Some Background
f you follow the buzz in the blogosphere, I'm sure you have heard about The BioLogos Forum, with a slick website and blog that launched last year. Their stated goal is to "promote and celebrate the integration of science and Christian faith."Well, about two weeks ago, Darrel Falk (president of The BioLogos Foundation) Fedexed me a copy of a letter he wrote to John MacArthur. It seems the staff at BioLogos had been reading a series of posts about Genesis and the biblical account of creation on the Grace to You blog and they were convinced MacArthur's critique of uniformitarianism missed the mark.
"Uniformitarianism does not dictate that the earth has never undergone catastrophes," Falk wrote. (He was refuting an assertion MacArthur had never made in the first place). "Rather," Falk continued, "it says that the same processes we see shaping the earth today have been at work since God created the world."Huh?
Falk's own shorthand definition of uniformitarianism strikes me as something no sober-minded, Bible-believing individual could possibly affirm. In fact, it sounds very much like a denial of practically everything the Bible says about creation.
Hear it once more: "The same processes we see shaping the earth today have been at work since God created the world."
Really? What about the curse? For that matter, what about days two through six of the creation process? And what about the flood?
I know, of course, that old-earthers like to fudge on the questions of whether all creation (or Eden only) was a perfect paradise; whether the six days are a chronological account of creation or merely some kind of poetic framework; whether the flood was a global or regional deluge, and whatnot. But regardless of what hermeneutical machinations one imposes on the text, I can't see how any reasonable person—someone for whom words are in any sense truly meaningful—could think it possible to reconcile the first nine chapters of Genesis with the bald assertion that "the same processes we see shaping the earth today have been at work since God created the world."
Anyway, Mr. Falk's letter to John MacArthur informed him that BioLogos was about to do a three-part response on the subject, defending uniformitarianism. So I figured I would wait and read what they have to say.
What a disappointment. It seems to me the whole BioLogos response is merely a drawn-out way of saying "Nuh-uh!" You can read their responses for yourself: here, here, and here.
In the first article, Stephen O. Moshier essentially argues that uniformitarianism itself has never really been uniform. He says the term "as it is used by geologists today [is different from] the 19th century definition." Supposedly, Dr. MacArthur did his readers a disservice by not chronicling the evolution of uniformitarian definitions.
That's fine, but utterly beside the point. Don't the curse and the flood still refute the uniformitarian presupposition? Biblical arguments are missing from Moshier's article (oddly titled "The Biblical Premise of Uniformitarianism").
Well, OK, biblical references are not entirely missing. I should mention Moshier's one lame appeal to the words of the sage in Ecclesiastes 1:9: "That which has been is that which will be, and that which has been done is that which will be done. So there is nothing new under the sun."
As if that disproved the Genesis account and settled the dispute on the side of the skeptics in 2 Peter 3:4.
And that was the entire series' best biblical argument. Parts 2 and 3 of the BioLogos response were devoid of any serious appeal to Scripture. Part 2 was an extended but facile attempt to equate uniformitarianism with the doctrine of divine Providence—as if the only alternative to uniformitarianism were a scenario where God always acts directly through miraculous or catastrophic acts. (The whole article makes no actual reference to the biblical text, except for one throwaway reference to Genesis 1, where God rested—as if that "rest" established the legitimacy of uniformitarianism.)
Part 3, by Gregory Bennet, takes the bankrupt "providence" argument a step further, declaring that you can't reject uniformitarianism without also rejecting divine providence. But Bennet makes no argument to support that assertion, which is easily refuted by the mere fact that every biblical creationist who rejects uniformitarianism strongly affirms divine providence.
Oh, and that third blogpost made no argument from Scripture whatsoever. The only mentions of Scripture were offhand references—one of which cited some miracles in the gospels. But Bennet never even seemed to notice that miracles by definition are extraordinary departures from the normal working of divine providence—which is the very reason uniformitarians are naturally skeptical of the Bible's miracles, starting with creation! He actually shot his own argument in the foot in that paragraph.
The whole 3-part series never really dealt with the central argument biblical creationists are making: The biblical accounts of creation, the fall, the curse, and the flood surely mean something. They are irreconcilable with uniformitarianism, if you take Scripture seriously.
Moreover, the New Testament treats the account of Adam, the fall, the curse, and original sin as history (Romans 5:12-21). That's irreconcilable with uniformitarianism. People who insist that they are serious about both science and Scripture ought to be at least as interested in dealing with the biblical data as they are defending the presuppositions of their scientific theories.
BioLogos's low view of Scripture
The problem is that BioLogos clearly does not take scripture seriously, despite the claims of their PR department.
Some of the initial fanfare about BioLogos implied that the organization (though heavily funded by the John Templeton Foundation) is safely evangelical. Supposedly, they were set to offer a thoughtful defense of old-earth creationism without equivocating on the authority of Scripture and without compromising the essentials of the Christian faith.Good luck, I thought when I read the early hype about BioLogos. Few old-earthers truly grasp how much their capitulation to evolutionary theory compromises when it comes to hamartiology, hermeneutics, biblical history, biblical anthropology, and the authority and reliability of the Scriptures. But it would be nice to see a conscientious effort from old-earthers to deal with Christian doctrine and the foundations of Christian faith seriously.
Instead, in every conflict that pits contemporary "scientific" skepticism against the historic faith of the church, BioLogos has defended the skeptical point of view. BioLogos's contributors consistently give preference to modern ideology over biblical revelation. Although the BioLogos PR machine relentlessly portrays the organization as equally committed to science and the Scriptures (and there's a lot of talk about "bridge-building" and reconciliation), the drift of the organization is decidedly just one way. That should be obvious to anyone who ignores the organization's own carefully-crafted PR and simply pays attention to what the BioLogos staff and contributors actually blog about.
For example, BioLogos is where Bruce Waltke posted a video declaring that denying evolution is cultish. (Waltke resigned his professorship at RTS in the ensuing controversy.)
Lately, BioLogos has consigned biblical inerrancy to the dustbin of outmoded ideas, alongside creation ex nihilo. They have been floating multiple alternatives to the historicity of Adam and Eve, viz.,—
- Peter Enns: "The Adam story could be viewed symbolically as a story of Israel's beginnings, not as the story of humanity from ground zero."
- Alister McGrath (summarized in the words of the BioLogos editorial staff): "It makes even more sense to say that Adam and Eve are stereotypical figures—represent [sic] human potential as created by God but also with the capacity to go wrong."
- N. T. Wright: "I do think it matters that something like a primal pair getting it wrong did happen. But that doesn't mean I'm saying that therefore Genesis is kind of positivist, literal, clunky history over against myth. Far from it."
If BioLogos is willing to throw away so much at the very foundations of our faith and at the very beginning of God's revelation, I can't imagine why they would want to keep up the pretense of being Christians at all. Selectively admiring the Bible's moral teachings is not the same thing as actually believing the Bible.
PS: Al Mohler's message last week at the Ligonier Conference is a great answer to what BioLogos is peddling. Challies' notes are a good summary, but you really ought to listen to the whole message.
317 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 317 of 317You're not getting it Wyatt.
Spurgeon made no case for evolution, he wasn't ignoring Scripture, he was trying to explain what he thought happened before Day 1 of creation.
Biologos comes way too close to walking away from the faith by ignoring Genesis 1-3 (by saying they are not history and Adam was not a real guy) and claiming that God spoke nothing into existence, but that evolution did it, with God's help of course.
Night and day my friend, night and day.
Wyatt:
Where did he get that idea? It came from Science, not the Bible.
In this you are incorrect. You make a completely erroneous assumption. For Spurgeon, it was a matter of Scripture. The Hebrew of Gen. 1:2 can (and IMO should) be read as a string of negatives. Careful Bible scholars and teachers (e.g., Barnhouse, Torrey, even good old J. Vernon McGee) hold to the view of a gap between 1 and 2, not based on science, but on Scripture.
Steve,
When does the soul, whom Jesus came to save, enter in to the picture? Is the soul in an amoeba? or are all these creatures dying without souls. Or, if the earth isn't cursed yet, perhaps nothing died for millions of years.
You are thrilled with evolution being God's truth, but I just don't see it. It just does not fit in the Scriptures my friend.
Like a square peg in a round hole.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3NWrETfHdLE&feature=related
@ David,
The fossil record, and the subsequent layering should contain fossils that demonstrate speciation. There are no such fossils, only scientistism's hypotheses to fill in the "gaps." These are the kinds of fossils one would expect in the "layering" --- in abundance, btw.
The reason I made my initial point about the "layers" is that your question is moot until you establish that the layers are a reliable source for ascertaining the "kind" of information that apparently is there. You're reasoning is circular from the get go because you presume what you're trying to prove in order to prove it.
Daryl,
Thanks for your post. My observations about the consistency between evolution and God making Adam from dust weren’t intended to be any sort of overview or apologetic on the evolutionary creation perspective, but rather a limited response to another writer. You wrote:
The trouble with that hypothesis, is that you'd have to believe that God spoke all things into existence, the stars, the galaxies, the animals, light, plants etc etc, but then took billions of years to let man evolve? Is that what you believe?
Yes, you’re generally correct; but allow me to fine-tune your statement: After creating the heavens and the earth, God deliberately and purposefully created man through evolutionary processes which took billions of years. He didn’t “let” man evolve, but rather “evolved” him. This beautifully reflects the vivid imagery of Genesis 2, where God undertook a process of transforming dirt into a human body and only then breathed into it (not yet him) the breath of life to create the first human being (see my J. MacArthur citation below).
