Home | Be a Christian | Devotionals | Join Us! | Forums | Rules | F.A.Q.


Go Back   Christian Forums > Theology (orthodox Christians only) > Theology (orthodox Christians only) > General Theology > Origins Theology > Theistic Evolution
Register BlogsPrayersJobsArcade Calendar Mark Forums Read

Theistic Evolution The subforum for theistic evolutionist members.

Reply
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Unread 25th October 2009, 07:46 PM
Newbie

Gender: Male Married Faith: Christian Member For 5 Years
 
Join Date: 13th October 2009
Posts: 94
Blessings: 120,808
My Mood Bookworm
Reps: 497,419,071 (power: 497,425)
Tom Cohoe has a reputation beyond reputeTom Cohoe has a reputation beyond reputeTom Cohoe has a reputation beyond reputeTom Cohoe has a reputation beyond reputeTom Cohoe has a reputation beyond reputeTom Cohoe has a reputation beyond reputeTom Cohoe has a reputation beyond reputeTom Cohoe has a reputation beyond reputeTom Cohoe has a reputation beyond reputeTom Cohoe has a reputation beyond reputeTom Cohoe has a reputation beyond reputeTom Cohoe has a reputation beyond reputeTom Cohoe has a reputation beyond reputeTom Cohoe has a reputation beyond reputeTom Cohoe has a reputation beyond repute
Tom Cohoe has a reputation beyond reputeTom Cohoe has a reputation beyond reputeTom Cohoe has a reputation beyond reputeTom Cohoe has a reputation beyond reputeTom Cohoe has a reputation beyond reputeTom Cohoe has a reputation beyond reputeTom Cohoe has a reputation beyond reputeTom Cohoe has a reputation beyond reputeTom Cohoe has a reputation beyond reputeTom Cohoe has a reputation beyond reputeTom Cohoe has a reputation beyond reputeTom Cohoe has a reputation beyond reputeTom Cohoe has a reputation beyond reputeTom Cohoe has a reputation beyond reputeTom Cohoe has a reputation beyond repute
Are Young Earth Creationists Generally Stupid?

No they are not. Not at all!

It is quite possible to be a young Earth creationist and fully respect the Theory of Evolution at the same time.

You see, the Theory of Evolution is a scientific model (and it is the only one that fits the data and that fits with other branches of science as well), whereas what the truth is about the Earth and how it was created is something that, logically speaking, does not have to correspond with what science discovers at all.

Science is about what it looks like, about the appearance of things. What reality actually is doesn't have to correspond with what it looks like at all. It is logically possible that God created the Earth 6,000 years ago and that it and the rest of the universe were created to look like it all began with a the Big Bang over thirteen billion years ago, and that the species evolved slowly over hundreds of millions of years.

I can even think of reasons why God might make the appearance different than the reality.

No, it is not stupid to believe that the universe was created in 6 days in 4004 BC, as calculated by James Ussher, Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of All Ireland, around 1650. It is stupid, and it is harmful to the reputation of Christianity, to attack the science that is the theory of evolution.

Remember, science is about what things looks like, not about what the fundamental underlying truth actually is. That is beyond science.

All Young Earth Creationists should come to grips with the simple fact that it really does look like the Earth is billions of years old and that the species have evolved from common ancestors over a period of hundreds of millions of years.

Nor should Young Earth Creationists attempt to force scientists or science teachers to speak of their models in a hypothetical way. Any serious scientist will speak as though the current best model is the truth, but he will also acknowledge that it is a model which, if necessary, will be thrown out to be replaced by another - that it is just a model. It is just the way we use language naturally. At the same time, expecting an evolutionary scientist to acknowledge this to someone who is clearly a Young Earther may be asking a bit much. Evolutionary scientists feel every bit as much under attack from Young Earth Creationists as Young Earth Creationists feel they are under attack from Evolutionary scientists. You might get an acknowledgement, or you might get a scientist with his hackles up.

Do I think the Earth was created in 6 days a few thousand years ago?

Could be. I don't presume to know. It doesn't matter. What matters is that I have faith that Christ is our Saviour. I also understand that the theory of evolution is very good science and that it is very interesting science.

I am all for an end to the war between science and religion.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Become a CF Site Supporter Today and Make These Ads Go Away!

  #2  
Unread 25th October 2009, 09:39 PM
judechild's Avatar
Catholic Socratic

Gender: Male Faith: Catholic Country: Vatican City State Member For 5 Years Steward
View Profile Pic
 
Join Date: 5th July 2009
Location: The Jesuit War-Room
Posts: 2,630
Blessings: 798,821
Reps: 287,979,904,892,349,792 (power: 287,979,904,892,357)
judechild has a reputation beyond reputejudechild has a reputation beyond reputejudechild has a reputation beyond reputejudechild has a reputation beyond reputejudechild has a reputation beyond reputejudechild has a reputation beyond reputejudechild has a reputation beyond reputejudechild has a reputation beyond reputejudechild has a reputation beyond reputejudechild has a reputation beyond reputejudechild has a reputation beyond reputejudechild has a reputation beyond reputejudechild has a reputation beyond reputejudechild has a reputation beyond reputejudechild has a reputation beyond repute
judechild has a reputation beyond reputejudechild has a reputation beyond reputejudechild has a reputation beyond reputejudechild has a reputation beyond reputejudechild has a reputation beyond reputejudechild has a reputation beyond reputejudechild has a reputation beyond reputejudechild has a reputation beyond reputejudechild has a reputation beyond reputejudechild has a reputation beyond reputejudechild has a reputation beyond reputejudechild has a reputation beyond reputejudechild has a reputation beyond reputejudechild has a reputation beyond reputejudechild has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by Tom Cohoe View Post
I can even think of reasons why God might make the appearance different than the reality.
Pray tell.

