Theistic evolutionists say they believe in God while also believing in Darwinism. They maintain that God used evolution as His way of creating the world. But the whole point of Darwinism is that the process of mutation and natural selection is random and undirected! If they want to believe that God directed some form of evolution, theistic evolutionists would have to embrace some form of intelligent design, but they don’t, trying to distance themselves from that line of investigation so as to remain respectable Darwinists.
John G. West of the Discovery Institute was able to get a platform in the Washington Post to raise some of these issues:
The real sticking point is Darwin’s claim that all of life–human beings included–developed through a blind and undirected process of natural selection acting on random variations. In the words of late Harvard paleontologist George Gaylord Simpson, “Man is the result of a purposeless and natural process that did not have him in mind.”
There are ways to try to reconcile Darwinism’s undirected process with theism, but they involve throwing overboard some long-cherished beliefs about God.
The first idea to go is the belief that God directed the development of life toward specific ends. According to biologist Kenneth Miller, one of the most prominent proponents of “theistic” evolution, God did not plan the specific outcomes of evolution–including the development of human beings. Miller describes humans as “an afterthought, a minor detail, a happenstance in a history that might just as well have left us out.” While God knew that undirected evolution was so wonderful it would create some kind of creature capable of praising Him, that creature could have been “a big-brained dinosaur” or “a mollusk with exceptional mental capabilities” rather than us.
Seeking to lessen the discomfort such arguments pose for most religious believers, Francis Collins suggests that God “could” have known the specific outcomes of evolution beforehand even though He made evolution appear “a random and undirected process.” In other words, God is a cosmic trickster who misleads people into thinking that nature is blind and purposeless, even though it isn’t.
One need not be a religious fundamentalist to find such arguments less than satisfying. Indeed, one need not be religious at all. Media coverage notwithstanding, theistic evolution has been shunned by leading evolutionary biologists, 87 percent of whom deny the existence of God and 90 percent of whom reject the idea that evolution is directed toward an “ultimate purpose” according to a 2003 survey.
While theistic evolutionists are mired in the past trying to defend Darwin’s nineteenth-century mechanistic process, other scientists and scholars are suggesting that twenty-first century science is fast making Darwin obsolete. Experiments with bacteria, where evolution can be tested in real time, are showing just how little undirected processes like natural selection can actually accomplish. Experiments with protein sequences are revealing how astonishingly fine-tuned protein sequences must be to work at all. And the DNA inside each of us is disclosing massive amounts of genetic information that points to mind, not chance and necessity, as the ultimate source of biological innovations.
Such discoveries do not “prove” God’s existence, but they do provide tantalizing evidence that life was produced by an intelligent process rather than a mindless one, a finding that certainly has positive implications for faith.
The Roman Catholic Church, no less, seems to have embraced theistic evolution. Do Catholics account for these difficulties?
{ 1 trackback }
{ 128 comments… read them below or add one }
Seems to me that Theistic evolution IS Darwinism. Darwin, in his “Origins…” also admitted of the possibility that God started the process, nor did Darwin deny the existence of God in this work. Darwin, a Hegelian, would be quite pleased with the above theoretical symbiosis.
Blessings,
CL
I think it is disingenuous to equate Darwinism (as postulated by Darwin himself) with theistic evolution. Most theistic evolutionists do not hold to Darwin’s theory of evolution, where everything happens by chance, but rather envision a directed evolution. So it seems that the argument is a strawman. It’s not theistic Darwinism, but theistic evolution. There is a difference.
Most people I know who profess theistic evolution would argue that God always had the idea of man in mind, but that He used the mechanics of natural selection–a long sequence of microbiotic changes–to create us. As for Intelligent Design, they may beleive it, but don’t want to be associated with the movement, which they view as more “fundamentalist” (in a bad way).
Don’t get me wrong, this still has many (of the same) issues with Biblical teachings (e.g., original sin) as traditional Darwinism.
My Catholic father, who is studying to be a deacon, explains evolution by saying that God didn’t really mean 6 literal days in the old testament. That each day accounts for a long period of time, rather than 24 hours. But, when I asked him if he believed that Jesus rose on the 3rd day in “real” time, he says yes. So, I guess they (roman catholics) account for the difficulties by picking and choosing certain parts of the bible to take literally to suit their needs.
Unfortunately, Christians usually take a too-simplistic approach to this issue. Back in the day, we simply responded to darwinism and old-earth geology with “the Bible says differently” and left it at that. The result was that science completely separated from any knowledge of God and methodological naturalism has become an axiom for scientists.
Nowadays, Christians are (rightfully) embarrassed by this old approach, but instead take the opposite approach. We take a Godless science–the conclusions of which are based on the erroneous (at least with respect to cosmology, geology, and biology) assumption that God never acted to change the physical world in a profound way–and then simply add God back into poor conclusions reached from false assumptions. Life evolved through mutation and natural selection, but God did it… somehow.
There is a lot of embarassment, knee-jerk reactions, and whatnot among Christians that need to be cut through to make any headway on this issue.
LisaV @ 3,
I wanted to ask for some clarification on your last point (because in my experience, it’s one that’s almost always misunderstood). I pick and choose certain parts of the Bible to take literally, but I do it based on literary genre and facets of the text rather than my needs (i.e. I don’t take Psalms or parables literally, but I do take historical narrative literally.) You find this appropriate, right?
Most people who inappropriately explain away parts of scripture don’t believe they are doing what you suggest. They think (either rightly or wrongly) that they are reading it the way it ought to be read, so the point you made is usually lost on them.
Econjeff @2. Disingenuous indeed! I apologise for failing to accurately portray the views of the truth-denying theistic evolutionists. It’s amazing what one can achieve theologically when one establishes one’s own hermeneutical grid. Now that’s disingenuous. What else shall we toss out of scripture? How rationalistic is this movement – if it contradicts reason, then we must leave the literal interpretation and jump to the allegorical and tropological or anagogical. I’m thankful there are Christians who embrace the truth of scripture especially when it contradicts reason.
CL
Crypto-Lutheran @ 6,
Please explain “reason” for me, in the sense in which you used it in your comment.
The way many people read that kind of statement, they think you’re telling them that the Bible can be incoherent and yet believed.
I don’t have time to respond as I would like to, as I have to be on the road 25 minutes from now.
I have done quite a bit of interaction with theistic evolutionists over the past year, and find that there is a tremendous amount of theological diversity among them. Some of them look at the opening chapters of Genesis as purely mythological; others have a very high regard for the Scriptures. Some of them believe in a real Adam, others don’t. Some of them believe that Adam evolved by natural means (but still made of dust in the sense that Adam is made of the same stuff as the rest of creation), others believe Adam was a separate creation of God.
I agree with an earlier commenter who mentioned that we Christians often have a knee-jerk reaction to evolution. In my opinion, the Bible doesn’t really have much to say one way or another about biological evolution.
Many theistic evolutionists reject the idea that evolution is random and purposeless. Simon Conway Morris (a prominent British paleontologist) for example, argues that the way the universe is set up, evolution towards something like humans was inevitable. He uses numerous examples of evolutionary convergence as evidence for this. Howard van Til (who I will admit has gone off the liberal deep end).
The age of the Earth is, in my mind, a separate issue from theological evolution. People like Hugh Ross (Reasons to Believe) are almost as strongly anti-evolutionist as the folks at Answers in Genesis.
I personally am much more accepting of biological evolution as part of God’s creation process than I was a few years ago.
“And God said, ‘Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds’.” Gen 1:24 ESV.
Arghhh. I’ve gotta go, and will be away from the computer all day.
One could believe in sovereign evolution, that God sovereignly directed all of life’s history to His purpose, producing all life from a common ancestor. I imagine some people hold this position, though I haven’t seen anyone use the term “sovereign evolution.”
I think the first sentence of this post started off putting an assumption into the mouths of theistic evolutionists. Here, “Darwinist” seems to be something like a strictly naturalistic view of the universe, extreme Deism – God never touches the world, specifically in regard to evolution.
Sort of like what has been mentioned above, there is a wide gulf of existence between the position of “Darwinist” as mentioned above and “Intelligent Design” which tends to have God as a fairly active guide in evolution.
There are obviously people like Collins and Miller in the broad “theistic evolutionist” crowd, but they are on one end of the spectrum with many others filling in the spectrum all the way over to a full-blown ID position.
Ascribing “Darwinism” to theistic evolutionists as a whole is sort of like saying Lutherans only sing 100+ year old hymns. There are some Lutheran churches that do that, but there’s a wide variety all the way over to those that almost exclusively sing praise songs.
Hmmm, I like the term “sovereign evolution”, John. I think it captures the essence of most of the theistic evolution crowd.
I have talked with some Christians who talk about the sovereignty of God in a way that essentially comes down to God pulling strings on puppets.
I have talked with others who tend to view it as God being in power over all things, but letting things mostly run on their own.
Apply that same range of “sovereignty” meanings to evolution, and it seems to me to cover the views of theistic evolutionists pretty well.
the biggest problem is that pre-Original Sin there was no death. Yet evolution requires death to advance from molecule to man. This is a big problem.
Crypto-Lutheran @6: I had started my response before I had read yours, so I apologize if you think it was directed at you.
What I was trying to say was better said by WebMonk @10. Very few lay Christians believe in “Darwinism”, so attributing it to theistic evolutionists seems like setting up a straw man.
Most Christians just don’t seem to care too much about this issue; they’ve separated the issue from the Bible completely and haven’t thought through what that means. They just pick and choose what they beleive. So attributing all the beliefs of one system of thought to them is misleading.
@Joe #12 Has a good point about the origin of death being tied to the Fall of Man. Rom. 5:12 “Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned”
Also, when God had created everything He called it “very good” (Gen. 1:31). It is hard to reconcile millions of years of death before Adam and Eve with “very good.”
Theistic evolutionists will continue to be clobbered by both sides until they capitulate to either the prevailing philosophy of science or the Bible because they are at odds with both.
I have chosen to believe the Bible, God’s Word, because He is the only reliable witness about the creation since He was there.
If you want to look at some of the views of Christians who believe evolution is accurate, a good source is
answersincreation dt org
Like I mentioned, I haven’t seen that theistic evolutionists hold a narrow band of specific details, but most I’ve talked with have a significant representation of views mentioned in that site.
As for the specific physical death before the fall, there are a variety of ways to look at it, all of which have been held since long before Darwin was a twinkle in his great grandfather’s eye. The answersincreation site sums some of the views here: http://www.answersincreation.org/death.htm
I’ve read a couple other variation when I was in an ancient Christianity class, but they were variations of what is mentioned in that page.
