 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > Confused over "Young Earth Creationist" | Forum Quick Jump
|
 | 
scott_jorgenson
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 271
| Posted 1/22/2004 8:58 AM (GMT -6) |   | quote:
Originally posted by DLW
There have been many excellent posts by Scott Jorgenson on this subject that would shed some light on this.
Thanks for the kind recommendation, David ("DLW"). I think most of what I would bring to this conversation has already been put forward very well by Aaron ("a2rutled"). And in fact I think the original poster ("mimple", another David evidently) has anticipated most of that response already - his questions betray quite a bit more astute familiarity with the issue than he has been acknowledging, I think :-)
For the record, I very much appreciate and agree with Aaron's distinction between the exegetical/historical and hermeneutical/theological senses of a biblical passage. The former (what I have before called the "literal meaning") is best arrived at using critical methodology: both internal analysis (eg textual and literary) and application of external knowledge (eg historical and scientific). The latter (what I have before called the "teaching point") is arrived at by theological reflection undergirded by faith.
When we approach Genesis 1 this way, I agree with Aaron that we find a passage which most likely was considered in the original tradition and by the original audience to be both a factual/historical description of creation events and a theological affirmation of the nature and proper places of God, man and the rest of the universe. Thus I agree that the exegetical/historical meaning of Genesis 1 is that the universe was created in 6 ordinary days. But I do not accept the fundamentalist tendency to always necessarily make exegetical/historical meaning equal to God's teaching point, whether for the original audience or for us today. In this case (Genesis 1) I believe God teaches theology (his transcendence and sovereignty over the rest of the subjected, created universe, for example) in a manner that is:
(a) accommodated to the ancient Hebrew understanding of science and history (which I am convinced God nowhere in the Bible corrects), so that his theological message would find a most fertile reception; and
(b) appropriative of that ancient science and history so that it may be "reclaimed" and reformed to serve God in a way that is also polemical against the mythologies of those cultures from which it comes.
So when Aaron says it is a matter of "both/and", I am in full agreement.
I understand Keith ("Starkman") finds this understanding to be unacceptably nuanced - particularly the idea that a teller can rightly be considered truthful when communicating an idea using some extraneous false preconception of the listener, uncorrected, as a pedagogical device. In the case of equals, I would tend to agree with Keith in that respect, in fact. But when the teller and the hearer are on vastly different planes, whether parent/young-child or God/man, I insist it is reasonable for the teller to "let some things slide" when they are not what needs teaching upon, and furthermore are useful in instructing what does need teaching upon.
I would also point out to Keith that, foreign as it may seem to us moderns, the ancient pre-critical world evidently operated by very different epistemological rules when it came to communicating the Big Things. Prior to some Greek work from the 3rd and 4th centuries B. C., to my knowledge there is not a single example of writing on philosophy, science, history, etc that we would today consider "unblemished" by mythology and legend. It was the accepted genre of the day, evidently because people expected it, believed it to be factually true, and yet - in the final analysis - didn't really care how factually true it was so long as it performed its primary purpose well (the encouragement of morals and laws, instruction in theology, glorification of kings, etc - never instruction in science and history). This is what we find when we dig this stuff up, whether from Assyria or Babylon or Egypt or wherever. We should "deal with it" :-) So, seen in this light, God's accommodation to such genres is even more "excusable" - in fact, it is proper contextualization of his message.
Finally, I'd say that, following from the above, I generally place little credence in allegorical or metaphorical interpretations of Genesis 1 (or other problematic biblical passages) that seek to re-interpret the plain exegetical/historical meaning to find a "concord" with our modern scientific and historical conclusions. The Bible is what it is, and in Genesis 1 it seems plain to me (for many reasons I won't go into now) that a day is an ordinary day, so far as the literal meaning goes (again, not that the duration of time, the recorded creation events or order thereof, etc, are anything God seeks to teach upon). While I find concordist systems such as Hugh Ross' and Gleason Archer's interesting, I find them fundamentally misdirected in seeking to make the text say what theologically there is no reason for it to say.
My $0.02,
Scott
| | Back to Top | | |
|
mimple
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 9
| Posted 1/23/2004 3:17 AM (GMT -6) | | I appreciate the suggestion that I appear a little more astute than my original post may suggest. However, any 'astuteness' is merely the result of my current ongoing reading and also reflection. I really am quite perplexed by the fact that the 'young earth, 6 day creationsit' I have recently encountered make this an article of Biblical faithfulness. In all their conversations, and also a large majority of articles on the Answers in Genesis website, it is simply asserted that others who differ are either folks who 'claim' to be biblical, or have sold out to the prevalent naturalistic worldview.
I guess I am simply sadened by such dogmatic dismissal of those who differ on what seems to me to be 'a family disagreement', when the main enemy is the edifice of naturalistic evloutionary dogma.
I would appreciate being pointed to 'creationist' literature which is less dogmatic and more gracious towards others who - although affirming the same high view of biblical authority - have reached different conclusions on how best to understand the Genesis narrative in its literay, theological and cultural context.
I think being forced to put my thgoughts down in black and white is helping me clarify a number of issues and questions which have benn percolating in my brain!! Thanks for the stimulus. | | Back to Top | | |
|
scott_jorgenson
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 271
| Posted 1/23/2004 7:38 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by mimple
...I really am quite perplexed by the fact that the 'young earth, 6 day creationsit' I have recently encountered make this an article of Biblical faithfulness. In all their conversations, and also a large majority of articles on the Answers in Genesis website, it is simply asserted that others who differ are either folks who 'claim' to be biblical, or have sold out to the prevalent naturalistic worldview.
I guess I am simply sadened by such dogmatic dismissal of those who differ on what seems to me to be 'a family disagreement', when the main enemy is the edifice of naturalistic evloutionary dogma.
Well, seen in proper perspective, I think creationist (young-earth in particular) disdain for other Christian views is understandable. The controversy within Christianity over creationism is really just a piece of the broader debate over the doctrine of biblical inerrancy: the total objective accuracy of every biblical passage, interpreted literally, in everything which it addresses, whether directly or tangentially.
Ever since the liberal-conservative split of the 19th and early 20th century, biblical inerrancy has been a keystone issue from the conservative viewpoint. Vast energy has been spent by conservative apologists in formalizing and defending the inerrancy doctrine, rationalizing away evidence from science, history, archaeology, linguistics, literary criticism, etc that would challenge it, whether the subject be the unity of Isaiah, the "authenticity" of Daniel, the consistency of the gospels, the literal fulfillment of every prophecy, the total historicity of the Exodus and the conquest of Canaan, etc...or the total historicity of Genesis 1-11. Conservative evangelicals and fundamentalists view the inerrancy doctrine, and its defense, as essential - because (IMO) their faith is rooted in reason and evidence and they accept the modernist/positivist creed that the truth of a thing is only in direct proportion to the degree of corroboration its plain factual claims receive. In other words, they need excellent evidence to backup their faith - evidence bordering on proof (for what else would the total scientific accuracy of Genesis 1, or the literal fulfillment of every prophecy, or etc, represent when found in an ancient text?) - and (agreeing with the skeptics and atheists) they cannot conceive of a basis and apologetic for faith in any other way. Thus any fellow Christian who rejects part or all of biblical inerrancy in this form is naturally seen as (a) immature at best (ie, false teaching) and (b) dangerous. Seen in this light, the behavior of Answers in Genesis, Institute for Creation Research, and others makes sense.