I am all for an end to the war between science and religion.
There never has been; it's an urban legend.
__________________

__________________
"Death but not Sin!"
- St. Dominic Savio
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Unread 25th October 2009, 10:11 PM
Dark_Lite's Avatar
Chewbacha

Faith: Catholic Member For 5 Years
 
Join Date: 15th February 2002
Posts: 17,096
Blessings: 46,143,768
Reps: 1,238,051,283,267,514,112 (power: 1,238,051,283,267,544)
Dark_Lite has a reputation beyond reputeDark_Lite has a reputation beyond reputeDark_Lite has a reputation beyond reputeDark_Lite has a reputation beyond reputeDark_Lite has a reputation beyond reputeDark_Lite has a reputation beyond reputeDark_Lite has a reputation beyond reputeDark_Lite has a reputation beyond reputeDark_Lite has a reputation beyond reputeDark_Lite has a reputation beyond reputeDark_Lite has a reputation beyond reputeDark_Lite has a reputation beyond reputeDark_Lite has a reputation beyond reputeDark_Lite has a reputation beyond reputeDark_Lite has a reputation beyond repute
Dark_Lite has a reputation beyond reputeDark_Lite has a reputation beyond reputeDark_Lite has a reputation beyond reputeDark_Lite has a reputation beyond reputeDark_Lite has a reputation beyond reputeDark_Lite has a reputation beyond reputeDark_Lite has a reputation beyond reputeDark_Lite has a reputation beyond reputeDark_Lite has a reputation beyond reputeDark_Lite has a reputation beyond reputeDark_Lite has a reputation beyond reputeDark_Lite has a reputation beyond reputeDark_Lite has a reputation beyond reputeDark_Lite has a reputation beyond reputeDark_Lite has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by Tom Cohoe View Post
No they are not. Not at all!
Many are very intelligent. Many never really bother to look up why they believe it. Same with anyone anywhere, really. However, YECism is a position necessarily born out of ignorance or outright denial of one or more theories of mainstream science.

It is quite possible to be a young Earth creationist and fully respect the Theory of Evolution at the same time.
Only if you go through hoops to fit evolution into a YECist model. Of course, the YEC position has to go through hoops anyway to give itself an illusion of validity, so I'm sure if someone tried hard enough they could fit it in there. The problem though is that YECism is almost always invariably tied to a rejection of evolution because of some preconceived notion that evolution somehow destroys the foundation of Christian theology. Such a position is, of course, inane.

You see, the Theory of Evolution is a scientific model (and it is the only one that fits the data and that fits with other branches of science as well), whereas what the truth is about the Earth and how it was created is something that, logically speaking, does not have to correspond with what science discovers at all.
This is partly correct in that evolution is the only model we have that fits the data available. The second sentence is sort of right in that evolution doesn't have anything to do with the creation of the world. However, science can very much describe how the Earth was created.

Science is about what it looks like, about the appearance of things. What reality actually is doesn't have to correspond with what it looks like at all. It is logically possible that God created the Earth 6,000 years ago and that it and the rest of the universe were created to look like it all began with a the Big Bang over thirteen billion years ago, and that the species evolved slowly over hundreds of millions of years.

I can even think of reasons why God might make the appearance different than the reality.
It's not logical. The Omphalos Hypothesis makes God into an author of confusion. God is not the author of confusion (1 Corinthians 14:33). Furthermore, the amount of hoops required to jump through in order to validate the Omphalos Hypothesis is ridiculous. It requires a bunch of pseudoscience that bases itself on a misunderstanding of all sorts of physics, and then relegates the inanity of such psuedoscience to "God did it." Occam's razor alone removes the Omphalos Hypothesis as well, but the biggest objection is "God is not the author of confusion."

No, it is not stupid to believe that the universe was created in 6 days in 4004 BC, as calculated by James Ussher, Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of All Ireland, around 1650. It is stupid, and it is harmful to the reputation of Christianity, to attack the science that is the theory of evolution.
It's not necessarily stupid, but the continued denial, outright lies, and hoop-jumping exhibited by many YECs and YEC organization does lead one to question the subconscious motives of the movement as a whole.

Remember, science is about what things looks like, not about what the fundamental underlying truth actually is. That is beyond science.
It sounds like you are attempting to apply some sort of idealist mentality in order to limit the assertions of methodological naturalism (the philosophy that underlies all of science). As far as science is concerned, it deals with the "underlying truth." Science can only test empirical things, and that is all that it regards as "real." That is the idea of methodological naturalism: what we perceive is what is real. That doesn't mean that one cannot apply other philosophical theories that are idealist in nature and still adhere to scientific principles, but you cannot throw out any part of methodological naturalism in science and still call it science.