Here’s a little sidebar that summarized the options they talk about on that page. I realize not everyone follows links.
Genesis 2:17 is God’s direct instructions to Adam. God told Adam…
But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
Using a common, literal interpretation, when Adam ate the fruit, he should have died physically that day. Did Adam die the same day he ate the fruit? No, he did not. There are three possibilities. First, God lied to Adam. We know that God cannot lie, so this cannot be the case.
There are two other possible alternatives from which you must choose. The first is that God did not mean physical death at all, but spiritual. When Adam ate the fruit, he sinned, which caused separation between him and God, or spiritual death.
The other alternative is that although the sin did not bring about instant death, it did bring about gradual death, making man susceptible to death. Adam and Eve, by their expulsion from the Garden of Eden, became vulnerable to death.
Another viable alternative is that Adam did die that day. A day to God is different than a day for us. The six creation days were millions of years long. After the creation, God entered His rest…the seventh day, and we are still in that day. Thus, Adam and Eve died on the seventh day.
If I remember correctly, I think that all those options (minus the God lying one) were held by various church fathers.
Seems to me that theistic evolution will have many problems and compund the problems that evolution has. And if I recall right, it seems most evolutionists today have stopped going with Darwin’s theories about it.
Comment #16 Webmonk
What church fathers are referring to? Many of them, like Augustine, did not believe in a literal account of Genesis because they thought God created the world instantly. The idea of it being created in million of years was not espoused by the church fathers. It is important to see how other biblical writers interpret Genesis. Moses, also the author of Genesis, explained that the creation was indeed in 6 days and that is why the Hebrews rested on the sabbath. This was a widely held believe among the Jews during Jesus’ time. Jesus also affirms it when talking about marriage.
Adam did die spiritually as well as physically the day he ate the apple. His body (as well as Eve’s) became corruptable and slowly died. Let’s just take the argument that he died spiritually and that physical death was part of God’s mechanism for His most important creation. Why then did God require physical sacrifices for the Jews? He could require only spiritual sacrifices instead such as prayer, fasting, etc.. Why would He give the second table of the Law? That is loving our neighbor as ourself, which is all related to the physical. Why did Jesus die physically? He could have just died spirtually (which would mean what He sinned?) Why will we have new bodies after we die, if this body is not corrupted by sin? Why will God destroy death if it is part of His design?
Ultimately, if we do not die physically because of sin then sin is not spread to mankind via Adam’s sin. Thus, Jesus could have had an earthly father since sin was not spread through man. This interpretation destroy original sin and the chief article of the Christian faith that the Christ had to physically die for our sins. What it does is impose a prior standard, scientific explanation, onto Scripture and is contrary to the clear teachings of Scripture.
What evidence in the Scriptures are there that man just died spiritually and that the 6 days should not be taken literal?
Trey: “Many of them, like Augustine, did not believe in a literal account of Genesis because they thought God created the world instantly.”
From what I gathered by reading Augustine’s “On Genesis” (although I don’t have a copy handy so I’m severely crippled in my ramblings), Augustine held both “created instantaneously” and “created in six days” to be true and then dove into discussing the theory of that. He goes on to explain that because the Bible gives both accounts they’re both “true with one truth, because they were both written under the inspiration of the Spirit of Truth (Jn 16:13″ (that much I recall). Of course, on that note, I think he goes on to elaborate a theory that explains one large day in which the 6 were compressed and our 7 is a physical representation of the one, etc. And in that sense, Augustine doesn’t seem to be advocating a simple “it happened instantly” solution but rather a more complex dynamic as given in both Gen. 1 and 2.
Regardless, what struck me as more interesting was his discussions about what happened during the Flood in the “City of God”. The question of “how could all the animals fit in the ark?” was very much alive back then and his answer was to the effect of: The “base” animals would have come to Noah and after the flood they would have bred and inter-bred until we have the same variety now as was back then.
While I suppose that could be interpreted as some early form of early “theistic evolution” but I’d take more of a stab at him taking for granted something that everyone already knew about (ie. mix a donkey and a horse and you get a mule) and using it to explain a rather complicated idea.
Darn, I was afraid someone was going to ask me that. It’s been a bunch of years since then, and I don’t remember who the people were. It wasn’t something major like the topic of a day’s lesson, it was a fast list of people with their views. I remember Chrysostom was one of them. I think he was of the spiritual death opinion.
Trey, everyone is non-literal about Genesis to different extents. For you, you believe that God didn’t really mean Adam would die the day he ate the fruit, but rather that he would BEGIN to die. I haven’t met anyone, even those who out-literal me, who take Genesis 2 completely literally because if it is taken strictly literally, it’s in direct conflict with Genesis 1. To a certain extent, I’ve found it’s a continuum of “literalness” that people hold to when it comes to Genesis, and I’ve never found anyone who is completely literal.
Likewise, everyone agrees that there are figurative aspects to the creation account (7th day isn’t just a day, for example), but we disagree on how much stuff is figurative – was the snake really a snake? Did it really eat dirt afterward? was the tree a physical tree, or is it imagery describing the first sin? Etc, etc.
Typically I’ve seen the explanation of non-literal understandings of Genesis to be stated that the writer didn’t intend to write literally in the sense of describing what would have been seen with a video camera back then. In that way they feel they are being much more accurate to the meaning of the Bible than the “literalist”.
There are a couple of points on that page that I’m pretty skeptical of. First, they try to separate human death from animal death, but as any theistic evolutionist must admit, man inherited all the reasons that he dies from his animal ancestors at God’s design.
Second, their point about God not specifically forbidding eating meat in Genesis is rather off, since He specifically allowed it after the flood. Not exactly contradictory, but very very incongruous if eating meat was well known to be God’s intention all along. The natural reading is that this was introduced after the flood.
Third, their pooh-poohing of the “naphesh” distinction is unfair. Granted, Creationists have not created a precise classification system, but everyone can recognize that fish and insects are not alive in the same way as cats and dogs. Most obviously, neither really feel pain in any significant sense the way a mammal or bird does. Very odd that God created mammals to be food and yet made sure they hurt when they’re killed–even humans know enough to put down suffering animals.
Finally, they assume a LOT about Eden in contrast with the rest of the globe. I see little indication in the Bible that God created the rest of the world to be a mass of disease and suffering–except for Eden.
I think a lot of the embrace of “science” (however you want to define it) also seems to stem from a fear of nobody wanting another “Galileo situation” on their hands.
Not that this is the sole reason but the eternal “what if” and “we don’t want to look like idiots” seems to be prevalent in a lot of the thinking and so sacrifices that can get made will be made.
And perhaps the R. C.s are so embarrassed by Teilhard de Chardin that they don’t want to make a mistake in that direction.
The other big issue I have with various old-earth interpretations is the necessity of a local Flood. You really have to play Jack the Ripper on the text in order to put a local flood into it, and I’ve never seen anybody convincingly get a local flood out of the text alone.
I guess that’s why I’m always amazed with the Bible. There’s hardly any actual middle ground you can take with it. Another one I love is when people try to explain Moses crossing the sea in any other manner than what is written.
I just noticed Answers in Creation’s slogan: “Bringing the Bible and Science together without conflict.”
Any meaningful doctrine of creation must include points in time at which physical effects had supernatural causes. If you look at petitions against intelligent design, though, the point that keeps being raised is “methodological naturalism” — that science can only entertain natural causes for physical effects. It is certainly a useful rule for operational science, but to apply it to historical science is to preclude the possibility that God has ever acted in a profound or far-reaching way. Therefore, where God acted (whether on six days or not), science MUST substitute a false naturalistic explanation for a true supernatural explanation.
It seems to me that there SHOULD be a conflict.
On a side note I recently read this from a former Lutheran pastor who then converted to Catholicism and now heads up a church by me. He has a blog and posted on the discovery of the “missing link” but of note:
Matt C.
I don’t know that God created any animal to be food. You certainly don’t find that anywhere in the text. But it is possible I suppose. It is I suppose possible that he even meant for man to eat meat in the Garden of Eden. According to Isaiah we will be eating plenty of it in heaven.
As for God specifically allowing it after the flood, it wasn’t that he had forbidden it before and now was allowing it. He was giving Noah the right to eat whatever meat was available to him, or possibly reassuring him that it was o.k to continue.
People ate meat before the flood. Abels Sacrifice is a good indication of that. Also the distinction between clean and unclean animals going on the Ark. That some were already classified as clean indicates that these were animals generally acceptable to eat.
As for pain and the life of fish and insects. How do you know what a fish feels? Or an Ant?
To science’s credit it must suspend a certain amount of belief in order to get things done in a semi-reasonable fashion.
If I’m studying weather patterns in an attempt to see what’s going to be happening next month–knowing that Elijah could pray and that there would be no more rain for 3 years severely disrupts my work. However, if we then create a condition in which Elijah is not actively praying ,or that Elijah can pray all he wants because there’s ‘no God’ to answer his prayer, I can then say with a fair amount of accuracy whether or not it’ll be raining in the next 7 days.
Of course, when science never comes down from its cloud then things get a little iffy. ie. Just because Elijah prayed it doesn’t mean that HIS prayer is what caused this drought because we all know that correlation doesn’t prove causation so there you flat earther! And then they blame sunspots (it’s always the sunspots’ fault).
A quick note as this seems to be going the way of most creation/evolution discussions, ie. nowhere useful. Most of the discussions of how the other side (whichever you may be on) is OBVIOUSLY wrong typically suffers from sticking one’s own assumptions into the other guy’s frame of reference and then squawking about how the other guy is so dumb because OBVIOUSLY there are points of conflict that any idiot can see.
If you ever look at something and just have the feeling of “Wow, they must be total morons or crooks to think such a thing,” then you’re most likely missing something.
Old Earthers tend to do this with some areas of Bible interpretation that they see to be in conflict, but with a bit of study isn’t what they think.
Young Earthers tend to do this with “science” facts and with some positions of Biblical interpretation by OEers.
Matt # 20, don’t let Todd Wood hear you say that about the animals. He’s far and away the top biologist at AiG and would smack you silly for saying that.
Matt 23, then you haven’t been listening very hard. Let me try to put things forward.
The flood was a local event, but easily large enough that all Noah saw from horizon to horizon was water. He floated around for a year before the water finally drained away. All the people were still gathered into a fairly localized region and were wiped out by the flood. Since Noah and his family were the only ones left to report, then obviously they reported the whole world as covered. Besides, there are lots of places where “all the earth” is very clearly an overstatement to convey a point.
There. All the words are completely accurate just like the authors would have written them, and it matches commonly used phrases found elsewhere in the Bible.