Incidentally, I am certainly not saying that a proper understanding of Genesis, and a recognition of its inspiration and authority, are at odds - far be it. It may not even be the case that biblical inerrancy is necessarily at odds with an understanding of Genesis that is not in conflict with mainstream science and history. For example, some affirm the biblical inerrancy doctrine by trying to find concord between Genesis 1-11 and part or even all of mainstream science/history, so that - properly interpreted - the claims Genesis makes can be said to be factually corroborated. (Some of these "concordists" are old-earth creationists like Hugh Ross, others are theistic evolutionists like Glenn Morton.) Others adjust the definition of the inerrancy doctrine, so that it can accommodate even views like mine (ie, there being no concord between Genesis 1-11 and mainstream science/history, and Genesis 1-11 being something else entirely than a historical account). (People like Meredith Kline, who would affirm inerrancy I believe, for example.) Personally, and having studied not just the creation issue but many of the other issues related to inerrancy as well (biblical "discrepancies" between parallel accounts, the "authenticity" of Daniel, the use of OT sources within the NT, etc), I find it easier to just reject the inerrancy doctrine (which is a modern positivist product anyway) as unbiblical. But I respect those other paths too.
quote:
I would appreciate being pointed to 'creationist' literature which is less dogmatic and more gracious towards others who - although affirming the same high view of biblical authority - have reached different conclusions on how best to understand the Genesis narrative in its literay, theological and cultural context.
John Stek's chapter in Portraits of Creation ("What Says the Scripture?") is excellent - it speaks directly to what you're interested in. Stek is a moderately-conservative Christian biblical scholar who chaired the NIV translation committee - respectable evangelical credentials, in other words. I believe this book is still in print and you can order it through Amazon. Note it also contains contributations from several Christian scientists commenting in their respective fields.
I can also recommend Conrad Hyers' The Meaning of Creation (for a somewhat more moderately-liberal view) and Henri Blocher's In the Beginning (for a somewhat more moderately-conservative view). Hyers and Blocher are Christian theologians or biblical scholars (I don't recall) whose books likewise focus exclusively on interpreting and understanding the Genesis 1-3 passages. These books are certainly in print and available through Amazon - I ordered Hyers' book within the last year.
Incidentally, you can read a separate article by Hyers online, at the American Scientific Affiliation (ASA) web site: see http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1984/JASA9-84Hyers.html (ASA is, as its name suggests, the principle professional organization in the USA for American scientists who are Christians. ASA members - who are largely theistic evolutionists though some are old-earth creationists - frequently publish and discuss in the area of creation-evolution. You may want to browse through the rest of their site after reading Hyers' paper.)
I've also found the work of Paul Seely helpful, though his stuff is harder to come by. Seely is an evangelical biblical scholar who has, IMO, laid to rest any controversy over whether the Bible reflects ancient cosmology (a flat earth surrounded and undergirded by water, and surmounted by a solid sky, above which more water). Seely's answer - it does - suggests that if the Bible can be accommodated to pre-scientific understanding in that area, then so too in others. Seely has a book out - Inerrant Wisdom - but most of his work on cosmology has taken the form of papers published in the Westminster Theological Journal. To my knowledge, these are nowhere available online, but I have copies I can email you if you are interested. Incidentally, you'll find that Answers in Genesis provides critique by conservative apologist J. P. Holding of some of Seely's work at their web site (just search on Seely's name), though the weakness of the critique is only apparent when you have read Seely's original papers and his full response to Holding.
Hope this helps,
Scott
| | Back to Top | | |
|
mimple
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 9
| Posted 1/23/2004 6:31 PM (GMT -6) | | Thank you Scott for your most helpful post. The issue of inerrancy has not dominated the Christian scene I am involved it. Evangelicals here tend to be content to affirm th eauthority of the bible without nailing down specifics re. ierrancy (much like in the UK - oh I'm in Perth, western Australia). As extreme liberalism has been the main adversary, I have not had much exposure to in-house arguments over ierrancy. Well .. until the crationist issue was being prompted aggressively.
Yes, I would like to read the articles by Seely, before reading the responses to it. You can email to suport@ricgroup.com.au
Thanks so much | | Back to Top | | |
|
scott_jorgenson
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 271
| Posted 1/26/2004 11:17 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by mimple
Thank you Scott for your most helpful post...Yes, I would like to read the articles by Seely, before reading the responses to it. You can email to suport@ricgroup.com.au
David, you're welcome, but I'm having trouble emailing to the address you gave (see above). Did you mean suport@ricgroup.co.au ?
Scott
| | Back to Top | | |
|
mimple
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 9
| Posted 1/26/2004 11:12 PM (GMT -6) | | Oops!! Should be support@ricgroup.com.au
Alas, a typo that results from my lack of typing and editing skills. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 1/27/2004 4:37 AM (GMT -6) | | First, for my purposes, the issue of inerrancy has nothing to do with my participation in the discussion. It is neither here nor there that one cling to inerrancy to arrive at a true understanding of the creation account. At least, that's how I see it.
In view of the prevalent creation myths and legends so influential among the cultures surrounding the Hebrew people, it makes far more sense that God would step in and give the creation facts as they happened rather than speak more myth and legend, since the account given contributes greatly (e.g., the literal days) to the many literal truths to follow: the Sabbath, the concept of redemption found in man's resting on the seventh day because there's nothing for him to contribute to the work God has done. One simply cannot fully and accurately deduce that because the other cultures held to and lived by a myth/legend context that God must therefore have spoken to His chosen people, for chosen purposes of bringing truth into the world, (viz., an understanding of both the one, true God Himself and His plan of redemption), along the same myth/legend vein. It makes perfect sense that He would have spoken the exact opposite: real (though incomplete) truth, not only about Himself but in all of which He spoke (allegory and symbolism used at times but not hermenuetically justifiable in the creation account). It is simply foolish, in my opinion, to recognize the literality of the creation account but then completely but place it right along the same meaningless, non-truth of other culture's context: "Here, the pagans have their myths and legends, now you, too, can have your myths and legends. Oh, but yours will speak truth." And this is exactly what is being promulgated when one takes the position that the Genesis account is myth/legend. This makes the account a defeat of purpose. For God to speak more myth and legend confuses the matter. Jesus made it clear that God's Word is truth. He did not say it somehow conveys truth, He said it is truth. Not truth somehow wrapped in myth and legend, but real truth. Further, the idea that God couldn't have spoken real truth to us (not even just a little) because He's so much higher than us is nonsense. It just isn't true that God could not have spoken real truth without it being overwhelming and thus impossible to communicate reality.
The creation account is clear. It's literality is, I believe, unquestionable in how it reads. The Biblical perspective of the account is that it wasn't given just for the "ancients" or the folk in the NT times, but for all people of all time. God transcended the myths and legends and spoke clearly, spoke reality, spoke truth. This is the Biblical account. And as I've said before, if one wants to dispute the account by referring to scientific information which is believed to contradict the literality of the account, fine. But there's no room, in my opinion, for not seeing the God of heaven and earth having come down, spoken the truth in plain, old-fasion understanding: within the confines of the common denominator of language which makes it possible for all people of all races, cultures and religions to communicate. Maybe not perfectly, but clear enough to speak truth. As Moses said in Deuteronomy, "Now what I'm commanding you today is not too difficult for you or beyond your reach."
Oh,I tell myself I won't get into these discussions (though I love discoursing with ya'll), because of time issues, and here I am. Scott, what am I going to do with you, my good brother!!! You provoke me (and I love it!).
Well, for staying after work, or worse, doing a Saturday as a "make up" day!
