Origins TheologyForum for the discussion of Creation Science (Young/Old) vs Theistic Evolution. Discussion of Atheistic Evolution should be taken to the Discussion and Debate forums.
First off, I don't agree with the AiG apparent distinction of "human reason" and God's Word. God expects us to reason soundly, according to wisdom, which comes from Him and His Word. I think AiG meant to convey the world's current belief of what "reason" actually is, in contradiction to the Truth of God's Word. You see, to use our reasoning powers aright, we must follow logic, and be consistent with our thoughts and practices.
Originally Posted by Aggie
As a Christian, I had been raised to believe that reason was something akin to a child’s desire to eat candy: something which was appealing but ultimately useless, since all of the world’s most important lessons could be found in the Bible.
What are you saying!? Reason is the very foundation of Christian morals, don't try to separate reason and the Bible... God made man a moral creature, in His image.
Originally Posted by Aggie
The puzzle of this matter first hit me when I read what the motivation had been of the terrorists who carried out these attacks. The hijackers had claimed to be led by the Holy Spirit, and were acting out of faith for what they believed would be their reward in heaven. Clearly, the Holy Spirit could not have led anyone to crash an airplane into a skyscraper filled with innocent people—that was not what puzzled me. What I found confusing was that somehow, these men had mistaken the depraved urges of their own minds for the guidance of the Holy Spirit, without ever realizing their error.
Okay, here's one thing... Not everyone believes the US government's lies about 9/11. You do realise that a few of the alleged hijackers were found alive and well after the incident?
Originally Posted by Aggie
Based on what I had just seen, the Holy Spirit alone did not seem to be enough to lead people in such places to the truth, and I could not understand why God would have equipped people so poorly to identify the truth among the world’s countless false teachings.
God's Holy Spirit must have been rejected by such people as you are portraying. The Holy Spirit comes from the one true God, who is obviously rejected by Islam. They really do not 'know' who they worship. They are also rejecting the saviour that God has provided, so what more can be done? This applies to all that are on the fence about Jesus. Either believe that God has provided the necessary antidote to sin and death, or believe not and perish.
Originally Posted by Aggie
He had granted us the gift of reason, an ability which no other animal can match, and which was the only certain way for a person to determine which teachings are true and which are false. I had begun down a path scorned by many Christians, but I soon discovered that I was not alone, for many other Christians had traveled it before me.
We are not animals. We are men, made in the image of God, although that image has sadly been severely disfigured over the years...
Have you never read this? Isaiah 1:18 -
"Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool."
Originally Posted by Aggie
As was written by Galileo Galilei: I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.
Amen to that!
Originally Posted by Aggie
If any scientific theory which I currently accept were unequivocally shown to be false, I would abandon it without hesitation
Evolution has already been proven to be false. So you should certainly abandon it. But perhaps you have "faith" that one day "science" will unravel the mystery of evolution... too bad for those who believe in it then, since science has been continually unravelling the superstitious hypothesis of evolution. That's right, I'm turning the tables... Evolution is obviously superstitious, but fiat creation by God is not.
Originally Posted by Aggie
The most famous example of sound science appearing to contradict the Bible is not evolution, but the studies of Copernicus and Galileo showing that the earth revolves around the sun. This view was opposed by the church because it appeared to contradict verses such as Ecclesiastes 1:5, which suggests that it is the sun which revolves around the Earth, as well as Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, and 1 Chronicles 16:30, all of which suggest that the earth is immobile. However, in 1758 the Pope acknowledged that this opposition had been a mistake, and reversed the church’s opposition to the heliocentric model of the solar system.
Oh boy! Those verses do not contradict the observation of the earth revolving around the sun, as you may like to believe it to.
When referring to Ecclesiastes 1:5, all that is being noted there, is the apparent rising and setting motion of the sun from 'our' viewpoint. This does not contradict a thing. The other passages have nothing to do with the earth revolving around the sun... you are just reading into it something that is not there.
Originally Posted by Aggie
a scientific theory is never valid because a person declares it to be so, but because of its ability to explain evidence that cannot be explained by any competing theory. It is for this reason that the next six chapters of this booklet exist: in order to show what this evidence is in the case of evolution.
The theory of special creation by God, man's disobedience and the subsequent curse, explains the evidence very nicely thank you. The science that is used for promotion of evolution is the same science that creationists use. Evolutionists will argue that their "faith" is soundly built on science alone, but this is utter bull. Their faith is so great in this 'evolutionary monster' that their own reason is being blinded, causing them to stumble over the truth which is so obvious. Examples are numerous that have exposed the hypothesis of evolution for what it really is... a lie. Yet the evolutionist adherent will still cling to his precious gem of a philosophy no matter what may surface.
