an official renunciation.

[shernren]

I officially renounce Young-earth creationist theory and the support I have given it in the past.

There. That's done. *phew*

...I wish it didn't have to come to this. Let me explain why I have taken this course of action.

I posted two threads in the open evolt forums: a challenge to YECs, and a challenge to theistic evolutionists. The reply from the evolutionists was predictable: open your mind, Genesis may not have been literal, etc. But the YEC answer was even more predictable, and lamentably so:

The Earth was made in 6 days 6000 years ago! The Bible tells me so! And if science says a different thing then forget about science!

Sigh. (Interestingly, nobody mentioned homochirality, one of the few reasonably strong pointers towards Intelligent Design.) But I cannot take that view against science. Here is my reasoning: If you believe that God is self-consistent (which is pretty basic), then everything He does or says must in some way reflect who He is. Thus He reveals Himself not just through His Word in Scripture, but also through nature and the scientific study of nature. God's Word is revealed in writing to us in Scripture; but He also speaks, albeit a little softer and sometimes with confusing distractions, in science.

Now, how would you like it if I told you that the Bible is atheistic? I would begin by pointing out that the entire book of Esther doesn't mention God at all. There are passages that depict God's people getting soundly thrashed by heathen. There are verses going like "there is no God" and "Meaningless - all is meaningless!" ... I could go on to interpret prophecy as prophets getting high, noting that many places describe "drunk prophets" and noting the psychedelic detail of apocalyptic imagery. I could even interpret Jesus's last cry, not as abandonment, but as disillusionment - realizing finally that the God for whome He sacrificed doesn't exist.

If I dared say that I actually meant all that XP I'd be stoned on the spot. And rightly so. So why should YEC "scientists" get away with doing the same thing to the Word of God as revealed in nature?

When I "disproved" the Bible earlier I took chunks out of context, exaggerated some things, ignored others completely, misinterpreted things that clearly meant something else in the light of the whole Bible. That is more or less what happens to science in the YEC community's hands. They quote data inconsistently, jump to bad conclusions, use old and inaccurate measurements and make grossly unjustifiable assumptions. I shall not go into detail; I'd rather not.

I believe that God has created nature in a way that reflects His majesty and dominion, and therefore such treatment (well-meaning, wholesomely "Christian" as it may be) is actually, to a certain extent, insulting the majesty and dominion of God. I won't say any more or I will make many enemies here.

If science seems to contradict the Bible, there can only be these choices:
1. Science is of the devil, and the Bible is of God.
2. Science is of God and/or right, and the Bible is inaccurate and/or wrong.
3. Science and the Bible are both of God; I need to understand how they fit.
4. Science and the Bible are both of God - I don't know how and I don't care to know!

Position 1 is taken by YECs who are too stubborn to face the evidence. But this position can't be valid! Position 2 is taken by atheists, etc.

I'm currently somewhere between 3 and 4. And I'm not going to take the next logical step of saying: I believe in theistic evolution and that Genesis's creation account is non-literal... simply because I'm not ready. Just because I want to get my faith into the right position, doesn't mean I have to push a hundred gees of acceleration and risking busting my mind on the way.

I'm going to spend this year (as I had already planned before this) finishing the rest of the Bible (I'm at Deuteronomy now), figuring out how this adjusted view of things would fit in with the rest of the Bible. Until then, I have no fixed views (other than that many YEC scientists are pretty irresponsible =P).

That's all. Thank you all.

 

[Dark_Lite]

Although you have come to terms with reality, do not let YECism completely annihilate your faith like it has done to so many others.

 

[seebs]

Well I can hardly disagree with your conclusions, I suggest that the question you should be looking at is not which claims are false, but which claims are true.

 

[The Lady Kate]

The way I see it is this...God tells us what we need to know, but not more than we can handle. God's people 5000 years ago needed to know that God is the Creator, man is a fallen creation, and that we need to be reconciled with Him. However, they were not ready for all the nuts-and-bolts details of how He put this universe together from scratch...besides, that's not what was important at the time.

So... God told the important stuff first....we have sinned and need to be saved. He told that was in a poetic, allegorical story, which did indeed get this message across.