Starkman
| | Back to Top | | |
|
scott_jorgenson
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 271
| Posted 1/27/2004 8:39 AM (GMT -6) | | Starkman (Keith),
Thanks for your thoughts. I understand where you're coming from. I used to be there too. What you're bringing to the table is the modernist/positivist correspondence view of truth: the truth of a thing is always directly proportional to the factual correspondence its literal meaning has with reality. Thus by definition legend can carry no truth; in fact no fictional genre can ever really carry any truth, especially those genres like legend where the fictional nature of the genre is not always fully recognized by the receiver. The literal error and falsity of the account corrupts, pollutes and cancels-out whatever truth value there might be in the theme. And worse, the fact that the receiver believes it is literally true means the account is worse than mere error; it is either ignorance/folly (if the author likewise believes it to be literally true) or deception (if the author realizes it is literally false). And so, God (by deduction) wouldn't touch (or, if we follow a less-strong view of inspiration, wouldn't allow his people to touch) such genres with a ten foot pole. I understand this. It is plausible upon first impression, but the problem is it doesn't hold up to analysis and the evidence from the Bible and the world. This is because it has been arrived at deductively, from premises based on how we moderns think communication always best happens; rather than inductively looking at what actually is out there: how people actually communicate, today and in the past, and what the Bible evinces as to how it communicates.
When we look at such things, we find:
- People communicate frequently and effectively through story and similar genres that are not necessarily always exactly and literally true. Anecdotes, metaphors, glosses, morality tales, legends, stories - these are all particularly effective with little children in teaching them what we know it is important for them to come to know. Why? Because they hook into little children's pre-understanding and thus make the teaching point more accessible. And should they propagate a less-important, literally mistaken pre-understanding, it is an acceptable tradeoff, compared to rocking the boat in an area that doesn't matter anyway and for which the little child is not yet intellectually able. Can such condescended communication really be called error or falsehood, and - more importantly - can it really be said of the parent that she lies or is herself deceived? I'm a parent myself, and I agree with the intentionalists and postmodernists that the answer is "no".
- What this suggests, by induction, is that communication from God to ancient pre-critical peoples could likewise follow the same model, particularly so the more ancient and pre-modern they are, and thus most acutely so with the most ancient accounts of all: the primeval accounts of Genesis. Why? Because primitive peoples everywhere (such that the ancient Hebrews would have been no exception) are, from all evidence, not epistemologically prepared to readily grasp modern science and history without confusion. Of course, should teaching modern science and history be the whole point, then so be it - such confusion is inevitable and simply to be worked through. But what if it is not the teaching point; what if the teaching point instead is God's nature and mankind's relationship to him? It is the same as the parent who instructs his little child not to raise false alarm by telling him the story of the boy who cried "wolf". Condescended, accommodated genres facilitate such teaching; abstract and modernistic and literal ones inhibit it.
- But this is not to say that God necessarily would have had to accommodate to the ancient understanding in this way. I agree with you on that point. Certainly he could have worked through factually accurate science and history with the Hebrews, and perhaps even have given them miraculous understanding. Certainly he would have, if mankind's having such factually-accurate understanding is important to God. But what evidence is there as to where God's focus lies?
- Throughout the Bible it is clear that God's focus is on progressive revelation of saving truth about himself, mankind, the distance between mankind and God and how this can be bridged. And it is clear that God is willing to make use of whatever cultural accommodation necessary to develop this revelation over centuries:
- The forms of ritual employed by the Hebrews - blood sacrifice, circumcision, hereditary priesthood - all cultural edifices of the ancient near East, as revealed by archaeology and ancient literature.
- The technological capabilities of the Hebrews: actually more primitive than their ancient near Eastern neighbors (eg, the iron chariots of the Philistines thwarting the Israelites).
- The scientific understanding of the Hebrews: consistent with their ancient near Eastern context in every way. There is not a single incontrovertible ahead-of-its-time scientific revelation the Bible. Instead there are numerous allusions throughout, but particularly in the oldest sections, to ancient flat-earth and domed-sky cosmology, to biological classifications we would today recognize as scientifically inappropriate (such as cud-chewing hares, mustard seeds, 4-legged grasshoppers, etc), and to geographic references to the world and the ends of the earth which today we recognize as provincial.
- The use by Jesus of a literary form (parable) prevalent among the Jews of his time - and note how many of his parables are unannounced as such, so that a receiver of the parable may well be excused for thinking it rather a story drawn from a current event. And of course many, even among conservative scholars, recognize the use of unannounced fiction back into ancient times as well, with the books of Job and Jonah and Esther being possible candidates (of course I realize this is controversial for some).
- And even in the realm of morality (and I realize for some this might be my most controversial claim) I believe we find contextualization and accommodation: from the God-blessed war atrocities of the Pentateuch and Joshua, to the legalism of the law and purity codes, to eventually Jesus' overturning of the law even as he in some way fulfills it.
- And what about beyond the Bible - what do critical science and history contribute to evaluating where God's focus might lie?
- All the best mainstream science indicates the world is a sphere on whose surface the earth and seas are embedded; the sky is an illusion of atmosphere; and so forth, in contravention of the ancient cosmology alluded to by the Bible. All the best mainstream science indicates that the hare does not chew cud, grasshoppers' rear appendages are best described as legs, thus making them 6-legged, and etc. And all the best mainstream science indicates the universe and our world in it are billions of years old, with all life a product of some kind of evolutionary common descent.
- And while the best mainstream science and history confirms the Biblical account in all its high-level historical claims - there was a Rome, an Israel, an Egypt, pharaohs, kings, etc - there are some particular ancient historical claims where such confirmation should have occurred by now but has not. The flood, the origin of language in the ancient near East, many (though by no means all) aspects of the Exodus and Canaanite conquest, and some others are unconfirmed by the best mainstream science and history, though they were sufficiently massive events that they ought to have left better sign of themselves.
- So, putting it all together, if experience shows us the possibility of communication in some cases through non-literal genres, and the biblical and external evidence supports the non-literality of some of the Bible, I think the convergence of evidence is clear.
Thanks for giving me the opportunity to again lay out my opinion for the record. And thank you for your thoughts too.
Best regards,
Scott
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 1/27/2004 12:03 PM (GMT -6) | | Alright, Scott. I've had it. I've simply had enough of this. I have one question for you, and that's it. Either answer it directly or I quit: Um, how do you make those bullets in your posts? (Hey, this is darned serious here, and I just can't seem to get those blasted things to show up!) Well, are you going to answer me or not??? Ha!
(Oh, I told myself I'd not respond ... at least until the weekend, but I'm addicted!) But I've got to be quick here! Twenty minutes, and I'm outta here, because if I don't leave, I'm gonna be late for my next job! And besides, I've got tacos waiting at home! I'll place your quotes in italics.
What you're bringing to the table is the modernist/positivist correspondence view of truth: the truth of a thing is always directly proportional to the factual correspondence its literal meaning has with reality.
I'd have to disagree with your assessment, Scott. I've never hinted that I believe truth is directly proportional to the factual correspondence ..." I've simply claimed that the account of Genesis should be taken literally, at face value. Certainly, however, truth can be conveyed through many unproportionate means, such as myth and legend. I just don't think Genesis or Exodus does so.
People communicate frequently and effectively through story and similar genres that are not necessarily always exactly and literally true.
People also speak, most commonly in day-to-day transactions of communication with literality. "I'm going to the store; I'll be back in twenty minutes." Ancients and Moderns. With regard to the parent/child issue, I see no relationship between that analogy and God speaking direct, clear and concise reality to Moses about creation.
primitive peoples everywhere (such that the ancient Hebrews would have been no exception) are, from all evidence, not epistemologically prepared to readily grasp modern science and history without confusion
Scott, that's an absolute assumption. It is simply not true that the "Ancients" could not have understood simple, plain and clear language about how God created the world. First, what Moses recorded about the event wasn't all that sophisticated for someone (Ancient or Modern) to understand. Second, the Ancients weren't being asked to grasp modern science; they were being told that God created the world and He did so in seven days. Plain, clear speech. Nothing hard about it for anyone of any race, culture or time to understand. (Granted, it may have been hard for someone to "believe" it, but that's a different story.)
Certainly he could have worked through factually accurate science and history with the Hebrews, and perhaps even have given them miraculous understanding.
This isn't the issue. There would be no need for God to work through factual accurate science and history with the Hebrews, or even have given them miraculous understanding. That's adding more requirements to the common denominator of literality (in the creation event) than is necessary to convey both the account and its truthfullness.
