Theological Problems of Creationism

Status
Not open for further replies.

mindlight

See in the dark
Supporter
Dec 20, 2003
13,596
2,659
London, UK
✟816,690.00
Country
Germany
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
This looks like a good place to start a discussion.... What we are going to discuss in this thread are the failings of creationism as Christianity. And, also, the danger creationism poses to Christianity.
....Francis Bacon.....and comments from statements made by creationists during the 1982 McClean vs Arkansas trial. The conclusion from both is the same: creationism is heresy.
.

First thing to say is I agree that the theological discussion is more important than the scientific one in discussing creationism. But I am not sure that your choice of Francis Bacon and McLean v Arkansas did much for your case here. Francis Bacon was no theologian - he was an empiricist and materialist in his philosophy who left the religious all the more a profound a mystery for having debunked with scientific method the shallower myths that people used to buttress false faith. But as to what he had to say theologically - well very little that was profound really. Similarly the McLean v Arkansas is really about the view of the American constitution that religion and secular matters e.g education in a state funded school should be kept separate. This was a view that Bacon believed and a view many americans hold today but is hardly a distinctively global Christian view. The conclusion of the case was that the real reasons that creationists argued the scientific positions that they did were religious ones. As a Creationist I might be happy to concede that point and still consider the courts judgment a distinctively american cultural phenomena rather than a judgment that has any bearing on the ultimate validity of the Creationist position. The supreme court does not have the authority to rule on whether a religious position is heresy or not.

But more seriously I think you do Creationists an injustice in your argument and fail to consider that many Creationist like myself once held positions like your own and came in time to reject these views for profound theological reasons.

Also I think its a mistake to place TEs and Biblical Creationists in opposite camps.

We share a considerable amountof common ground.

1) God Created
2) God Created ex nihilo
3) God sustains all life.

We disagree on the details e.g

1) The age of the universe
2) The processes by which God created mankind and life generally.
3) Whether or not there was a literal Adam and Eve and the theological necessity of that.

Also to argue Creationism was heresy on a par with Gnosticism or Marcionism is stretching it a bit far. The historical churches and Orthodox Jews also all believed the universe was young, in special creation, original sin and a literal Adam and Eve and dated their calendars from a time in the last 6-10,000 years.

Some of the most serious theological issues with TEs are the following:

1) The nature and origin of sin
2) The apparent brutality and numbers of errors in the creation process over what seems an inordinant period of time. The questions that raises about evil and suffering.
3) The origin and progress of the different races relative to one another and their relative dignity
4) The apparent errors of New Testament commentators on OT realities while divinely inspired including the words of Jesus.
5) The nature of man in the Old Earth macroevolutionary timescale as an apparent late after thought rather than one made in the image of God.
 
Upvote 0

gluadys

Legend
Mar 2, 2004
12,958
682
Toronto
✟24,020.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
CA-NDP
I say life in the universe originated ex nihilo, and that the Bible bears that out.

I agree that God created ex nihilo.

Will you be willing to admit that if that is so, then evolution falls like a deck of cards?

No. It just means you don't know what evolution is or what claims it makes. You are setting up a false dichotomy.
 
Upvote 0

champuru

I don't know what I want to put here. Suggestions?
Jan 5, 2008
464
23
Infront of my computer
✟8,230.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Libertarian
Yes, I know that --- that's abiogenesis --- but evolution doesn't apply to angels, does it?

Evolution doesn't apply to angels because angels do not mate with each other.
And if I can get someone here to step up to the plate and admit that angels were created ex nihilo, maybe that's taking a lot bigger step to getting them to admit that God created life on this earth the same way.

I'll go along with saying that angels were created out of nothing, but that still doesnt apply to natural organisms. Even if I gave it to you (this is a hypothetical) that the first one cell organism was created ex nihilo, or even a more complex organism, it still doesn't rule out evolution nor does it favor the 6,000-10,000 year creation.

btw, creation ex nihilo goes against a literal approach to the creation of Adam. Food for thought.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

mindlight

See in the dark
Supporter
Dec 20, 2003
13,596
2,659
London, UK
✟816,690.00
Country
Germany
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The biggest theological problem with modern (neo-) creationism, as I see it, is the insistence on scientific concordism -- that is, the presupposition that the trustworthiness of the Bible rises or falls based on how well it aligns with science. That science is the final arbiter of the Bible's veracity.