All Young Earth Creationists should come to grips with the simple fact that it really does look like the Earth is billions of years old and that the species have evolved from common ancestors over a period of hundreds of millions of years.
This is correct. In most cases it would also lead to an acceptance of evolution. But there would be some who would find a way to continue justifying a young earth even though all the evidence points in the opposite direction (actually, that is done today!).

Nor should Young Earth Creationists attempt to force scientists or science teachers to speak of their models in a hypothetical way. Any serious scientist will speak as though the current best model is the truth, but he will also acknowledge that it is a model which, if necessary, will be thrown out to be replaced by another - that it is just a model. It is just the way we use language naturally. At the same time, expecting an evolutionary scientist to acknowledge this to someone who is clearly a Young Earther may be asking a bit much. Evolutionary scientists feel every bit as much under attack from Young Earth Creationists as Young Earth Creationists feel they are under attack from Evolutionary scientists. You might get an acknowledgement, or you might get a scientist with his hackles up.
This is correct.

Do I think the Earth was created in 6 days a few thousand years ago?

Could be. I don't presume to know. It doesn't matter. What matters is that I have faith that Christ is our Saviour. I also understand that the theory of evolution is very good science and that it is very interesting science.

I am all for an end to the war between science and religion.
It does matter whether or not the Earth was created 6,000 years ago from a scientific, intellectual, and possibly theological standpoint. It does not matter from a salvific standpoint. The scientific and intellectual consequences of YECism are obvious. Theological consequences are a bit less obvious. It is a valid theological position, and can be justified theologically. However, the type of theology that YECism tends to produce is a system where the foundation of faith is completely tied to the claims of the YEC position being entirely true.

When a person who adheres to that system finally comes to a realization that YECism isn't what is real, it can easily completely destroy faith instead of resulting in a shift of theological viewpoints from literalism to non-literalism. I have seen it happen here before.

As for a war between science and religion, there is no such thing. The war only exists in the minds of those who perpetuate it: hardline YEC groups (and people), as well as some atheists who are of the same mind that Christianity cannot be true without the YEC position being true. Unfortunately, the rest of the religious and scientific populace gets dragged into their imaginary war because of the many misconceptions and false information that gets thrown back and forth.
__________________

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Client-side CF enhancements for Google Chrome. Now with [bible=tag]power[/bible].

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Read CF in your mobile web browser. For all kinds of devices.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Unread 25th October 2009, 11:21 PM
Newbie

Gender: Male Married Faith: Christian Member For 5 Years
 
Join Date: 13th October 2009
Posts: 94
Blessings: 120,808
My Mood Bookworm
Reps: 497,419,071 (power: 497,425)
Tom Cohoe has a reputation beyond reputeTom Cohoe has a reputation beyond reputeTom Cohoe has a reputation beyond reputeTom Cohoe has a reputation beyond reputeTom Cohoe has a reputation beyond reputeTom Cohoe has a reputation beyond reputeTom Cohoe has a reputation beyond reputeTom Cohoe has a reputation beyond reputeTom Cohoe has a reputation beyond reputeTom Cohoe has a reputation beyond reputeTom Cohoe has a reputation beyond reputeTom Cohoe has a reputation beyond reputeTom Cohoe has a reputation beyond reputeTom Cohoe has a reputation beyond reputeTom Cohoe has a reputation beyond repute
Tom Cohoe has a reputation beyond reputeTom Cohoe has a reputation beyond reputeTom Cohoe has a reputation beyond reputeTom Cohoe has a reputation beyond reputeTom Cohoe has a reputation beyond reputeTom Cohoe has a reputation beyond reputeTom Cohoe has a reputation beyond reputeTom Cohoe has a reputation beyond reputeTom Cohoe has a reputation beyond reputeTom Cohoe has a reputation beyond reputeTom Cohoe has a reputation beyond reputeTom Cohoe has a reputation beyond reputeTom Cohoe has a reputation beyond reputeTom Cohoe has a reputation beyond reputeTom Cohoe has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by Dark_Lite View Post
As for a war between science and religion, there is no such thing.
OK. Two people are now objecting to my call for the end to a war between science and religion. I concede, then, that the idea that there is a war is a bit dramatic.

Of the fact that there are warriors, OTOH, there can be no doubt. I know warriors on both sides. There also can be no doubt that when fighting occurs, it is Christianity that gets hurt, not science. I have seen the dumb fight that the warriors on one side take to science, and especially to biology, get dragged out as characteristic of Christians and of Christianity. That's not fair, but the damage occurs nonetheless.