I’m not interested in arguing for the veracity of that interpretation; I’m far more interested in getting people to realize that the other side isn’t populated by idiots or by people who don’t believe the Bible.
This topic always raises interesting discussion on this blog, and the above comments are no exception.
Joe @ 12 does raise a good point about the issue of original sin and pre-sin death, as would be required under any evolutionary explanation for creation. While spiritual death was certainly a consequence of sin, requiring the initiation of God’s plan of salvation through His Son, physical death was also a consequence. Gen. 3:21 records the first physical death, as God made “tunics of skin” for Adam & Eve.
Theories are developed to help explain observed scientific facts. However, in this case, the observed scientific facts supporting the theory of evolution are few, and usually involve substantial extrapolation. We who believe know the Bible is factually true, whether or not we hold to a literal account of Genesis. Yet, in this case, it seems, we have fallen prey to attempting to distort the facts we know to fit a theory, rather than changing or discarding the theory to fit the facts.
We need to be careful whenever we are found to be distorting or creative interpreting a Biblical account to fit a non-biblical, human theory of origin.
Let me see if I can explain my point @ 30 in a different way. As a scientist myself, I can confirm to you that the purpose of a scientific theory is to explain a set of observed facts. These theories help us to understand the world around us by giving us a narrative account of things. This works best when you can develop a complete set of data through direct observation. Unfortunately, when you are dealing with origin theory, our powers of observation are terrible. We can only see in the present time. We find a few fossils in various geological formations, develop other theories about how to properly determine their age, then try to place them on some kind of a time line going back to a date of origin. The farther back those data points are placed, the more extrapolation we have to do to make conclusions about them. And there are huge gaps (allegedly billions of years) with no data points at all.
We who believe that the Bible is God’s Word already have God’s account of creation. We have the narrative account, and we know that it is true. So why do we spend so much time trying to change and “interpret” that account to try to fit humanistic theories of origin? What is the point? The Holy Spirit draws those whom He will to the gospel of Christ. You can be an excellent biologist regardless of your view of origin theory, despite secular scientists’ narrow minded and exclusivist views to the contrary. It is the secular scientific community which has excluded God from the process. Leave them to their theories and let them explain away the conflicts between those theories and God’s Word. We shouldn’t be so defensive about God’s Word.
WebMonk @ #28, could you be more specific?
I so do not want to debate the “local vs world” flood issue either but WebMonk, really?
Why elaborate and then state you have no interest in debating it? Especially in light of what you say after that and your comment right before it.
All too often this is how it goes. A firm statement followed up with “well, I don’t want to get into it.” And that is what happens on both sides of the coin. It’s that very attitude that drives the notion of “well, the ‘other side’ are idiots”. Little understanding it produced at that point because it becomes an either/or situation.
Defend first then go on the offense becomes the rallying cry and everyone is far too busy espousing theories and ideas and logical conclusions to get anywhere. At that point all of the nobilities of science and polite society go out the window as we mud wrestle ourselves into a stalemate.
Webmonk @ 29,
You wrote: “then you haven’t been listening very hard.”
This is a very interesting contrast to what you wrote in 28:
“If you ever look at something and just have the feeling of ‘Wow, they must be total morons or crooks to think such a thing,’ then you’re most likely missing something.”
This was very good advice, but then, I find that I don’t consistantly listen to my own advice either. It sucks to be a sinner.
And yes, Noah could certainly have mistaken a local flood for a global one. However, as I know you are aware, Moses was the writer and the Holy Spirit was the author, so I’m not sure how that explanation really applies.
And yes, I realize “all the world” can be legitimate overstatement (and often is). However, the frequency with which all-inclusive language is used with respect to geography and animal life makes that an extremely unlikely and unnatural interpretation. If Paul told the Romans that their faith was being reported all over the world 34 times within several chapters of the letter, I wouldn’t think that was overstatement either.
And while I realize a blog is a poor place to be exhaustive, I’m sure you realize you passed over a number of equally important points. You said you weren’t interested in the veracity of the interpretation, so I won’t go into more detail. However I stand by my original opinion: forcing the Flood to be local does extreme violence to the text. It can be done without contradiction, but one is left with a hermeneutic that I wouldn’t accept in any other context. Even the intelligent and careful can make profound mistakes when they are highly motivated to do so.
What gets me is if it were just a local flood, why the extra hassle for Noah?
120 years of getting insulted for making a huge boat, 120 years of having to make a huge boat, then all the gathering of animals, etc. Presumably God is still God so it’d be reasonable to assume that a message would have gone out to the animals to head for a nonlocal spot where the flood wouldn’t hit and God could have then told Noah to head for the hills as well.
The people wouldn’t have noticed Noah and co. leaving and the animals wouldn’t have been noticed either since only 2 of them would have left. The end result would have been the same most of mankind dies and Noah and co. are saved. The only difference is that Noah doesn’t have to put up with 120 years of hassle.
Of course, if we were to accept a local flood and we were to accept that God had Noah work and suffer for a the reason of being saved from the flood, I suppose you could also gather some fashion of works based salvation out of the story…
I’m trying to move away from endless web arguments, but for the benefit of any interested parties, I’ve posted a little bit of my own journey wrt these matters on my blog: http://scyldingsinthemeadhall.blogspot.com/2009/06/creationism-and-all-that.html
The Scylding @ 36: I read your linked post, and I think you and I agree, if I am understanding it correctly. The Bible controls, as God’s account of Truth, human theories are meant to contradict and to be contradicted, and we cannot know all we think we need to know until the next world
If we don’t accept the creation account, what makes us think that we can accept the resurrection of Jesus from the dead or his truning water into wine? If there are no miracles like creation or the resurrection, why are we reading these blogs? Jesus is still dead and we are men most miserable. Thiestic evolution is hogwash.
Matt C. at #7 wrote “Please explain “reason” for me, in the sense in which you used it in your comment.” I was referencing the mediæval hermeneutical method. If a mediæval scholar coudn’t understand (i.e. contradicted human reason) something in the literal sense, he turned to the allegorical or one of the other two senses. We have difficulty with Gen.1-3 because it contradicts human reason, as do all miracles. But our wisdom is folly, and God’s folly is wisdom. So if we deny the miracle of creation, or strive to “explain it rationally away”, then what’s to stop us from doing the same with all scriptural miracles? It’s one of the reason if believe in the actual, real, bodily presence of Jesus Christ in the Lord’s Supper. It’s a miracle. It is against human reason. It is humanly irrational. But if God could create, contrary to all human reason, the whole world and all in it, anthropomorphosise, and change water into wine, etc., then he can certainly change mere bread and wine into his flesh and blood. If you deny the literal sense of Gen.1-3 you can throw out a whole lot – hmmmm, kind of like modern mainstream protestant churches. I think it was Luther who once wrote “if that is to be our hermeneutical method, why, I can prove from scripture that beer is better than wine”….
Blessings,
CL
Leif 33, I think you missed my point. I actually have some issues with the local flood interpretation, but the point I was trying to get across is that the local flood explanation is NOT a blind rejection of what the Bible says.
At times, we react to someone’s position on something like a local Flood by brushing them off as scripture-rejecters, when they aren’t doing anything of the sort. This is also true for other issues too, but I used the local Flood since it was on topic. As another example, I’ve lost track of how often I’ve heard that all non-Lutheran Christians are all just Bible-rejecters for not agreeing with the Lutheran view of the Sacraments.
The detail of the argument isn’t the issue – the argument (Global/Local Flood, nature of Sacraments) merely draws out the scornful and dismissive reaction.
Leif #35 – that’s my biggest issue with the local Flood understanding, but blithely saying everyone who follows the local Flood to be playing “Jack the Ripper on the text” is ridiculous.
Matt #34, am I being obtuse? What I just put forward was something that you admitted was non-contradictory and has a non-stupid support. Yes, you disagree with it and think it’s playing too loose with “all” for your comfort, but the mere fact that there is a reasonable debate back and forth reinforces my point -
Labeling people as Biblical Jack the Rippers, saying they don’t believe the Bible, and suggesting they toss out scripture (all things said above in these comments) when there is a reasonable support for the view does nothing but drive apart any discussions. You may not think they are reasonable enough, but the mere fact that you are reasoning in a non-stupid way with them means the scorn and derisiveness should have no part.
What most describes the creation/evolution debate among Christians? Calm discussion? Brotherly disagreement? Not hardly. Scorn, derision, name-calling, rejection, division.
Ahh, I missed it. Yup, all those nasty theistic evolutionists don’t really believe in Jesus Christ either. Yup.
Webmonk,
God’s word does not deceive. You shouldn’t take so much pride in your intellect.
CL
FYI – I am just about to finish a pretty good book on a related topic. It’s called “Old Earth Creationsim On Trail.” It is written by two young earth creationists and it addresses some of the common arguments of old earth creationists.
WebMonk @40
I do understand with what you’re getting at and believe me when I say I am in complete agreement with you on the lines of I wish people would be able to debate and not react. However, it seems that what you desire are perfect circumstances and this is the web. We’re by no means in perfect circumstances and, to be quite honest, I’m pretty sure we’re in purgatory–working off our sins by endlessly commenting on blogs, forums, etc. w00t!
That and we’re human.
Topics will always get sidetracked and once sidetracked the reactions get more hardcore. I think the creation/evolution debate has even more weight because it seems to call into question how each and every one of us interprets the Bible. Couple that with the fundamental questions it raises when a view is challenged (such as death, uniqueness of man, even the future–do we keep evolving?) and you have a hotbed for reaction rather than debate.
Needless to say how one interprets the Bible, even to the most trivial of issues, determines just how slippery the slope is. Hence the reactions. IMO, Efrem’s comment made perfect sense because the point that “once you start “interpreting” where the Bible where do you stop?” is indeed a valid point. Obviously we can debate the hogwash bit but I’m trying to be all diplomat.
I can see evolution as a limited process, I can see the old earth as a thing, but I cannot see how one can justify the uniqueness of a man that evolved from some other beastie. At what point does the soul enter into the picture? Which variation of manbeast finally hit the mark? etc. How does this relate with Jesus saying that the Father is still working?
Unfortunately, debating this segues into pages and pages and on a blog it’s far easier to say “jerkwad!”.
Sigh. I must eat now.
I was away from the discussion all day, but it has gone pretty much as I expected. I was on the road, drove in heavy rain and even wet snow, and took a four-hour test as part of the application process for a job. I’m exhausted. I hope my two cents worth is worth more than two cents to someone.