I know that a professional scientist like your self may be shocked to hear it but not all of us creationists regard the scientific evidence to be the crucial determining factor with things that we regard to be outside the realm of meaningful science e.g. Discussions of origins and the remote places of the universe. In these cases the biblical witness cannot be overruled by the scientific method since science is ineffective at this distance in time or space.

Neocreationists are quick to disavow the shared agreement between evolutionary creationists and atheistic evolutionists on the subject of evolution, as though our agreement on a simple scientific theory (like gravity) somehow unites us morally.

What I object to here is the shared conviction of TEs or atheists that science can speak effectively when the evidence itself is degraded by time or distance or ignorance of the variables to the point of irrelevance or at very least has become the discussion of the probability values of one model of understanding over another.

But I think there is an even deeper connection between neocreationists and the atheists they disavow in the sense that both groups share the same fundamental belief that science is the final arbiter of truth (i.e., scientism), and that the trustworthiness of the Bible hinges upon how well it holds up to scientific scrutiny (scientific concordism). This philosophy is aptly demonstrated by the numerous "creation science" ministries out there today, all vying to prove the Bible right with their own reworked versions of science.

Science cannot witness to what only God saw or could describe in anything like a meaningful way. But in saying that maybe I do not fit with some of the groups whom you object to, who will argue every fact proves something about their own interpretations of scripture. Scientism is as much a problem for some creationist groups as it is also for Dawkings and the atheists.

I think we'd all be a lot better off in recognizing the accommodating nature of God's inspiration, "comparing spiritual things with spiritual" (1 Cor 2:13), not science. By bowing to scientism, we let the atheists win.

I admire your desire not to let the atheists win and the maturity of a faith that recognises that science cannot be the final arbiter on things spiritual. In this respect we are brothers in Christ as we are on the essential matters e.g that God is the Creator and Sustainer of this universe.
 
Upvote 0

champuru

I don't know what I want to put here. Suggestions?
Jan 5, 2008
464
23
Infront of my computer
✟8,230.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Libertarian
Some of the most serious theological issues with TEs are the following:

1) The nature and origin of sin
First of all, I'd like to say these are my personal views, and not necessarily those of all TEs. Sin originates with Satan and is when humans go against God's desires of us.
2) The apparent brutality and numbers of errors in the creation process over what seems an inordinant period of time. The questions that raises about evil and suffering.
The apparent brutality and number of errors in the creation process is also a creationist theological issue. People are still born with deformities, whether you believe in evolution or not.
3) The origin and progress of the different races relative to one another and their relative dignity
By races do you mean in biology or human classification?
4) The apparent errors of New Testament commentators on OT realities while divinely inspired including the words of Jesus.
It depends on what verses you are talking about.
5) The nature of man in the Old Earth macroevolutionary timescale as an apparent late after thought rather than one made in the image of God.

Not necessarily. If you look at the Genesis time scale, humans were the last creation. You could ask the same question as to why God didn't create man on the first day? With a being like God, time has no real bearing. It makes little difference whether he created humans on the 6th day or a few billion years.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,667
51,418
Guam
✟4,896,437.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
It makes little difference whether he created humans on the 6th day or a few billion years.
So plants went a few billion years w/o sunlight?

Was the earth hanging in space a few billion years alone before the sun came along?
Job 26:7 said:
He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.
 