And it is clear that God is willing to make use of whatever cultural accommodation necessary to develop this revelation over centuries:
I don't think it is clear at all that God is willing to use whatever accomodations necessary to develop revelation, if by this you mean He has to resort to myth, legend and what have you because He can't communicate it otherwise using simple language. Hares, grasshoppers, and all those other kinds of examples are not nearly strong enough to justify re-interpretation of the creation account as being anything other than what it means.
The forms of ritual employed by the Hebrews - blood sacrifice, circumcision, hereditary priesthood - all cultural edifices of the ancient near East, as revealed by archaeology and ancient literature.
I would expect such in view of Cain and Abel's understanding of this very concept from way back when. These examples enhance the truthfulness of God's given perspective as truth; that cultures practiced similar religious convictions only attests to the reality of the truth behind them. In light of this, I can't see any other reason why God wouldn't give the straight-up account of the way it really was.
there are some particular ancient historical claims where such confirmation should have occurred by now but has not
An argument from silence doesn't help here. It was yeeeeears before modern archeology busted into the world as a science of its own. As a matter of fact, several atheists, who set out to disprove the Bible, became believers; many of them pioneering the discoveries which had sat un-discovered for so many years. That other accounts can be questioned because of the so-called lack of evidence for them (as I understand, there's plenty of evidence for a global flood) can hardly be used as an argument, these days, against said accounts.
Well, we differ on this issue, Scott. You just know how to put bullets in your posts, and you think you're better than me. Well, mommy always loved you best. You big cheater!!!
Hey, you're ten times the intellect that I am, brother, but I'm still not convinced (by your arguments) that your logic and examples are sufficient. Now, granted, I need to do a lot of reading on both sides of the coin--I'm thinking of doing a Biblical correspondence course on Genesis through a good Bible college--but it's your thinking here that I'm combatting, not so much your technical knowledge, as I can't argue from that standpoint.
Darn, four minutes overtime! Oh well, that's not too bad, eh!
For the conversation,
Starkman
| | Back to Top | | |
|
scott_jorgenson
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 271
| Posted 1/27/2004 2:21 PM (GMT -6) | | Keith, I agree - we've been through it before so don't need to do it again. I appreciate your humoring my laying-out (again) of my view and engaging with it, but we probably don't need to go much further with this.
I do want to make a couple of things clear, though. When I say the ancients (by which I mean cultures prior to the Greek and later Roman intellectual influence - cultures everywhere prior to 300 BC or so, and even after then in increasingly lesser degree) weren't epistemologically ready for a factually accurate account, I don't mean that they were too stupid or unlearned to understand it if it was patiently presented to them. I am not patronizing or demeaning them; they did very well for their time. I mean that the whole matter of "what actually happened" seems to have been of secondary interest and value to them, when it came to the Big Things: worldview questions, cosmologies, cosmogonies, etc. They lacked knowledge of the investigatory tools (basically critical method) for finding it out, and they even seem to have lacked appreciation of it for its own sake. Instead, they seem to have felt that the most important aspect of a worldview account by far was its function: in glorifying kings, justifying societal structures, or buttressing morals, for example. While they were quite plain and "modern" in their mundane communication, as you insist and I agree (the pyramids could not have been built otherwise!), when it came to the Big Things their literature, expectations and approach were simply very different in this way from our own.
Really. I am not making this up or presupposing it - from what I know, its the best explanation for what is found again and again when scholars and researchers dig this stuff up. The breast milk of Hera being the Milky Way (Greece), the seas and sky being formed from the body of Tiamat (Babylonia), the earth (dry land) floating on the seas (everywhere in the near East)... all kinds of weird and wild and even contradictory stuff - everywhere not just tolerated but embraced. Either these people were all insane or idiots, or something more was going on, something truthful to them, valuable to them, and fulfilling to them of their expectations. In short, myth and legend, as genres, suffused the "high literature" of all the cultures of the time, and it is presumptuous and self-centric of us, I think, to deduce that God would share our intellectual revulsion toward that, that God would share our characterization of it as simply "error", when he evinces nowhere else in Scripture any apparent concern for educating humanity in science and history.
I say "Really." above because I know its quite bizarre for us to contemplate what seems epistemologically to be almost an alien species (the ancient world). It is only when I truly came to appreciate this recognition of the ancient world, that the possibility of legend in parts of the Bible - such as Genesis 1-11 - began to make sense to me, and pieces started to fall into place, until the whole thing finally made more sense than any creationist or concordist harmonization scheme for which all the evidence I've ever seen is weak (eg, there is actually no good evidence for a global flood - the evidence for it is of approximately the same quality as that for a young earth - ie, in my judgment, poor). I'm satisfied if you'll only consider it as you study more. And so with that, I rest :-)
As to your pressing question about the bullets: I don't know about you, but when I post through this Web application's user interface, my Web browser gets a form with a section labelled "Format" which includes various buttons. One of those buttons generates special markup for italics, another for boldface...and one of them generates special markup for a bulleted list. I don't know how to show you what this markup looks like, since the system will then interpret it as a real list :-( but hopefully that will give you enough to go on.
Best regards,
Scott
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 1/28/2004 4:25 AM (GMT -6) | | Hey Scott,
I can certainly appreciate your own pursuit to make sense out of it all, Scott. For sure. And yes, I'm one to learn before I teach--to give consideration to the arguments you've presented. My problem, however, is that I just don't have the time anymore to do the vast amount of (fair) reading of both sides of the many issues without putting myself into a concentrated effort in this area of study alone. That's why I'm thinking of doing a course or two on "Genesis" and try to get as big of grip of the ancient world, in the process, as I can. If I can walk a away with a reasonable understanding of the literature and culture of the ancient world, and then perhaps get a "big picture" of the old-earth perspective (without having to digest all the details, as I'd go nuts and never remember it anyway), I suppose I'll bave enough to work with for considering much of what you've presented.
But what I don't think can and should interfere with interpreting Genesis (namely, the creation account) is an approach of thinking that believes God couldn't have (or wouldn't have) stepped in with a description of the events as they happened, because it logically doesn't fit, or because there's scientific information, and that makes the account a scientific explanation. That's not good thinking. It makes more sense to me to think that God, who's always interested in being both the only one worshiped as the one, true God, and being the one who's word is faithful and reliable to the nations, would simply speak the truth as it is, particularly in a case where He's stepping out to say that He alone is God and that His word alone is truth. He's not saying, "And now, class, let's discuss science, shall we." The ultimate purpose is truth; spiritual truth, but there's no need, as I see it, for God to have sacrificed literality in order to give the truth. Any "scientific" information that happens to be noted as such is not the point.
Now, I'm passionate about this because I think to use any other hermenuetic, without just cause, when approaching the simplicity of the literal account of creation is to move away from the common denominator of what makes truth even possible to be understood in the written and spoken word. Now, if, as you say, Scott, there is just cause to interpret Genesis any other way, hey, I'm definitely open to it, but it's going to have to be more than the fact that surrounding cultures had myth and legend as a basis of their religious or political convictions. I would hold that God would wish to be clear that the Hebrews were not to have such; they were to have something all together different than what mankind currently had (though man shows signs of truth in his myth and legend). It's going to have to be more than science not being able to explain how light could possible be in existence before the sun is created. I mean, that kind of skepticism is, I would think, rather weak from God's perspective. God: "You mean, I couldn't have done it the way it reads?" We're not talking about making a square circle (something obviously illogical), we're talking about a tremendous lack of information between the lines; there simply isn't enough information--both in Scripture and in the universe for us to confidently say, "That's it; it wasn't created the way Genesis says it was. We now have the facts." Science isn't there. Astronomy isn't there. God, however, has been there all along!