The lesser story...How He did it all...he didn't put on paper...He left it in the Earth itself, knowing in His infinite wisdom, than we'd find it ourselves when we were ready for it.

The sad thing is, if anything, YEC shows that not all of us are ready for it yet.

Oh well...One thing Scripture has taught me is that there is always hope.

 

[Vance]

I agree with your approach completely. It is important to not accept any proposition without a solid foundation and sufficient time for reflection. If you end up with some form of OEC, or ID or decide that you can not know anything sufficiently (other than that YEC'ism is simply false), then that is fine as well.

I also like your points about God being expressed consistently in every manifestation, and the need to see the larger Scriptural picture in order to keep it all in perspective, rather than entrench yourself into a overly literal interpretation.

 

[Xaero]

things like this are really sad

but i can understand you. it seems like the YECs want other christians to believe that 2+2=5 and if you don't you will have not enough faith and so on...

but i promise that this isnt the case.. there is evidence supporting the young earth.. and the evidence against it can be explained in another way.. maybe not today but maybe tomorrow...

the problem is there are more evolutionist working on their theory than creationists working on 6-day creation theory, so it seems to be more arguments against the creationists case.. but quantity doesn't count, its the quality of the arguments that counts

...but it counts the most that you stay in Christ

remember, all our faith and knowledge is only partly (1. Corinthians 13:8-10): "Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears."

 

[Vance]

Xaero, I agree completely with you that the quality of the argument is what counts!

(which is why TE is the better approach!)

:0)

 

[schooner]

I support you in re-evaluating your beliefs, but don't let the change keep you away from Jesus. Even if evolution were to be "true" to a certain extent, that doesn't preclude God from assigning it as a method of creation. I don't believe in evolution as it is presented entirely, and I do not believe in a literal six day creation, but God did it no matter which method it was.

 

[Smidlee]

I officially renounce Young-earth creationist theory and the support I have given it in the past.
.....
I posted two threads in the open evolt forums: a challenge to YECs, and a challenge to theistic evolutionists. The reply from the evolutionists was predictable: open your mind, Genesis may not have been literal, etc. But the YEC answer was even more predictable, and lamentably so:

The Earth was made in 6 days 6000 years ago! The Bible tells me so! And if science says a different thing then forget about science!

Sigh. (Interestingly, nobody mentioned homochirality, one of the few reasonably strong pointers towards Intelligent Design.) But I cannot take that view against science. Here is my reasoning: If you believe that God is self-consistent (which is pretty basic), then everything He does or says must in some way reflect who He is. Thus He reveals Himself not just through His Word in Scripture, but also through nature and the scientific study of nature. God's Word is revealed in writing to us in Scripture; but He also speaks, albeit a little softer and sometimes with confusing distractions, in science.

all christians must for themselves stand on the issue between scriptures and science. The bible often condicts science. dead people don't raise from the dead. that's a scientific fact. The question is ' is science truth?'

If science seems to contradict the Bible, there can only be these choices:
1. Science is of the devil, and the Bible is of God.
2. Science is of God and/or right, and the Bible is inaccurate and/or wrong.
3. Science and the Bible are both of God; I need to understand how they fit.
4. Science and the Bible are both of God - I don't know how and I don't care to know!

Position 1 is taken by YECs who are too stubborn to face the evidence. But this position can't be valid! Position 2 is taken by atheists, etc.

Actually there is a 5 option you missed:
5. God is over science / the natural world.

As I study scripture these truth is repeat time and time again. God on purpose does thing againest science because science is the way man thinks. Just read the gospels and see how much Jesus had trying to get this though to his disciples. His disciples thinks just as we do and have to same trouble with God's truth vs science.
Here an example of feeding of five thousand in Luke 9:13 : " But he (Jesus) said unto them, Give ye them to eat. and they said, We have no more but five loaves and two fishes... (disciples was thinking scientificly). After Jesus broke the 2 loaves and 5 fish to feed over 5 thousand people then fragments was gathered to fill 12 baskets full. This is a direct violation of the most fundamental laws of science : the laws of thermodynamics.
So we all have a choice : either believe the bible or believe in science (thermodynamics) is the final truth.
While I agree evolutionists and YEC are very predictable , God is not.