Upvote 0

Mallon

Senior Veteran
Mar 6, 2006
6,109
296
✟15,392.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
I know that a professional scientist like your self may be shocked to hear it but not all of us creationists regard the scientific evidence to be the crucial determining factor with things that we regard to be outside the realm of meaningful science e.g. Discussions of origins and the remote places of the universe. In these cases the biblical witness cannot be overruled by the scientific method since science is ineffective at this distance in time or space.
The ineffectiveness of science at large scales of time and space seems to be an argument you like to cite a lot, but I wonder if you could please elaborate on what you mean by it, mindlight. Speaking only to fossils, since that's what I work on, I admit that the evidence becomes more sparse the further we look back into the fossil record. But I don't think that means we can't say anything about the history of life on earth with some certainty. For example, we can be quite certain that the first fossils were not vertebrates, and that only the theory of evolutionary common descent describes this order in the fossil record.
Make no doubt about it: The further back we progress in the fossil record, the harder it becomes to say anything with certainty. But palaeontology, as with any science, is in the business of working with what we know to rule out alternative hypotheses, and young earth creationism, as an hypothesis, has definitely been ruled out by the evidence.

Science cannot witness to what only God saw or could describe in anything like a meaningful way. But in saying that maybe I do not fit with some of the groups whom you object to
It doesn't seem that you do, although it's a pleasure to talk with you anyway.
Can I ask whether you deem the pursuit of creation science as valid?

In this respect we are brothers in Christ as we are on the essential matters e.g that God is the Creator and Sustainer of this universe.
I feel the same way. I'm glad we can agree on what matters most!
 
Upvote 0

mindlight

See in the dark
Supporter
Dec 20, 2003
13,596
2,659
London, UK
✟816,690.00
Country
Germany
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Evolution doesn't apply to angels because angels do not mate with each other.

Well you do not even really know if that's true from your position. Could lower beings that once did mate have evolved in higher beings e.g angels that do not. We were made lower than the angels but one day we will be like them.

I'll go along with saying that angels were created out of nothing, but that still doesnt apply to natural organisms.

We do not have either biblical or scientific evidence on this and no idea if angels were created ex nihilo or out of some other God created spiritual substance.

Even if I gave it to you (this is a hypothetical) that the first one cell organism was created ex nihilo, or even a more complex organism, it still doesn't rule out evolution nor does it favor the 6,000-10,000 year creation.

No but the roots of what you believe about the emergence of life and its early development are things about which you can only speculate on the basis of degraded signs in the world you live in today. The most significant point is that you do not really know and could not say with too much certainty how life actually arose. You make considered guesses at considerable distance.

btw, creation ex nihilo goes against a literal approach to the creation of Adam. Food for thought.

Adam was created from what had already been made.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Mallon

Senior Veteran
Mar 6, 2006
6,109
296
✟15,392.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
So plants went a few billion years w/o sunlight?
It always amuses me when a YEC who argues that God magically brought forth earth's plant diversity in a single day bawks at the idea that He could also magically sustain those plants without sunlight for billions of years. :p
 
Upvote 0

gluadys

Legend
Mar 2, 2004
12,958
682
Toronto
✟24,020.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
CA-NDP
Some of the most serious theological issues with TEs are the following:

1) The nature and origin of sin
2) The apparent brutality and numbers of errors in the creation process over what seems an inordinant period of time. The questions that raises about evil and suffering.
3) The origin and progress of the different races relative to one another and their relative dignity
4) The apparent errors of New Testament commentators on OT realities while divinely inspired including the words of Jesus.
5) The nature of man in the Old Earth macroevolutionary timescale as an apparent late after thought rather than one made in the image of God.

First I want to agree that these are all serious theological issues. But they are not necessarily theological problems.

1) The nature and origin of sin

This is probably the most difficult one for both those who accept and those who reject evolution. Part of the problem can be relieved with the realization that evolution does not necessarily rule out a literal Adam as the first human and an ancestor of all living humans. Given that option--which some TEs take, there is really no difference between a YEC and a TE view on the nature and origin of sin.

Nor is there any real problem with the nature of sin. For a TE as for a YEC/OEC etc. the nature of sin is rebellion against God and assuming a position of human autonomy or self-rule.

So that leaves the origin of sin. And we can ask that in two parts: the origin of sin in each human individual and the origin of sin in humanity as a whole.