I really need to take the time, one day, to study the young-earth vs old-earth arguments. What's hard for me to do, though, is to read an argument from one perspective, keep the details in my head long enough (and clear enough) to read the rebuttles, and then evaluate the end of it all. Man, I'm not that sophisticated in my power of comprehension, you know. This makes it tough for me to do that kind of study, but I know I'll need to do it. And if I find that it really is true that the earth's been around millions and millions of years, well, then, I don't know that I'll need to toss out a literal six-day creation, but perhaps I'll have settled a few things with regard to the old-earth/young-earth argument itself. (As I say, it's going to take some serious arguments to rid my approach to a literal account of Genesis!)
Can I ask a favor of you? If you would, in your spare time, compile a reference of books, articles, etc., that explain boths sides of these various arguments at the same time, showing them side by side, so to speak, so I can keep this on hand for future study. And, of course, references to materials that are one-sided are fine. But it really helps if I can see the whole picture at the whole time: seeing both arguments discussed--strengths and weaknesses--together. If you don't have the time, I definitely understand. You can email them to me: keith_starkey@hotmail.com. I'd GREATLY appreciate it.
And finally ...
Okay, I got the bullets to show, but I'm too scared to add information! Probably mess them all up, I will!
Hey, for good conversation and learning,
Starkman | | Back to Top | | |
|
scott_jorgenson
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 271
| Posted 1/28/2004 1:46 PM (GMT -6) | | Keith,
I appreciate and support your desire to study this further. By all means please check it out from all angles. You will find that the area of interpretation and historicity of Genesis 1-11 and all the related scientific issues (creation, evolution, flood, etc) is a morass of information, misinformation, claim, and counter-claim which would literally take several lifetimes to fully become familiar with. Not a single angle of the debate isn't already fully known and addressed (to varying degrees of success, of course) by experienced advocates on all sides, many of them zealous for their cause and thus less-than-fully reliable (conservative young-earth Christian apologists and eager atheists alike); while relatively few such advocates are interested in exhaustively pursuing specific claims with full disclosure.
To handle this, I suggest you read a few relatively superficial presentations of the varying viewpoints, to familiarize yourself with the "taxonomy" of views in the debate. And then, from those sources, pick out several very narrow and specific claims that happen to interest you; and chase those down to the very bottom. (The Internet has made this task far easier than it used to be; Google is wonderful.) Repeat this many times and see which way the trend flows until its clear.
Since most people don't have the time or inclination for this, that is why I stress the lopsided nature of the debate between creationists and the mainstream, whenever asked to explain why I come down on the side I'm on in a minute or less. Countless experts have had the time to do this investigation; and with no common biases or hidden agendas, they have formed the mainstream views of science and history, which have won out in the court of professional judgment again and again and again. There is a reason for this, I tell people; its not just conspiracy or sin or Satan's subterfuge; and it should be no more surprising to find the mainstream consensus justified in this than to find how justified it generally is in all the rest of science and history. In contrast, mavericks and cranks are rarely right - it only seems like they are because we remember the inspiring ones who history shows eventually won out. But even then there are major differences between such cases and the creationists.
But anyway, best wishes to you. I'll email a list of recommendations sometime in the next couple of weeks.
Scott
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 1/29/2004 3:08 AM (GMT -6) | | Thanks, Scott. I'll look forward to your email. Oh, and be sure to include some of the introductory material you mentioned that I should start with. (I feel like I'm starting all over again, what with this stuff and, at the ripe old age of 43, just having gotten my Basics of Biblical Greek (William D. Mounce) textbook [expecting the workbook and lecture CD series soon!] in the mail!)
Blessings, brother!
For "Oh, gads, Greek? What was I thinking?"
Starkman | | Back to Top | | |
|
karen
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2004
Total Posts : 1
| Posted 2/7/2004 2:28 AM (GMT -6) | | Hi im new to this.
im at university studying biology and geography and obviously a lot of evolution comes into it. The evidence im being taught for evolution makes sense and is very strong, but i am also a christian and believe in the bible accounts... is there any way i can have both, any middle ground?
karen | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 2/7/2004 8:05 AM (GMT -6) | | Karen-
Welcome to the board! It's good to have you contributing.
Well, I've tried and retried several times to tackle the question of evolution and was never able to conclude one way or the other on the scientific evidence. Science is not my area and some of the scientific arguments are beyond me. I mean, how do I judge between Michael Behe's "irreducible complexity" argument against evolution (Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution) and Ken Miller's (Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution, a good book!--Miller is a committed Catholic and biologist at Brown University) response to Behe?
When I read Ken Miller I say to myself, "Wow, this is strong stuff. This guy obvious loves God and believes in evolution. And he presents case studies that seem to prove his point. OK." Then when I read Mike Behe I think, "Whoah, this is pretty damaging to evolution." So I go back to Miller responding to Behe and say, "OK, Miller's got a come-back." And on and on it goes. But by that time I'm stretched beyond my intellect, so I just give up. I will never be equipped enough on my own to adjudicate between the competing scientific evidence for and against evolution. And my guess is 99% of Christians are in the same boat. They read the anti-evolution stuff emoting (more heat than light as far as I can tell) all over the place and respond emotionally. I'm not into that.
So, what can I do? Well, I am more qualified to make a judgment about the text of Scripture and the hermeneutical and theological questions. If I can't make a scientific judgment, I can make a theological judgment about whether evolution is compatible with the theological claims of Scripture, about humanity's uniqueness as "created in the image of God." I honestly don't see anything in the text of Scripture that disproves evolution. You perhaps have to make some adjustments about the literal/metaphorical nature of the creation narratives to accommodate evolution, but that's not impossible. There are a few bugs in the creation narratives that I think suggest evolution isn't true, but if it weren't for these I don't think there'd be a problem. As it is I don't think they're insurmountable.
But it's also true that if evolution is compatible with theism that evolution is not theologically necessitated. The creation narratives don't prove evolution either. If we're just talking about the text itself, one could argue that Adam and Eve were historical individuals created "on the spot" by God (even if some features of the story are non-literal).
So I'm agnostic. I simply can't know whether humanity evolved or not. I can't make a scientific judgment, and though I lean away from evolution theologically, it's just a lean, it's not a hill to die.
Take care,
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
Jim Mottl
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2003
Total Posts : 57
| Posted 2/7/2004 1:14 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by TGB
When I read Ken Miller I say to myself, "Wow, this is strong stuff. This guy obvious loves God and believes in evolution.
Take care,
Tom
I have not read this book, but what about evolution does this guy believe in? If he believes in and love God as you say, then he must believe that God evolved us. Is that correct?
Jim | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 2/7/2004 3:42 PM (GMT -6) | | Jim: I have not read this book, but what about evolution does this guy believe in? If he believes in and love God as you say, then he must believe that God evolved us. Is that correct?
Tom: Hi Jim. Ken Miller is a biologist who believes in scientific evolution, pure and simple. But in his book he argues there is nothing about evolution as science that requires atheism. He's upset that atheistic scientists have used evolution to attempt to support their beliefs. Miller argues that one can believe that God created and so is ultimately responsible for the physical universe and its processes and that God chose to leave the processes he designed to work on their own. I believe Miller suggests that when one species evolved to a sufficient point (a "point" Miller never actually defined and which he argued might not have happened at all) God at THAT point endowed that species (i.e, human beings) with his image. But if God were to repeat it all over again under the same inital conditions, we might have turned out looking very different, or not turned out at all.
 | | Back to Top | | |
|
JET
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2002
Total Posts : 397
| Posted 2/7/2004 4:40 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
But if God were to repeat it all over again under the same inital conditions, we might have turned out looking very different, or not turned out at all.