That said, I further see that I have a lot of replying to do. Unfortunately, I cannot do it tonight. I hope I can tomorrow, but I have a lot to do tomorrow, so if I can't, I will later.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #5  
Unread 26th October 2009, 12:06 AM
Dark_Lite's Avatar
Chewbacha

Faith: Catholic Member For 5 Years
 
Join Date: 15th February 2002
Posts: 17,096
Blessings: 46,143,768
Reps: 1,238,051,283,267,514,112 (power: 1,238,051,283,267,544)
Dark_Lite has a reputation beyond reputeDark_Lite has a reputation beyond reputeDark_Lite has a reputation beyond reputeDark_Lite has a reputation beyond reputeDark_Lite has a reputation beyond reputeDark_Lite has a reputation beyond reputeDark_Lite has a reputation beyond reputeDark_Lite has a reputation beyond reputeDark_Lite has a reputation beyond reputeDark_Lite has a reputation beyond reputeDark_Lite has a reputation beyond reputeDark_Lite has a reputation beyond reputeDark_Lite has a reputation beyond reputeDark_Lite has a reputation beyond reputeDark_Lite has a reputation beyond repute
Dark_Lite has a reputation beyond reputeDark_Lite has a reputation beyond reputeDark_Lite has a reputation beyond reputeDark_Lite has a reputation beyond reputeDark_Lite has a reputation beyond reputeDark_Lite has a reputation beyond reputeDark_Lite has a reputation beyond reputeDark_Lite has a reputation beyond reputeDark_Lite has a reputation beyond reputeDark_Lite has a reputation beyond reputeDark_Lite has a reputation beyond reputeDark_Lite has a reputation beyond reputeDark_Lite has a reputation beyond reputeDark_Lite has a reputation beyond reputeDark_Lite has a reputation beyond repute
It's not an objection to the end of the supposed "war," but more of a commentary on the fact that the only war that exists is created by the fringe militant sides of both Christianity and non-theism.
__________________

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Client-side CF enhancements for Google Chrome. Now with [bible=tag]power[/bible].

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Read CF in your mobile web browser. For all kinds of devices.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Unread 26th October 2009, 03:01 AM
Mick116's Avatar
Regular Member

33 Gender: Male Married Faith: Christian-Seeker Country: Australia Member For 5 Years
 
Join Date: 14th July 2004
Posts: 654
Blessings: 59,987
Reps: 19,943,848,210,420,064 (power: 19,943,848,210,431)
Mick116 has a reputation beyond reputeMick116 has a reputation beyond reputeMick116 has a reputation beyond reputeMick116 has a reputation beyond reputeMick116 has a reputation beyond reputeMick116 has a reputation beyond reputeMick116 has a reputation beyond reputeMick116 has a reputation beyond reputeMick116 has a reputation beyond reputeMick116 has a reputation beyond reputeMick116 has a reputation beyond reputeMick116 has a reputation beyond reputeMick116 has a reputation beyond reputeMick116 has a reputation beyond reputeMick116 has a reputation beyond repute
Mick116 has a reputation beyond reputeMick116 has a reputation beyond reputeMick116 has a reputation beyond reputeMick116 has a reputation beyond reputeMick116 has a reputation beyond reputeMick116 has a reputation beyond reputeMick116 has a reputation beyond reputeMick116 has a reputation beyond reputeMick116 has a reputation beyond reputeMick116 has a reputation beyond reputeMick116 has a reputation beyond reputeMick116 has a reputation beyond reputeMick116 has a reputation beyond reputeMick116 has a reputation beyond reputeMick116 has a reputation beyond repute
Two of the most intelligent people I know are YECists; one is an engineer, the other an agricultural scientist, and both reject the validity of evolutionary theory. The engineer friend hasn't studied any biology at all, so he can perhaps be excused.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #7  
Unread 27th October 2009, 06:26 AM
theFijian's Avatar
Can't wait for the rapture!

37 Gender: Male Married Faith: Calvinist Country: Scotland Member For 5 Years
View Profile Pic
 
Join Date: 30th October 2003
Location: West of Scotland
Posts: 8,710
Blessings: 160,036
My Mood Mellow
Reps: 11,320,698,017,770,212 (power: 11,320,698,017,790)
theFijian has a reputation beyond reputetheFijian has a reputation beyond reputetheFijian has a reputation beyond reputetheFijian has a reputation beyond reputetheFijian has a reputation beyond reputetheFijian has a reputation beyond reputetheFijian has a reputation beyond reputetheFijian has a reputation beyond reputetheFijian has a reputation beyond reputetheFijian has a reputation beyond reputetheFijian has a reputation beyond reputetheFijian has a reputation beyond reputetheFijian has a reputation beyond reputetheFijian has a reputation beyond reputetheFijian has a reputation beyond repute
theFijian has a reputation beyond reputetheFijian has a reputation beyond reputetheFijian has a reputation beyond reputetheFijian has a reputation beyond reputetheFijian has a reputation beyond reputetheFijian has a reputation beyond reputetheFijian has a reputation beyond reputetheFijian has a reputation beyond reputetheFijian has a reputation beyond reputetheFijian has a reputation beyond reputetheFijian has a reputation beyond reputetheFijian has a reputation beyond reputetheFijian has a reputation beyond reputetheFijian has a reputation beyond reputetheFijian has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by Tom Cohoe View Post
Science is about what it looks like, about the appearance of things.
As has already been explained, science can only investigate and provide explanations for natural phenomena. The sum of 'reality', as the theist believes, is greater than just the natural realm and also includes the supernatural, which is outside the remit of science.
What reality actually is doesn't have to correspond with what it looks like at all. It is logically possible that God created the Earth 6,000 years ago and that it and the rest of the universe were created to look like it all began with a the Big Bang over thirteen billion years ago, and that the species evolved slowly over hundreds of millions of years.