I’ll start with Joe’s (comment #43) recommendation of Old Earth Creationism on Trial. I haven’t read the book, but I have paged through it in the local Christian bookstore. It contains little new information, but does contain some of the faulty arguments that plague the young-Earth creationism movement. Here’s one example.
On page 124 (if I remember correctly), the authors use the amount of sea salts entering the oceans as one of their proofs that the Earth is young. According to the authors, if one measures the amount of salts entering the ocean and then compares that to the amount of salts that are already in the oceans, one can obtain the maximum age of the oceans. I forget the exact number they came up with, but the maximum age they gave is in the tens of millions of years, which is far less than the age of 4.5 billion years given by geologists.
Here’s the problem:
If you use this reasoning with the element sodium (part of sodium chloride), one ends up with a maximum age of 260 million years for the ocean. But there are many other elements in solution in seawater, and using the same reasoning, one obtains the following maximum ages for the ocean:
– K – 11 million years
– Cu – 50,000 years
– Pb – 2,000 years
– Fe – 140 years
– Al – 100 years
Using this sort of reasoning, one should come to the conclusion that the oceans are no more than 100 years old! Something is obviously wrong here. What is wrong is that we cannot determine the age of the oceans by these means.
What the authors fail to take into account is the various means by which elements can be removed from the oceans. They mention sea spray, but this is a minor means of removal. In today’s oceans, many of these elements are removed from the ocean over time as seawater circulates through the sediments and rocks in the oceanic crust. Additionally, there are huge deposits of salt in the sedimentary rock record, which is another way in which the various elements have been removed from seawater over time.
What is going on here is not a means of determination of the age of the oceans, but a demonstration of equilibrium. Sodium goes into the ocean, sodium is removed from the ocean at approximately the same rate. The same is true for all of the elements dissolved in seawater.
To summarize: Books like Old Earth Creationism on Trial may seem like a good defense of the Bible to those who know little geology, but are full of poor arguments. These arguments may be convincing to those without the background to evaluate them, but there are serious problems that the authors either don’t themselves understand or choose to ignore. This is not apologetics but anti-apologetics, and serves to drive scientists away from Christianity rather than pointing them to Christ.
The topic of death before the fall has come up, as it almost always does in these discussions. Old Earth creationists (whether or not they are theistic evolutionists) have to accept death before the fall. Young Earth creationists say that there was no death before the fall, and this is part of their theological proof that Earth must be young.
So what does the Bible say? Here is my Biblical defense of animal death before the fall:
1. Neither Romans 5 nor 1 Corinthians 15 say anything at all about animal death. These passages do refer specifically to human death being the result of Adam’s sin. Reading animal death into these passages is an unnecessary extrapolation.
2. Young-Earth creationists (YECs) point to the curse in Genesis 3 as the origin of animal death. But just like in the previously mentioned passages, Genesis 3 does not say that animal death is a result of the fall. Again, this is something that YECs read into the passage, rather than something that they draw out of the passage. The curse had some sort of effect on the human relationship with creation (the futility and difficulty of work), but it was not necessarily a radical re-ordering of the creation as YECs insist. A related passage is Romans 8:20-22, which states that the whole creation groans. Just like in Genesis 3, the passage does not state the nature of that groaning.
3. YECs often seem to assume that the entire Earth was the Garden of Eden, or that it was Heaven. On the other hand, the opening chapters of Genesis depict Eden as a limited geographic place somewhere in Mesopotamia, set apart from the wild lands outside of the garden. The lands outside of the garden could certainly have been a place where death (and predation) occurred as a warning to Adam and Eve of what would happen if they disobeyed. Without this visible illustration of what it meant to die, God’s statement that they would certainly die if they disobeyed could have been meaningless to Adam and Eve.
4. We assume that in the pre-Fall world, God was only glorified by cute, gentle things like bunnies and daisies. But in the Scriptures, predation is portrayed as something that glorifies God (Job and Psalms (e.g. Ps 104:21)). There is no indication in these passages that something is wrong with the creation.
5. Another indication from the Garden of Eden that animal death could have occurred before the fall is the nature of the Tree of Life. In Genesis, the Tree of Life is provided so that humans could eat of it (one time? on an ongoing basis?) and live forever. There is no indication that the Tree of Life was provided also for animals. So, if we listen to the YEC line of reasoning, humans needed the Tree of Life to live forever, but animals did not.
6. Even after the curse of Genesis 3, God never revoked the “goodness” of creation (1 Tim 4:4). We live in a world with animal death, and yet God calls it “good.”
7. What would carnivorous animals have eaten if they were forbidden to eat other animals? Many carnivores are very specialized for eating and digesting only other animals and would die on a plant-only diet. Consider animals such as the leach, anteater, or T-rex (no, I don’t buy the YEC ideas that T-rex teeth were designed to crush thick-rinded melons). As I said earlier, predation in the Psalms and Job is something that brings glory to God. Additionally, there is no Scriptural indication that there was a massive re-creation of animals either after the fall or after the flood to make them into predators.
I haven’t even touched on the scientific problems of their being no animal death before the fall.
I may not have convinced some of you, but I hope I have at least shown that “no death before the fall” doesn’t necessarily flow out of the pages of Scripture, and that other Biblical understandings of animal death are possible.
In regards to Old Earth creationists and theistic evolutionists rejecting the Bible, consider the following conservative Biblical scholars all accepted an old Earth (and some of whom accepted evolution to one degree or another):
–C.S. Lewis
–Charles Spurgeon
–Francis Schaeffer
–Charles Hodge
–B.B. Warfield
Sorry for the lack of Lutheran scholars. I’m not Lutheran.
Hodge and Warfield were instrumental in developing the idea of inerrancy in response to liberalism back at the end of the 19th century.
Answers in Genesis recently posted sermons by Charles Spurgeon (19th century British Calvinist Baptist) on their web site. They actually had the audacity to edit at least one sermon to remove references to millions of years before Adam.
The authors of the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (the standard Evangelical statement on the doctrine of inerrancy) intentionally left out any statement on the age of the Earth. Their vote on this was almost unanimous. Though many of these leading conservative Biblical scholars themselves accept a young Earth, they knew that there are other valid understandings and that they could not be dogmatic on the issue.
As an old Earth creationist who accepts much of evolutionary theory, I believe in a real creation by a real God who has revealed himself to us in Scripture, in nature, and above all in Christ. I believe in a real Adam in a real garden, in a real fall with real consequences, and in Jesus Christ as the only solution for our sin and its consequences. An acceptance of an old Earth (or even much of evolution) does not make one reject any core doctrines of the Christian faith.
I’ve been perhaps too wordy, so I’ll try to give a very brief defense of a local flood:
– The Bible does not say that the sedimentary rock record was deposited by the flood, and most of what AiG and ICR say about the flood is contradicted by field and lab evidence. I’m writing a series about this — go to http://geochristian.wordpress.com/2009/05/19/six-bad-arguments-from-answers-in-genesis-part-3/ for an example.
– “All the Earth” can also be translated “all the land.” To read this with a picture of the Earth as a globe is reading a picture into the text that the Hebrews would not have had as they read it.
– “All the Earth” is used often in the Scriptures as meaning something less than what we think of as “all the Earth.” When all nations came to Joseph for food in Genesis 41:57, does this mean that the Chinese and Mesoamericans were there? I don’t think so. There are other examples of this.
– The flood was universal in that it stretched from horizon to horizon from Noah’s perspective, and in that it destroyed all the descendants of Adam. We don’t have to take it farther than that.
I’m not saying that I completely understand the flood. I don’t know when and where it was, but that does not bother me all that much.
Sorry, I ended up being wordy. But everything I am saying is consistent with a high view of Scripture.
I left a sentence hanging in my first comment (#8). I’ll finish my thought here.
Howard van Til (who I will admit has gone off the liberal deep end) advocated a fully-gifted creation. It certainly is possible that God could create a universe with laws that allow for self-organization and an increase in biological complexity over time. The question is whether or not we live in that kind of universe, and this can be addressed through scientific means.
Webmonk @ 40:
You wrote:
“Matt #34, am I being obtuse? What I just put forward was something that you admitted was non-contradictory and has a non-stupid support. Yes, you disagree with it and think it’s playing too loose with “all” for your comfort, but the mere fact that there is a reasonable debate back and forth reinforces my point”
I said it was non-contradictory, not “non-stupid”. Even the stereotypical mentally ill hobo usually has non-contradictory explanations for how he knows the government is tracking him through a device implanted in their teeth. As Chesterton put it, the insane never lose their reason; they lose everything else. Non-contradictory is necessary, but woefully insufficient for worthwhile debate.
You wrote:
“Labeling people as Biblical Jack the Rippers, saying they don’t believe the Bible, and suggesting they toss out scripture (all things said above in these comments) when there is a reasonable support for the view does nothing but drive apart any discussions. You may not think they are reasonable enough, but the mere fact that you are reasoning in a non-stupid way with them means the scorn and derisiveness should have no part.”
For the record, I labeled the methodology as “playing Jack the Ripper” not the inviduals. I also did not intend to suggest that they toss out scripture; I suggested they do violence to the text. If they tossed out scripture, they wouldn’t need to do violence to the text. I also stand by my description; it may be too colorful, but in my experience, it is accurate.
Take the article here, for example:
http://www.answersincreation.org/genesisflood.htm
The author is extremely detailed, covers the important bases, makes his argument from Scripture alone, performs a very close examination of the text, etc. It is a very well-reasoned article. However, despite his skill in managing the details he makes a series of very basic and obvious mistakes. Highly embarassing mistakes. Mistakes that kill his entire argument. Mistakes that somebody of his caliber should never ever have made. I take your advice in 28 seriously, but they really are there despite his equally obvious skill and intelligence. Far from encouraging me to forget them, respect compels me to recognize them. One ignores or chuckles along with the stupid mistakes of children, not adults.
You wrote:
“What most describes the creation/evolution debate among Christians? Calm discussion? Brotherly disagreement? Not hardly. Scorn, derision, name-calling, rejection, division.”
I completely agree with you on this. This same situation also tempts people to see ad hominem where there is none (because there so often is). Reaching a fruitful discussion needs more than just charity in our own words, but charity in how we interpret those of others. It will also require all sides to ignore personal insult for the sake of the discussion. Frequently, such insults aren’t intended anyway (for example, when you made my concerns all about “my comfort” in the first paragraph I quoted. I know you didn’t intend that to be insulting, but many people would take it that way. That’s one of the problems with AiG–they frequently jump all over stuff like that instead of getting to the heart of the question.)
