6,000 Years?

[Job 33:6]

Creationists tend to struggle with categorical confusion.

They read the Bible, typically out of context, modern vs ancient near east. Then from there, they target the sciences.

When their ideas don't "work" scientifically, they tend to turn back to the Bible. But they never actually examine questions of context of the Bible. They usually just say "well the Bible says X, Y, and Z" typically in a modern materialistic context.

And they almost never just consider the simple alternative: God used evolution and that the actual issue is about their interpretation of the Bible. And 200+ years of getting smacked around by scientists apparently just isn't long enough to figure that out.

And if they're worried about biology conflicting with the Bible, then maybe they should consider studying the Bible. Right. The starting point of truth, scripture. They should make sure that they know what they're talking about before they skip categories and reframe the discussion into something about science.

Then when you ask them how it's possible to view the Bible in a modern context, in light of ancient isrealite context of scripture as is commonly described by actual Bible scholars, they don't have anything to say or they tend not to know what you're talking about.

As though they couldn't fathom, wait, the fundamentalist Evangelical church couldn't fathom, the possibility that maybe they just messed up in their understanding of Genesis. Which isn't hard to do, it's a complicated text. And everyone, 100% of Christians, starts with a concordist literalist view. It's natural to read the Bible that way.

But the church has dropped the ball with mature study of scripture. And it's just a mess. At least in Evangelical circles. Not necessarily among other denominations.

And these big creationist organizations, they've messed things up for so long, that rather than correcting themselves, they just fire and layoff half their scientists every few years and being in a fresh face with new books to sell. And that's how they self correct and peer review themselves.

Anyone see any content from Marcus Ross lately? No? Where did he go?

How about Kurt wise? Where did he go?

Oh that's right, they spoke up and got fired.

 

[Jerry N.]

Not really. Creationists by and large argue against evolution for no other reason than that it contradicts their interpretation of scripture. If they had actual good scientific arguments they'd present them to scientists in scientific arenas, such as conferences or journals.


There are also Christians who have spoken of how understanding the evolutionary history of life on earth has given them a deeper appreciation for God's creation (Francis Collins is a good example), so that argument is pretty illogical.


This is what erodes creationists' credibility. "It's only a theory" is an old, and fundamentally flawed creationist trope that instantly makes everyone who knows basic science roll their eyes and groan.

If I argued that the idea of atom-based matter isn't true because it's "only a theory" (atomic theory of matter), you'd probably recognize that as a silly argument. Well, it's the same when creationists say that about evolutionary theory.


Not in any major way, no. I see occasional small-scale revisions, but nothing that would call into question the overall framework.

I might be wrong, but I don’t think creationist have much of a chance to publish in scientific journals or participate in conferences.

Because some scientists are not adverse to creationism doesn’t mean that many people haven’t used evolution as a weapon against belief in God. If I say I have friends of a particular race, it doesn’t mean I’m not prejudice. I’m writing about a few very vocal atheists who use evolution to justify their rejection of God.

Saying that something is “only a theory” does not negate it. Many laws of physics are still called theories and are still functional. Why can’t it be the same for evolution?

I didn’t question the overall framework of the origins of humans. The time of the origin of humans has increased by a factor of 9 in the last 100 years. I’m just saying that the theory of evolution has changed with new information, and to call things facts is premature.

 

[Jerry N.]

No we don't.


How will it change? I'm a scientist who believes I'm studying God's creation. Do you think I do my work differently than my co-workers?

As I made clear before. I am sure some scientists are studying to know more of God’s creation. God is just not included in the published papers. He is not given credit, because the spiritual is not part of the scientific paradigm.

 

[Jerry N.]

Creationists tend to struggle with categorical confusion.

They read the Bible, typically out of context, modern vs ancient near east. Then from there, they target the sciences.

When their ideas don't "work" scientifically, they tend to turn back to the Bible. But they never actually examine questions of context of the Bible. They usually just say "well the Bible says X, Y, and Z" typically in a modern materialistic context.

And they almost never just consider the simple alternative: God used evolution and that the actual issue is about their interpretation of the Bible. And 200+ years of getting smacked around by scientists apparently just isn't long enough to figure that out.

And if they're worried about biology conflicting with the Bible, then maybe they should consider studying the Bible. Right. The starting point of truth, scripture. They should make sure that they know what they're talking about before they skip categories and reframe the discussion into something about science.

Then when you ask them how it's possible to view the Bible in a modern context, in light of ancient isrealite context of scripture as is commonly described by actual Bible scholars, they don't have anything to say or they tend not to know what you're talking about.

As though they couldn't fathom, wait, the fundamentalist Evangelical church couldn't fathom, the possibility that maybe they just messed up in their understanding of Genesis. Which isn't hard to do, it's a complicated text. And everyone, 100% of Christians, starts with a concordist literalist view. It's natural to read the Bible that way.

But the church has dropped the ball with mature study of scripture. And it's just a mess. At least in Evangelical circles. Not necessarily among other denominations.