I can even think of reasons why God might make the appearance different than the reality.
All you are proposing is the Omphalos theory of origins a concequence of which is that either we can't trust our cognitive senses, or God is actively deceiving us. While that may be perfectly logical it is not consistent with the Christian God.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #8  
Unread 27th October 2009, 05:52 PM
Newbie

Gender: Male Married Faith: Christian Member For 5 Years
 
Join Date: 13th October 2009
Posts: 94
Blessings: 120,808
My Mood Bookworm
Reps: 497,419,071 (power: 497,425)
Tom Cohoe has a reputation beyond reputeTom Cohoe has a reputation beyond reputeTom Cohoe has a reputation beyond reputeTom Cohoe has a reputation beyond reputeTom Cohoe has a reputation beyond reputeTom Cohoe has a reputation beyond reputeTom Cohoe has a reputation beyond reputeTom Cohoe has a reputation beyond reputeTom Cohoe has a reputation beyond reputeTom Cohoe has a reputation beyond reputeTom Cohoe has a reputation beyond reputeTom Cohoe has a reputation beyond reputeTom Cohoe has a reputation beyond reputeTom Cohoe has a reputation beyond reputeTom Cohoe has a reputation beyond repute
Tom Cohoe has a reputation beyond reputeTom Cohoe has a reputation beyond reputeTom Cohoe has a reputation beyond reputeTom Cohoe has a reputation beyond reputeTom Cohoe has a reputation beyond reputeTom Cohoe has a reputation beyond reputeTom Cohoe has a reputation beyond reputeTom Cohoe has a reputation beyond reputeTom Cohoe has a reputation beyond reputeTom Cohoe has a reputation beyond reputeTom Cohoe has a reputation beyond reputeTom Cohoe has a reputation beyond reputeTom Cohoe has a reputation beyond reputeTom Cohoe has a reputation beyond reputeTom Cohoe has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by theFijian View Post
As has already been explained, science can only investigate and provide explanations for natural phenomena. The sum of 'reality', as the theist believes, is greater than just the natural realm and also includes the supernatural, which is outside the remit of science.


All you are proposing is the Omphalos theory of origins a concequence of which is that either we can't trust our cognitive senses, or God is actively deceiving us. While that may be perfectly logical it is not consistent with the Christian God.
You do not know what I am proposing. On the "How to Recognize God?" thread you clearly demonstrated, through misstatements of my premiss, that you really had no idea, there, what I was talking about. You, earlier, telegraphed that you had no interest in what I was talking about either. Your attitude is that you can dismiss what I am trying to say through applying labels, yet when I call you on it, then I am labelling your labelling which somehow makes my call invalid ... which is absurd.

Again, you have no idea what I am proposing.

Here is something that I am proposing. I am proposing that none of us has a very good idea of how God operates theistically in this world. My interest is to end the war between Christianity and science (I am going to use that phrase, because it is a simple and convenient phrase for fighting that we all know is going on). Another interest of mine is to sow doubt into the minds of those who "know" that God doesn't exist.

I have no real interest in theology whatsoever, which is why to any particular theological scheme, I will say, "could be".

I have a reason for presenting various theological schemes of origin and attempting to show that they are far more reasonable than those who have other convictions about origins think they are. For example, seeing Young Earth Creationism derided here, it is obvious to me that you can only make Young Earth Creationists feel more threatened and more backed into a corner. What I have read from some others on the threads I have posted in in the last few days is every bit as threatening to to YECs as people like Richard Dawkins.

Young Earth Christianity actually is reasonable. Fighting science is not. One can be a senseable Young Earther by being sophisticated, not by
fighting science.

I am glad that you understand, at least, that YEC can be perfectly logical. Let's deal with the labels and 'positions' that supposedly demonstrate that it isn't reasonable.

"God wouldn't confuse or mislead" - Oh yeah? So this world of pain and suffering is consistent, without no potential confusion, with the idea of a loving God. All kinds of people reject the idea of a loving God because we suffer so. I would suggest to you that the statement, "God wouldn't confuse or mislead", as an objection to YEC, is not well thought out. One can understand a loving God presiding over a world of pain only through reasoning that is far from simple. Well, reasoning is also available to understand why God would 'deceive'. It explains why Christ said, "The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of God has been given to you, but to others I speak in parables, so that, 'though seeing, they may not see; though hearing, they may not understand.'" (there is the confusing aspectof God right from the words of Christ). Here is the reasoning, and it is not hard to understand:

God hides himself from (confuses) those who do not want him because it is through faith that we must come to know him. If you are not at least seeking, you will not find God. There will be no sense in the idea of God.

This deals with the 'confusion' problem of sophisticated (may I use that label for what you agreed was 'perfectly logical) YEC, in two seperate points. I expect you to ignore what I have said, label it all in a word or two, and thereby avoid engagement ... but I would be very happy to be proven wrong.

Sophisticated YEC must completely separate science and religion. This is a perfectly correct thing to do, because science is about models. It actually makes no claim whatsoever about underlying reality. What we observe is not science. That is just raw data. We cannot observe with our eyes that the Earth is 3 billion years old.

A metaphor, likening God the Creator with man the movie director/creator who creates in the image of God's creating, demonstrates.