 

[Vance]

Smidlee,

You are missing a very important point. A miracle is NOT a violation of a proper definition of science. Science is the study of the natural world God created including the laws of nature God put in place. Science itself does not preclude God overriding those natural laws when He sees fit, the study of science just can't investigate it or make any statements about it. This is why there can be scientists who are Christian. If a belief in the supernatural was directly contrary to science, there could be no Christian who could be a scientist. This is not to say that there are not scientists who state that the supernatural CAN NOT happen, but you have to realize that they are no longer talking as scientists at that point, but as naturalistic philosophers. Science can make no statements about that point one way or the other.

So, it is not the violation of a natural law that is ANY problem with Creation. Any Christian believes that the entire Creation was a supernatural event, however it was done. The problem with most of the Young Earth Creationist propositions is NOT that they are supernatural, but that there is specific evidence which exists which would NOT exist if it were true, and specific evidence which WOULD exist if it were true, but are not present. In short, it YEC'ism is contrary to the EVIDENCE, not contrary to science.

 

[Smidlee]

So, it is not the violation of a natural law that is ANY problem with Creation. Any Christian believes that the entire Creation was a supernatural event, however it was done. The problem with most of the Young Earth Creationist propositions is NOT that they are supernatural, but that there is specific evidence which exists which would NOT exist if it were true, and specific evidence which WOULD exist if it were true, but are not present. In short, it YEC'ism is contrary to the EVIDENCE, not contrary to science.

Evidence is always interpreted by people. How many innocent people was convicted of a crime they didn't commit just because the evidence point that way. Since noone was here a million years ago ,all we can go by is our interpretion of the evidence. I'm someone who not convince that YEC are wrong. I agree by my interpretion of the star this universe seem to be older than 6,000 years yet I only 36 and has never lefted planet Earth so I'll give YEC the benefit of the doubt because they do believe the Bible. I find no fault with the YEC believing thier interpretion of scripture over a scientist who tries to claim man evolved from an ape's great grandmother. (this is what shernron claim the YEC was saying) I also find no fault with so trying to find evidence that could point to a youth earth. Yet since noone was there we all most choice what we believe is true. There is still people who believes in the Big bang theory no matter how bad off the theory is. (90% of the theory is held up by 90% of something that hasn't been prove to exist) So scientist also hold on to their beliefs no matter how bad the evidence is.

 

[Vance]

Evidence is always interpreted by people. How many innocent people was convicted of a crime they didn't commit just because the evidence point that way. Since noone was here a million years ago ,all we can go by is our interpretion of the evidence. I'm someone who not convince that YEC are wrong. I agree by my interpretion of the star this universe seem to be older than 6,000 years yet I only 36 and has never lefted planet Earth so I'll give YEC the benefit of the doubt because they do believe the Bible. I find no fault with the YEC believing thier interpretion of scripture over a scientist who tries to claim man evolved from an ape's great grandmother. (this is what shernron claim the YEC was saying) I also find no fault with so trying to find evidence that could point to a youth earth. Yet since noone was there we all most choice what we believe is true. There is still people who believes in the Big bang theory no matter how bad off the theory is. (90% of the theory is held up by 90% of something that hasn't been prove to exist) So scientist also hold on to their beliefs no matter how bad the evidence is.

Oh, we can discuss the persuasiveness of the evidence in another thread, if you like, but you have ignored the point I made in my post: miracles are not contrary to science, only to the naturalistic philosophy. YEC's will often make this claim, that if you reject YEC'ism, it is the equivalent of rejecting all the miracles described in Scripture. I have shown why that was incorrect, and why those Christians who reject YEC'ism are not doing so AT ALL because the YEC view violates some form of natural law.

Second, you say you would give the benefit of the doubt to those who believe in YEC because they "believe the Bible". This is another strawman argument because even those Christians who reject YEC'ism believe the Bible. I believe it completely and utterly. But I don't think it teaches a young earth at all.