Incidentally, God uses such “transformational” processes in creating human life to this very day on a micro scale: Before you existed, God developed hundreds of nonliving eggs in your mother’s body and billions of nonliving sperm in your father’s. At a specific point in time, he brought one each of these nonliving things together and created a human life. Indeed, this world is absolutely filled with living things – plants, animals, humans – that “developed” from nonliving material.
>And, further to that, how many men evolved and died and evolved and died, until God had a sufficiently complete man to put to sleep and make a woman out of his rib?
And was Satan then following this evolution so closely that he managed to dupe the right version of evolved man, in order to throw the whole human race into sin? Or did he tempt every version to make sure he didn't miss the real deal?
There were no human beings before there was the first human being. There neither is nor ever was any such thing as an incomplete man. Again using Genesis 2, that dirt that God fashioned into the form of a man was neither Adam nor a man; Adam didn’t exist until God breathed the breath of life into him. As John MacArthur writes in his commentary on this text:
Many of the words used in this [Genesis 2] account of the creation of man picture a master craftsman at work shaping a work of art to which he gives life. […] Made from dirt, a man’s value is not in the physical components that form his body, but in the quality of life which forms his soul.
You write:
These aren't joke questions, they are issues of which throwing evolution into the mix makes havoc.
I didn’t take them as joke questions ;-) These are very serious, important questions that bear deep discussion, and I’m glad that they’re being addressed here. I’m saddened by the fact that all too typically, my fellow evangelicals are vociferous in their faith-science views yet shy away from digging into these matters substantively and really investigating them for themselves.
By the way, the evangelical apologist and co-founder of the Intelligent Design movement, Bill Dembski, has presented a fantastic theodicy (an explanation of the goodness of God in light of the world’s evil) in his new book The End of Christianity (“end” here meaning “purpose”). If, as the overwhelming evidence of modern science demands, the earth is ancient and death of animals preceded Adam, how can such death and suffering possibly be attributed to Adam’s sin? This excellent, thoroughly Bible-centered look at this issue cogently and wonderfully explains this. You can read my review of it here
Daryl, my answers here are obviously (yet necessarily) all too brief. But thanks for the questions!
Steve
I'm sorry I've had to be absent for most of this discussion. It's all part of the ongoing medical drama my life has become lately. I was anesthetized (literally) at the peak of this thread. Forgive me.
I have time tonight to answer only one comment:
Wyatt Roberts: "Did Charles Spurgeon believe in a six-day creation, in a 'young earth?' . . . Phil, I know you're an expert on Spurgeon. What do you think he believed?
He believed days 1-6 of creation were literal 24-hour days. But he more or less accepted the "gap theory"--the idea that there might have been a gap of indeterminate time between Genesis 1 and 2. So he wasn't a stickler on the age-of-the-earth question.
However, he opposed Darwinism and all its cousins with every fiber of his being.
The Darwinists of his day hated him, too. Here is a sample of how they lampooned him.
DayOne has an excellent book answering your questions in great detail with Spurgeon's own words.
Of course I disagree with Spurgeon on the viability of the "gap theory." But that type of thinking was fairly common among evangelicals until Henry Morris made such a strong case against it in the middle of the twentieth century.
And it's disingenuous to suggest that Spurgeon and other evangelicals and fundamentalists who were willing to hypothesize a gap between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2 were taking essentially the same stance as the Biologos website. They were,'t. At BioLogos, all of Genesis 1-9 is considered doubtful and the inerrancy of Scripture is under heavy attack. Spurgeon would have abominated such a movement.
Donsands,
Just caught your post, but am running out of the door to a screening. I think my last post to Daryl should generally address your points.
Have a great evening!
Steve
Stephen,
So let me understand you.
You're essentially then saying that days 1-5 were 24 days or some variation thereof, in which God spoke everything except man, into existence. (Genesis and the witness of Scripture is at least clear on that, God spoke the worlds into existence).
Day 6 then, became billions of years (presumably one long day without evening or morning until Adam and Eve were ready) in which God slowly built a creature, an animal really, and "evolved" him, altering him cell by cell for millions and billions of years.
Presumably then, he was creating a whole species of animal whose sole purpose was to end up with "Adam" in whom God breathed life.
Up until that time man was not alive, after all, until then he had no breath of life. (Genesis 1:30 speaks of animals and birds having the breath of life, so we're talking about a dead, or at least undead race or species of beings here)
Then, when God decided that He had finally gotten man just how He wanted him, he put him to sleep, and taking a rib, carved a woman and, upon waking Adam, presented her to him.
At that point, then, the undead species upon which God had been working, immediately died out, or, never having been alive, faded from existence, their usefulness having reached an end.
And Adam and Eve carried on in the Garden as per Genesis 3.
That's where I see this going Stephen. Seriously.
You place too much faith in unproven science my friend. And far too little in the Words of the Living God.
As some at Biologos have conceded that Adam is, at best, unnecessary, and at worst, completely fictional, I fear where this un-Biblical view will take you and others like you, years down the road.
And, frankly, I don't understand the attraction to these kinds of views (recognizing that what I've laid out, is no doubt not how you see things)
Stephen Blake said, "Before you existed, God developed hundreds of nonliving eggs in your mother’s body and billions of nonliving sperm in your father’s. At a specific point in time, he brought one each of these nonliving things together and created a human life."
What do you mean by "nonliving"? An egg and a sperm that join together and result in a human life can't be dead, can they?
Henry Morris? Not. It was his militancy, not his scholarship, that won out. Spurgeon, Torrey, Barnhouse, Scofield and the Septuagint were much the better on the scholarship. Still are.
My word verification: reality.
Oh, merciful heavens no. You read Hebrew? Never mind, I don't think I'd believe you if you said you did, if you site McGee as an authority. The "gap" theory is an embarrassment, the Hebrew arguments are arguments like Harold Camping's arguments are arguments.
Or "cite," for that matter.
Morris wasn't a Hebrew authority either, of course. Not my point.
Wyatt: "Phil, however, in the posted article, accuses the folks at BioLogos of having a "low view of Scripture" and having a "pretense of being Christians" for believing the very same thing that Spurgeon believed."
I don't think you have been paying attention. Can you name one Biologos contributor who believes "the very same thing Spurgeon believed" about both Scripture and the means by which God created our world?
No? I didn't think so.
"There were no human beings before there was the first human being."
So a million years an we have a man? Why not a woman too?
Too biblical for me Stephen. And it may set right, because you like it, but it sure is forcing it, like the round block in a square hole.
have a blessed evening my friend.
ps What Daryl said. Amen.
2 ps And I respect all the BB Warfields, CS Lewis, and I didn't realize James Packer. And so I suppose that this particular truth, which is opnly one truth BTW, shall have a mystery to it. I know I for one don't comprehend much of Genesis 1. Very difficult.
Yet, Adam had to Adam, didn't he?
From Dr. Luke: "Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli, the son of Matthat ....the son of Nathan, the son of David, the son of Jesse, the son of Obed, the son of Boaz ......the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of ADAM, the son of God."
"Too biblical for me Stephen"
Whoops. Too UN-biblical for me Stephen.
"As greglong noted, why do we need to? What's the urgency to determine a specific age?"
Perhaps I should be clearer about what the predictions about what fossils would be found in the lowest layers would be testing.
These prediction would not just be testing ideas about dates. They would mostly be testing the idea that all living things were created in a short period of time followed by a mass drowning in a global flood.
As to why we need to test, well, we test to see if our ideas are wrong. And in this case, we test because relying on words alone has clearly not resoved the issue.
"Given the constantly changing history of science, we do well do test science against Scripture and not vice versa."
How, exactly, are we to do this?
"The reason I made my initial point about the "layers" is that your question is moot until you establish that the layers are a reliable source for ascertaining the "kind" of information that apparently is there. You're reasoning is circular from the get go because you presume what you're trying to prove in order to prove it."
I don't understand. Please explain.
Sorry, should have noted that the last comment was addressed to Bobby Grow.
David,
I believe his point was that the facts remain that the strata are not the same the world over and there are fossilized trees passing through several layers.
The layer idea doesn't fly.
And, as has been stated. When God speaks you don't try to decide if it's true. You believe it.
I'll post later some links on Galileo when I get a chance. I'm on my phone now.
Strategem, see you are witty The mud comment was very funny.
"I believe his point was that the facts remain that the strata are not the same the world over."
One can use overlapping layers in adjacent regions to figure out which layers are the oldest in the world. Creationist geologists were doing this in the early 19th century, so yes, the layers idea will fly. In addition, in some locations, the strata are many miles deep and contain many, many, many layers that we can use to see the order in which fossils occur.
The layers idea is a simple one. It just says that what's on the bottom was deposited first and what's on the top was deposited last. So, if the hypothesis is that all life was created in a one week span and there was a mass drowning from a global flood, what would be deposited first, second, third, etc.? What's on the bottom or in the oldest layers deposited? We don't need dates, just predict what's on the bottom.
"And, as has been stated. When God speaks you don't try to decide if it's true. You believe it."
Ah, but how do you know God spoke? If the predictions fail, maybe God didn't say what you think God said. What if your beliefs are wrong?