Does the origin of sin in each human individual require a biological relationship to an ancestor who was the first sinner? If so, we must posit an individual Adam. Or does the origin of sin in each individual come from the assertion of autonomy which is part of human nature? In the latter case, we do not necessarily need a particular individual as our first parent, since what needs to be explained is how the instinct of rebellious autonomy came to be part of our human nature--not how it is derived from a particular ancestor. In this case, we can view chapters 2-3 of Genesis as a typological story of all humanity, and not of specific individuals.

One still needs to consider the historical development of sinfulness in humanity and I don't pretend anyone has a complete handle on that. But unless one assumes that our relationship to sin is mediated by a biological relationship to an ancestral Adam, the theological door is left open to discuss other options, both with and without a literal, historical Adam.

2) The apparent brutality and numbers of errors in the creation process over what seems an inordinant period of time. The questions that raises about evil and suffering.

Actually, it raises no more questions than a non-evolutionary view. As Darwin asks, do we really want to believe that God deliberately created parasitic wasps to feed on the interior of living caterpillars? Darwin took his notion of a struggle for existence from the observations of Malthus. Malthus came to the conclusion that famine, disease and war were necessary to continued human existence, since without them population increase would outrun the necessary increase in resources to sustain life.

Darwin simply generalized Malthus' ideas to all species. And it is true that given reproducing species, they will overpopulate the planet in a finite time unless the population is restricted by some means. Those means may appear brutal, but it is a brutality that requires as much in theodicy from a non-evolutionary as from an evolutionary perspective.

Evil and suffering is both an experienced fact and a mystery in both viewpoints and saving the benevolence of God in the face of this mystery poses the same theological challenge in each.

"Errors" assumes that a species was not meant to exist. I do not see this as implied by evolution or theology. What would make the existence of any species an error?

3) The origin and progress of the different races relative to one another and their relative dignity

For TEs this has become an easy matter. We now know there is insufficient difference in the biology of humans to classify them as different races.

In human terms, therefore, "race" is a cultural category, not a biological one. And all humans, biologically and theologically, have the same dignity.

4) The apparent errors of New Testament commentators on OT realities while divinely inspired including the words of Jesus.

This depends mostly on one's theology of inspiration. Calvin spoke of God accommodating his revelation to the needs and capacities of his human hearers. If one accepts that inspired revelation can be culturally accommodating in this way, why would the same not pertain when God incarnates in human form? or when NT writers comment on OT realities?

5) The nature of man in the Old Earth macroevolutionary timescale as an apparent late after thought rather than one made in the image of God.

One can pose the same question about the postponing of the incarnation until "these last days". If it was always God's intention to redeem humanity from sin, why did he not do so while Adam and Eve were still alive? Why go through all the long process of calling Abraham, Moses, David, etc. and then wait still further centuries to bring Jesus into the world and two millennia and still going before the final eschaton?

If it was always God's intention to create humanity in God's image, humanity was never an afterthought no matter how many biological ancestors we had over how many billions of years.
 
Upvote 0

gluadys

Legend
Mar 2, 2004
12,958
682
Toronto
✟24,020.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
CA-NDP
I know that a professional scientist like your self may be shocked to hear it but not all of us creationists regard the scientific evidence to be the crucial determining factor with things that we regard to be outside the realm of meaningful science e.g. Discussions of origins and the remote places of the universe. In these cases the biblical witness cannot be overruled by the scientific method since science is ineffective at this distance in time or space.

I find it difficult to think of time and space being limiting factors on the efficacy of science. The limitation is lack of evidence, not deficiency of method. And evidence is not always lacking. We do observe very distant galaxies and events very remote in time through surviving evidence.

To me, where science fails to apply, is to spiritual and moral matters. Science can tell me what the consequences of setting off an atom bomb are. It doesn't tell me it is right or wrong to do so in given circumstances. (I personally think it is always wrong, but I don't come to that conclusion from scientific premises.)

Similarly, science can tell me about neurotransmitters that become active in my cerebral cortex when I see someone I love, but does that tell me anything about what love is?

So while I fully agree with you that there are many areas of life important to us for which science is ineffective, I think you err to include time and space as limitations on scientific effectiveness.
 
Upvote 0

LewisWildermuth

Senior Veteran
May 17, 2002
2,526
128
51
Bloomington, Illinois
✟11,875.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
You have no idea how angels originated, yet you think theistic evolution is what is going to pwn YECs?