When we go to a movie, if it is well made, we enter the world created by the director, actors, and other involved helpers. We are completely deceived for a while, yet we do not denounce the director and actors. The better the deception, the more we appreciate it. We perceive this deception as a good thing. We take the evidence that falls upon our eyes and ears during this movie to construct a larger reality than what is actually depicted. We may infer that the heroine must have been hiding in the mansion and sneaking out at night for at least two years, yet what we see depicts only a week of time. Furthermore, in the reality behind the movie, the mansion is only a false front, and the whole picture was made in three months.

Is somebody doing something horrible to the viewers here?

In sophisticated YEC God corresponds to the director, the set with its props is the underlying reality of creation, and what the audience infers from its observations (rather than the observations themselves) corresponds to science.

The sophisticated YECer can believe on a 6 day creation. What he cannot do is tell the scientist to speak as though science is about the illusion God created. He must allow the scientist to speak in his natural way, as if his models actually are reality. To attempt to impose his 6 day creationist faith on the scientist is like someone interrupting people discussing the movie afterwards and insisting, "but the heroine wasn't living in the house for two years - it's just a set and was only built a year ago". This would be annoying, because people speak about abstractions as though they were concrete things. It is the way we do it. To insist on the 'truth' would be just dumb.

And why? Why would God do this?

For the same reason as above. We were cast out. We are not allowed to see the truth. We must come to it through faith. We are allowed, for our benefit, to make sense out of the world as we perceive it. Science is very useful to us.

Now I am speaking as though I am insisting that sophisticated YEC is the truth. I am not. I insist only that it is perfectly, perfectly reasonable. Live and let live with your YEC bretheren. Keep your favourite origins theology. Only understand one thing, just one thing, and you will help ease all these tensions that harm Christianity. That one thing is that you could be wrong. It's not actually important. That Christ is our Saviour is what is important. We are not going to have to pass a test on origins theology on judgement day.

Live and let live. Help others to live and let live.

I apologize if this is a mess. I'm not feeling well and I am also very short of time.
__________________


Last edited by Tom Cohoe; 27th October 2009 at 06:06 PM. Reason: insert negation where it was missing, reorder and slightly change words in a sentence to increase emphasis.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Unread 27th October 2009, 07:10 PM
gluadys's Avatar
Legend

Gender: Female Faith: Protestant Party: CA-NDP Country: Canada Member For 5 Years
 
Join Date: 2nd March 2004
Location: Toronto
Posts: 12,871
Blessings: 1,086,156
Reps: 80,577,326,586,371,024 (power: 80,577,326,586,394)
gluadys has a reputation beyond reputegluadys has a reputation beyond reputegluadys has a reputation beyond reputegluadys has a reputation beyond reputegluadys has a reputation beyond reputegluadys has a reputation beyond reputegluadys has a reputation beyond reputegluadys has a reputation beyond reputegluadys has a reputation beyond reputegluadys has a reputation beyond reputegluadys has a reputation beyond reputegluadys has a reputation beyond reputegluadys has a reputation beyond reputegluadys has a reputation beyond reputegluadys has a reputation beyond repute
gluadys has a reputation beyond reputegluadys has a reputation beyond reputegluadys has a reputation beyond reputegluadys has a reputation beyond reputegluadys has a reputation beyond reputegluadys has a reputation beyond reputegluadys has a reputation beyond reputegluadys has a reputation beyond reputegluadys has a reputation beyond reputegluadys has a reputation beyond reputegluadys has a reputation beyond reputegluadys has a reputation beyond reputegluadys has a reputation beyond reputegluadys has a reputation beyond reputegluadys has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by Tom Cohoe View Post
Science is about what it looks like, about the appearance of things. What reality actually is doesn't have to correspond with what it looks like at all. It is logically possible that God created the Earth 6,000 years ago and that it and the rest of the universe were created to look like it all began with a the Big Bang over thirteen billion years ago, and that the species evolved slowly over hundreds of millions of years.
Sure that's a logical possibility. But is it a Christian possibility? We need to be cognizant of what Christian/biblical teaching on creation means.

The notion that we walk in a world that is an illusion, that the reality of things is veiled from us, is historically connected with the denial of creation. It fits with the teaching of Hinduism and Buddhism and Gnosticism which all see the world of appearance as 'maya' or illusory appearance and all teach that the path to salvation is to detach ourselves from the illusion so that we can see reality as it is. We ourselves, as creatures, are illusions, so our own selves are part of what we must let go of. For in these faiths we are not creatures made by a loving God; we are God or an aspect of God. The world is basically pantheistic -- its appearance is merely the outer clothing veiling God, and we are God. The path to salvation is to realize that there is no such thing as creation--only an illusory appearance with even ourselves part of that illusion. We need to realize who we really are: we are divine.

How different the Abrahamic vision of the bible. Our God is not ourselves, but God. And the people we are, the persons we are, are real persons with whom God chooses to commune, to whom God chooses to reveal himself. And the world around us is a genuine reality made by our God. All created things are genuine realities because God really did bring them into existence. And he brought them into existence, not as aspects of himself, but as beings other than himself who can live in relationship with God and each other.

So at this point I want to repeat the question I just posed to mindlight in The Tools of Science thread.
If God made the universe and made us in it, why would he not want us to experience it as it is? Why would the appearance of things not be the best guide to what the thing in itself is? I don't mean to identify appearance of reality with reality, but if appearance--well-tested and corroborated by multiple observers and through multiple tests--is not a reliable guide to what God created----then what is?

