The Answers are not in Genesis

[rmwilliamsll]

several nice essays on my favorite topic-CED:
Answers Not In Genesis
some of the best writing i've seen on the topic in awhile. took about 30 minutes to work through all the links. worthwhile time spent.

from: http://prester-scott.livejournal.com/770549.html?#cutid1

Thus, when YECs pit Bible verses against the work of responsible astronomers and paleontologists and the like, they are in effect railing against this model of truth. Some YECs will go so far as to claim that the fossil record was manufactured by the Devil in order to mislead us, or that God made the heavens to look like they were billions of years old (for reasons that are not entirely clear)

then from: http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/answers-not-in-genesis

Nothing discourages me about the future of evangelicals like “young earth creationism,” Hamm style.

Josh puts it well in this post at Here We Stand: “Every time I read someone saying it’s the Christian’s duty to refute biology and physics with the Bible, something inside me just dies a little.”

I’m feelin’ that as well. The army of preachers who have proclaimed themselves the new Lords of Science make me ever more convinced that evangelicalism is souring fast.

following links to: http://metalutheran.blogspot.com/2006/03/every-time.html

One thing that's on my mind is Ken Ham and "Answers in Genesis." I don't know how to say it bluntly; but the guy posts outright lies on his website. I don't personally care if you want to believe in YEC or not (as long as you don't think you're going to shut down the science of astrophysics with a commentary on Genesis), but you should not be associating yourself with dishonest folk.

from: http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/comment/creationdebate5.htm

I knew when I started that I was never going to convince any true believer to change his or her mind. The purpose of debates like this for the skeptics is to expose the lies and sophistry of the other side to onlookers, to get practice at debating people with no scruples, and to see if any new lies have been invented since last time. The tactics used by the creationists are identical to those used by the anti-vaccination liars, which is to stand up, tell a monstrous lie which requires a detailed technical response to show the truth, and then sit down leaving the question hanging and no time for an adequate reply. There is no difference in quality between "There are no intermediary fossils" or "There is no way that an eye can evolve" and "Vaccines are made from aborted foetuses" or "Thimerosal in vaccines causes autism". The lie is there, the spectators have heard it, and the liars rely on the fact that scientists take too long to explain the truth and are too polite to shout "That's ********!"

And I am still waiting for the first piece of evidence to support the claim that the earth is only 6,000 years old. Any evidence at all, no matter how small. Just something other than "You don't know everything so we must be right".

from: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-creation11feb11,0,6286102,full.story

Evangelist Ken Ham smiled at the 2,300 elementary students packed into pews, their faces rapt. With dinosaur puppets and silly cartoons, he was training them to reject much of geology, paleontology and evolutionary biology as a sinister tangle of lies.

"Boys and girls," Ham said. If a teacher so much as mentions evolution, or the Big Bang, or an era when dinosaurs ruled the Earth, "you put your hand up and you say, 'Excuse me, were you there?' Can you remember that?"

The children roared their assent.

"Sometimes people will answer, 'No, but you weren't there either,' " Ham told them. "Then you say, 'No, I wasn't, but I know someone who was, and I have his book about the history of the world.' " He waved his Bible in the air.

"Who's the only one who's always been there?" Ham asked.

"God!" the boys and girls shouted.

"Who's the only one who knows everything?"

"God!"

"So who should you always trust, God or the scientists?"

The children answered with a thundering: "God!"
...

It's impossible to measure the success of the one-on-one evangelizing inspired by Answers in Genesis. But Glenn Branch, who defends evolution for a living, does not doubt it's having an effect.

Ham and his fellow evangelists "do a lot to promote a climate of ignorance, skepticism and hostility with respect to evolution," said Branch, deputy director of the nonprofit National Center for Science Education.

from: http://jollyblogger.typepad.com/jollyblogger/2006/02/the_proper_use_.html

Dr. Tripp pointed out that the Bible is a story, not a compilation of many stories, but one story with many mini-dramas comprising the story. More specifically, he defined the Bible as a theologically annotated story. The Bible has three parts which can be distinguished but not separated:

1. Narrative -the story itself.
2. Propositions - The theme of the story formed into generalized truth statements that help you understand the plot of the story.
3. Principles - The themes of the story applied to the situations of daily life to help you live within the plot.
...
Very loosely I can see three kinds of people in Tripp's model. The postmodern-emergent types are all about the narrative. They think that those who have gone before them have turned the Bible into propositional and principle textbooks and have reacted by seeking to recover the story.

I see theologues like myself as those who are enamored with propositions. Although I would speak in our defense and say that we are not indifferent to narrative or proposition, it is the propositions that really get us fired up and excited.

Then there are those I would very loosely call pragmatists who love principles. They have little use for ivory tower academics who pontificate in abstractions. They want Biblical principles that speak to the issues of the here and now. They want to know what the Bible says about marriage and parenting and finances and purpose and meaning and aging and all kinds of things.

from: http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p4.htm

283 The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man. These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers. With Solomon they can say: "It is he who gave me unerring knowledge of what exists, to know the structure of the world and the activity of the elements. . . for wisdom, the fashioner of all things, taught me."121

284 The great interest accorded to these studies is strongly stimulated by a question of another order, which goes beyond the proper domain of the natural sciences. It is not only a question of knowing when and how the universe arose physically, or when man appeared, but rather of discovering the meaning of such an origin: is the universe governed by chance, blind fate, anonymous necessity, or by a transcendent, intelligent and good Being called "God"? And if the world does come from God's wisdom and goodness, why is there evil? Where does it come from? Who is responsible for it? Is there any liberation from it?

from:

Conrad Hyers: A Must Read if you want to see what ruined me

Here is the guy who ruined me. Actually, the single best book on Biblical Interpretation I ever read as a seminarian. Thank God I found it. If anyone wants to get past the literalism thing with Genesis, I recommend Conrad Hyers, The Meaning of Genesis.(http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...103-1866831-8383035?v=glance&s=books&n=507846) Read the reviews.