Or am I reading you wrong? (And I apologize if I am.)

I say life in the universe originated ex nihilo, and that the Bible bears that out.

Will you be willing to admit that if that is so, then evolution falls like a deck of cards?

Or does your TE-pwns-YEC philosophy just go one way?

I think you are reading him wrong AV.

The only one in this forum that seems to be concerned with "pwning" other people is you.

Maybe you are projecting just a little here.
 
Upvote 0

champuru

I don't know what I want to put here. Suggestions?
Jan 5, 2008
464
23
Infront of my computer
✟8,230.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Libertarian
Well you do not even really know if that's true from your position. Could lower beings that once did mate have evolved in higher beings e.g angels that do not. We were made lower than the angels but one day we will be like them.

ANGELS ARE NOT NATURAL CREATURES! The bible says humans are above angels anyway.


We do not have either biblical or scientific evidence on this and no idea if angels were created ex nihilo or out of some other God created spiritual substance.
I said I'll go along with it. I never said it was true. Take it up with AV1611VET.

No but the roots of what you believe about the emergence of life and its early development are things about which you can only speculate on the basis of degraded signs in the world you live in today.
Are you talking about my belief in Christianity or Evolution?
The most significant point is that you do not really know and could not say with too much certainty how life actually arose. You make considered guesses at considerable distance.
I can say with certainty that God had a part in the development of life. You do not have certainty even if you believe the Genesis account literally exactly how God made life.

Adam was created from what had already been made.

That's what I was saying.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

champuru

I don't know what I want to put here. Suggestions?
Jan 5, 2008
464
23
Infront of my computer
✟8,230.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Libertarian
So plants went a few billion years w/o sunlight?

Was the earth hanging in space a few billion years alone before the sun came along?

Ummm no... I dont know why'd you'd think that. Especially considering that if you believe the Genesis account literally it says there was day and night even without the sun.

The sun is about 4.57 billion while earth is about 4.54 billion.
 
Upvote 0

Assyrian

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)
Mar 31, 2006
14,868
991
Wales
✟27,286.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I say life in the universe originated ex nihilo, and that the Bible bears that out.

btw, creation ex nihilo goes against a literal approach to the creation of Adam. Food for thought.

I'm aware of that --- Adam was created ex materia.
Animals too.

Gen 2:19 So out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,667
51,418
Guam
✟4,896,437.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
It always amuses me when a YEC who argues that God magically brought forth earth's plant diversity in a single day bawks at the idea that He could also magically sustain those plants without sunlight for billions of years. :p
And the earth was billions and billions of years before the sun?

And whales billions of years before man?

How amused are you at explaining these?
 
Upvote 0

Mallon

Senior Veteran
Mar 6, 2006
6,109
296
✟15,392.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
And the earth was billions and billions of years before the sun?

And whales billions of years before man?

How amused are you at explaining these?
I don't try to explain them, AV1611VET. As I just finished explaining in an earlier post, I am not a scientific concordist. I feel no need to account for the stories of the Bible with science because the Bible wasn't written to speak to matters of science.
I hope you're listening: evolutionary creationists do not read long periods of time or evolutionary biology into the opening chapters of Genesis.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,667
51,418
Guam
✟4,896,437.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I don't try to explain them, AV1611VET. As I just finished explaining in an earlier post, I am not a scientific concordist. I feel no need to account for the stories of the Bible with science because the Bible wasn't written to speak to matters of science.
I hope you're listening: evolutionary creationists do not read long periods of time or evolutionary biology into the opening chapters of Genesis.
My favorite mantra for this is as follows:

  • Genesis 1 pwns Evolution
  • Genesis 1:1 pwns Atheism
Let's forget the time-spans then, explain the order of the creation events.

I understand there are something like 20 differences between Genesis 1 and Evolution.

You talk about being amused --- what amuses me is those who whine about the order of events in Genesis 2 being asynchronous w/Genesis 1 (which it's not), but don't say a word about the order in Genesis 1 itself.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.