Creationism and Theology

[SavedByGrace3]

Why would you say that? Does scripture state that things must be the way you perceive them? In other words, why you you consider it deception?

Sorry...i do not have time to defend things I did say. Bye

 

[Hammster]

Sorry...i do not have time to defend things I did say. Bye

Okay.

 

[Resha Caner]

I like some of your comments.

But I think a problem of YECs is when they begin to reconcile the accounts with science, begin to fill in the blanks in the text, or ignore all conflicts in the text. This can create nuanced ways of how we approach God when we use the stuff we make up to reconcile the text.

Interesting thing is, when I've pointed out to people they are filling those gaps they can't see it - can't seem to comprehend they've added something to the text.

I would have phrased it as ignoring the apparent conflicts, but still ...yeah. It's one of the things I love about Lutheranism - that it doesn't feel obligated to fill gaps, explain away difficult texts, or answer questions the Bible doesn't speak to.

The text is the text ...

Yep.

 

[Resha Caner]

That might to be to assume too much conceptual similarity between the ancient Hebraic/Mesopotamian mind and the modern scientifically literal Western mind.

I feel exactly the opposite. I think it makes too much of a distinction between a Hebrew mind and a Western mind to say Moses would not have understood a simple explanation of evolution. To me it seems more a mental block of the Western mind that many think evolution can only be expressed in modern scientific terms, and as such God would basically have to lie to Moses because he wouldn't get it if he were told the truth.

Besides, Rabbinically speaking, in the Jewish mindset, the cardinal event is often seen to be the Exodus, not the Creation.

I agree. And not just to the Hebrews but to this Lutheran as well. I've always been perplexed with the way 3 or so chapters of Genesis have dominated the conversation in a book that is 50 chapters long. I ignored the creation debate for most of my life because I thought it was silly. It was really only when my son took an intense interest in biology that I took a look at it.

 

[Resha Caner]

I don't know that you can throw all evolutionists into the same basket like that, Resha. Even if two evolutionists are atheist, for instance, this is no guarantee that they both hold to the same views on what constitutes proper scientific praxis; and then you add in someone like myself to the mix, along with maybe one or two other approaches to how we understand and apply our respective views on the Nature of Science as an embedded part of the overall field of Philosophy of Science, and you have a menagerie classification rather than a clear and distinct categorization.

We might want to be careful in differentiating who means what when they say "what" about evolution.

True, but only with respect to my digression in that particular post. Maybe my main point got lost, because it was a point of logic that didn't criticize either side. It is simply a logical roadblock.

 

[DamianWarS]

I like some of your comments.

Interesting thing is, when I've pointed out to people they are filling those gaps they can't see it - can't seem to comprehend they've added something to the text.

I would have phrased it as ignoring the apparent conflicts, but still ...yeah. It's one of the things I love about Lutheranism - that it doesn't feel obligated to fill gaps, explain away difficult texts, or answer questions the Bible doesn't speak to.

Yep.

if the text doesn't explicitly say it, the text cannot support it. this is different than how we interpret other biblical accounts because we have overlapping historical accounts and cultural records to help support the texts using what's called a historical-grammatical method to help understand the text. This can lead to some very productive understanding of the accounts and help us better understand the original context. However, for pre-Abrahamic accounts, this method cannot be responsibly applied because we don't know enough about this period to make these sorts of judgments. All we can responsibly do is read only the words in the text and whatever it says it what it means and there is no other details that need to be reconciled.

This is why I say in practice it is treated as a non-literal account because in non-literal accounts only the details presented are important and all other detail is meaningless. Essentially non-literal accounts exist in vacuums and everything else not presented in the accounts doesn't matter and this is exactly how pre-Abrahamic accounts should be interpreted even if you are a literalist. For example, if 1 day is a million years in Gen 1 is completely arbitrary to the point of the text and it cannot be supported so it shouldn't be used to understand the text or reconcile it better. Only the words should be used in the text and nothing else.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I feel exactly the opposite. I think it makes too much of a distinction between a Hebrew mind and a Western mind to say Moses would not have understood a simple explanation of evolution. To me it seems more a mental block of the Western mind that many think evolution can only be expressed in modern scientific terms, and as such God would basically have to lie to Moses because he wouldn't get it if he were told the truth.