However, the end we’re both looking for cannot be served by obfuscation. There is a line to walk between being insulting and being vapid & patronizing. I surely fall down on both sides, but I rely on the Cross for that–not on avoiding one by camping out in the other. I hope that one day a reasonable back-and-forth will be more common for both sides.
CL 42 – you just provided another example. Thanks. I may very well agree with you – I’ve been trying very hard to hide my own view because it will distract one side or the other from the main point I’m trying to make.
But, because you assume I disagree with you, you tell me I’m being prideful.
Lief – I totally agree with you that there are slippery slope sort of situations. Everyone interprets the Bible in all sorts of areas, not just this area. In most other areas though, we manage to debate each other without calling names and doubting others’ salvation. This is the Internet, so it tends to bring out the nastiness in people, but even outside the Internet, it seems that this topic is one where the name calling comes out especially strong.
Matt #50, I was talking about your comfort with the understanding of “all” in the Flood, not all about your comfort.
And just to make it clear, “playing Jack the Ripper” is pretty calm and rational compared to the rest of the Internet; I’m just using it as a broad reference to the more common tone of these discussions evidenced in this thread by some of the other comments.
Crypto-Lutheran @ 39,
Thank you for your response. I figured that that is what you meant — the problem is that very few people immediately think of the problems with medieval hermenuetical techniques when they hear “reason.” All the ones who do seem to be Lutheran. Most people equate reason with logic (although I do think there should be more nuance there). Most think such comments are urging them to forget logic when reading the Bible and realize that if one reads the Bible without logic, it ultimately cannot even be considered meaningful.
For this reason, I frequently implore Lutherans to use different language when making the point you made. Because of the very very common misunderstanding, it often does more harm than good. It was very perceptible at the Reformation, but less so now.
I would, however, take issue with you describing miracles as irrational. I think non-rational is a better word. Miracles do not contradict reason, they just cannot be arrived at by it.
WebMonk @ 52,
Fair enough. Thank you!
Kevin N: thanks for your insightful comments. I want to bookmark your blog. Vern Poythress has a good book, “Redeeming Science,” which is very helpful on the way Christians should be regarding science.
It saddens me at the vitriol that some “young earthers” use against those who do not hold to YEC. This usually includes maligning conservative scholars such as Warfield and Hodge; people like Ken Ham are adept at this.
Athanasius, Augstine and Hilary changed the first 6 days into a moment. There was no million year theory with them. Nonetheless, their interpretation is fallible. God did create the matter in one day and organized it in the other 5 days.
What I see many doing in regards to the Scripture is taking a prior standard (science or geology or self) and imposing it on the Scripture instead of allowing the Scripture to interpret itself. Let’s look what Scripture states regarding the hexaemeron (6 days). Exodus 20,9-11 states:
8 “Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your animals, nor the alien within your gates. 11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.
Notice that after this verse, no where in the rest of Scripture speaks of the creation in detail because it is received as being truth. No one questioned the commandment. God was there, we weren’t. In all due deference, we should take His Word for it. Also, there is no figurative language in Genesis or any clue that we should take it figuratively. If so, where does the writer use it to compare or contrast? We see this in the other figurative type books such the apocalyptic books, but not in Genesis or Exodus. Scripture is to be read in is natural, plain sense not with a prior standard imposing it on the text. This hits at the heard of the Gospel do we believe the Words of God or the words of men? If God’s Words are unreliable then we are in utter despair.
Kevin,
I would much rather hear your scientific defense, because I find your Biblical defense as less than convincing.
I just don’t see how the stuff you mentioned in post #46 which is not necessarily for the young earthers’ interpretation then necessarily supports your interpretation.
You seriously don’t think that the fall had any effects on creation past humanity? Oh wait. You don’t believe that anything outside of Eden was “created” but evolved. If your view is reality, I’ll be an athiest (Sorry, I think that’s a bit to snide – but I really don’t understand how I would deal with reality if I were to live in your system of belief). Because when I look at the evil that is pervasive throughout all of creation, I am propelled to see a revealed Savior for the whole of it – NOT just for a little corner in mesopotamia where some little demiurge set up a little play-place for Adam, Eve, a Snake, and Noah in his little bathtub.
Or put another way, your view could seem to seperate me as a human from the world around me. What I discovered in science I would not need to apply fully to myself and what I learned from my spirituality (like my stewardship over God’s creation motivated by His grace) likewise.
Also, I don’t know how you would get away from believing in an afterlife of new creation where the world that God sets into motion is not just as likely to wipe out millions through tsunamis and stuff. What about there being no crying or pain. Is heaven then just an eternal numbness?
I guess it seems to me that your keen intelligence (which I admire by the way) seems to be shaping your reading of the text of God’s Word. I still seek to have God’s Word shape my reason by His grace.
Trey (#56) and Bryan (#57) say that it is wrong to bring science into Biblical interpretation. I agree that we need to be careful when using outside information to interpret the Scriptures, but I would also say that it is unwise to try to interpret the Bible in a vacuum.
It is not always improper to use our observation of the world to help us understand the Scriptures. In fact, we do it all of the time. Our knowledge of Mesopotamian, Egyptian, and Roman history and customs has given many insights into our understanding of the Word, without undermining the Word’s authority in any way. If we didn’t do this, we would end up reading our culture into the Bible, which would lead to many misinterpretations.
The same is true of science. A good example of where science helps us to understand Scripture is Psalm 104:5, which says, “He set the earth on its foundations, so that it should never be moved.” (ESV). Well, does the Earth move, or doesn’t it? If you say, “It moves,” then you have allowed science to shape your understanding of Scripture.
No, I asked for your science.
I’ll trust you that the salt argument is basically meaningless.
In the rest of your posts it sounded like a lot more assertion of what you want it to say than science to me. Please more science. More evidence!
And you give us sciences insight into understanding Psalm 104:5? Come on! You can do better than that. You’re right its obviously a contradiction between science and God’s revelation. No one until now (thanks to science!) could possible understand that God has set the earth in orbit (thanks science, really!) and that it will continue to follow these “foundations” until God knocks it out the park.
Wow – sure glad we had science to clear that up. We can all rest easy now.
Now what about the substance of my challenges Kevin? You didn’t take them seriously did you. I think I’m taking your worldview pretty seriously. Why not reciprocate for us rather than in effect call Trey and Me strict Biblicist idiots (which I don’t think I am – but you’re the intellect here – you’re probably reight).
I’ll go suck my idiot thumb and in the corner and wait for a more substantial answer from you.
Bryan (#57):
What I said about death before the fall wasn’t an attempt to show that the Earth is old, but to show that one of the main young-Earth arguments for the age of the Earth is not valid.
The two most commonly used Biblical arguments for a young Earth are that the Hebrew word for day (yom) is used in a literal sense in Genesis 1 (even though it is used in a figurative sense in Genesis 2:4), and that death could not have occurred before the fall (something that not a single passage used by YECs actually says).
Did the fall have an effect outside of its effect on humans? I think so, but I cannot say from Scriptures exactly what that effect was. The young-Earth creationists read a lot into the Bible in regards to the fall; basically a near total re-creation of the entire Earth. This is going way beyond what the text itself says.
I never presented God as just the God of a little corner of Mesopotamia; a local deity no different than those of Ur, Kish, or Nippur. He is the God of the entire universe from the very first verse of Genesis, even if the focus for a brief time (Ch 2 & 3) is on Eden. This does not change later when the focus of the Scriptures are on Israel; the God of Israel is the God of all creation.
I am sorry that you take the “young-Earth or atheist” approach to the issue. I’ve seen that position presented to our youth, and it is a dangerous approach. When they see that many of the YEC arguments (the sea salt argument I mentioned in comment #45, decay of the Earth’s magnetic field, human and dinosaur footprints together, the Earth being younger than Jericho, etc) just don’t work, they will take the “young-Earth or atheist” advice and throw out their Christianity along with their AiG and Dr. Dino videos.
Kevin (@58), I think we’d all agree that it’s impossible for us to interpret Scripture “in a vacuum”. Who can read it and not bring what he already knows to bear on it?
The question really is: does this outside information reinforce what we’re reading, or alter its meaning? The ancient history that you mention only serves to reinforce what we’re reading. At least, if I understand what you’re referring to.
But in no way would I read the first few chapters of Genesis as you do unless I had outside knowledge — that is, science gets first billing in this interpretation, with Scripture filling in the gaps. This is especially so when you take into account Exodus 20 (as cited by Trey @56). The only reason I would read “day” and think “okay, not a literal ‘day’” is if I had other information that precluded a literal reading already.
Now, you ask about Psalm 104. It’s a good question. I would argue that the context here is rather different. The Psalms are written differently than Genesis. And Psalm 104 certainly reads poetically to me — perhaps it reads no differently to you. I don’t read Hebrew, nor am I familiar with ancient poetry styles, but I note that the NIV editors saw fit to present Psalm 104 as poetry in their layout. Perhaps that is significant.
Anyhow, I do not doubt that my modern knowledge comes to mind when I read that, causing me to see it as not terribly literal, but honestly, do you think God is literally “clothed with splendor and majesty”? Do you think he’s literally “wrapped … in light as with a garment”? Perhaps at some point in the past, believers thought God literally “lay the beams of his upper chambers on [the] waters [of the heavens]“, I don’t know. But does the “wind” literally have “wings”? Or does this all sound like so much poetic license?
Meanwhile, what in the text of Genesis 1 would cause you to think it’s not literal, especially with the Exodus 20 expansion on it?
I realize that’s only one example from you, but I feel there’s enough reason within the text of Psalm 104 to read it figuratively. Not so Genesis 1.
Also, your note (@48) that
would seem to imply that the Holy Spirit was limited by Noah’s knowledge, which is troubling. I have no trouble believing Noah might have been mistaken. But he wasn’t the one who wrote that down in Scripture for us.
Again, your ascribing to me, something I did not say “young earth or athiest”.
“the sea salt argument I mentioned in comment #45, decay of the Earth’s magnetic field, human and dinosaur footprints together, the Earth being younger than Jericho, etc.”
I’m not acquainted with most of these arguments and yet I’m also not convinced (lots of propaganda to the contrary) that the earth must necessarily be billion and billions of years old or that the earth cannot possibly be less than 10,000 years old. When we get back to origins, it just seems empirical science is too limited in its abilities to really tell us much of substance. I love empirical science. Do you have any of that for your views that there was no mass extinction event that was pervasive for the whole world or that the earth must necessarily be a million or more years old?
Bryan (#59):
I haven’t focused on science because I know that with an audience with a high respect for and knowledge of the Scriptures, that the Bible needs to be my starting point. I need to make a Biblical case before I can make a scientific case. The point of my posts was that neither the YEC position that the Bible requires no animal death before the fall nor that it requires a globally universal flood are required by the text of the Scriptures.