@ Wyatt: Way to completely miss the point of my comment. Thank you, Daryl, for iterating it more directly than I did.
The trouble with that hypothesis, is that you'd have to believe that God spoke all things into existence, the stars, the galaxies, the animals, light, plants etc etc, but then took billions of years to let man evolve?
I believe that man was excluded from the evolution process. God created the world and everything in it over 6 stages. God created man in paradise not Earth. Only God knows how long Adam stayed in paradise before he was exiled. Adam arrived on Earth about a million or so years ago.
@Stephen:
"After creating the heavens and the earth, God deliberately and purposefully created man through evolutionary processes which took billions of years. He didn’t “let” man evolve, but rather “evolved” him. This beautifully reflects the vivid imagery of Genesis 2, where God undertook a process of transforming dirt into a human body and only then breathed into it (not yet him) the breath of life to create the first human being."
1: There's nothing "beautiful" about evolution, which requires much death and failure before anything is (though generally never is) achieved.
2: You want to fit billions of years into the word "formed"? God took clay from the ground and breathed life into it. It's a pretty simple concept. There aren't billions of years and a legion of in-between creatures hiding in there. That's exceptionally preposterous and without merit. I can only imagine where such a faulty hermeneutic would take us when used consistently on other passages in Scripture (if even possible to call something "consistent" that is simply an option to read anything and everything into any word in the text).
@Phil
Thank you for your answer. As far as me being disingenuous, I did not mean to suggest that Spurgeon and BioLogos agree on everything. However, I am saying that "gap" adherents like Spurgeon are absolutely doing the same thing as BioLogos insofar as they are both trying to find some way of reconciling their understanding of "scientific truth" with their interpretation of Scripture.
Anyway, thanks again for your reply. I do appreciate it.
"Ah, but how do you know God spoke?"
Why are you asking that David? Do you believe Jesus died on a Cross for the sins of the world, and then three days later He rose from the dead?
Luke the doctor tells us:
"In the first book, O Theophilus, I have dealt with all that Jesus began to do and teach, until the day when he was taken up, after he had given commands through the Holy Spirit to the apostles whom he had chosen. He presented himself alive to them after his suffering by many proofs, appearing to them during forty days and speaking about the kingdom of God."
Do you believe this?
@Strategem: What do you mean you're aren't witty. That comment about the mud was very funny.
@Wyatt: You've only succeeded in demonstrating that Spurgeon believed in the gap theory, to some extent. Spurgeon also didn't like Christmas. So what?
@Stephen Blake: One
Two
@David:
The fossil record is not even one evolutionists stand on. The fact is that fossil succession is limited. Many fossils are found at many different stratigraphic ranges. And since we don't know exactly how the flood occured (we can only speculate on short passage in the Bible as to how the entire earth was flooded) or how exactly the waters receded (again we have to draw inferences from Biblical text) we can only speculate as to which fossils ended up where or if there can be any pattern from them.
But as I just said, there is very limited patterns to be found and the more fossils we find the more we discover that the fossil record is not a credible dating method.
But first, you already know that. ICR, AIG, CRS and other creation proponents already have detailed technical papers about the fossil records, which I have no doubt you've seen. Secondly, your views are backward. You make a conclusion based on something that is not observable. You observe the results but not the preceding action. I see it all the time in my line of work. Based on what you think you know about Science you make a conclusion about the preceding action based on your observations of the results. But instead of making sure your conclusions coincide with what Scripture says, you just change the interpretation of Scripture to suit your fancy. And when modern Science is proven to be wrong and replaced with another theory (for example, Louis Pasteur disproving another unBiblical belief) you'll change your interpretation of Scripture to match.
This issue came up in our church earlier this year - & sent me looking for a new church for about 3 months - till I finally gave up the search and cooled down a bit.
TruthStands: you said about the biologos blog..
"Here is what you will find among contributers and commenters: No agreement on the inerrancy or inspiration of Scripture. No agreement at all about what Genesis 1-9 means. No commitment to sound evangelical hermeneutics. Extreme commitment to science. Some commenters in particular take pleasure in mocking evangelicals in general and fundamentalists in particular."
That - in a nutshell - is what we saw at our church! The most disturbing part was what was done with scripture - it was basically trashed. We were left wondering what was going to go next. It's as if we Christians have somehow slipped into a Swedish Smorgasbord theology...we only hold fast to the stuff we like.
Personally, I always thought we tend to ask the wrong questions in Genesis anyway. Instead of "could He really have done it in 6 24hr days?" better questions would seem to be: "Why did He stretch it out for 6 whole days? Why did He care that we knew how long it took Him to create everything - and why bother give us any details at all?"
Greg: We should be able to know real things about it -- its age, its origins -- while at the same time affirming its meaning and purpose from Scripture.
But Greg, the Bible tess us about the origin of the world (and man). It tells us what happened to the world (as a result of what man did) and how it (more importantly man) is in need of salvation.
Why is it when it comes to the origin of man, we say, "yes, Adam was created supernaturally, his one disobedience resulted in the fall of the human race." But when it comes to the origin of the world, we diverge a little bit.
What I was saying with the spiritual understanding was this: It is the spirit of God that borns witness within us the truth of Scripture (1 Cor 2) so that we believe in whatever is written in Scripture whether it's the account of the creation of man or the universe.
I mean, the Bible comes to us as whole does it not? It reveals itself primarily in terms of historical facts, does it not? Isn't the salvation of man (and the creation) dependent on historical facts?
For example, man was either created perfectly, innocent and then fell as Genesis tells us or he has been slowly developing, mutating as animal and has never been perfect at all. I'm sure you believe in the former. Why wouldn't the same be true for the physical world.
If we won't accept the fact that that man developed over eons and became perfect and then fell, why is that we accept then the physical universe was created gradually over billions of years got to a point when it was finally perfect and then it got bad again? It's inconsistent isn't it. We wouldn't hold that true for Adam (many do and I know you don't) but why would we hold that for the physical universe?
Greg said:
Personally, I’m not able to sustain a dualism that says I should believe one spiritual reality that is accessible by our reason and perception (Frank Turk) while at the same time being suspicious of anything I reason about or perceive in the physical world.
I'm just glad that the the only choices available are to be a wretched dualist who believes a text over an uninterpretable set of rote facts, or to be a rational person who can interpret rote facts in spite of some explicit text. That makes the world a much simpler place in which to abandon the Bible.
I say that only to point out that maybe there's at least one other choice: maybe the rote facts are best described by the authoritative text rather than the reasoning of a "science" which at its core rejects the ontological implications of a creator -- and has no credible explanation for things like love and sacrifice, which are all over the place in the world.
Just sayin'. I hope Grag's right -- because if he's wrong, he's teaching other people to disbelieve (and ultimately disobey) God.
I believe VERY FIRMLY in the literal 6 day YE position, but as I am reading some of these comments, are we collectively saying that this is to be believed as a prerequisite to salvation?
Did the thief on the cross understand any of this debate to be saved, or those that have near death conversions?
Now, lest anyone think I do not take God's Word seriously, I do. But if I were speaking to a dying man or woman, I would tell them about Christ crucified and His saving work done on the cross, not what version of end time theology or YE/OE is to be believed, or things of that nature.
Was R.C. Sproul truly saved when he took an opposing position to six literal days; likewise Spurgeon? Has anyone thought that possibly there are Christians in heaven right now who never even studied this subject?
Just asking?
I believe VERY FIRMLY in the literal 6 day YE position, but as I am reading some of these comments, are we collectively saying that this is to be believed as a prerequisite to salvation?
Did the thief on the cross understand any of this debate to be saved, or those that have near death conversions?
Now, lest anyone think I do not take God's Word seriously, I do. But if I were speaking to a dying man or woman, I would tell them about Christ crucified and His saving work done on the cross, not what version of end time theology or YE/OE is to be believed, or things of that nature.
Was R.C. Sproul truly saved when he took an opposing position to six literal days; likewise Spurgeon? Has anyone possibly thought that there are Christians now in heaven who never even studied this subject?
Just asking?
Hi Mary,
What I see as the key point is: if or when a believer matures and considers more doctrine (beyond basic salvation understanding), if they come to the doctrine of biblical creation and resist the obvious understanding taught in scripture, instead insisting that it can't be so and we have to appeal to man's modern understanding of science -- that shows a spiritual problem. It's like I mentioned a while back on the GTY blog, "God's people are not offended by God's word." Often a young believer still has ideas from the pre-Christian life and these remain for a while, until the believer matures and considers these matters -- as with my own case, that when I first believed I had been influenced by evolution and old-earth ideas; yet when I later looked into the matter the truth became clear. The case with R.C. Sproul shows this maturing -- yes, he did think otherwise, but after a period of time God revealed greater understanding to him so that he came to recognize the truth of Genesis 1 literal days. By contrast, I know of a particular preacher -- and there are no doubt many others -- that has been preaching and teaching for years, and yet when confronted with the creation issue, shows a very hardened attitude AGAINST biblical creation, a mind very made up against it, not even willing to consider that he might be wrong. Again, God's people are not offended by God's word, and so one's attitude towards creation reveals their true spiritual condition. Obviously God knows their hearts, if they are truly saved, and we can't make that final judgment - but we can judge according to their attitude on this matter as with other biblical teachings.