This was another idea which I believed for most of my life, but in time reason presented a problem with it. How could place more trust in the Bible than in my eyes, when my eyes were my only way of reading the Bible? It seemed that I would have to fully trust my eyes regardless of how great an authority I considered the Bible to be. Alternatively I could read a Braille Bible, or have someone read the Bible aloud to me, but in those cases I would only be placing this trust in my sense of touch or hearing rather than sight. The inescapable conclusion was that regardless of what I believed about the Bible or anything else, my senses were the only way for me to learn about the world.
Obviously not.
I read the Bible since I was age 20. The more I read it, the more I understand it.
Tell me how would this feature fit your description in the above paragraph. What is the difference on the printing words when I read it at age 20 and read it again in age 50?
Do you know Christians called this: "the living words"? What you read is more than what you see.
-----
No, I did not read your whole article. But why should I? If I can pick up at least one problem in one paragraph, how many paragraphs should I read?
I’m also still waiting for someone to address the actual points of my essay, rather than just pointing out things they don’t like about my word choice and sentence structure.
Word choice: "arrogant."
That is a nonstarter.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. (as it is written, "I have made you a father of many nations") To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. in the presence of Him whom he believed--God, who gives life to the dead and calls those things which do not exist as though they did;
Okay, here's one thing... Not everyone believes the US government's lies about 9/11. You do realise that a few of the alleged hijackers were found alive and well after the incident?
...a conspiracy theorist huh? Great...
God's Holy Spirit must have been rejected by such people as you are portraying. The Holy Spirit comes from the one true God, who is obviously rejected by Islam. They really do not 'know' who they worship. They are also rejecting the saviour that God has provided, so what more can be done? This applies to all that are on the fence about Jesus. Either believe that God has provided the necessary antidote to sin and death, or believe not and perish.
Ever consider that you might wrong, and you might perish? The certainty with which religious people claim that they are going to live eternally strikes me as somewhat arrogant. I suppose we'll just have to wait and see.
We are not animals. We are men, made in the image of God, although that image has sadly been severely disfigured over the years...
No...we are animals. We just happen to be a little smarter than most.
Evolution has already been proven to be false. So you should certainly abandon it. But perhaps you have "faith" that one day "science" will unravel the mystery of evolution... too bad for those who believe in it then, since science has been continually unravelling the superstitious hypothesis of evolution. That's right, I'm turning the tables... Evolution is obviously superstitious, but fiat creation by God is not.
Proven to be false. Interesting. Can I see a peer reviewed scientific paper from a scientific journal that conclusively demonstrates that evolution is false? My professors (as well as all the authors of every scientific paper I've ever read about evolution) must have been pretty good liars. Also, I must be quite stupid to have completed a degree in biology and not have seen the glaring inconsistencies in evolutionary theory. Maybe you can enlighten me?
The theory of special creation by God, man's disobedience and the subsequent curse, explains the evidence very nicely thank you. The science that is used for promotion of evolution is the same science that creationists use. Evolutionists will argue that their "faith" is soundly built on science alone, but this is utter bull. Their faith is so great in this 'evolutionary monster' that their own reason is being blinded, causing them to stumble over the truth which is so obvious. Examples are numerous that have exposed the hypothesis of evolution for what it really is... a lie. Yet the evolutionist adherent will still cling to his precious gem of a philosophy no matter what may surface.
Again, please link to some of this evidence in a peer reviewed journal. Once I've read through it, we can discuss it if you wish.
Nathan, I was thinking of responding to what you’ve said here point by point, but it sounds like you don’t disagree with the basic premise of my essay. You seem to be saying you agree that it’s important for Christians to hold whatever position is most consistent with evidence and reason, and that the reason why you don’t accept the theory of evolution is because you don’t think it’s scientific. Is that right? And if so, does this mean if someone can show you that evolution is better-supported by evidence and reason than creationism is, you’ll accept it?
The purpose of the other six essays in this booklet will be to show that this is the case, and three of them have already been written. If you’re agreeing that you would accept evolution if I can show you that it’s more consistent with evidence and reason than creationism, I can show you some examples of this, and so can some of the other members here.
I also don’t want to have a big discussion about the 9/11/01 attacks in this thread, but can you show me when and where some of the hijackers were found alive after the attack?
Originally Posted by juvenissun
I read the Bible since I was age 20. The more I read it, the more I understand it.
Tell me how would this feature fit your description in the above paragraph. What is the difference on the printing words when I read it at age 20 and read it again in age 50?
Do you know Christians called this: "the living words"? What you read is more than what you see.