And these big creationist organizations, they've messed things up for so long, that rather than correcting themselves, they just fire and layoff half their scientists every few years and being in a fresh face with new books to sell. And that's how they self correct and peer review themselves.

Anyone see any content from Marcus Ross lately? No? Where did he go?

How about Kurt wise? Where did he go?

Oh that's right, they spoke up and got fired.

You are probably right, and I need to look into it more. The Bible is true, but it is not a science book. It is a book about the relationship between God and man. However, I don't blame creationists from getting upset about what some atheist say about evolution.

 

[River Jordan]

I might be wrong, but I don’t think creationist have much of a chance to publish in scientific journals or participate in conferences.

Sure they do. Michael Behe for example publishes in science journals. If creationists submit genuine scientific arguments, they'll be fairly considered. That they don't is a good indication that their case isn't actually scientific, which makes sense.

Because some scientists are not adverse to creationism doesn’t mean that many people haven’t used evolution as a weapon against belief in God. If I say I have friends of a particular race, it doesn’t mean I’m not prejudice. I’m writing about a few very vocal atheists who use evolution to justify their rejection of God.

Atheists cite all kinds of things to justify their disbelief in God, but that doesn't mean those things aren't true or that Christians are obligated to deny them.

Saying that something is “only a theory” does not negate it.

It's an attempt to minimize its validity. It's also based in a fundamental misunderstanding of what a theory is in science.

Many laws of physics are still called theories and are still functional. Why can’t it be the same for evolution?

No they're not.

I didn’t question the overall framework of the origins of humans. The time of the origin of humans has increased by a factor of 9 in the last 100 years. I’m just saying that the theory of evolution has changed with new information, and to call things facts is premature.

You're pointing to one specific aspect being revised over the course of a century? Forgive me if I don't find that meaningful. I also don't know what facts you're referring to.

As I made clear before. I am sure some scientists are studying to know more of God’s creation. God is just not included in the published papers. He is not given credit, because the spiritual is not part of the scientific paradigm.

Exactly! We don't include God in our work because God isn't something we can study and test scientifically, which isn't a knock against scientists or an indication of any bias on our part.

 

[Jerry N.]

Sure they do. Michael Behe for example publishes in science journals. If creationists submit genuine scientific arguments, they'll be fairly considered. That they don't is a good indication that their case isn't actually scientific, which makes sense.


Atheists cite all kinds of things to justify their disbelief in God, but that doesn't mean those things aren't true or that Christians are obligated to deny them.


It's an attempt to minimize its validity. It's also based in a fundamental misunderstanding of what a theory is in science.


No they're not.


You're pointing to one specific aspect being revised over the course of a century? Forgive me if I don't find that meaningful. I also don't know what facts you're referring to.


Exactly! We don't include God in our work because God isn't something we can study and test scientifically, which isn't a knock against scientists or an indication of any bias on our part.

Here are24 examples of theories, which include evolution. 24 Examples of Theories I just think evolution should stay in that list.

 

[Job 33:6]

You are probably right, and I need to look into it more. The Bible is true, but it is not a science book. It is a book about the relationship between God and man. However, I don't blame creationists from getting upset about what some atheist say about evolution.

If you haven't seen it yet, you might Like Walton's Lost World content:

 

[Jerry N.]

If you haven't seen it yet, you might Like Walton's Lost World content:

Thanks, I put it on my list to watch.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

As I made clear before. I am sure some scientists are studying to know more of God’s creation. God is just not included in the published papers. He is not given credit, because the spiritual is not part of the scientific paradigm.

There's a general reason that the spiritual is not a part of the scientific praxis considered under the context of Methodological Naturalism: It's because if a scientist is conducting a scientific experiment, and God were to be placed into it as a variable, God cannot be a controlled variable.

 

[Jerry N.]

There's a general reason that the spiritual is not a part of the scientific praxis considered under the context of Methodological Naturalism: It's because if a scientist is conducting a scientific experiment, and God were to be placed into it as a variable, God cannot be a controlled variable.

Right, I understand. It can't be any other way in the present world.

 

[River Jordan]

Here are24 examples of theories, which include evolution. 24 Examples of Theories I just think evolution should stay in that list.

You're still persisting in the same misunderstanding. Scientific theories don't get promoted to something higher.

 

[Jerry N.]

There's a general reason that the spiritual is not a part of the scientific praxis considered under the context of Methodological Naturalism: It's because if a scientist is conducting a scientific experiment, and God were to be placed into it as a variable, God cannot be a controlled variable.

I understand, and agree. However, instead of implying that evolution or nature has volition like some papers seem to do, try putting “Soli Deo Gloria” on the top of your papers on evolution and see if it gets published.

 

[Platte]

Yes, but before creation began, and before day 1 began, the text doesn't say how long the earth was formless before that time. Before the 6 days of creation.