I cited McGee for Wyatt's benefit, as an instance of a conservative, biblical preacher (like Spurgeon) who was not letting science control his hermeneutics, though I'm sure McGee could read and understand Hebrew. Torrey certainly could. The gap theory is the position of the Scofield Bible, which made it the default for fundamentalists until 1960, when Morris began his unfortunate PR blitz (which has, quite evidently, had its effect).
That was the point for Wyatt. The gap theory is not an attempt to let science dictate the text. It's taking the text itself and asking why verse 2 uses a string of negatives.
There actually isn't even a single negative in Genesis 1:2.
Dan, you are not a Hebrew scholar. One who can make this claim is someone like Dr. Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum, Th.M, Ph.D. A Russian Jew who became a Christian and has specialized in Hebrew. And he carefully and in detail lays out the Hebrew of verse 2 in his Genesis commentary in a manner showing precisely the opposite of what you claim, viz., a string of negatives. Here's just one clip:
"The next phrase in 1:2 is: waste and void. In Hebrew, these are two words, tohu and vohu, connected by a vav conjunctive. These two words used together like this are found twice elsewhere, and in both other places they clearly mean divine judgment."
Do the instructors at Dallas qualify as being able to render an opinion? The Bible Knowledge Commentary:
"But 1:2 describes a chaos: there was waste and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep. The clauses in verse 2 are apparently circumstantial to verse 3, telling the world’s condition when God began to renovate it. It was a chaos of wasteness, emptiness, and darkness. Such conditions would not result from God’s creative work (bārā’); rather, in the Bible they are symptomatic of sin and are coordinate with judgment."
Johnny, you are I take it not even a Hebrew reader. Since you make my scholarship an issue, and know enough to tell me I'm not a scholar, please tell me of my training and education and experience in Hebrew, before we go any further.
Donsands,
“Do you believe this?”
I believe that humans make mistakes and are a little too quick to think that they might know what God may or may not have to say. This I think that this principle applies to the Book of Genesis, too.
Sir Aaron,
“The fossil record is not even one evolutionists stand on.”
I’m not sure that this is an accurate statement. I believe that evolutionists are generally quite happy to stand on the fossil record.
“The fact is that fossil succession is limited. Many fossils are found at many different stratigraphic ranges.”
Not quite right. Obviously, a given species can survive long enough to appear in several layers, but this doesn’t mean that there are no patterns in the data. In fact, there is a very strong pattern of taxonomic sorting associated with the fossil record. Fossils do not appear in a random mix as any global flood hypothesis would clearly predict. This is based on millions of fossils from tens of thousands of sites.
“And since we don't know exactly how the flood occurred (we can only speculate on short passage in the Bible as to how the entire earth was flooded) or how exactly the waters receded (again we have to draw inferences from Biblical text) we can only speculate as to which fossils ended up where or if there can be any pattern from them.”
I see that you don’t really want to deal with the clear patterns in the data, because you know that the evidence is overwhelmingly against YEC/Global Flood. So, you claim we can “only speculate”.
Actually, we can do much more than this. YEC/GF hypotheses make very clear predictions about the fossil record, specifically, there should be little, if any, taxonomic sorting, and at least some modern stuff should be found in the lowest layers with fossils. Since there is clear taxonomic sorting, YEC is repeatedly contradicted by the evidence provided by fossils.
A few examples.
In the oldest layers with multicelled animal life, there are no amphibians, reptiles, birds or mammals. None. There are a few fish species, but all lack jaws, and none of these species are alive today. By contrast, currently, over 99% of fish species are jawed fish. There are also no examples of modern crustacean species. None. No modern mollusk species. None. There are no vascular plant fossils (ferns, conifers, flowering plants). None. Now, if all creatures and all the vascular plants are created at once, and there is a mass drowning event, then the absence of fossils of these types is essentially impossible to explain. Conclusion? YEC/GF hypothesis is wrong.
In the oldest layers with terrestrial vascular plants like ferns, lycopods and conifers, there are no flowing plant (angiosperm) fossils. None. Angiosperms have a world-wide distribution and account for about 90 % of all multi-celled terrestrial plant species. And yet they are totally absent from the oldest layers with ferns, lycopods and conifers, most notably, they are totally absent from the massive Carboniferous deposits found all over the globe. Now, plants are rooted. They can’t run and they can’t hide. No matter how much one “speculates”, there is no flood scenario that can explain why rooted angiosperms would be totally absent from the bottommost layers that contain other terrestrial plant fossils. Conclusion? YEC/GF hypothesis is wrong.
In the layers in which we find dinosaur species, there are no modern mammals species. None. No lions, tigers, bears, antelopes, elephants, zebras, sloths, burrowing mammals and on and on. And of course, no human fossils. Dinosaurs had a world-wide distribution, modern mammals have a world-wide distribution, and yet, there are no examples of dinos and modern mammals together. Even when one “speculates”, this is essentially impossible to explain if the YEC/GF hypotheses are accurate. . Conclusion? YEC/GF hypothesis is wrong.
“You make a conclusion based on something that is not observable. You observe the results but not the preceding action. I see it all the time in my line of work. Based on what you think you know about Science you make a conclusion about the preceding action based on your observations of the results.”
Nope. What I’m doing is testing hypotheses. I’m not making any conclusions at the start. I’m starting with possible conclusions, and then I’m testing to see if the conclusion is likely to be accurate through hypothesis testing. I use my hypothesis to predict results. If the results match my prediction, I feel pretty good about my hypothesis. If the results contradict my prediction, then it’s time to look for a different hypothesis or tentative conclusion. If the results contradict YEC/GF…and they do so in a thousand ways…, then it’s time to throw out YEC/GF. What that means for your faith and/or in terms you interpret scripture is up to you.
The only assumption that I make at the start is that stuff on the bottom is deposited first, and stuff on the top is deposited last. Seems like a pretty reasonable assumption to me, even if I wasn’t there to witness the deposition.
“But instead of making sure your conclusions coincide with what Scripture says, you just change the interpretation of Scripture to suit your fancy. And when modern Science is proven to be wrong and replaced with another theory (for example, Louis Pasteur disproving another unBiblical belief) you'll change your interpretation of Scripture to match.”
I’m not trying to do anything with scripture. I’m just trying to test the hypotheses that you have chosen to derive from scripture.
@Johnny Dialectic
You're just mistaken, sir.
"Gap creationism became increasingly attractive near the end of the eighteenth century and first half of the nineteenth century, because the newly established science of geology had determined that the Earth was far older than a literal interpretation of Genesis and the Bible-based Flood geology would allow. Gap creation allowed religious geologists (who comprised the majority of the geological community at the time) to reconcile their faith in the Bible with the new authority of science."
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gap_creationism#History
If you don't trust Wikipedia, listen to John MacArthur:
"There's no other way to interpret [the Genesis story of creation], no other way at all. Say, then, how did we come up with these 'ages,' and 'billions of years' stuffed into Genesis? Not from Genesis! Only factors outside Scripture: false, scientific theory imposed on the Bible, higher criticism that attacks the historicity of the Bible, and distorted, human, self-centered philosophies."
From: http://www.gty.org/Blog/B100620
Dan, don't avoid the issue. The Hebrew scholars I cited prove that your contention that the gap theory is an "embarrassment" was an inartful eruption on your part. That happens, but I wanted to provide some actual evidence to the contrary.
I do know that you are a careful reader of Hebrew, and I respect that. But to be a scholar requires a doctorate and, usually, a teaching position in the language.
Wikipedia? Oh brother. Wyatt, have you read any of the sources I've recently cited?
I'm avoiding the issue? Who started doing the "my scholar's bigger than your scholar" game? That would be you. You really want to take a vote? How about 2000 years of reading the text, except for a tiny minority? Whatever Fruchtenbaum's/whoever's excellencies elsewhere, here it isn't coming from the text. It's sheer eisegesis, and contrary to the plain sense of Exodus 20:11. it certainly does not arise from the text.
As greglong noted, why do we need to? What's the urgency to determine a specific age? Clearly God did not deem it important enough to include an exact date. The specific age of the earth is so ridiculously far down the list of things people should be concerned with, the incredible focus on it belies the feverish urgency behind man's attempts to disprove God.
I totally agree with this statement, and wish I had started off by saying it as well as this. I ask this same question of those who insist we should accept an evolutionary view of Creation; I also ask it of those who are insistent that all Christians share the 6000-year idea. As if either of those was clear in Scripture, and of vast importance.
Johnny Dialectic:
I do not have to check your sources to know that the 19th century -- which is when the gap theory gained currency -- preceded the 20th century publication of the 1909/1917 Scofield Bible.
Furthermore, the man most often credited with the "gap theory," Thomas Chalmers, died in 1847, some 70 years before the Scofield Bible was published.
Frank said: “I'm just glad that the the only choices available are to be a wretched dualist who believes a text over an uninterpretable set of rote facts, or to be a rational person who can interpret rote facts in spite of some explicit text. That makes the world a much simpler place in which to abandon the Bible.”
My point is that you are reasoning about and interpreting the text, too. The process you say is unreliable for making true conclusions about the physical world is pretty much the process you are using to reason about the text (making observations, creating models / theories / systematics, testing those models, making predictions based on those models, etc.). If this process yields true understanding in one area, it should in the other.