...I think that the complex of cultural and linguistic differences that are present between various people groups plays into support of what I'm saying. Certain languages, along with the paradigms that are functionally part and parcel of those languages do place some limitations on just exactly 'how' people, especially people of the past, can even attempt to think about or understand the existing structures of our world around them, and to ignore this is to ignore the hermeneutical nuances that are surely bound up within the respective cultural matrices regarding 'creationism' of which we speak. In relation to our mullings over Genesis as a product of ancient Israelite/Jewish worldviews and conceptual traditions, see the writings of Lois Tverberg, for example. (Not that she'll likely be telling you anything you don't already know ... but she's an example.)

However, rather than further digressing into what could needlessly escalate into another situation of playing theological ping-pong as the late Christian philosopher, Basil Mitchell, used to call this kind of interlocution, I'll just let our discussion hang because my theology doesn't require me to make you bend over backward and cry uncle in agreement. And I'd think that your own Lutheran angle of our Christian faith isn't too far off from standing with me in a circle of peace, even if your more traditional lens of our faith may have a few more requirements in it than mine does.

I agree. And not just to the Hebrews but to this Lutheran as well. I've always been perplexed with the way 3 or so chapters of Genesis have dominated the conversation in a book that is 50 chapters long. I ignored the creation debate for most of my life because I thought it was silly. It was really only when my son took an intense interest in biology that I took a look at it.

I can appreciate your stance, and being the "outsider" to traditional views of Creation Literature that I am, it took a long time for me to arrive at my present stance where I don't think the first few chapters of Genesis have be act as a litmus test for either authentic faith or of orthodoxy.

 

[Resha Caner]

I'll just let our discussion hang because my theology doesn't require me to make you bend over backward and cry uncle in agreement. And I'd think that your own Lutheran angle of our Christian faith isn't too far off from standing with me in a circle of peace ...

Sure. Just a friendly conversation.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

I would say evolution creates theological problems. Of course TEs disagree. So, I'm curious ... do TEs think creationism creates theological problems? If so, what?

Disclaimer: I'm rarely in agreement with the typical YEC, so these issues may not apply specifically to me, but we can talk through that as the discussion unfolds.

Forgive me, but what does "TE" mean?

 

[SavedByGrace3]

Forgive me, but what does "TE" mean?

Theistic Evolution

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Theistic Evolution

Okay. Well, this is just my two cents so take it for what its worth. I tend to lean towards the apparent age theory of young earth creation. Meaning that although the apparent age of the earth is much older. The actual age of the earth is very young. For example, when God made Adam, He made him as a full grown man. His apparent age may have been in his twenties or more. But his actual age was just one day. If God made trees in a day and you were to cut the tree down, would my find that the tree had rings. This would lead one to assume that the tree was years old when in reality it is only a day old. Likewise, I believe that the Earth has a much older apparent age than what it actually is. Science have based all of their scientific conclusions based on the presupposition and assumptions that the earth is old.

 

[SavedByGrace3]

Okay. Well, this is just my two cents so take it for what its worth. I tend to lean towards the apparent age theory of young earth creation. Meaning that although the apparent age of the earth is much older. The actual age of the earth is very young. For example, when God made Adam, He made him as a full grown man. His apparent age may have been in his twenties or more. But his actual age was just one day. If God made trees in a day and you were to cut the tree down, would my find that the tree had rings. This would lead one to assume that the tree was years old when in reality it is only a day old. Likewise, I believe that the Earth has a much older apparent age than what it actually is. Science have based all of their scientific conclusions based on the presupposition and assumptions that the earth is old.

