! If you go down that path you lose all ability to distinguish miracle from natural…how would you ever know

If God uses “natural means” to accomplish something, then it could have occurred without his help. If he uses nature in a way that can’t happen naturally, then He isn’t using natural methods…can’t have your cake and eat it too.

If God, for example, in response to my prayers for a sunny day, causes a wind to blow so that the clouds don’t intrude on my picnic, you have absolutely zero proof that God is involved…it could just as easily have happened without his “influence”.

On the other hand if God places a cylinder environment around my picnic area with 70 mile per hour winds whirling around the outside, rain, hail and 20 degree temperatures, but inside my little picnic area it is 85, sunny, not too humid with a light breeze…well then he isn’t using “natural methods” is he, because nature behaves that way.

If you say the flood was a “miracle” that is no different than saying it was magic..do we really want to believe in magic now?

If there were sufficient water either in the atmosphere or beneath the surface the pressure from that vapor would have raised temperatures to literally boil every living thing on the planet, simple physics.

Sorry time for bed…this answer may have been a bit fragmented and difficult to follow, sorry getting tired. I’ll do better tomorrow.

🙂

Hi Fendrel. Those are good points, but I wasn’t necessarily arguing that the Flood was a miracle. I had already acknowledged the scientific difficulties with the earth being covered with enough water to cover Mt Everest. As you say, the “canopy theory” as I believe it is called would under the laws of science produced conditions inimical to terrestrial life.

And you are right of course in that if you pray for a nice day for your picnic and it turns out as such, there is no proof that God did it. That is not to say he did not hear your prayer, but I do not think God interferes arbitrarily in the normal working of his universe, even though Heb 1 tells us he sustains it by his power. Even with miracles, I do not believe they are arbitrary – there is a difference between miracle and magic (I think this subject is covered in Lewis’s “Miracles”). The Christian basis for science is that God has made an orderly universe which can thus be investigated to discover its workings, which of course with an arbitrary universe where the rules were constantly changing would be impossible.

Hi Fendrel. Can I get back to you on that? I would like to dig out a couple of things in the midst of seasonal frenzy!

Arce wrote:

Carol, you continue to diss people in the mmost foul way and seem not to recognize that you are doing it. Perhaps you should take some time to learn how to interact with people who disagree with you.

There is no grand collusion in the scientific community.

And beware of Grand Unified Conspiracy Theories. They have a way of growing until they devour the entire world of the Conspiracy Theorist. Until the Entire Cosmos (except for the Conspiracy Theorist) is part of The Conspiracy.

“If your Conspiracy Theory doesn’t fit the facts, Invent a Bigger Conspiracy.”
— Kooks Magazine

Others have mentioned the Nathaniel Hawthorne story “Young Goodman Brown”. THAT is a type example of Conspiracy Theory growing to devour Goodman Brown’s world. Another type example is the Bob Dylan song “Talking John Birch Society Blues”.

“THE DWARFS ARE FOR THE DWARFS! WE WON’T BE TAKEN IN!”
— C.S.Lewis

Dee & Deb,
Thanks again for giving me the opportunity to guest post on your blog. I feel there were very good discussions in the comments even if it was quite the most comments during the year.

I still think a careful examination of the finances of the Ham empire are in order although such an effort it beyond my abilities.

If I ever feel I have another topic on the divide between faith and science I’ll be sure to let you look it over.
John