Third, the argument that "no one was there" doesn't go very far at all. You believe all kinds of things that are based on things which can not be observed in current space or time. We accept the internal workings of the atom, but we can not see it at all. We accept it solely because of the evidence of its actions on other things. If you were walking down a path and saw a big tree trunk laying across that path, and then saw a stump next to the path right next to the bottom of the trunk, and the two pieces matched exactly, you would be able to conclude with a very high degree of certitude that the trunk had once been attached to the tree, but had broken and fallen somehow. You might even be able to tell whether it had happened recently or a very long time ago. If there were saw marks, or burn marks, you might even have a very strong theory for the cause of the falling. YOu could reach very strong conclusions about all this, but you were never there.

Lastly, it is just wrong to state that scientists hold onto their ideas when the evidence points in the other direction. While an individual scientist, who has a lot at stake, may cling to a pet theory, the scientific community has a whole will eventually, and somewhat ruthlessly, reject that idea and accept what the evidence presents. This has been shown over and over and over again.

 

[Smidlee]

Oh, we can discuss the persuasiveness of the evidence in another thread, if you like, but you have ignored the point I made in my post: miracles are not contrary to science, only to the naturalistic philosophy.

I ignore your point because I don't see how 2+2=1000000 not only break I knowledge of science like thermodynamics but also of mathematic. I feel this is why is hard to define "life " on science terms since life itself may be supernatural.

Second, you say you would give the benefit of the doubt to those who believe in YEC because they "believe the Bible". This is another strawman argument because even those Christians who reject YEC'ism believe the Bible. I believe it completely and utterly. But I don't think it teaches a young earth at all.

My favorite book is a Scofield KJV. Scofield believed in the gay theory. I do believe since God was involved in creation that it's a supernatural act so maybe beyond the reach of modern science.

Lastly, it is just wrong to state that scientists hold onto their ideas when the evidence points in the other direction. While an individual scientist, who has a lot at stake, may cling to a pet theory, the scientific community has a whole will eventually, and somewhat ruthlessly, reject that idea and accept what the evidence presents. This has been shown over and over and over again.

I not sure how old the earth is but there one thing I've learned. Scientist are no different then preachers, lawyers,politicians, etc. You can't assume the majority of any group is right INCLUDING preachers. history as well as personal experince has prove this to me without a doubt. So I have to totally disagree with you here. One of my favorite story in the old testament was when Jehoshaphat was trying to ally with Ahab. (1 kings 22) When Jehoshaphat came to King Ahab there was 400 prophet all saying the same thing. But Jehoshaphat smelled a rat and ask wasn't there another prophet of the Lord around. Ahab said yes but he (Micaiah) never said anything good. Human nature hasn't changed one bit. out of 401 preachers only one was truthful.

 

[Vance]

2 + 2 = 4 is a mathematical principal, and yes, there are many, many scientific principles. But science is simply the study of these principles, the discovery of them, how they work, etc. They do not attempt to discover or investigate how, when or whether they are ever overridden by a supernatural cause. Such an event is just that: SUPER-natural. It is beyond nature, thus it is beyond the ability for science to study or investigate or comment upon. And science does NOT comment on it. A miracle is not a violation of science, it is just a violation of a principle of science. But science does not say that such principles can not be broken, it just says that in the normal, natural state of affairs, they are not broken. If they were to be broken, it would require something SUPERnatural, and thus out of the reach of science.

So, science does not deny the supernatural, it just can not comment on it one way or the other. Science is just a tool. It is just ONE tool for the discovery of the truth. It is the tool which tells us how the natural world works in its natural state. That is all.

So, the fact that a miracle violates a natural law is not a violation of science whatsoever.

Again, the problem comes in when YEC's create a strawman and say that a rejection of Creationism is the same as a rejection of the miracles of Scripture. This is not the case at all, as I have shown.

And I agree that majority does not make something right. After all, the majority of Christians in the Unites States believe in YEC'ism. My point is that the scientific community has a bias toward discovering how things really work, not in holding on to ideas that are not supported by the evidence. Everything in the process pushes toward that. This is proven by simply viewing how things have changed in the world of science over the last 200 years. Old ideas are discarded as the new evidence proves them wrong ALL THE TIME.