Frank said: “…maybe the rote facts are best described by the authoritative text rather than the reasoning of a "science" which at its core rejects the ontological implications of a creator –“
Two things: 1) The problem is when “best described” includes importation, by the interpreter, of physical/chemical processes that are at odds with what our current state of knowledge of those fields say is possible. YECers often impose a “science” on the text that is unrecognizable by actual scientists.
2) IMO, the value of BioLogos and similar efforts is to correct your assumption that all science “rejects the ontological implications of a creator”. Science is a tool and can be used for good or ill. In the hands of those who accept the implication of a Creator, it can heighten our amazement of what was created and even spur our worship.
@Greg:
"IMO, the value of BioLogos and similar efforts is to correct your assumption that all science "rejects the ontological implications of a creator." Science is a tool and can be used for good or ill. In the hands of those who accept the implication of a Creator, it can heighten our amazement of what was created and even spur our worship."
Amen.
Wyatt...so? That has nothing to do with the key issue, which is interpretation of the text, something you assiduously avoid.
Dan, at least you've moved from the "embarrassment" card to the "I have 2000 years on my side" card. (I wonder, would you make the same play with Dispensationalism? Shall we "take a vote" on that one?)
The interpretation of Gen. 1 became of historical moment in the 19th century, because of the challenge of geology, which generated renewed scholarship. Big deal. It was not, as Wyatt erroneously suggests, a capitulation to science.
To those on this "original language" Hebrew hobby horse, claiming that we can't really know what a text means unless we're Hebrew scholars, I would point to the words of one very solid Bible teacher, S. Lewis Johnson, himself a doctorate who knew and taught Greek and Hebrew for years.
He pointed out that anyone with a few good English translations, such as King James, and NASB or NIV, can study and become a premier student of the word of God without any knowledge of Greek or Hebrew, by looking at the wording in each version and seeing where the translation questions are. A great quote from him, "The Lord God never made it necessary for individuals to know the original languages in order to study the Bible. But occasionally preachers, like me, like to give that impression because it sort of makes us the priests of the truth of God. In other words, to understand you must come through me and I’ll give you the Greek and I’ll give you the Hebrew. ... I want to tell you that some of the biggest errors that have been made in interpretation have been made by those Greek and Hebrew. Anybody who studies the word of God in the original languages would confirm just what I said."
That's true, Greg, science could spur our worship and amazement at the Creation. I think what Frank is saying is that most of science attempts to do just the opposite. Read any scientific online forum and you'll be "treated" to mockery of Christians to your heart's content.
Granted, the silly claims of many young earth "scientists" provoke this response, but for many of them it goes well beyond mocking Christians and crosses over into mockery of God. And you know what Galations 6:7 says about that.
Poor reading on you rpart, as so often Johnny. I've moved nowhere except to counter your dodges. It is an embarrassment. It is wholly unsupported by the Hebrew. It has a pretty consistent tradition against it. It doesn't arise from the text.
Now you want to change the topic to dispensationalism?
Just bow out as graciously as you still can. Dead horse dismount.
I like agreeing with you more than I like disagreeing with you, Dan, so I'll leave off here. I'd just like you to give the gap theory at least a nod of respect, even if you reject it. It's not a wild eyed, baseless view of Gen. 1. It has support, and for me, at least, it's persuasive.
At least we can agree, with Phil, that it is a legitimate attempt at interpretation, and does not come from what the BioLogos team seems to be doing, as Phil pointed out in an earlier comment. Yes?
Can't we all just argue about what Venus Fly Traps ate before flies were allowed to die? Seems like that would be more tangible. :0
@Johnny Dialectic
"Wyatt...so? That has nothing to do with the key issue, which is interpretation of the text, something you assiduously avoid.
So? SO? Actually, it has EVERYTHING to do with the key issue, which is, yes, interpretation of the text.
I don't accept the gap theory, but I totally sympathize with what it attempts to do. The "gap theory" is an attempt to reconcile, or harmonize, scientific knowledge, as understood, with Scripture, as understood.
I think we all do this to some degree or another. What happens when we read two different passages from Scripture that seem difficult to reconcile? Most people, I think, will say something like "I know both of these things are true...so how can I make this work?"
Thanks for the discussion.
Hi Linda:
I have been following the blog over at GTY on this subject, and I know you have contributed in a very positive, helpful, and informative way. I have basically kept far from the subject, as I simply do not know all the ins and outs of the scientific communities arguments concerning creation well enough to speak intelligently on this subject. The reason being, I, like many other Christians, do not care what Science has to say on the subject, I take God’s Word as the final authority on all matters, that is as far as my research has taken me, and frankly God’s Word is enough. I am NOT standing in judgment of those who research this subject, though, because it is fascinating, and we should NOT neglect defending any part of God’s Word. But fallible, and often times unregenerate men head the scientific community and that is enough for me to steer clear of their conclusions.
I think you answered the question much the same way I would have, I anticipated this type of answer. But I still had to ask the question as to throw caution to the wind. I feel often times we make certain doctrines our pet doctrines to determine if one is saved or not saved, when we know full well it is by grace alone, faith alone, and in Christ alone. We can too easily become legalistic as the foolish Galatians and insist circumcision is necessary for salvation. So it is just a precaution to stay centered.
I agree with you that the more truth we are exposed to, we then are without excuse. But liken this to MANY Christians reluctance to accept the doctrines of grace (Calvinism), I know Phil Johnson said it took, I believe ten years, to come to grips with the five points, so things are not always so black and white as we would like them to be.
George Mattern from Shepherd’s Fellowship explains it this way (George has given me permission to quote him on anything he has written, or I would not do so).
“But, if a person stumbles at the very easiest point of perception, and persists in error after a number of godly men have examined his conclusions and found them to be faulty in the light of the simplest Scriptural objectivity, then that person would do well to interpret that as a warning and a good reason to examine the motives of his heart. He should ask himself, "Am I so stubbornly set in my opinion that I am eager to mutilate the meaning of any Scriptural word, verse, or passage until it agrees with me, or am I approaching the Bible as the authoritative pronouncement of the God of the Universe, before whose majestic revelation I must always bow in reverent submission and constant willingness to change my opinions when corrected by it?"
In other words, "Am I shaping the Bible with my opinions, or am I shaping my opinions with the Bible?" King David solemnly acknowledged to the Lord, "You have magnified Your word according to all Your name" (Ps. 138:2). Therefore, since "the Lord will not leave him unpunished who takes His NAME in vain" (Ex. 20:7), the same penalty certainly awaits all who would take His simalarly exalted WORD in vain by misusing it. Let every man sincerely examine himself in this very serious matter!”
George is so awesome!
Also, as A.W. Tozer so aptly wrote in his book “Why People Find the Bible Difficult, “To believe rightly is as much a miracle as was the coming forth of dead Lazarus at the command of Christ. The Bible is a supernatural book and can be understood only by supernatural aid.”
Nice talking to you, Linda.
Just wanted to say that I am enjoying the discourse between David and those responding to him (Daryl, Bobby Grow, etc).
Since I am gunning to be a professional biological scientist, these issues are important to me. Belief in Christ preceded my scientific training, so I am very interested in finding some coherence between physical reality and the Biblical account of creation.
Jesus Christ put his stamp of approval on it and He was there when it all went down, so I should believe Him. However, that doesn't make me any less interested in learning how exactly our world came to be as it is, given the Genesis account.
I hope people didn't lose sight of Frank Turk's comments at 10:47. He summed up very nicely the whole argument with respect to the so called evidence.
Now as to your whole fossil controversy, we really have no idea what the would happen in a worldwide flood. Here is an article on the subject. I don't feel the need to reinvent the wheel so I'll just cite some other work.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/human-and-dino-fossils-together
Mr. Fosi:
I don't think you'll find any YEC who would argue otherwise. We believe in studying God's creation. However, our conclusions about facts should be interpreted in light of what is revealed to us by God in Scripture.
@Mary Elizabeth:
I don't believe that a specific veiwpoint on creation is a necessary prequisite to salvation. Actually, I believe that Christians can be fooled into believing all kinds of heresies and yet still be Christians.
However, at some point I begin to wonder about a person's salvation, when said person has been shown the truth time after time, and yet continues to unabashedly believe, support, and promote heresy.
Sir Aaron
If you re-read your first and second paragraph, above, you could be said to be contradicting yourself - unless you clarify that believing in OEC is not a heresy. (I'm afraid someone reading it might think you are saying that, and I'm pretty sure you are not).
@Sir Aaron: [i]We believe in studying God's creation. However, our conclusions about facts should be interpreted in light of what is revealed to us by God in Scripture.[/i]
Roger that. I think that is what David is driving at. The reason he started out asking what we might expect given the Genesis account was his way of working from Scripture forward.
His conclusion was that YECism should be scrapped. Either that means that the Bible is bunk or that we don't correctly understand what God said in it. I'll go ahead and assume that he's choosing the latter. This seems to be one valid conclusion if the evidence is as he says it is.
Another conclusion is that YECism is fine, the Bible is fine and we understand the text just fine. What we don't understand is how to correctly interpret the physical evidence. Then it isn't our understanding of Scripture that is off, it is our understanding of the remaining physical evidence.
The problem that I (and I assume others) run into is that we have the distinct impression that we (science-types) can passably interpret physical evidence. The observation/hypothesis/testing/analysis/conclusion method of approaching physical reality seems to work fairly well. We even apply these things in courts of law and sentence people to death based upon physical evidence. As such, it is hard to relinquish the idea people can observe reality, formulate hypotheses, test them and then come of with some testable predictions based upon current results.