I'm not very well read on this subject and probably shouldn't be posting on it, but I'm reminded of an article which seems to present perhaps a different view of evolution than the one attributed to Miller in the above quote. In this article, Howard Van Till argues for evolution in part because it "comports with the theological position that the world created by the God who reveals himself in Scripture is a world characterized by what I shall call functional integrity."
quote:
By this term I mean to denote a created world that has no functional deficiencies, no gaps in its economy of the sort that would require God to act immediately, temporarily assuming the role of creature to perform functions within the economy of the creation that other creatures have not been equipped to perform. When the Creator says, "Let the land produce vegetation," or "Let the water teem with living creatures," or "Let the land produce living creatures," a world created with functional integrity will, by the enabling power and directing governance of God, be able to respond obediently and employ its capacities to carry out the intentions of the Creator.
www.asa3.org/ASA/dialogues/Faith-reason/CRS9-91VanTill.html
From an openness perspective, perhaps we could say that in a world initially created with "functional integrity", God would not need to act "immediately" until such time as Creation came to include free beings. At that time, ongoing "immediate" intervention becomes necessary in order to carry out God's plans, working with, through and sometimes against the actions of free agents.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Jim Mottl
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2003
Total Posts : 57
| Posted 2/7/2004 9:53 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by TGB
Jim: I have not read this book, but what about evolution does this guy believe in? If he believes in and love God as you say, then he must believe that God evolved us. Is that correct?
Tom: Hi Jim. Ken Miller is a biologist who believes in scientific evolution, pure and simple. But in his book he argues there is nothing about evolution as science that requires atheism. He's upset that atheistic scientists have used evolution to attempt to support their beliefs. Miller argues that one can believe that God created and so is ultimately responsible for the physical universe and its processes and that God chose to leave the processes he designed to work on their own. I believe Miller suggests that when one species evolved to a sufficient point (a "point" Miller never actually defined and which he argued might not have happened at all) God at THAT point endowed that species (i.e, human beings) with his image. But if God were to repeat it all over again under the same inital conditions, we might have turned out looking very different, or not turned out at all.
I guess what I really wanted to try and find out is what this person believed about evolution. I mean the current theory, correct me if I am wrong, is that 15 billion years ago the universe started...the Earth cooled...life just happened to start reproducing itself branching off in thousands of "evolutionary trees" and we end up where we are today. It's more complicated than that obviously but that's a simplified version. I read an excerpt from the last chapter of "Finding Darwin's God" with the link that A_Theist provided.
From what I read I infer that that the only difference between the atheist evolutionist and Miller is that Miller believes that God, not naming which God, although he does say he is a Christian in the article, chose to use evolution to get us where we are today. He asserts that the only way for us and the rest of creation to be free beings is that God had to make us self-sufficient. He used an example of when he was a child. He was 8 years old and in church the day before his 1st communion. The priest was talking about the power of God in the World and use the example of a flower and how Solomon in all his glory was never arrayed with such beauty. Miller says that the priest went on to say that not a single person in all the World can say what makes a flower bloom. Miller now (37 years later) talks about a person he knows that studied this and now they know how plants produce new flowers. So Miller's comeback the the priest is this, "Father Murphy, you were wrong. God doesn't make a flower. The floral induction genes do." This person is extremely blind if you ask me. I don't get how he misses that God is not involved in this process, that somehow this is all the plants doing on it's own. Now I understand that the plant is alive, but it's just doing what God told it to do, see here Genesis 1:11 - Then God said, "Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit after their kind with seed in them"; and it was so. 12 The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit with seed in them, after their kind; and God saw that it was good.
So it is with humans too Miller says that we are and have to be self-sufficient. He says this,
quote:
If a string of constant miracles were needed for each turn of the cell cycle of each flicker of a cilium, the hand of God would be written directly into every living thing - his presence at the edge of the human sandbox would be unmistakeable. Such findings might confirm our faith, but they would also undermine our independence. How could we fairly choose between God and man when the presence and the power of the divine so obviously and so literally controlled our every breath? Our freedom as his creatures requires a little space and integrity. In the material World, it requires self-sufficiency and consistency with the laws of nature.
So somehow the fact that the plants make new plants and humans make new humans means that God is not controlling us because we and the plants are doing this stuff ourselves. The God in Miller's mind would basically be doing this stuff for us. In other words, it's like when my 3 year old stands on my feet with her back to me while I hold her hands and start to walk.
He then says this, quote:
In biological terms, evolution is the only way a Creator could have made us the creatures we are - free beings in a World of authentic and meaningful moral and spiritual choices.
In Colossians it says that Jesus Christ holds ALL things together. Even though it appears as if nature is self-sufficient, it is not. God reigns over it. His word keeps it going. God is the one that makes it possible for living things to keep living. The reason this is so is because HE CREATED IT THAT WAY! HE CREATED IT THAT WAY! And it says so in the Bible!
Anyway, I need to go home and get some sleep before church. I'll try and comment on this more tomorrow.
Hey, can I quote stuff from his article if there is a copyright?
Jim | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 2/7/2004 10:58 PM (GMT -6) | | Hey Jim-
Well, like I said, I have nothing to contribute to the discussion in scientific terms. But having read Miller's book and heard him at length in an interview, I didn't conclude that Miller would deny that God sustains the universe, i.e., that Christ holds it together by the word of his power. What Miller is getting at in the quote of his you shared is that there's continuity between the physical world and the world's processes at any given moment and the physical world and its processes at the next moment, and the next, and so forth. In other words, God created once, then he sustains thereafter, and the way God sustains appears to be through the physical laws that he created and set in place. Miller wouldn't deny God's having authored these laws.
Perhaps the difference can be expressed in an analogy that Miller uses: Creationism can be likened to the claim that God knocked in 15 billard balls with 15 strokes; a stroke for each ball, putting each ball in the pocket without a miss. Pretty impressive. Evolution can be likened to the claim that God knocked in all 15 balls with one single stroke.
I can't remember what Miller's view is on the possibility of miracles. But believing in miracles as I do, I do believe God sometimes breaks into the physical process of our world in extraordinary ways. Miller seems to think that if God managed every quantum event, every physical act, in the same miraculous way that we could not be free. I see his point. I'm just not sure it leads without fail to evolution. Again, when it comes to science, I stink.
Jim, when you say God sustains the physical universe, does that mean God "controls" every physical event such that whatever happens God brings about? Or does it mean that as creator God endowed creation, charged up its battery so to speak, with life in order that creation be able to function on its own? If the latter, then might God have predesigned a certain amount of freedom, or openness, in the way physical laws functioned such that the created order could over time evolve into higher forms of life? I'm not say yes or no. I can't make a scientific judgment. I'm trying to find out what we can say theologically about the compatibility between theism and the claim that God could have created the world to function on its own in this second sense.
Lastly, I think Miller made a mistake in choosing "self-sufficient" to describe these God-given ongoing processes of the physical world. If they're God-given (and Miller agrees they are) then they're not SELF-sufficient. Self-sufficient, I take it, means they exist as well as run on their own. Seems like Miller only means to say creation is empowerd by God to function on its own according to the laws God himself set up, not that creation came into existence without God. Again, Miller's point is that if God is just as causally and unilaterally involved in sustaining the universe as he was in creating it, then it follows that the state of the universe at any given point in time can be said to represent God's "good" will just as it was his "good" will when he first created. But many don't want to say the world today is everything God wants it to be. How do we account for the disparity if God is causally and unilaterally determining every moment of the created order's life just as causally and unilaterally as he did when he created out of nothing? You posit some measure of genuine independence into the order of things. I think that's what Miller is getting at. It's this measure of freedom the created laws of the physical world were endowed with by God that constitute the engine that drives the evolution of species. Again, I'm just trying to express what I think Miller would say. I haven't sorted through this all myself.