Yes, it did take science to show us that the Earth moves. Until the Copernican revolution, virtually everyone believed that the Earth was the center of the universe and that it did not move. This was believed by philosophers, and supported by theologians based on passages like Psalm 104:5 and Joshua 10 (the long day). It took over 100 years for philosophers/scientists to be convinced that the sun is the center of the solar system, and it took the church just as long (and not just the Catholics).
I’m not calling anyone an idiot. That does not mean that I am not concerned about bad science being presented as apologetics within the church and Christian education movement. I could write a whole book here about the scientific problems with young-Earth creationism, but this is Veith’s blog (one of the best on the internet), not mine.
Kevin said: “I never presented God as just the God of a little corner of Mesopotamia; a local deity no different than those of Ur, Kish, or Nippur. He is the God of the entire universe from the very first verse of Genesis, even if the focus for a brief time (Ch 2 & 3) is on Eden. This does not change later when the focus of the Scriptures are on Israel; the God of Israel is the God of all creation.”
But don’t you see how your arguments could reasonably and easily lead someone that way?
Sure my view could also be misunderstood to say we should discard science textbooks and replace them with Bibles but I also, in no way think that.
The struggling with the empirical data to best guess what is behind it in terms of God’s created laws and the logic of the universe is an exceptionally good thing. I just think a lot of scientists lean on presuppositions and prior interpreted data too much.
a localized deity, that is.
Trey @56
Gotcha. I read “instant” and got hung up on the big explanations Augustine gave for six days and the one day and how one day was right but there were six days too, etc.
Also, thanks for the Exodus bits!
Gotta go – sorry – this is fun, looking forward to a reading more thoughtful response from you later. I agreed that copernicus was a good guy in my post # 59 and I actually meant that. Thanks for the good discussion. Just think some backward thinking OE creationist ought to challenge you a little’s all.
See what I mean – YE not OE.
tODD (#61):
Thanks for your response.
In regards to the parallel between days and the sabbath, it is important to remember that the creation week is also the pattern for the sabbath year and for the year of jubilee. In neither of these cases is a literal year or group of seven years required.
Psalm 104 clearly has a poetic structure. The structure goes beyond individual verses, with the seven days of creation being repeated twice in the passage (e.g. in vv. 1-14 having themes of light, the heavens, earth, waters, land, sea, animals, birds, and humans). Poetry does not necessarily mean “not true” but “truth expressed in a different way.”
Genesis 1 is, in my mind, of a genre that has no exact parallel elsewhere in the Bible. It has parallels to certain pieces of Mesopotamian covenant literature, and that could have a place in helping us to understand what Moses was getting at. It has a structure to it (as much of Hebrew narrative does) but that does not mean that it is “poetic.” As you said, it does not have the same poetic feel to it as Psalm 104 does. But it doesn’t have the same feel to it as a piece of narrative Scripture, such as 1 Kings, either.
Genesis 1 is not poetry, but it is not strictly narrative either. It is truth, but in what way is that truth expressed?
I will admit that there are difficult areas in the interpretation of the opening chapters of Genesis. Those problems, however, are not limited to those who hold to an old Earth.
KevinN: “”Poetry does not necessarily mean “not true” but “truth expressed in a different way.””
True enough but with such truth expressed in such a different way arguments can be made on all sides of the equation with, more or less, equal invalidity.
To say the Psalmist erred because he wrote that the Earth could not be moved from its foundations based off of “well, we all know that the earth rotates around the sun because of Science!” isn’t exactly a case against the literal or a case for poetic license to divvy up scripture.
It could just as easily be said that, given what we know about orbits, gravity, space, and physics confirms that the earth is indeed in a “foundation” and cannot be moved out of it (barring the whole Venus hitting us in 5 billion years theory).
Also, a long while back, you used Joshua as an example for geocentrist argument. This too is a little on the shady side since, again, knowing what we know about science if God were to suspend the orbits–both sun and moon would “sit still in the sky”.
I guess what I grow weary of is the idea that one just has to throw scripture out there and present a view as “right” when, in fact, all that makes them right in is their view of scripture. I read recently on another blog someone arguing against Paul because he was a known liar. They went on to “prove” this by citing I Cor. 9:20. Are they right?
Nor does appealing to authority make an argument more accurate or true. CS Lewis could have believed the sky was green but that doesn’t make a good reason for me to believe him as well–regardless of how often I dress up as Prince Caspian.
Kevin, I think you should also mention that we are expecting the pre-scientific community of Genesis to have adopted our scientific measurements of time.
Richard (@71), I’m pretty certain that they had the same concept of a “day” that we do, although they considered its starting point differently than we do. Are you arguing otherwise, that our “scientific measurements” give us a notably different concept of a day?
Furthermore, are you arguing that the Holy Spirit was hindered in his scientific accuracy by the knowledge of the people at that time?
Leif (#70):
I appreciate your insights. I agree that it was wrong for earlier scholars to interpret Psalm 104:5 as anything other than figurative, but my point is that they didn’t. It took a little science to get them to re-examine the verse. Cannot we do the same with Genesis, especially given that its genre isn’t exactly narrative?
The “appeal to authority” to men like C.S. Lewis, Francis Schaeffer, and Charles Spurgeon (comment #47) is just a piece of the Biblical and theological argument for an old Earth. The reason I bring them into all this is to point out that there are people who have a very high view of Scripture (well, perhaps Lewis doesn’t fit as well in the list) who hold to an old Earth. You may not agree with them on every point, but you cannot dismiss them as liberals or compromisers.
Hey, tODD! “No” to your last question and “Yes” to your first.
“I guess what I grow weary of is the idea that one just has to throw scripture out there and present a view as “right” when, in fact, all that makes them right in is their view of scripture.”
Leif, that was very nicely and concisely stated. That is almost exactly what Kevin is saying is happening in the YEC interpretation of scripture.
Bryan #64, I’m not sure how long you’ve been tracking with AiG, but those are all arguments they have used – man and dino tracks together, recessing moon, magnetic field depletion, sea salt, moon dust, shrinking sun, slowing lightspeed, etc. I have their books from 20-30 years ago, and those were all arguments they used.
tODD 72, AiG has some papers on this. The word used for ‘day’ was used in several different ways, and could mean just the daylight portion of a day, a 24-hour day, or an indefinite length of time.
As an English example, we could say “In my father’s day….” That would be an example of the indefinite length meaning of ‘day’.
AiG has a pretty good explanation of the Hebrew concept of ‘day’ and its various meanings. To summarize them, it’s the exact same word (yom), and the meaning of the word is found by the context.
In regards to “day” I agree with WebMonk (#76).
The word “day” is used in the “In my father’s day” sense at least once in the opening chapters of Genesis. Genesis 2:4 says “in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens,” (ESV) and here “day” refers to the entire creation period.
Young-Earth creationists often site a “rule” of Hebrew grammar that whenever days are numbered, then they must be taken as literal, 24-hour days. Other conservative Biblical scholars point out that this is an invented rule, created by YECs to reinforce their own interpretation.
Kevin N(#73):
They may not be liberals or compromisers but they’re not always 100% right either and I can certainly dismiss their arguments if they are flawed from the start.
Francis Schaeffer made an argument once that Marcel Duchamp’s Nude Descending a Staircase was actually an instrument of sin. How? Because you read the title and you start looking for the nude in the painting, and then you made the nude woman in your head and after a bit more extrapolating you’ve been consumed by SIN!
Is he right in this assessment because he was, after all, Dr. Schaeffer. Or can I disagree based off of his extreme pietism and dismiss his argument?
To agree says that all nudes everywhere are inciting sin and corruption. The artists, therefore, are the creators of these atrocities and are heaping damnation upon all of mankind. This idea can then be extrapolated to included depictions and stories about the Garden of Eden/Adam and Eve (Lucas Cranach, you’ve been served!). And then, probably, if we’re really pietistic about this we could go crazy and say that because the Bible mentions Adam and Eve naked we hear those words and think about naked people and sin by reading the Bible.
So, yes, in that case I can dismiss Francis Schaeffer–maybe not his whole body of work nor the man but I can dismiss his theory and belief there.
Interestingly, what I can never dismiss them for is making compromises. For Schaeffer, there is no compromise here–only a my-way-or-the-highway attitude. If I suggest that maybe “Nude Descending a Staircase” is not an incentive to sin but rather an interesting modern work I’m perjuring myself and just not admitting that I like to think about naked women. And that, I think, is the angle that is the most disturbing. They’re not converting or compromising but rather, I am. And why? Because they’re the “smart people” and I’m just the wandering serf.
WebMonk (@76), “AiG”? Sure you don’t mean “AiC”? You’ve been referring to them previously, and it would be a bit weird for you to now cite AiG, much less for them to be making that argument. Or am I confused?
Anyhow, I’m not questioning whether “day” can have different meanings — indeed, we have all those meanings in English that you refer to (as in “back in my day”, “work while it is day”, and “one day from now”).
My question was on Richard’s assertion (@71) that “we are expecting the pre-scientific community of Genesis to have adopted our scientific measurements of time.” In what way is this true or meaningful? If “day” means “an indefinite length of time”, then Richard’s assertion is meaningless, as our scientific measurement of time doesn’t enter into the picture. If “day” means “the daylight portion of a day”, in what way does “our scientific measurement of time” give us more insight than the ancient Hebrews had? They were just as capable of observing the sun as we are, no?
And if “day” means what we would now call a “24-hour day” — that is, a full period of the sun’s cyclical (apparent) path — then in what way do our modern scientific measurements gives us a better understanding of that unit of time that the ancient Hebrews lacked?
Furthermore, how are any but the last suggested by the text itself when it says “And there was evening and there was morning, the first day”? That clearly rules out “daylight only” (um, “evening”), and if it refers to “an indefinite length of time”, it does so in the most confusing way possible, requiring a further metaphorical reading of “evening” and “morning”.
Sorry, I went way off of topic but I think the segue holds some value.
tODD said “then in what way do our modern scientific measurements gives us a better understanding of that unit of time that the ancient Hebrews lacked?”
Our precision gives us “leap minutes”!
I’m back and still no good science that I can discern. Will we be arguing about what “day” means on the day Jesus comes in all His glory to knock this ball out of the park and spin Kevin’s much smaller new creation on the tip of his pinky toe?
Leif:
I agree that those we respect as authorities in the Christian church can be quite wrong. Francis Schaeffer, C.S. Lewis, and Martin Luther were all wrong on some things (though they were right on more things than they were wrong). In citing conservative scholars I am only making the point that accepting an old Earth is not just a liberal position.