I'm interested in hearing the case for why layers of geological strata shouldn't be assumed to be "oldest on the bottom" and why things like angiosperms aren't found with treeferns anywhere except isolated islands in the pacific ocean. It seems as though these things should be explainable.
Johnny, I would encourage you to read Unformed and Unfilled by Weston Fields. He devastates the Gap Theory.
I just re-read my comment and I can see Dan swooping in and calling me disingenuous or double-minded or something else equally upsetting.
I'm not consciously disingenuous and I'm trying not to be double minded, I'm just hoping to come to some understanding about these things so as to fill a glaring gap (pun intended) in my understanding of both the world and of Scripture.
@Mary:
Thanks for the reply, and a great quote from George Mattern.
I especially like the part, "Am I so stubbornly set in my opinion that I am eager to mutilate the meaning of any Scriptural word, verse, or passage until it agrees with me, or am I approaching the Bible as the authoritative pronouncement of the God of the Universe, before whose majestic revelation I must always bow in reverent submission and constant willingness to change my opinions when corrected by it?"
David, sorry it took so long to get back, but I wanted to research what happens in tsunamis, etc. I don't know what the fossil record indicates, as I am not a scientist, but it seems that in most tidal floods (sorry, no worldwide deluge evidence available online) the lowest layers consist primarily of shellfish and crustaceans (as well as ocean plants). The other remains are actually sorted out primarily from smallest to largest, and primarily with furry animals nearer to the top. This is apparently because larger and furrier animals float quite a bit longer than smaller and non-furry animals. I could not get any solid info on birds, though, but I imagine they float best of all, and so would be near the top?
I am not sure if the above is correct, or even relevant, but as I don't know the answer to your question, perhaps you could answer it yourself (I am assuming you know, if not, please ignore my request).
What I find most interesting about this thread is an old quote by Augustine: "Contra principium, negantum non est disputatum". For people who hold contradictory presuppositions, synthesis is impossible. BoiLogos has proven this conclusively, by choosing to reject the historicity of Adam and the accuracy of the Genesis record. In other words, their solution to the "problem" of synthesizing science and theology is to redefine theology. One or the other viewpoint must be subordinated, as has been proven again by the polarization in this thread.
John,
I don't have any information on tidal waves, specifically, but there's little evidence that that the vast, vast majority of fossil-bearing sedimentary layers were produced by such phenomena.
However, if such waves produced fossil-bearing layers, I would expect that the lowest layers would also contain a variety of bottom-dwelling fish, along with modern mollusk and crustacean species, and that's not what we find in the lowest fossil-bearing layers available for study. As far as the layers containing terrestrial species go, I don't know of any evidence that tidal waves sort species by taxonomic group. Further, at the bottom of the pile containing terrestrial fossils, I'd expected to find some rooted angiosperms and burrowing mammals. Again, this is not at all what we find when we study actual fossil deposits.
Mary,
You said...
"The reason being, I, like many other Christians, do not care what Science has to say on the subject, I take God’s Word as the final authority on all matters, that is as far as my research has taken me, and frankly God’s Word is enough."
Well, that about sums it up, doesn't it? Doesn't really matter what the evidence is, does it? But it might be worth remembering that the Bible was written by and is interpreted by "fallible men". So, should we steer clear of their conclusions?
Sir Aaron,
"Now as to your whole fossil controversy, we really have no idea what the would happen in a worldwide flood."
Yeah, we do. It's not that hard to figure it. Problem is, we don't see what the YEC/GF hypotheses say we should see. So, the only escape is to say "we have no idea what would happen". This is, in effect, an tacit admission that the fossil data very strongly contradict YEC/GF.
As far as the link you provide goes, as I've already stated, the problem goes far beyond the absence of dinos and humans together. It's the absence of dinos with lions and tigers and bears and any modern mammal species of any kind that sinks YEC/GF.
Data on animal remains and fossilization in tsunami-produced sedimentation is available from the tsunami society, see esp. the work of Chanchai Srisustam. I also referenced work done by Cochin university in India - mostly because work from these two institutions is available for free. Also Alistair Dawson has done some work on prehistoric tsunamis, although his work mainly concerns sedimentation.
Tried googling "Chanchai Srisustam", but didn't get any hits.
So, given what is known about sedimentation in tsunamis, is there any reason to think that the vast, vast majority of sedimentary layers are the product of tsunamis? If not, tsumanis would not appear to be helpful in explaining the taxonomic sorting of the fossils.
But it might be worth remembering that the Bible was written by and is interpreted by "fallible men". So, should we steer clear of their conclusions?
David - I believe what you just expressed would be called a "low view of Scripture." If you really hold to that view, you probably aren't going to find much basis for conversation with mot of us, here.
BTW everyone, when I was in farming I used to feed bags of ancient shellfish to chickens, so that they would have enough calcium to produce eggshells.
That makes me a hands-on expert in "fossil-bearing layers."
David - I believe what you just expressed would be called a "low view of Scripture. If you really hold to that view, you probably aren't going to find much basis for conversation with mot of us, here."
That's ok. Many (but not all) of the folks here appear to have a "low view" of science, so I understand what you mean about not finding much basis for conversation.
@Strategem: I'm not sure how my post was inconsistent with the belief that OEC is darn near heresy. I'm not sure I said it was, but it gets awfully close in my book. I also believe that without evolutionary influence, few would read Scripture and come to an OEC.
@David: Look, I don't want to belabor the point, but you have no idea how the Genesis flood took place. You don't know how exactly the waters receded. You don't know if God performed other changes to the earth (like splitting up the continents). You can "figure it" all you like in your mind but the fact is that we can only observe local floods we observe today and speculate as to what happened then.
@Mr. Fosi: I'm not a full-time Scientist, so I'm doubtful that I could address the many technical issues you have. While I am familiar with YEC scientific theory and explanations, I just can't get into the depth you seem to desire. If you are interested in hearing some explanations, I think you should head over to AIG,CRS, or ICR. They'd be better able to provide the answers you're seeking.
David: That's ok.
I stand unhappily corrected. :(
I'm still interested in the synthesis I talked about, though.
Just a quick note to say that regrettably, it looks like an impossible morning-day-evening schedule for the next several days will effectively prevent me from further engaging the thread. My apologies for any communication strands I've left dangling.
Steve
@Sir Aaron
If you really think OEC (not evolutionary theory, which has nothing to do with the age of the Earth) is heresy, then I think you need to look up the definition of the word heresy.
"I believe that humans make mistakes and are a little too quick to think that they might know what God may or may not have to say. This I think that this principle applies to the Book of Genesis, too." -David
So you do not trust in Christ's death and resurrection.
You are not a Christian.
Are you an atheist?
"Look, I don't want to belabor the point, but you have no idea how the Genesis flood took place."
Ah, but if you read much YEC literature, they'll tell you all about how it happened. Fountains of the deep. Vapor canopy. Runaway subduction. There is no end to the descriptions of how the flood occurred. Besides, if you can't come up with any hypotheses about how the flood occurred, you can't test anything, and you have no idea if you're right or wrong.
Even if there NO flood story in the Bible, the hypothesis that all life is created in a week is utterly disproved by the taxonomic sorting of the fossils. So, it really doesn't matter if we know how the flood worked or not.
"Are you an atheist?"
I believe in the fallibility of humans.
Like I said before, OEC, especially today's standard belief, is influenced by evolutionary theory. I'll make an exception for you, Strategem. This time. ;)
Also just for you:
opinion or doctrine at variance with the orthodox or accepted doctrine, esp
from a Greek word signifying (1) a choice, (2) the opinion chosen, and (3) the sect holding the opinion. In the Acts of the Apostles ( 5:17 ; 15:5 ; Isaiah 24:5 Isaiah 24:14 ; 26:5 ) it denotes a sect, without reference to its character. Elsewhere, however, in the New Testament it has a different meaning attached to it. Paul ranks "heresies" with crimes and seditions ( Galatians 5:20 ). This word also denotes divisions or schisms in the church ( 1 Corinthians 11:19 ). In Titus 3:10 a "heretical person" is one who follows his own self-willed "questions," and who is to be avoided. Heresies thus came to signify self-chosen doctrines not emanating from God ( 2 Peter 2:1 ).
David:
There is simply no comparison to scientists being fallible and the authors of Scripture being fallible. You know very well that these men who authored the 66 books of the Bible were divinely inspired.
I would NEVER take the word of men over the Word of God, that is a very slippery slope to be standing on. I hope you come to understand that.
God bless.
"You know very well that these men who authored the 66 books of the Bible were divinely inspired."
Well, actually, I don't know that. But I know that you believe it, so I guess that's that.
@David
Ah, but if you read much YEC literature, they'll tell you all about how it happened. Fountains of the deep. Vapor canopy. Runaway subduction. There is no end to the descriptions of how the flood occurred.
No they tell you what Scripture says and then proceed to tell you what these terms in Scripture could refer to. They don't tell you what exactly happened because we don't know.
Besides, if you can't come up with any hypotheses about how the flood occurred, you can't test anything, and you have no idea if you're right or wrong.
This sums up my thoughts exactly and why such is idiocy. You want to test how God miraculously flooded the earth? How he miraculously receded the waters? How he miraculously changed our language? How he miraculously kept the Ark afloat (and as far as I'm concerned God could have used a force field from Star Trek if He wanted).