What else do we have to display the power and glory of God to us than the creation as it appears to us?

To me, the option you outline is unacceptable, because it is a denial of the first statement in the bible "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

And likewise it is a denial of the first proposition of the Apostles' and Nicene Creed "We believe in one God, Maker of heaven and earth....."
__________________

__________________
"Either we've got to pretend that Jesus was just as selfish as we are, or we've got to acknowledge that He commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy - and then admit that we just don't wanna do it." Steve Colbert


"My point, once again, is not that those ancient people told literal stories and we are now smart enough to take them symbolically, but that they told them symbolically and we are now dumb enough to take them literally." John Dominic Crossan
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Unread 27th October 2009, 07:36 PM
Dark_Lite's Avatar
Chewbacha

Faith: Catholic Member For 5 Years
 
Join Date: 15th February 2002
Posts: 17,096
Blessings: 46,143,768
Reps: 1,238,051,283,267,514,112 (power: 1,238,051,283,267,544)
Dark_Lite has a reputation beyond reputeDark_Lite has a reputation beyond reputeDark_Lite has a reputation beyond reputeDark_Lite has a reputation beyond reputeDark_Lite has a reputation beyond reputeDark_Lite has a reputation beyond reputeDark_Lite has a reputation beyond reputeDark_Lite has a reputation beyond reputeDark_Lite has a reputation beyond reputeDark_Lite has a reputation beyond reputeDark_Lite has a reputation beyond reputeDark_Lite has a reputation beyond reputeDark_Lite has a reputation beyond reputeDark_Lite has a reputation beyond reputeDark_Lite has a reputation beyond repute
Dark_Lite has a reputation beyond reputeDark_Lite has a reputation beyond reputeDark_Lite has a reputation beyond reputeDark_Lite has a reputation beyond reputeDark_Lite has a reputation beyond reputeDark_Lite has a reputation beyond reputeDark_Lite has a reputation beyond reputeDark_Lite has a reputation beyond reputeDark_Lite has a reputation beyond reputeDark_Lite has a reputation beyond reputeDark_Lite has a reputation beyond reputeDark_Lite has a reputation beyond reputeDark_Lite has a reputation beyond reputeDark_Lite has a reputation beyond reputeDark_Lite has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by Tom Cohoe View Post
I am glad that you understand, at least, that YEC can be perfectly logical. Let's deal with the labels and 'positions' that supposedly demonstrate that it isn't reasonable.
I never said YECism was logical. It can be justified theologically. It is only internally consistent, logically. Externally, when validated against the empirical evidence, it becomes illogical to remain in the YEC position. One can do so, of course, and cling only to the internal consistency of the theological position, but it requires an outright denial of the evidence that is plainly available.

"God wouldn't confuse or mislead" - Oh yeah? So this world of pain and suffering is consistent, without no potential confusion, with the idea of a loving God.
Besides the verse I already cited which directly states that God is not the author of confusion, we need only look at the entirety of the revealed revelation to further find out that God is not the author of confusion. The world of pain and suffering is consistent with what is laid out in the Bible. Indeed, it's the entire point of Christianity. There was perfection, then there was a Fall, then Jesus came to redeem humanity. The basic message isn't too confusing.

Where confusion does arise is in man's attempts to rationalize the finer points of theology. That gets into an entirely separate debate about teaching authority and Sola Scriptura, however. This confusion, though, is not from God.

All kinds of people reject the idea of a loving God because we suffer so. I would suggest to you that the statement, "God wouldn't confuse or mislead", as an objection to YEC, is not well thought out. One can understand a loving God presiding over a world of pain only through reasoning that is far from simple.
It is perfectly well thought out. God does not intentionally mislead. It's that simple. 1 Corinthians 14:33 states this, and the Bible as the revealed message of God is clear (again, putting aside the debate about teaching authority and Sola Scriptura).

Well, reasoning is also available to understand why God would 'deceive'. It explains why Christ said, "The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of God has been given to you, but to others I speak in parables, so that, 'though seeing, they may not see; though hearing, they may not understand.'" (there is the confusing aspectof God right from the words of Christ). Here is the reasoning, and it is not hard to understand:
Why is that confusing? Looking at it in the bigger context, right below, you have already figured it out. It means what it says. "though seeing, they may not see." They're not looking for God, they won't find him.

God hides himself from (confuses) those who do not want him because it is through faith that we must come to know him. If you are not at least seeking, you will not find God. There will be no sense in the idea of God.
And?

You are making a logical leap from "People who do not seek God will not find God" to "We cannot know how old the world is." God "hiding" himself from people who do not seek him isn't any kind of deception. If you are standing on a street corner, and someone walks past you, and clearly does not notice you are there, is that deception? Causing confusion and "deception" requires active intent. God isn't hiding himself, he's just waiting there for people to come find him. If they walk past him on the street corner without noticing him, though, then obviously they won't find him.

One more analogy to further reinforce this point. You don't find things you're not looking for. A missing TV remote, pencil, or whatever is not hiding from you. It's just simply in a place that you don't know. Indeed, in this case they cannot even actively hide from you. They have no will. God has a will, and cognition, but he's just standing on that street corner.