I would say the difference is exactly what you stated: you’re better at understanding what you read after you’ve been reading it for 30 years than you do the first time you read it. I’ve had the exact same thing happen after reading Shakespeare’s plays a second time, and it’s possible with literally any book, including any other religious text.
This process of gaining a better understanding is called “reason”, and I’ve described it in the rest of the essay. It’s simply a matter of thinking carefully about what you read and trying to understand the meaning of it, which can take time. Are you claiming that your understanding of the Bible is based on something more than a combination of what your eyes have told you it says, and what reason has told you over the next 30 years that it means? And if so, what else do you think your understanding of it is based on?
Originally Posted by juvenissun
No, I did not read your whole article. But why should I? If I can pick up at least one problem in one paragraph, how many paragraphs should I read?
The reason you should read the whole thing is because the “problem” you brought up here is something addressed in my essay itself, which you would have seen if you’d read the rest of it. It’s a waste of both of our time for you to keep asking me to explain things that would be answered if you’d just read the whole thing.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
I think your essay does not attack Creationism, it mainly attacks the AiG slogans. Many Creationists see no problem to accept human reason, but see a lot of problems with the way AiG and similar organizations propagate their special flavor of Creationism.
When we accept that we are created by God, we also have to accept that our way to reason is created by God. When we use human reason to understand nature and build theories, then human reason also helps us to better understand God.
I firmly believe that we were not created through evolution, but I also believe that even ideas that one day might turn out to be wrong, like evoluion theory, can help us understand nature and understand God.
Newton's gravity theory turned out to be wrong, but it helped us to understand the planetary motion. Likewise, evolution theory might be disproven some day, but it could be the basis for a better theory that unifies evolution and creation, and helps us to understand how God did it. Creationist have no problem with human reason and with evolution.
That's an interesting position. So you accept evolutionary theory, but don't believe in it? Does this mean that you believe, as of now, that the theory of evolution is the only explanation that adequately addresses the data we have. As such, you believe it is a sound theory, but you choose to believe in Creationism anyways? Do I understand your position correctly?
I think your essay does not attack Creationism, it mainly attacks the AiG slogans. Many Creationists see no problem to accept human reason, but see a lot of problems with the way AiG and similar organizations propagate their special flavor of Creationism.
I’m aware that not all creationists hold AiG’s position. The main purpose of this essay (and the other essays in the booklet) will be as something people can read at AiG’s Creation Museum, though, so in this case I think addressing AiG’s position specifically is appropriate.
Originally Posted by ClearSky
When we accept that we are created by God, we also have to accept that our way to reason is created by God. When we use human reason to understand nature and build theories, then human reason also helps us to better understand God.
I firmly believe that we were not created through evolution, but I also believe that even ideas that one day might turn out to be wrong, like evoluion theory, can help us understand nature and understand God.
Newton's gravity theory turned out to be wrong, but it helped us to understand the planetary motion. Likewise, evolution theory might be disproven some day, but it could be the basis for a better theory that unifies evolution and creation, and helps us to understand how God did it. Creationist have no problem with human reason and with evolution.
I agree with Anonymous; this is definitely an interesting position you have. If you agree that it’s important for Christians to rely on reason in their understanding of nature, and that the theory of evolution is consistent with this method, what’s the reason why you don’t accept evolution?
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
I agree with Anonymous; this is definitely an interesting position you have. If you agree that it’s important for Christians to rely on reason in their understanding of nature, and that the theory of evolution is consistent with this method, what’s the reason why you don’t accept evolution?
I can accept evolution as a scientific theory, but I can not accept evolution as a historic fact.
I can accept it as a scientific theory because it offers a plausible mechanism, and because the discoveries of the DNA and of mutations in the last century seemed to be a powerful support for the theory.
I do not accept it as historic fact because the mere existence of an evolution mechanism does not prove that we were really created this way. Even if you don't take Scripture literally, and even if you accept that the many people who wrote it had to work around scientific topics that they could not have understood in 500 BC, Scripture is very clear in that most life forms were directly created and didn't evolve. Creation by evolution also does not fit to the character of God. He had a very active, determined mind set at that time, and it is not plausible that He waited billions of years for evolution to happen. Direct creation just fits God a lot better. But nevertheless He set up the laws of nature in a way that the universe can continue to exist by itself, and new species can evolve without His intervention.
Ah, so you would be one of those who accepts "microevolution" but denies "macroevolution" (i.e. common descent)?
That is still quite interesting. Do you believe that the evidence suggests common ancestry, even if you do not believe we were created this way? In other words, do you understand why people would believe in common descent?
Linear Mode