Even if there NO flood story in the Bible, the hypothesis that all life is created in a week is utterly disproved by the taxonomic sorting of the fossils. So, it really doesn't matter if we know how the flood worked or not.
Yeah, totally didn't see that one coming < rolls eyes >. You may now proceed with the footstomping and name-calling having now admitted that you don't care about evidence and will throw out Scripture at your first convenience.
Choose your battles wisely, Sir Aaron. To call OEC as held by biblical inerrantists, who also reject evolution, a heresy, is letting pride trump truth. The truth is it is a legitimate view based solely on the text, and does not render its adherents "heretics."
Well, actually, I don't know that. But I know that you believe it, so I guess that's that.
Yes, to you the Bible is nothing more than an anthology of philosophy to be relegated to the book sheld alongside Aristotle, Ptolemy, and others.
Johnny:
My view is not new and is held by all the major proponents of YEC (take a look at AiG if you don't believe me). I didn't say they were heretics either. I said that OEC was very close to heresy in my book. I also said there are few genuine OEC who haven't been influenced by evolution.
@David -- If you don't mind me asking, what's your email address? (Mine is wyattroberts(at)yahoo.com).
"This sums up my thoughts exactly and why such is idiocy. You want to test how God miraculously flooded the earth?"
As you would say, yeah, totally didn't see that one coming < rolls eyes >. Right. It was all a miracle.
"You may now proceed with the footstomping and name-calling having now admitted that you don't care about evidence and will throw out Scripture at your first convenience."
Er, I think that you are the one who doesn't care about the evidence. I won't stomp feet or name-call. I'll just sigh. Not much else I can do.
"I also said there are few genuine OEC who haven't been influenced by evolution."
Oh, dearie me! Influenced by evolution! Oh, no, not the great evil! Could it be...SATAN? I think I'm getting the vapors!
Here's the bottom line with OECers. All they are trying to do is hold onto their faith in the light of the reality that the earth is not young and was not covered by a global flood. If I was a YECer, I'd leave them alone, because the best you can do is convince them that the Bible really does say the earth is young and was covered by a global flood. If you succeed, then the only rational thing for an OECer to do is toss out the Bible. So, my suggestion would be to chill out, and leave your co-religionists in peace.
296 comments? Wow.
I am not sure I necessarily agree that one has to have a doctorate to be a scholar. I respect and admire people who hold doctorates, don't get me wrong. However, there are plenty of PhD holder out there whose degree could just as easily stand for "Piled higher and Deeper."
I guess it depends on how one defines "scholar."
I wish I'd remember to check before hitting the "publish" key. Some singular vs. plural errors in my previous comment. I am ashamed of my scholarship.
David:
You won't give a straight answer on your worldview even in broad terms.
You don't seem to believe in the reliability or accuracy of Scripture in any strong manner.
You don't seem to be willing to say you follow Jesus or believe anything particular about him.
Excuse me for asking, but why are you at this forum, exactly?
@David:
Here's the bottom line with OECers. All they are trying to do is hold onto their faith in the light of the reality that the earth is not young and was not covered by a global flood. If I was a YECer, I'd leave them alone, because the best you can do is convince them that the Bible really does say the earth is young and was covered by a global flood. If you succeed, then the only rational thing for an OECer to do is toss out the Bible. So, my suggestion would be to chill out, and leave your co-religionists in peace.
It took you a three-hundred comment thread to come to that? Well, I'd say progress was made today. You admitted that you believe the Bible is incompatible with your view of the origin of the Earth. Also are you aware of the glaring unfounded assertion in this statement?
All they are trying to do is hold onto their faith in the light of the reality that the earth is not young and was not covered by a global flood.
Sounds like faith to me.
Faith in God vs. faith in science. The lines are drawn are you picked your side. So, what's your interest in hanging out at a Christian blog site?
"Excuse me for asking, but why are you at this forum, exactly?"
I suppose that it's partly because I find folk's ability to hold onto YEC fascinating. How can one ignore what we know about the natural world? I am unable to do such a thing, and it leaves me wondering how others can pull off this feat.
I also find it riveting, and a bit disturbing, to to watch YECer savage OECer. The worst thing about Christianity is Christians, and that's never clearer than when YECer rip into those who are just trying to keep their faith alive in the face of what we've learned about the natural world. "NO COMPROMISE!", they shout. It's like seeing a highly disfunctional family on a reality TV show. It's a guilty pleasure to watch.
For the record, seems that Strat beat me to the publish button. His comment wasn't visible to me when I published mine.
"Sounds like faith to me."
All depends on how you define faith.
All depends on how you define faith.
Others will likely offer a better definition, but I will start with belief in that which you cannot prove.
Stratagem said to David: "Excuse me for asking, but why are you at this forum, exactly?"
It seems he has come here to mock those who believe in the literal six days and to mock those who believe God's Word to be inerrant.
David said: "Oh, dearie me! Influenced by evolution! Oh, no, not the great evil! Could it be...SATAN? I think I'm getting the vapors!"
This statement says it all.
"This statement says it all."
The statement in question is not a mocking statement. It is an accurate reflection of the way in which many resond to the idea of evolution.
"Others will likely offer a better definition, but I will start with belief in that which you cannot prove."
Ah, but now we have to figure out what "prove" means. How does one prove something? What can be admitted as proof? Are there degrees of proof?
Suddenly I'm having flashbacks to a flood.
As I read these latest comments I keep coming back to...
"If you abide in my word then you are truly my disciples, and you will know the truth and the truth will set you free." (John 8:31)
2 Timothy 3:16-17
John 1:1-4
Hebrews 1:1-4
Colossians 1:15-16
1 Cor. 1:23-25
1 Cor. 2:14
I was once a theistic evolutionist who didn't believe that the Genesis account was to be taken literally - but that was before I was brought under conviction for having the audacity to stand in judgment over Scripture as if I were sovereign over its value to me - in truth, breaking the 1st commandment and making myself and my understanding/judgment my own God rather than trusting Him to do as He promised - to teach those to whom it is given to learn. It was there that the Cross on which the eternally begotten Son of God, He who is eternal and through whom all things were made, the ONLY one QUALIFIED to Redeem, bore that sin and the just wrath of God for that sin in my place. And that was when I began to learn something about the character of God as revealed in and tied to His Word and His covenants in and through that Word.
If God isn't capable of the miracle of creation and especially of the creation of life, then there is no resurrection either - and we are all still in our sin. It's not just that Jesus saved us on the cross as opposed to someone else - it's that He is the perfect sacrifice, the only one who can bring anyone to the Father - and part of that qualification is the fact that He is who the Scripture says He is and that He has done what the Scripture says He has done, because He IS the Word of God (John 1, Rev. 19) so His image is borne upon the word given to us, it is His revelation to us of Himself. So it MATTERS. Others have spoken of the 1st and 2nd Adam, and that's a huge part of the glorious story of redemption. You can't have the Redeemer without the Creator. The eternally begotten of the Father and the One through whom creation came into being in the first place. If Jesus isn't who the Bible says He is, then the Bible might as well be tossed because He cannot save you. The point of Creation is the beginning of God's revelation to His people - as the Tozer quote that Mary borrowed from earlier goes on to say, not everyone can understand the Bible because it isn't written to everyone. It must be approached honestly and with a bent knee, not standing over it as judge. If you tear apart the Scripture, you are in essence calling God a liar and impugning the character of the Holy One of Israel - Whether intentionally or not, the fact remains that you're still defaming His name.
Just like I did, in my own ignorance.
I thank him who has given me strength, Christ Jesus our Lord, because he judged me faithful, appointing me to his service, though formerly I was a blasphemer, persecutor, and insolent opponent. But I received mercy because I had acted ignorantly in unbelief, and the grace of our Lord overflowed for me with the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus. The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost. But I received mercy for this reason, that in me, as the foremost, Jesus Christ might display his perfect patience as an example to those who were to believe in him for eternal life. To the King of ages, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen. - 1 Tim. 1:12-14
David,
How can one ignore what we know about the natural world? I am unable to do such a thing, and it leaves me wondering how others can pull off this feat.
Because what we apparently know always seems to be changing..
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100613212708.htm
I do have a question though. Currently what % of the fossil record do paleontologists believe we've discovered/uncovered? Do you entertain the idea that in the future discoveries may be made that will cause a review and reworking of the currently held 'facts'?
Ah, but now we have to figure out what "prove" means. How does one prove something? What can be admitted as proof? Are there degrees of proof?
Look, it's your game, David. I am not trying to play a game of mental gymnastics that allows me to parse words until they don't mean what they say.
"Degrees of proof?" Seriously? Isn't something proven or not? If you say no, then you only display your own need to employ fuzzy logic to further your "unprovable" stance. That is, you cannot demonstrate, experiment, repeat, etc., evolution, old Earth, etc. You may point to some evidences... but these cannot be proof. In addition, how can you be so certain that "infallible man" is correctly interpreting the evidences that you tout as some varying degree or another of proof?
I am basing my faith on the Word of God... and belief that God is wise enough and powerful to convey exactly what He intended to say. He knew what our limitations of understanding would be, and was even able to communicate His message using "fallible messengers." I do not have the right nor the need to alter it to fit the scientific community's definition of proof. I accept that faith in God is a presuppositional acceptance of what God's Word says and that it will be unprovable by me. Further, the words and concepts presented in the Bible dealing with Creation (origins, if you prefer) are not difficult to understand. So, it is really not a matter of man being incapable of understanding, but unwilling to believe.