Tom
PS You can quote from the article, as I understand, but only snippets (while providing the URL, which Paul already did). You just can't paste the entire article as is right here. Just my guess. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Jim Mottl
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2003
Total Posts : 57
| Posted 2/9/2004 5:53 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Hey Jim-
Well, like I said, I have nothing to contribute to the discussion in scientific terms. But having read Miller's book and heard him at length in an interview, I didn't conclude that Miller would deny that God sustains the universe, i.e., that Christ holds it together by the word of his power. What Miller is getting at in the quote of his you shared is that there's continuity between the physical world and the world's processes at any given moment and the physical world and its processes at the next moment, and the next, and so forth. In other words, God created once, then he sustains thereafter, and the way God sustains appears to be through the physical laws that he created and set in place. Miller wouldn't deny God's having authored these laws.
You don’t need to be, I believe, scientific. And you have already contributed to the discussion. You have articulated Miller more than I did, it helps.(: Anyway, for sure Miller believes that God created and sustains the universe, and I totally agree that there is continuity as you mentioned with the processes and such. So God created once and then sustains thereafter? Yeah, I can’t say that I disagree with this. The problem is this: This is NOT evolution. It IS in fact what Genesis has said all along. That God CREATED and then commanded that what he created to reproduce after it’s own KIND, i.e., a human will reproduce humans, lions will reproduce lions…This is NOT evolution, and the evolution that Miller asserts is not in the Bible, i.e., that by some bacteria growing began a process of natural selection that eventually lead to us. Tom, is your great, great, great, great, great…grandfather a bacteria? The evolution that Miller asserts describes and impotent God who is NOT in control.
quote:
Miller: What evolution tells us is that life spreads out along endless branching pathways from any starting point. One of those tiny branches eventually lead to us. We think it remarkable and wonder how it could have happened, but any fair assessment of the tree of life shows that our tiny branch is crowded into insignificance by those that bolted off in a thousand different directions. Our species, Homo sapiens, has not “triumphed” in the evolutionary struggle any more than has a squirrel, a dandelion, or a mosquito. We are all here, now, and that’s what matters. We have all followed different pathways to find ourselves in the present. We are all winners in the game of natural selection. Current winners, we should be careful to say.
Come again? This truly lacks the continuity with the Bible and his profession of faith.
quote:
Perhaps the difference can be expressed in an analogy that Miller uses: Creationism can be likened to the claim that God knocked in 15 billard balls with 15 strokes; a stroke for each ball, putting each ball in the pocket without a miss. Pretty impressive. Evolution can be likened to the claim that God knocked in all 15 balls with one single stroke.
You mean in creationism, God created lets say, a lion, a bear, and an elephant. If I understand the analogy this would be 3 strokes, whereas evolution is the one stroke that God used to create everything. Do I have that right? Again, the bible says that God created, that is, he said, “Let us create mankind in our own image” Notice it doesn’t say that they set up a primordial ooze to which we were to come from. Adam was the first man the bible says. It didn’t take some bacteria to eventually get to the point that caused Adam to be as he was, a mature, thinking man. The problem with Miller is that he doesn’t believe that. Of course that doesn’t mean that Miller is wrong when he says that there is an “evolutionary” process to life, that is, life seems to be self-sufficient like how the plant makes new flowers seemingly on their own, but this “evolution” he asserts, he is very confused on. He is mistaking the command of God to nature to bear fruit with a natural process that God created in the first place to sustain it to a bacteria “evolving” and branching out thousands of ways to MAKE what things are today. Though he is right, he is wrong. There is just simply no biblical basis for his so called “evolution”.
quote:
I can't remember what Miller's view is on the possibility of miracles. But believing in miracles as I do, I do believe God sometimes breaks into the physical process of our world in extraordinary ways. Miller seems to think that if God managed every quantum event, every physical act, in the same miraculous way that we could not be free. I see his point. I'm just not sure it leads without fail to evolution. Again, when it comes to science, I stink.
Yes, I agree. He parted the Red Sea, flooded the earth, raised people from the dead, and Jesus calmed the winds and the seas. I know what you mean about seeing Miller’s point, and I don’t think that God is a puppeteer, but at the same time, indirectly, He is controlling the universe.
quote:
Jim, when you say God sustains the physical universe, does that mean God "controls" every physical event such that whatever happens God brings about?
Like I said, I don’t think that God is a puppeteer. But I think of it this way…The company I work for has many managers and directors and CEO’s and what have you, so when something goes right and when something goes wrong even though let’s say that I physically caused the right or wrong or somehow screwed up a process, the manager is ultimately responsible. Now the manager isn’t my puppeteer but ultimately it’s his butt on the line if his boss finds out about it. Again, to me it’s like when the pro-abortionists say that women have a right to their body’s and therefore can do as they please with them. They right in that they physically can, but ultimately they don’t. “For you are not your own, you have been bought with a price” (somewhere in 1st or 2nd Corinthians) Or how about this, I got my wife pregnant and a child grew inside her until it was ready to be born. According to Miller, like the flower, “The floral induction genes make the flower”. The bible says that God “Knit me together in my mothers womb” God created our bodies to be able to do that, and it came from the power of God is what the Psalmist is saying, and for Miller to say that it was evolution is a BIG LEAP.
quote:
Or does it mean that as creator God endowed creation, charged up its battery so to speak, with life in order that creation be able to function on its own?
Well sure. God commanded creation to bear fruit.
quote:
If the latter, then might God have predesigned a certain amount of freedom, or openness, in the way physical laws functioned such that the created order could over time evolve into higher forms of life?
No! If this is true then the bible is wrong. And the bible is not wrong because God cannot lie. It clearly says that God created, period. It’s absurd to think that a bacteria grew into a lion, an elephant, a human. There is just no biblical support for this. That is what is so confusing for me when I read an article from a so called Christian when they don’t even believe in authoritative Word. He didn’t mention one bible verse to support any of his claims. That’s why he is an evolutionist. Evolution is a lie.
quote:
I'm not say yes or no. I can't make a scientific judgment. I'm trying to find out what we can say theologically about the compatibility between theism and the claim that God could have created the world to function on its own in this second sense.
You know what Tom, I don’t have any scientific discernment or knowledge like Miller. I mean, I don’t know the process of how DNA works in our body’s or how a flower makes new flowers, but I do know that God said he created all there is, and that he commanded it to bear fruit. So theologically Miller and the word of God are incompatible. The process in which things bear fruit by God’s command appear to Miller to be evolution. But it’s not! We did not evolve! God said he CREATED us! Miller is a few chapters short of being a creationist. It’s all in the Bible.
quote:
Lastly, I think Miller made a mistake in choosing "self-sufficient" to describe these God-given ongoing processes of the physical world. If they're God-given (and Miller agrees they are) then they're not SELF-sufficient. Self-sufficient, I take it, means they exist as well as run on their own.
Good point Tom. That is how I took it. My body is alive, it works, it functions, it is self-sufficient in the way that it functions, but God is in control, but not a puppeteer. Miller seems to be saying that because we are self-sufficient that it means that we evolved. I don’t get that. I don’t know where he gets that from.
quote:
Seems like Miller only means to say creation is empowerd by God to function on its own according to the laws God himself set up, not that creation came into existence without God.
I agree with this because this is what Genesis says. But Miller is missing the part where it says that GOD CREATED. I don’t see how he pulls evolution into it, that we came from a bacteria that God created.
quote:
Again, Miller's point is that if God is just as causally and unilaterally involved in sustaining the universe as he was in creating it, then it follows that the state of the universe at any given point in time can be said to represent God's "good" will just as it was his "good" will when he first created. But many don't want to say the world today is everything God wants it to be. How do we account for the disparity if God is causally and unilaterally determining every moment of the created order's life just as causally and unilaterally as he did when he created out of nothing?