Hyers on Biblical and Scientific Maps(http://www.directionjournal.org/article/?1031)
Hyers: What Genesis is all about.(http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/rncse_content/vol18/328_what_genesis_is_ireallyi__12_30_1899.asp)
The Narrative Form of Genesis 1(http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1984/JASA12-84Hyers.html)
Dinosaur Religion: In Interpreting and Misinterpreting Biblical Texts(http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1984/JASA9-84Hyers.html)

the conclusion is that the wrong questions are being addressed to Genesis, they are the questions stemming from the 20thcenturies issues not the issues of the Scriptures which are WHO and WHY. not how, which is our overriding concern with the rise of modern technology.

When you ask the right questions of Genesis, who made the universe-God the eternal made it from nothing, He is not part of it, yet sustains it by Providence, why?-He did not have to make it-contingency, and He did so voluntarily. Yet He loves and cares for it, interacts with it, is both transcendent and immanent.
Yet when you ask the wrong questions- how long did it take? is common descent the proper way to see the unity of living creatures? is humanity continuous or discontinuous from creation? you get the wrong answers from Genesis, not because Genesis is wrong but because your questions are inappropriate.

 

[chaoschristian]

That book goes to the top of my 'to get and read list.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

That book goes to the top of my 'to get and read list.

if you are referring to Hyers
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/cu...02438-2478522?_encoding=UTF8&n=507846&s=books
my review is down a few labelled:

towards a exegetical solution in the creation evolution mess, February 9, 2003
Reviewer: R. M. Williams "rmwilliamsjr" (tucson, arizona USA)

i have another similiar recommendation as well:
in the beginning by blocher
my review of that one is at:
http://rmwilliamsjr.livejournal.com/40385.html
or on the amazon reviews page at:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/cu...02438-2478522?_encoding=UTF8&n=283155&s=books

i've seen others of like information but none so well written or persuasive.

 

[Willtor]

That book goes to the top of my 'to get and read list.

Same here.

 

[Dannager]

I knew when I started that I was never going to convince any true believer to change his or her mind. The purpose of debates like this for the skeptics is to expose the lies and sophistry of the other side to onlookers, to get practice at debating people with no scruples, and to see if any new lies have been invented since last time. The tactics used by the creationists are identical to those used by the anti-vaccination liars, which is to stand up, tell a monstrous lie which requires a detailed technical response to show the truth, and then sit down leaving the question hanging and no time for an adequate reply. There is no difference in quality between "There are no intermediary fossils" or "There is no way that an eye can evolve" and "Vaccines are made from aborted foetuses" or "Thimerosal in vaccines causes autism". The lie is there, the spectators have heard it, and the liars rely on the fact that scientists take too long to explain the truth and are too polite to shout "That's ********!"

This is an accurate representation of my opinion re: this debate.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

one issue that i find interesting is that YEC is becoming a test for orthodoxy.
much like the issue of abortion about 10 years ago, it is becoming a hot potato that is being used to separate True Believers from the rest. a handy dandy quick one question guide to who's in and who's out.

ask specifically if it is a test for being a Christian and you will hear, well, probably not. But ask if it ought to be a test for fellowship or church membership and the answers seem to be approaching a yes from the right. see the Westminster Presbytery in the PCA or Greenville Seminary's statement of Faith for specifics.

i taught in my history of presbyterianism class that i thought that the tipping point between liberal and conservative was the issue of the ordination of women, at this point the hot button issues of YEC and abortion appear to be moving the boundary line towards the right, significantly towards the right in the conservative/orthodox Presbyterian churches. (add all the usual disclaimers, it appears to me, i believe, IMHO, etc etc)

 

[shernren]

I knew when I started that I was never going to convince any true believer to change his or her mind. The purpose of debates like this for the skeptics is to expose the lies and sophistry of the other side to onlookers, to get practice at debating people with no scruples, and to see if any new lies have been invented since last time.

If only I could say that this is less true of me than it actually is. I don't want to adhere to this model of discussion but as time goes on I'm starting to wonder if this is the only relational model possible with creationists. But for me at least there are still exceptions, thank God.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

The YEC's have, in my opinion, been thoroughly debunked by the obvious fact that the earth is billions of years old. And TE's are still engaging them in debate. Why? Is it because they are now a whipped puppy that makes the TE's feel good to beat up? Perhaps.

My position is that Genesis is literally true, and it is the business of christians, who dabble in science, to be about proving it to themselves, and then to a disbelieving world. The evidence is there, all you have to do is see it, by giving yourself more than just one (the skeptical athiestic view of science) viewpoint.

 

[LoG]

TE's on this board need to realize that although all YEC's are creationists not all creationists are YEC's.

TE's likely do not like to debate any other creation model because they would have a much tougher time disproving them and might actually have to admit that God created every thing after its kind....what a concept.