Even in the passage you cite, where Jesus says he actively speaks in parables to the "others" (unbelievers, I am assuming, in this context) in order that "though seeing, they may not see" we must look at the larger context. God is outside time and space. If you're a believer in some kind of predestination, God is already aware of who will come to him and who will not. Someone who will never come to God is never going to come to God. That's who Jesus is speaking about in this passage.

What we observe is not science. That is just raw data. We cannot observe with our eyes that the Earth is 3 billion years old.
This is a variation on the "interpretation" argument that creationists like to use. Of course, said argument is false. We can *indeed* observe with our eyes how old the Earth is, in geology. Rock layers show the different geological time periods. But, you say, "they are just layers and prove nothing." Enter independent dating methods. Radiometric dating is one example of an independent dating method that concurs with rock layer dating. It's completely independent of the method used to date rocks, and produces the same result. This is not just a coincidence.

The problem with the interpretation argument is that in order for it to be valid, the entire foundation of modern science has to fall. Science builds on top of itself and creates an interlinking web of knowledge, where one piece of evidence is backed up by many, many more pieces of evidence and different theories. There is no conspiracy on part of academia by scientists to produce the same results using different dating methods. They all work independently and produce the same results for a reason.

Another refutation of the interpretation argument, reductio ad absurdum: If the interpretation argument were true, and all of science was just about interpreting "the data" in different ways, I can scientifically show that there is an invisible elephant in your living room. The laws of physics clearly state as such. Sounds utterly impossible, right? Well, it's just my interpretation of the scientific data. It must equally valid as all the other interpretations!

A metaphor, likening God the Creator with man the movie director/creator who creates in the image of God's creating, demonstrates.

When we go to a movie, if it is well made, we enter the world created by the director, actors, and other involved helpers. We are completely deceived for a while, yet we do not denounce the director and actors. The better the deception, the more we appreciate it. We perceive this deception as a good thing. We take the evidence that falls upon our eyes and ears during this movie to construct a larger reality than what is actually depicted. We may infer that the heroine must have been hiding in the mansion and sneaking out at night for at least two years, yet what we see depicts only a week of time. Furthermore, in the reality behind the movie, the mansion is only a false front, and the whole picture was made in three months.

Is somebody doing something horrible to the viewers here?

In sophisticated YEC God corresponds to the director, the set with its props is the underlying reality of creation, and what the audience infers from its observations (rather than the observations themselves) corresponds to science.
The problem with this metaphor is that we aren't deceived by movies. We *know* it's a movie (unless you find yourself thinking movies are completely real while you watch them...?). Your metaphor ends in an appeal to some form of philosophical skepticism, again building on the faulty interpretation argument.

As I said earlier, the interpretation argument requires a rejection of the foundation of science. The foundation of science is methodological naturalism. As far as science is concerned, that from which knowledge can be gained is only in the physical world we interact with. That is, what we see, is. Again, as far as science is concerned. Outside of methodological naturalism, one is free to have whatever philosophical theory they want about the nature of the world.

Furthermore, I reject the philosophical view that everyone has their own reality. That is, whatever a person perceives is what is real for them. I think there is a single objective reality. Perceptions create our own "perceived reality" of sorts, but the perceived reality is entirely a construct of the mind and does not necessarily correspond to what is actually happening.

If reality is by the person, we have to accept the reality of hallucinations and such. They now definitively exist somewhere in the philosophical multiverse. However, by their definition, hallucinations do not exist. They are only in someone's mind ("perceived reality") and do not affect the rest of us in the slightest. They can't impart causality on the objective reality, because they are not in it. Of course, they can "cause" the person experiencing hallucinations to do something... but again, since the hallucinations are entirely created by the person's mind, said person is actually causing him/herself to perform actions (albeit possibly involuntarily).

With an objective reality, we can say with much certainty what exists and what does not, and what is possible and what is not. We cannot know fully what the objective reality is like, nor fully know where our perceived reality crosses with the objective reality. But what we can do is use empirical methods (i.e. science) to determine that which likely exists in the objective reality. The empirical methods point far, far away from YECism today. Even new models that radically change certain fields do not bring us back to a YEC model, and there is an obvious reason as to why.

Only understand one thing, just one thing, and you will help ease all these tensions that harm Christianity. That one thing is that you could be wrong. It's not actually important. That Christ is our Saviour is what is important. We are not going to have to pass a test on origins theology on judgement day.
There are no salvific consequences, as I said. However, there are very real problems caused by the continued perpetuation of the YEC model when it gets in the hands of "creation ministries" that have a lot of time and money to lobby state and national governments. However, you seem to be against those kind of things anyhow, so that doesn't matter much.

Also, many YEC believers have this preconceived notion that evolution = atheism, abortion, moral relativism, or whatever current evil is threatening society that day. None of these things are true. For that reason alone, the argumentation must continue, to dispel the myths that YEC theology perpetuates about evolution. I suppose in your view it would be a "necessary evil." I, however, only consider it "necessary" and not exactly evil.
__________________

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Client-side CF enhancements for Google Chrome. Now with [bible=tag]power[/bible].

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Read CF in your mobile web browser. For all kinds of devices.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
creationism, evolution, omphalos


Return to Theistic Evolution

Thread Tools
Display Modes


 
Become a CF Site Supporter Today and Make These Ads Go Away!


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:24 AM.