There are other considerations...
Scientists, observing nature, tell us there are galaxies and stars that are billions of light years away. That means it would take the light emitting from those galaxies billions of years to reach the earth. If the universe is only a few thousand years old then how did the light reach the earth from that far distance in only those few thousands of years? Did God create the light between those stars and the earth after the fact? There are many other statements in nature that would seem to tell us that the universe is much older than YEC proponents say. There are many many things in nature that could not have come to being in must a few thousand years. Life, geology, astronomy, biology, genetics, etc etc.
I believe God created the substance of the earth in such a way that it would "bring forth life." God has empowered the very dirt of the ground with His Words to bring forth life... over time.
However:
I do believe God made Adam in a single creative act, and then Eve after him from one of his ribs... just as the scripture says.
But other things occurred... including things what we do not know because He has chosen not to reveal to us. I do not believe that God is not trying to trick us or deceive us by creating things that would trick us or fool us. He did not create the light between the distant stars or the fossils. He did not create geologic structures that make it appear to be millions of years old when it is only a few thousand. If it looks like living things have improved and "evolved" then it is very likely that they have and are. No need to fear this or fight about it. I can believe the gospel and the creation story without worrying that I am going to get in trouble for believing what appears to me to be self evident and obvious.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

There are other considerations...
Scientists, observing nature, tell us there are galaxies and stars that are billions of light years away. That means it would take the light emitting from those galaxies billions of years to reach the earth. If the universe is only a few thousand years old then how did the light reach the earth from that far distance in only those few thousands of years? Did God create the light between those stars and the earth after the fact? There are many other statements in nature that would seem to tell us that the universe is much older than YEC proponents say. There are many many things in nature that could not have come to being in must a few thousand years. Life, geology, astronomy, biology, genetics, etc etc.
I believe God created the substance of the earth in such a way that it would "bring forth life." God has empowered the very dirt of the ground with His Words to bring forth life... over time.
However:
I do believe God made Adam in a single creative act, and then Eve after him from one of his ribs... just as the scripture says.
But other things occurred... including things what we do not know because He has chosen not to reveal to us. I do not believe that God is not trying to trick us or deceive us by creating things that would trick us or fool us. He did not create the light between the distant stars or the fossils. He did not create geologic structures that make it appear to be millions of years old which it is only a few thousand. If it looks like living things have improved and "evolved" then it is very likely that they have and are. No need to fear this or fight about it. I can believe the gospel and the creation story without worrying that I am going to get in trouble for believing what appears to me to be self evident and obvious.

In regards to your question regarding light emitting from stars, I believe it is important to remember that God is not bound by the laws of physics. Second, there is no definitive way to determine the length of time that passed between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2, so there is the biblical possibility of the an old earth in a general sense. Third, it is important to remember that the intent Genesis account of creation is not to explain the origin of the universe. Rather, it is explain that the universe was created by God for a specific purpose. I concede that it is entirely possible for Genesis 1 to be allegory never intended to be taken literally. Meaning, the point is not about the process, but the purpose. Science is in the business of answering the "How" questions, not the "Why" questions. The sole intended purpose of the Genesis account of creation is to explain "why" not "how".

 

[SavedByGrace3]

In regards to your question regarding light emitting from stars, I believe it is important to remember that God is not bound by the laws of physics. Second, there is no definitive way to determine the length of time that passed between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2, so there is the biblical possibility of the an old earth in a general sense. Third, it is important to remember that the intent Genesis account of creation is not to explain the origin of the universe. Rather, it is explain that the universe was created by God for a specific purpose. I concede that it is entirely possible for Genesis 1 to be allegory never intended to be taken literally. Meaning, the point is not about the process, but the purpose. Science is in the business of answering the "How" questions, not the "Why" questions. The sole intended purpose of the Genesis account of creation is to explain "why" not "how".

Thanks for the response!

 

[Jamsie]

I believe God created the substance of the earth in such a way that it would "bring forth life." God has empowered the very dirt of the ground with His Words to bring forth life... over time.

I agree, as what is quite clear from a plain reading of Genesis 1 is that God's spoken commands were the sole operative agency. Further that the commands were directed at the land/water thus evident of mediate creation. God is setting in motion all of the laws for the incipient powers, elements, material, etc. as to the natural processes of phenomena to be produced? God ordered the processes then just as we see today.

I do not believe that God is not trying to trick us or deceive us by creating things that would trick us or fool us. He did not create the light between the distant stars or the fossils. He did not create geologic structures that make it appear to be millions of years old which it is only a few thousand. If it looks like living things have improved and "evolved" then it is very likely that they have and are. No need to fear this or fight about it. I can believe the gospel and the creation story without worrying that I am going to get in trouble for believing what appears to me to be self evident and obvious.