I know. I know what you mean Tom, and I see the point that Miller is trying to make, but I just don’t see how it fits with evolution, that we cannot truly be free if God is in control.
quote:
Miller:
It is often said that a Darwinian universe is one whose randomness cannot be reconciled with meaning. I disagree. A world truly without meaning would be one in which a deity pulled the string of every human puppet, indeed of every material particle. In such a world, physical and biological events would be carefully controlled, evil and suffering could be minimized, and the outcome of historical processes strictly regulated. All things would move toward the Creator's clear, distinct, established goals. Such control and predictability, however, comes at the price of independence. Always in control, such a Creator would deny his creatures any real opportunity to know and worship him - authentic love requires freedom, not manipulation. Such freedom is best supplied by the open contingency of evolution.
How in the world does this have anything do to with evolution. Somehow we needed or better said God need to evolve us from bacteria for us to be free? That is preposterous. It doesn’t even make sense.
quote:
You posit some measure of genuine independence into the order of things. I think that's what Miller is getting at. It's this measure of freedom the created laws of the physical world were endowed with by God that constitute the engine that drives the evolution of species. Again, I'm just trying to express what I think Miller would say. I haven't sorted through this all myself.
Tom
The freedom came from God in the way of creation and commanding to bear fruit. But that is not evolution. And you don’t need to be scientifically inclined to know the difference.
I really appreciate your post! Thanks a lot. You did a good job articulating Miller’s points as you saw from his quotes. It helped me articulate myself on this. Have a great day in the Lord, the Lord you CREATED you!!!
quote:
PS You can quote from the article, as I understand, but only snippets (while providing the URL, which Paul already did). You just can't paste the entire article as is right here. Just my guess.
Thanks dude!!
<><
Jim
| | Back to Top | | |
|
scott_jorgenson
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 271
| Posted 2/9/2004 3:26 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by karen
Hi im new to this.
im at university studying biology and geography and obviously a lot of evolution comes into it. The evidence im being taught for evolution makes sense and is very strong, but i am also a christian and believe in the bible accounts... is there any way i can have both, any middle ground?
karen
Hi Karen,
The answer is yes, but it could take some getting used to - in particular, it could take some willingness to grow into a biblical perspective that is new to you (while still being authentically Christian). And not to over-dramatize, but it could also come at some personal cost to you, if you have close, conservative Christian friends or loved ones who learn of your reconciliation with science and possibly find it disturbing or dismaying.
The basic difficulty is that there is no way to simultaneously accept, without contradiction, both (a) the traditionally-dominant Christian interpretation of Genesis 1-11 as plain literal history, and (b) not just evolution, but virtually everything mainstream science and history have to say about anything dated earlier than 2000 B.C. If "days" really does mean days, as Genesis at least seems to say - if things really were created a few thousand years ago, as Genesis at least seems to say - if there really was no physical death at some point in the past - if there really was a global flood a few thousand years ago - all this clashes hopelessly with the mainstream scientific picture. Mainstream science at one time endorsed this seemingly-biblical history, but over the last 200 years the scientific community's increasingly firm, increasingly consensus, interpretation of mounting evidence has all but ruled this picture out.
Thus some reject as much of that firm, consensus scientific interpretation as necessary to preserve enough literal history from Genesis to satisfy their hermeneutical preferences. Such "young earth creationists" can be very imaginative, stubborn and polemical in dealing with the myriad of evidence, but you need to be aware of them as you consider these issues. Answers in Genesis (http://www.answersingenesis.org) and Institute for Creation Research (http://www.icr.org) are the biggest-name players - they are well-funded conservative Christian apologetic organizations focused on discrediting and denying evolution and basically all of mainstream prehistory. No-one in the real scientific world gives them any credence - indeed, though their arguments often look convincing at first, every one I have ever chased down (from rebuttal to counter-rebuttal to etc ad nauseum) has been inconclusive at best or invalid at worst. But in the conservative Christian subculture they are very influential.
Many Christians, however, acknowledge that the traditionally-dominant interpretation of Genesis, which sees in it an attempt to communicate plain literal history, is just that - an interpretation. This doesn't mean its necessarily suspect, but it does mean it should be subjected to as much scrutiny as the mainstream scientific view of prehistory. And I think that when we do scrutinize it, we find it laced and weakened with cracks, and other interpretations present themselves.
There are two main ways to categorize these Christians, each way sorting them into two camps. One way is by their view of the science. By this division, non-young-earth Christians fall into two camps: the "old earth creationists" and the "theistic evolutionists". "Old earth creationists" (also often called "progressive creationists") generally accept the mainstream scientific scenario with some key exceptions. A typical old-earth creationist, for example, would accept the Big Bang and the ancient universe and earth, and would accept the progressive appearance of varying forms of life over deep time. Against the young-earthers they would further typically deny, for example, the global flood and the absence of death before the Fall; while against the full mainstream view they would reject only an evolutionary descent for man and a natural mechanism for the origin of life and macro-evolutionary descent (if not macro-evolution itself). Reasons to Believe (http://www.reasons.org) is an old-earth Christian apologetic organization.
"Theistic evolutionists", on the other hand, generally accept the whole mainstream scenario, including those points specifically rejected by the old-earthers. It should be noted that the great majority of Christian scientists today, and for the last 100+ years, would qualify as theistic evolutionists; among Christians in the relevant professional communities, theistic evolution is dominant. The American Scientific Affiliation (http://www.asa3.org) is not an apologetic organization, but is a professional association of Christian American scientists, and their (unofficial) general position of theistic evolution is representative of this group.
But this division leaves unsaid how each group tends to interpret the Bible and find support for their position within it. Christians who are old-earthers or theistic evolutionists tend to interpret Genesis in two ways: concordist or ahistorical. The fundamental question is a person's view on the proposition that Genesis must be seeking to recount factual history in at least some regard. Christians who feel God must intend that Genesis be at least loosely historical are "concordists" - they try to find harmony or accord between Genesis and what they accept from science. Several concordist schemes have been proposed in the past, but all share the common trait of interpreting Genesis 1-11 in ways to make the text line-up with science. Thus "days" are taken to refer to overlapping indeterminate epochs; the creation of astronomical bodies on Day 4 is taken to refer to their phenomenological appearance in the sky after earth's atmosphere had become sufficiently transparent; the various references to "whole earth" in the Flood and Babel passages are taken to refer to otherwise-historical local Mesopotamian events; etc. Reasons to Believe (see above) has quite a bit of this; and in general probably most old-earthers are concordists of one kind are another. Some theistic evolutionists are also concordists.
The "ahistorical" (my word - unlike the other terms above) view of Genesis, however, disagrees with all forms of concordism about the necessity of finding history revealed in Genesis. Ahistorical views emphasize the ancient Hebrew cultural context in which Genesis was inspired and written, and the literary and epistemological conventions prevalent in that culture at that time. Ahistorical views conclude that a factual telling of history would not have been of importance to God or the Hebrews in that context, compared to a compelling presentation of theology according to the conventions of the day; and as a consequence that explains why we do not, and should not expect, to find factual history in Genesis. There are a variety of such views (most of them mutually compatible and complementary), the most common of which in evangelical Christian circles today is probably the framework view of Genesis 1. But because these views come closest to views of Genesis held by theologically liberal scholars and non-Christian skeptics, and because these views are complementary with higher-critical and documentary theories commonly associated by conservative Christians with liberalism and apostasy, you will find that many conservative Christians are suspicious of them. Most theistic evolutionists are ahistorical, which hasn't helped the acceptance of such views in the eyes of those to whom evolution and mainstream science are already suspect.
Anyway, I've gone into this long "taxonomy" so that you'll have a basic understanding of what your options are, as you continue in your studies. If you've read anything I've posted here before, its probably been pretty clear that I myself find theistic evolution, and ahistoricism regarding Genesis, to be the most compelling answers in this controversy. This is after some 18 years of studying the issue as a Christian and a layman (ie amateur - I am not a scientist, theologian, Biblical scholar, etc).
I hope this has helped.
Scott
| | Back to Top | | |
| 84 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 12:53 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|