Before creation began? Creation began with God creating the Earth (yes He created it void). That was step 1 of Creation (first act of day 1)

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I understand, and agree. However, instead of implying that evolution or nature has volition like some papers seem to do, try putting “Soli Deo Gloria” on the top of your papers on evolution and see if it gets published.

Oh don't worry, Jerry. Although I think the basic Theory of Evolution is essentially true, I don't place Darwin's term of operation on a pedestal since it leads all too often to a misunderstanding of what Darwin was trying to communicate about his conceptualization of how evolution works.

Obviously, we all know that nature doesn't choose or select for the survival of adapted organisms in the exact same way that animal breeders select for characteristics. We know that environments don't have 'minds'............unless we want to get all New Agey and spacey about it, like a few scientists do.

 

[Jerry N.]

Oh don't worry, Jerry. Although I think the basic Theory of Evolution is essentially true, I don't place Darwin's middle term of operation on a pedestal since it leads all too often to a misunderstanding about what Darwin was trying to communicate about his conceptualization of how evolution works.

Obviously, we all know that nature doesn't choose or select for the survival of adapted organism in the exact same way that animal breeders select for characteristics.

As I stated before, I don't have a much of a problem with Darwin's "Origin of Species." One might object to things he said in his later years, but I don't remember them as being significant. My complaint is that the theory was used by others to undermined Christianity and the existence of God. One can study natural history without denying God's hand in it. One can't include Him in the research using scientific method, but it should not be used as a weapon. If one is to imply volition, then say the volition was from God.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

As I stated before, I don't have a much of a problem with Darwin's "Origin of Species." One might object to things he said in his later years, but I don't remember them as being significant. My complaint is that the theory was used by others to undermined Christianity and the existence of God. One can study natural history without denying God's hand in it. One can't include Him in the research using scientific method, but it should not be used as a weapon. If one is to imply volition, then say the volition was from God.

I fully understand what you're saying. I think we're on a similar page, even if I'm more of an essentialist where evolution is concerned.

Also, I should note, I'm a philosopher not a scientist, so my views and parsing are going to be run through a slightly different screen of conceptual engagement, analysis and evaluation where the rubber meets the road between Science and the Bible.

 

[Jerry N.]

I fully understand what you're saying. I think we're on a similar page, even if I'm more of an essentialist where evolution is concerned.

Also, I should note, I'm a philosopher not a scientist, so my views and parsing are going to be run through a slightly different screen of conceptual engagement, analysis and evaluation where the rubber meets the road between Science and the Bible.

Thank you very much. Threads on evolution are common on this forum. I find them interesting, but I wish it was more polite like your posts.

 

[Jerry N.]

If you haven't seen it yet, you might Like Walton's Lost World content:

I watched the video, except I skipped over parts I already knew. The only thing I disagree with is that Adam and Eve represent all of humanity in the way he presented it. My thinking is that there were many human-like people at the time of Adam, but God started a special line that was much more with Adam and Eve. God created them in His image in a spiritual sense, including creativity and advanced forms of reasoning and organization. They were obviously able to interbreed with those around them, and that imparted that special spiritual essence to their offspring. If humanoids were around 900,000 years before Adam as evolutionary theory speculates, Adam’s special nature would explain the sudden cultural advancement that happened about 6000 years ago. Thank you for the link to the video. I learned a lot.

 

[Dan1988]

But again, the text doesn't say how long the earth was without form, prior to God beginning to create it. Did you miss my point? I can take a formless pizza and make a pizza in 6 hours. But how long the pizza was formless before I made it, is unanswered by the text.

What part of the word "beginning", don't you understand. Beginning means beginning, meaning there was nothing before it.
That's why Gods Word declares that "In the beginning God created the heavens and the EARTH!", there is no mention anywhere of a preexisting earth.

The first time the earth is mentioned in the bible, is after God created it and it does say that God created it without form and in darkness. But this is just the beginning of the story, remember "let there be light", "let there be trees" etc.

You have put the cart before the horse, there' really no need to labor the point or complicate it unnecessarily. It's actually quite simple to understand

 

[Job 33:6]

What part of the word "beginning", don't you understand. Beginning means beginning, meaning there was nothing before it.

The earth was formless before it. What part of "when God began to create" don't you understand?

Genesis 1:1-2 NRSVUE
[1] When God began to create the heavens and the earth, [2] the earth was complete chaos, and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters.

If I said "when I began to walk to school, it was raining outside"

You wouldn't say "there was no rain before he began walking to school!"

Sorry, that's an incorrect understanding.

Genesis 1:1-2 NRSV
[1] In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, [2] the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters.

In the beginning when God created. That is, the beginning is the beginning of God's actions of creation. Not the beginning of the material cosmos.

That's why the earth was formless. God hadnt yet created it.

The first time the earth is mentioned in the bible, is after God created it

Wrong, God created it in 6 days. God did not create it in verse 1 and then realize everything was messed up so he had to go back and create again a second time in 6 days.