Again agreed, the "appearance of age" argument is distinctly deceptive, which is counter to God's character. It renders various scriptures, Romans 1:20 - Psalm 19, basically null and void. It would also call into question our very reason and further if true then perhaps history as set forth in the Bible may too come into question.

 

[Johan_1988]

Interesting question. For me, the biggest theological problem with believing that the universe is young and that evolution does not occur is that it implies that God wants us to deny our sense perceptions as a condition of pleasing God.

If God requires me to deny all of the scientific evidence that points to an old earth and to the biological process of evolution, it implies that the created universe is not a revelation of God at all; but, rather, that our sense perceptions of the universe are false, and that the universe as we perceive it is an illusion -- and that God created us with this trickery in mind, for a purpose I cannot guess. This is a theological problem for me.

Hi, God tell us not listen to our natural senses: "2Cor 5:7 (For we walk by faith, not by sight". The problem with seeking evolution as an answer is that why would God in all his power, might and glory choose a process as slow as the theory of evolution. The bible says:" Gen 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light." There is nothing complicated about how he did it. Man's understanding of creating an object is to follow a process, so why should we limit God and think he works like us. All he has to do is say it and it is there. Start believing the scriptures. If we don't understand it we must ask for wisdom:"Jas 1:5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him."


I have written an explanation for the old earth that makes a lot more sense according to scripture further down the thread.

 

[Jamsie]

Hi, God tell us not listen to our natural senses: "2Cor 5:7 (For we walk by faith, not by sight". The problem with seeking evolution as an answer is that why would God in all his power, might and glory choose a process as slow as the theory of evolution.

Hi Johan - I do not believe the 2 Cor. 5:7 is implying that we can not trust our senses. Should we believe those who claim that they saw the resurrected Christ? I think one might reference Heb. 11:1 and consider the passage as concerning spiritual matters not whether we'll walk off a cliff.

As to the possibility of evolution it might be asked why wouldn't a timeless and all powerful God create in the manner he saw fit to do so, by his own counsel? Why is it necessary for an eternal God to be confined to our limited time frame? Why aren't babies born in a day or a week instead of 9 months? Why do people believe that somehow evolution leaves God out of the picture?

 

[SavedByGrace3]

Hi Johan - I do not believe the 2 Cor. 5:7 is implying that we can not trust our senses. Should we believe those who claim that they saw the resurrected Christ? I think one might reference Heb. 11:1 and consider the passage as concerning spiritual matters not whether we'll walk off a cliff.

As to the possibility of evolution it might be asked why wouldn't a timeless and all powerful God create in the manner he saw fit to do so, by his own counsel? Why is it necessary for an eternal God to be confined to our limited time frame? Why aren't babies born in a day or a week instead of 9 months? Why do people believe that somehow evolution leaves God out of the picture?

Yes... I believe that everything God does and says is completely truthful and completely logical.
One must remember that faith is the belief in things not seen. It is not the denial of things that are. Nowhere does God ask us to deny that which is obvious. He may ask us to believe the word while still acknowledging the reality of outward appearances. Jesus told us that when we pray that we are to believe in our heart we have the thing that we asked for and that when we pray. Even then we are perfectly capable of believing something in our heart even when the outward evidence says otherwise. But when we observe the world around us we see things that tell us the earth and the universe is very old... billions of years old. He does not ask us to deny the obvious and proclaim the earth is only a few thousand years old.
Also everything God does and says makes perfect sense. We may not have all the information at this time, but that which we have makes sense and is perfectly logical.

 

[lesliedellow]

That is a big one, but the onus is on TEs. I was asking it the other way round: what theological hurdles do you, as a TE, think creationists face?”

It seems to me that most of the scientific arguments are on the side of TEs, whereas most of the theological arguments are on the side of YECs. Therefore, YECs’ problems mostly involve coming to terms with the scientific data.

 

[Jamsie]

It seems to me that most of the scientific arguments are on the side of TEs, whereas most of the theological arguments are on the side of YECs. Therefore, YECs’ problems mostly involve coming to terms with the scientific data.

...or take a more intense look at the Genesis passage!