You however, accept what Science's Word says (on this subject), though it remains unproven.
You and I are engaging in the same acts of faith, but you are laughingly enjoying the show that those brainless Christians are putting on while you congratulate yourself for your wisdom.
Would you like to hear something interesting? The Bible says you would do that.
"Are you an atheist?"
I believe in the fallibility of humans." -David
You have a problem with Christians. I don't blame you. I have a problem with myself.
And yet, genuine Christianity says the same. The Gospel is Christ dying for sinners. He does change our hearts, and makes us new in our souls and renews our minds, but we still struggle with pride and lusts, as any human.
BUT, the genuine Christian will praise the Lord. They will love Christ. They will hate that they sin, and bring dishonor to Jesus, even though we may do it a lot.
The key for evidence is in the Bible; the original manuscripts are incredible evidence of truth.
David, have you read Luke's epistle's? I quoted from his 2nd letter, the Book of Acts. It's a powerful statement.
Also have you read Peter's letters. Peter was a close friend of Jesus. Also, John wrote of his Lord in such a way that there's no mistaken he saw, and heard, and touch the risen Jesus, who died on a cross.
This is the truth, and the evidence is there for you to seek out my friend.
Been nice chatting with you.
Warren,
“Do you entertain the idea that in the future discoveries may be made that will cause a review and reworking of the currently held 'facts'?”
Absolutely yes, yes and YES! THAT’S exactly the difference between YEC-type religious belief and science. Of course, new discoveries could change things. The idea behind science is that you try to disprove your own ideas by creating testable hypotheses that are vulnerable to disproof, and you always consider the possibility that you may be wrong. The goal is produce the best possible explanation for how the world works, regardless of any previously held conclusions. So obviously, the future may bring a “re-working”.
Now, having said that, given the many, many ways in which YEC/GF has been tested and disproved, I think it’s extremely unlikely that any future discoveries will lead to the, um, resurrection of these idea. There are just too many ways in which these ideas have been contradicted by observation. YEC/GF has been tested and rejected for almost two hundred years now, beginning long before Darwin’s time. It’s not impossible that we could make future observations that would change things, but it seems so very, very unlikely that I think we can reasonably conclude at this point in time that the positions of YEC/GF are absurd.
You ask what % of all fossils have been uncovered. No doubt, it’s a very small percent. But this misses the point. We have millions and millions of fossils from tens of thousands of strata from thousands and thousands of sites collected by thousands of geologists over hundreds of years. So far, it looks really, really bad for YEC/GF.
Since there are plenty of fossil yet to be found, could we find rabbits in the pre-Cambrian tomorrow? Yes. But it’s extraordinarily unlikely. To put this in perspective, one could consider how many times we have observed apples falling from tree compared to the potential total number of observations we could make in the future. So far, total observations of falling apples is a tiny, tiny fraction of the potential total observations that could be made in the future. It’s possible that if we make billions of apple observations in the future, we might see an apple float off into space, thus, disproving the theory of gravity. It’s possible, but based on all observations to date, it would be absurd to expect it to happen.
Sandman,
“Look, it's your game, David. I am not trying to play a game of mental gymnastics that allows me to parse words until they don't mean what they say. “
You’re the one who wanted to argue about faith. Well, without definitions, there’s no way to argue about this.
"Degrees of proof?" Seriously? Isn't something proven or not?
In science, nothing is ever finally, conclusively and absolutely proven. Rather, it’s a matter of failing to disprove. If a given idea is repeatedly tested, and if it survives the testing, then one has an increasing degree of confidence in the idea. It’s not a yes or no, proven or not, proposition. Instead, it’s a matter of degrees, and in some case, one can have a very high degree of confidence. Never absolute proof, always possible one could be wrong. But still, we can be pretty confident about some things.
“That is, you cannot demonstrate, experiment, repeat, etc., evolution, old Earth, etc. You may point to some evidences... but these cannot be proof.”
Well, there are some things that can indeed be shown by experimentation, but mostly, this misses the point of how science works. We can’t go back in time and watch life on earth evolve over millions of years. But we can make predictions about what we should see in terms of geology, paleontology, genetics, comparative anatomy, developmental biology, biogeography, etc., if our ideas about evolution and an old earth are accurate. In all cases, if we’re wrong, then there are sets of possible observations that will show that we are wrong. We check to see if our predictions pan out, and if they do, we start to feel pretty good about our theory. As I said, nothing is ever proven in science, but when the evidence piles up in support of our ideas, we start to feel pretty confident.
“In addition, how can you be so certain that "infallible man" is correctly interpreting the evidences that you tout as some varying degree or another of proof?”
We can’t, fallibility is a fact of life. For the same reason, you can’t be sure that you have the word of God, or if you have the word, you can’t be sure that you can interpret it correctly.
“I do not have the right nor the need to alter it to fit the scientific community's definition of proof. I accept that faith in God is a presuppositional acceptance of what God's Word says and that it will be unprovable by me. Further, the words and concepts presented in the Bible dealing with Creation (origins, if you prefer) are not difficult to understand. So, it is really not a matter of man being incapable of understanding, but unwilling to believe.”
Well, there you go then. Evidence is irrelevant, testing is irrelevant, there is nothing that I or anyone could ever say or discover that would lead you to change your mind. You have chosen to believe that Bronze Age story is an absolute truth handed to humans by the Creator of the Universe, and there is absolutely nothing that will ever persuade you that you are wrong. That’s faith.
“You however, accept what Science's Word says (on this subject), though it remains unproven. You and I are engaging in the same acts of faith, but you are laughingly enjoying the show that those brainless Christians are putting on while you congratulate yourself for your wisdom.”
And here’s where you show that you don’t understand science. As I said repeatedly, nothing in science is proven, everything is subject to disproof, all scientists accept the possibility that they may be wrong, and I could point to a thousand possible observations that would lead me to question, and even reject, old earth geology and/or evolution. I don’t accept any scientific proposition as absolute, can’t-be-challenged truths. Can you do the same for your belief in YEC/GF? I think not. That’s the difference between YEC-type religious faith and constantly questioning, always-open-to-disproof science. The two are most decidedly not the same.
“Would you like to hear something interesting? The Bible says you would do that.”
Yeah, isn’t it clever the way the Bible tells its adherents to reject any ideas, thoughts, arguments and observations that would lead them to question the Bible? Is this a surprise? Good way to keep the sheep in line.
I don’t accept any scientific proposition as absolute, can’t-be-challenged truths. Can you do the same for your belief in YEC/GF?
Are you asking me if I can boast in my inability to be absolutely certain of anything? Thankfully, no, but that is not a weakness to my world view as you suppose.
I was once a theistic evolutionist who didn't believe that the Genesis account was to be taken literally - but that was before I was brought under conviction for having the audacity to stand in judgment over Scripture as if I were sovereign over its value to me - in truth, breaking the 1st commandment and making myself and my understanding/judgment my own God rather than trusting Him to do as He promised - to teach those to whom it is given to learn. It was there that the Cross on which the eternally begotten Son of God, He who is eternal and through whom all things were made, the ONLY one QUALIFIED to Redeem, bore that sin and the just wrath of God for that sin in my place. And that was when I began to learn something about the character of God as revealed in and tied to His Word and His covenants in and through that Word...
It must be approached honestly and with a bent knee, not standing over it as judge.
great words, Barbara.
Phil is dealing with concerns that are keeping him away from meta-involvement. So I'll arrogate to myself the role of reading his mind in this case, given that the meta has arguably jumped the shark. I'll give a few summary comments and close it. If Phil wants to add anything, of course, he has the key.
I would hope a few things became apparent to all despite the efforts of a few dedicated individuals to cast as much murk on the issue as possible:
1. The language of Genesis 1 is not problematic. The style is prose, and the words are straightforward. One has the impression of six normal days of creative activity beginning with 1:1. Exodus 20:11 cements that understanding as being the same as Moses', which means that it was God's intent as well.
2. Given that Genesis 1 flows right into the rest of the book's sequential narrative, whose genealogies mark it as a tale of millennia and not endless eons, the universe is thousands of years old, not gazillions.
3. Evidence is not self-interpreting.
4. We have in Genesis the one and only utterly unimpeachable eyewitness account, with its own interpretive keys to assure that we do not miss the meaning. Words mean things, God spoke to be understood by us (Hebrews 1:1-2), great doubts are not obscuring the text taken on its own terms. Possessing the text, we posses what we need for an interpretive grid for the evidence.
4. By contrast, the dominant school that has printed up the "I Am the Only Real Scientist" T-shirts for our day is (A) in possession of a tiny fragment of evidence; (B) driven by philosophical and religious pre-commitments which assure misinterpretation of the evidence; and (C) arrogant out of all proportion to reality.
So finally
5. I hope that the TE/OE compromisers learned a very important truth from the sneering visitors. By your compromise, (A) you are not winning them over, but (B) are signalling to them that they are winning you over. They will simply wait you out, until you continue in your process of jettisoning everything the world hates about you as a Christian.
After all, if they can get you to toss such a straightforward chapter, the rest should be child's play.
Post a Comment