I would say that those who are cited as authorities on science within the church (Ken Ham, Kent Hovind, Henry Morris, etc.) are wrong about just about everything they say when it comes to my specialty, which is geology. But that does not stop people from looking at them as the authorities.
Bryan (#82):
Perhaps you misunderstood something I said. You refer to “Kevin’s much smaller new creation.” I never said that Genesis 1 is about the creation of Eden. It is about the creation of the entire universe, including its laws, energy, and matter. Nothing exists that God did not create. The focus of the text shifts to Eden in Genesis 2 and 3, but that does not in any way minimize the glory of God in all of creation.
I’m not sure what you are looking for when you ask for “good science” from me. I’m not going to into all the details of what is wrong with the AiG/ICR/Dr. Dino version of Earth history. As I said, this is Veith’s blog, not mine. But give me one AiG/ICR/Dr. Dino argument for a young-Earth or flood geology, and I’ll tell you what is wrong with it (or you can go back to comment #45 for an example of what is wrong with one widely-used YEC argument).
tODD #79, no I really do mean Answers In Genesis (AiG). They delve into the varieties of meanings of the word “yom” and clearly (and correctly) state that the specific meaning of the word comes from its context.
Their articles go further to explain why the context of Genesis shows why it should be considered to mean a 24-hour day. But, in the broad picture, the word for day (yom) truly does have a variety of possible meanings which are determined by context. I would imagine Answer in Creation probably have some similar articles about why the context doesn’t indicate 24-hour days.
I don’t get this reference to the “pre-scientific community of Genesis”. Moses wrote Genesis, and he knew what a “day” was.
As for Psalm 104, science can directly observe the “foundations” of the earth. It is reasonable to interpret the verse as meaning that the earth doesn’t “move” relative to other members of the solar system — it is fixed in its orbit around the sun. But, again, science cannot observe the origins of the earth or man. It can only theorize. Big difference. The scripture is truth. Scientific theory needs to conform to truth. Not the other way around. Things go wrong when we “interpret” scripture to fit scientific theory.
OK Kevin, How was the grand canyon formed and how long did that take and how do you know? Why are non petrified sea shells still found on mountaintops around here (Utah and Idaho are my observed fields of expertise)?
DonS – yes, he knew what a “day” meant, but the exact same word (yom) is used for 24-hour days, just the daylight time, and indefinitely long periods of time.
The disagreement is over what sort of day Moses was referring to in Genesis 1 – he uses all three different meanings of “day” at different points in what he wrote and we figure out what he meant based on the context around the word.
I’m not sure quite what you mean when you say the earth doesn’t move relative to the other members of the solar system. It moves relative to the Sun, Moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, etc. Earth moves around the Sun and it gets closer and further away. It moves relative to all the others – you can track their motion in the night sky; not just the apparent motion we see because of the earth’s spin, but also their actual movement in relation to us as we all proceed in our orbits.
And what about Utah – It is really a mystery to me. Kevin’s probably got it all figured out and if so, he should write his book because I’ve never seen anyone even come remotely close to positing a coherent unified theory to explain the intense diversity of amazing geographic land forms which comprise the whole of the state of Utah. Its like God’s throwing everything he has at you here, Kevin, and challenging you to try to wrap your little head around it. It fills me with awe and wonder. If you could explain it to us – we would all be very much obliged.
From tODD #79
“And if “day” means what we would now call a “24-hour day” — that is, a full period of the sun’s cyclical (apparent) path — then in what way do our modern scientific measurements gives us a better understanding of that unit of time that the ancient Hebrews lacked?
“Furthermore, how are any but the last suggested by the text itself when it says “And there was evening and there was morning, the first day”? That clearly rules out “daylight only” (um, “evening”), and if it refers to “an indefinite length of time”, it does so in the most confusing way possible, requiring a further metaphorical reading of “evening” and “morning”.”
How does this interpretation of Genesis 1 square with the fact that the sun was not created until the fourth day? Is there more to an explanation than just saying God set the earth spinning on its axis with 24 h periods before he set the earth in its orbit around the sun so that the time period could be observed from earth, and used a miraculous non-solar light source over the first 3 days? This isn’t a facetious question, it’s just that while I’ve heard all of the other points made in this debate before, this is one specific point I’ve not heard addressed by either side that I’ve wondered about. Perhaps it’s not considered important by either side?
In fact that would be a fun “blog-o-Veith” meet up. Come on out Kevin, we’ll go for a good long hike, you can explain everything you see with science and I’ll just sit at your feet and listen (or something like that). Let me know when you’re in the neighborhood, dude. Really – it could be fun
Heading off to take my son camping and skip lots of billion/thousand of years old rocks on the lake.
Bryan:
I’m not sure what you mean about “non-petrified sea shells” in Utah and Idaho. I’ve lived in Utah, Washington, Montana, and Colorado, so I know the area. It is common to see the curled shells of native land snails laying around, but I have never seen a sea shell just laying around on the ground. There could be some instances where sea shells have weathered out of sedimentary rocks, but I have not seen it in the way that you describe.
As far as the erosion of the Grand Canyon goes, I see no problems (Biblical or scientific) with it eroding by a combination of the river and slope processes that we observe today. Remember, the Bible does not say that the flood deposited the layers of sedimentary rocks that we see in places like the Grand Canyon, nor does it say that the flood eroded any canyons. Those are things that the YECs read into Scripture and Earth history.
The standard explanation for the Grand Canyon works just fine. The YEC explanation, on the other hand, fails to explain how the Grand Canyon formed for a number of reasons.
First, there are all kinds of problems with the YEC attempts to describe the formation of the layers that form the walls of the Grand Canyon. I’ve written a bit about this here:
http://geochristian.wordpress.com/2009/05/19/six-bad-arguments-from-answers-in-genesis-part-3/
One of the main problems with many YEC arguments related to the flood is “too many events, too little time.” Think of what would have had to happen to explain the Grand Canyon:
– The flood scours the Earth down to bare bedrock.
– The flood keeps sediments packaged as discreet packages (e.g. a mud containing a discrete fossil assemblage that doesn’t mix in any way with other sediments).
– The flood begins to deposit these layers one by one (always with the fossils in the same order wherever one goes (Cambrian, Ordovician, Silurian, Devonian…) with no mixing).
– Some of these sedimentary layers preserve complete ecosystems, such as reefs with downslope, reef core, and back-reef communities preserved in great detail.
– The sediments solidify to form sedimentary rocks.
– Development of karst (caves and related features) in some of the limestone layers (which actually had to occur in some cases before the deposition of the next layers)
– Uplift and deformation of the rocks (faults and folds) to form nearby mountain ranges.
– Intrusion of magma into rocks in the area (though not necessarily right at the Grand Canyon)
– Cooling of these large bodies of magma.
– Remaining flood waters carve the canyon through solid rock (including down into the very hard metamorphic and igneous rocks in the bottom of the canyon).
– Eruption of volcanoes near the rim of the canyon, creating lava “waterfalls” and blocking the Colorado River.
– Erosion of these dams.
– Arrival of native animals and humans, emigrating all the way from Ararat.
Many of these processes take time (e.g. cooling of magma beneath the Earth, formation of caves). Again: “So much to do, so little time.
The AiG/ICR/Dr. Dino attempts to squeeze all of these events into the flood year (with some residual effects afterward) and then to squeeze all of post-flood history into the past 4300 years are a failure. To use this sort of stuff in defense of the Bible is not good apologetics.
I haven’t noticed that Kevin N has been trying to provide his own theory of how the earth was formed, nor has he claimed to have one that I’ve noted (I have only skimmed through this lengthy thread so perhaps I’ve overlooked a post where he has). From what I’ve read he has only been stating that the mechanistic explanations of prominent YEC proponents that he has examined have significant problems. And he’s asking for examples of specific YEC arguments that he’s not examined of which he should be made aware that might change his views.
At least that’s the way this third party has seen this thread unfold. Don’t know if it helps get the debate off this point or not.
Moses defines “day” for us:
“For a thousand years in your sight
are but as yesterday when it is past,
or as a watch in the night.” (Ps 90:4 ESV)
This Psalm was written by Moses, and its theme (at least in part) is creation.
I wouldn’t take the thousand years as literal. What it says is that God’s time is not our time.
Again, I’m trying to stay out of these things, and for my own view, read my earlier reference (post #36).
But, insofar as Kevin’s statements go, discussing the ICR/AIG crowd, SOLELY within the realm of geology as a science, he is quite right. They don’t have a clue. Their works are pseudo-scientific. Their words and actions pour scorn on Christ’s Church.
However, when it comes to the Aboslute truth of either evolutionary science, or creationism, I refer you to that link.
Sorry about the boldness (lol)
What I don’t understand Kevin, is why OEers aren’t using more resources to dig horizontally through the rock at the bottom of the grand canyon to learn more about what was going on at the earliest point in earth’s history we can get to? Certainly that rock must be older than the dust their measuring in the ice caps?
Why not scientifically try to find the oldest rocks we can find before they are absorbed again into the earth’s mantle. That would be exciting science and perhaps tell us something. Why isn’t anybody going after better data than what we already have?
Probably because nobody is interested – but why is that?
Bryan – we have been doing that for many, many decades. Geologists are not as simple minded as the AIG crowd would suggest.
This is a good paper/discussion on the Biblical usage of the word “day”: http://www.peterwallace.org/essays/dayone.htm
Webmonk @ 88: Yes, I understand that, as well as the argument that the six days of creation MIGHT not have been literal 24 hour days. But I was responding to richard’s comment @ 71. Just to clarify, I’m not a big fan of the AIG or Ken Ham line of apologetics either. I agree with Kevin that there are a lot of wholes in their theories, and they have the same evidence problems that the evolutionists have. Frankly, there isn’t much evidence for any of these origin theories. I do think there is value in the AIG approach because it shows there is more than one way to interpret the very limited evidence we do have, and that the old earth evolutionists have no business being as dogmatic and closed minded as they have chosen to be.
What’s interesting in OE, ID, TE, etc. is the insistence that a flawed concept is absolutely correct. ie. methodological science. This is seen to a far greater extent in ID and TE than in OE alone since ID/TE take an almost 3/5 compromise on where science starts and stops and where God is finally allowed to do something.
Paul Feyerabend nails it when he calls for a new methodology (slightly outside of this conversation) but he also makes stunning arguments comparing Science now to Church then in terms of Galileo and other scientific discoveries that are against reason. A great quote can be seen here (and is also on his wikipedia page):
Anymore science has an agenda to prove itself as the sole arbiter of objective truth. And study after study has gone to show the sheer amount of pressure for scientist to behave and produce according to expected results and popular norms (One in Seven Scientists Say Colleagues Fake Data being just the latest).
In short, one must wonder how much of “reality” is built upon the sand. As research done within expected expectations is only bound to produce the expectation as one looks to what is favorable and one’s peers only reviews what they find reasonable.
Oh, “wholes” should be “holes” in comment #101.
Leif’s comment @ 102 is spot on. And what really bothers me about those who attempt to compromise between biblical creation and evolution is the “why”. Why would an all-powerful God, desiring to create a man in His own image, use such a ridiculously inefficient process as evolution to achieve that goal? It’s just hard to swallow.
DonS,
It’s not so much that God couldn’t use evolution but at what point does God stop using evolution? What version of Manbeast does God finally throw up His hands at and says “well, that’ll do…I guess. I mean, you’re sorta in My imagelike.”
And even more important: with evolution being a nonstop process are we going to be evolving out of is image? Which would then lead to a scary idea of us somehow evolving equality with God. But now I’m getting all “Omega Point” so I’ll stop.
“out of His image” not “is image”
Sorry, Kevin, Scylding #99, your probably right, but where do I go to look at that info? By the way, Scylding, I read your page the other day and really enjoyed that. Thanks. And Leif, your a fun guy to have around here – thanks also for your insight.
Kevin, is there a reason why you think a global flood is impossible?
Bryan, the answer is probably to go and take 4 years of geology at a good University
. There is no simple answer, but some entry-level textbooks can open up a window, possibly. I used this one in my first year at university, albeit a much earlier edition:
http://www.amazon.com/Physical-Geology-Charles-Carlos-Plummer/dp/0077216067/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1244839793&sr=1-1
There are also single volume geological histories available – there is one published by the USGS. When I have the name, I’ll post it here. I used a similar one in Southern Africa in my undergraduate days.
Leif @ 105: Agreed. Certainly, the issue isn’t that God COULDN’T use evolution, but more why He would. Your other point is well taken also. When did the continual progression of developing men attain God’s image? And are we evolving out of it, even as we comment on this post?
Bryan,
“thanks also for your insight” No, not so much insight as it is crazy, mad ramblings.
Lunatic Fringe represent!
Steve (@90), God doesn’t really tell us what form (or not) the “light” took in the first few days, but he does indicate that the light was separate from the darkness, so that there was an “evening” and a “morning”. I could speculate on some answer, either adhering to a more scientific bent or a more miraculous one, but in the end it would just be speculation. Maybe I’m just not curious enough to have to know more than what we’re told?
Kevin (@95), I hope you’re not treating Psalm 90 as some sort of Rosetta Stone that can be used to correctly interpret the use of the word “day” elsewhere in Scripture (or in the works of Moses, at least). After all, if what we’re supposed to get from that is that, when you read “day”, it really means “an awfully long time”, then what makes you think the word “yesterday” in Psalm 90 isn’t equally ambiguous. Perhaps it also refers to an awfully long time, and Psalm 90 should be read as: “For a thousand years in your sight are like an even longer time when it is past, or as a watch in a shorter, but still very long time.”?
That is: why read the word “yesterday” (whatever it is in the original Hebrew) in Psalm 90:4 as referring to a literal time period by which we can understand the other, figurative, time periods used elsewhere in the Bible?
And furthermore, what should we make of Psalm 90’s reference to men coming from dust (for how else would they “return” to it)? That would seem to reinforce a literal reading of Genesis 1, wouldn’t it?
I’ve heard similar uses of 2 Peter 3:8 as some kind of decoder ring for Genesis 1 (which makes even less sense), but I will note that those doing so in an argument for an “old Earth” tend to ignore the previous verses in which Peter notes that scoffers “deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water.” Which, you know, tends to reinforce a literal reading of the Genesis account, as well.
Don (@104/109), even though we may have similar takes on this issue, I cannot endorse any argument made on the basis of “Why would God … ?”
I mean, why not similarly ask, “Why would an all-powerful God use such an inefficient process as becoming human and dying on a cross to solve the problem of sin?” Or “Why would a loving God allow people to go to Hell?”
When we rely on God’s Word for an argument, we have a basis for what we’re saying. When we rely simply on how we think God should act, we rarely do. So I would urge you away from any arguments founded on the latter.
tODD: Your point is well taken. To be fair, it is not an argument on which I rely. Those arguments I have made earlier in the thread and in previous threads on this topic.
Of course, the examples of other “why would God…” questions you cite can be and are clearly answered from scripture, which distinguishes them from the “why would God use evolution” question. So, perhaps there is some value to the question if it causes a theistic evolutionist to reconsider the compromise they are making between scriptural truth and human theory.
Todd (#111):
One person’s “decoder ring” is another person’s “let Scripture interpret Scripture.” It is significant that the author of Psalm 90 is Moses, and that the subject of the Psalm is creation. It is not in itself a complete argument, but it is a piece of the interpretive puzzle.
The reference to humans coming from dust (Adam from adama in Hebrew, or humans from humus in Latin) could certainly mean nothing more than that we are made of the same stuff as the rest of creation. Or it could be more literally. I’m fine either way.
tODD @112
I don’t think that a “why would God” argument is completely invalid on its own is. But rather when we add an adjective to God that it goes South. If you note both of your examples insert a preconceived notion prior to what amounts to an accusation. ie. “all-powerful God” or “loving God” or even the word “allow”.
Once we start throwing adjectives and other fun grammatics around even relying on God’s Word for a basis is also questionable since we’re twisting God’s Word to meet our own agendas. Example, I want to prove that Paul is a liar and willfully deceives people so I quote I Cor. 9:20 to prove it.
tODD (#111):
For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago. (2 Pet 3:5, ESV, emphasis added)
No, I don’t really use that as a Biblical argument for an old Earth.
Bryan (#91):
Thanks for the Utah hiking invitation. I just sent off a resume five minutes ago for employment in Salt Lake City (I’m living in Colorado right now).
Cool!
Bror (#17…although I just got the email that said you responded)
“And if I recall right, it seems most evolutionists today have stopped going with Darwin’s theories about it.”
Eh…
They’ve divvied it up in such a manner as to still recall Darwin as needed and to still dismiss Darwin as need.
Evolution as justification of one race being superior as per Darwin…not so much.
Darwin proves God is not necessary…Score!
Also, if I had a dollar for everytime someone has bested a scientific argument only to be dismissed as “oh…you’re referring to Cosmic Evolution not BIOLOGICAL evolution. FOOL!” I’d be a very rich man. Somewhere along the way evolution got separated to each science so the rules of evolution may not apply to space the same way they apply to earth and they may not apply to mars the same way they apply to space or earth. Why? Because I said so! Flat earthers!!!!!!!
In short, they call it cherry picking for a reason. The bad thing is they have universities and governments endorsing them.
Also for Bror (@ 28)
“As for pain and the life of fish and insects. How do you know what a fish feels?”
Apparently dogs don’t feel guilt either. How they can tell what dogs do and don’t feel is beyond me.
Not to be stereotypical but I’m pretty sure the Nazi’s didn’t feel guilt about the same things I’d feel guilt about either. This, of course, is true if and only if we can prove animals “feel” anything in a similar fashion that man feels anything.
Am I the only one who isn’t doing anything on a Friday night?
…I feel cold and alone.
Leif, I don’t want to call you a social loser, but . . .
I’m still here, so I guess I’m lacking a social life as well.
I mainly want to bump this topic since it’s one I enjoy.
There are several sources for more scientifically respectable approaches to Creationism than the clueless proponents. Todd Wood is absolutely excellent, for example.
However, the more expert the proponent I’ve found, the more they are quick to state that there are a lot of problems with the science of Young Earth Creationism. However, they also state that they don’t think the problems are insurmountable, even if we can’t see how to solve them at the moment.
I haven’t run across a decent astrophysicist in the YEC side of things, but I’ve met a number of them in the biology side, and maybe one or two in the geology side.
Part of the issue is that groups like AiG and ICR make it sound like the science for a YE is absolutely slam-dunk solid and only blindly committed zealots or brainwashed ignoramuses could believe in evolution. It tends to made discussion less than civil when there is that sort of view. (and yes, I know there is the responding view on the other side of the argument)
Hello everyone,
I am a senior in college and have am just about to finish a course that examined the strengths and weaknesses of evolution. There are some intriguing evidences on both sides of the argument. I grew up like most Americans being taught both creationism and evolution. I tend to lean towards some form of old earth creationism. But there are a few questions that I have about evolution that if answered would greatly help in my search for the truth.
1.If evolution is true, what is the basis for humanity to have morals? Whenever we see an animal kill another one in the wild we do not believe that the animal is being cruel or unjust, we simply say that it is part of nature. However, when a person is killed by another person there seems to be an intrinsic reaction of disgust or sadness on the part of those who witness it. Being a Christian I would say this is because humans do indeed have a fundamental value that the rest of nature does not have.
2.My second question is to those whom claim to be both Christian and to believe in evolution. How is it possible, if at all, to reconcile these two beliefs? In my searching for these answers I read Giberson’s book “Saving Darwin” but did not think that his answers were sufficient. In his book he says that sin evolved out of selfishness, which is a necessary part evolution. This seems to take away the historical understanding of sin; that being a rebellion towards God. If Giberson’s understanding of sin is correct I do not see how we are then responsible for our actions, after all we are just acting out of a necessary evolution. I guess I see evolution being so necessary for Atheism that it is hard for me to see how Christians can believe it, but I would like to be proven wrong.
3.My final question is along the same line of thinking. How, as Christians, does one interpret the Creation passages in order to believe in evolution? After all if Genesis is not reliable then all of the other 65 books in it are not.
Thanks you for your time.
Scott
Scott, could you possibly put yourself forward in a more disingenuous manner?
“I lean toward some form of old earth creationism” is then followed up by a statement like “those who claim to be both Christian and to believe in evolution“.
Yup, you’re just a disinterested party looking for answers. No disparaging and mocking views of anyone who disagrees with you. Nope. None at all.
Just to rock your world a little bit, Answers In Genesis promotes evolution at an incredible rate – less than 1000 “kinds” on the Ark evolved into over 30000 species in just 2000 to 4000 years. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n2/two-of-every-kind
Head over to AiG and denounce Ken Ham as someone who merely “claims” to be a Christian while believing in evolution.
If you’re interested in having a discussion instead of doing browse-by accusations, reply back. I’ll start checking this post for a while just to see.