This is why evolution is so impressive. It has withstood this test of time. It has been scrutinized, reviewed, critiqued, investigated, tested, for 150 years, and has not been falsfied. This is a VERY good track record in the world of science.

 

[Smidlee]

Old ideas are discarded as the new evidence proves them wrong ALL THE TIME.

This is why evolution is so impressive. It has withstood this test of time. It has been scrutinized, reviewed, critiqued, investigated, tested, for 150 years, and has not been falsfied. This is a VERY good track record in the world of science.

With no disrespect , I have to again totally disagree with you since it doesn't match the real world. Evolution is impressive not because of the evidence but because of the science elites. In the real world it's not what you know that counts but who you know. Powerful elites controls business, science, churches and politics. If you go againest these elites you will go nowhere.
here's one example:
It was reported over 10 years ago a man invented a washing machine that used 1/3 the water and a 1/3 of electricity without using any detergents. He want to sell his invention and needed cash to start a business but because the man refused to lie and say his machine needs atleast some detergents the elites made sure he would never be able to sell his invention. I've still haven't seen this washing machine sold anywhere today. Even good science is stopped dead in it's track if you go againest these elites. Richard Sternberg today knows very well what happens if you go againest these elites. And to be honest I not sure it worth it. So I personally don't blame any scientist for not risking his career over the evolution debate. I'm sure this is why more scientist are not more out spoken about the doubts of evolution (as a whole) and the Big bang theory since it's just not worth it.

 

[Vance]

But what you are saying is simply not true, and anecdotal incidents don't make it true. Read any edition of Scientific American or Discover, and you will find at least a dozen instances in each issue of new theories replacing old ones, or challenges to existing theories being battled out. All you have to do is look at the state of scientific knowledge and understanding today compared to 100 years ago. Literally thousands of theories have been rejected or improved. How could this happen if your belief was correct? Einstein alone turned the entire scientific theory of gravity and time upside down. How did THAT happen? It definitely would not have happened if what you think was true.

Yes, there are agendas and there are biases and there are individuals who cling to their pet theories, and these must be dealt with. And they ARE dealt with by the very nature of the processes gone through by the scientific community. There are, indeed, criteria for acceptance before the scientific community will embrace a new idea. This is what we would WANT from our scientists. We would not want them to accept every new idea that comes along. We want them to test it, doubt it, scrutinize it and put the presenter through the ringer for years and years. That is a GOOD thing. It is what makes sure that what comes out the other side is most likely to be correct. And it seems to work! That is why we know vast amounts more than we did even 50 years ago. What is amazing is that such a process can result in as much growth and progress as it has.

 

[shernren]

Evidence is always interpreted by people.

This is the typical YEC myth: there is a body of unbiased evidence, and evolutionists come in and look at it through evolutionist bias and say "Gee, I guess this supports evolution." while the YECs come in with a holy, Bible-approved bias and say "No, it supports young-earth creationism." It's not that simple.

Supernaturalism / naturalism are interpretations.
YEC / TE are theories. Let me show the difference.

Two days ago I looked out of the comp lab window and saw that it was raining heavily. It's quite a distance from there back to my room, and I was quite worried. But when I finished my work and went out, guess what? The rain had stopped!

My response was: "Thank You Lord!" (Yes, even TEs thank God for good things. =D)
But an atheist might have responded: "It's just a coincidence."

Now, you can see that my response was made from a supernaturalist (God intervenes in nature) PoV, while the atheist's response was made from naturalist (there is no God to intervene in nature) PoV. Notice that neither of these PoVs make any predictions about what will happen the next time it rains. For the atheist, the rain stopping was a lucky situation and if the rain didn't stop next time it would just be an unlucky happening. For me, if the rain didn't stop the next time something like that happened, it may be that God is warning me to bring an umbrella whenever I see a downcast sky. =D New evidence can always be integrated into an interpretation.

But let's change the scenario a bit. Let's say I didn't see the rain, but when I walked out I saw that the whole field was wet. So I ask two people what happened.
Person A said: "It rained."
Person B said: "The gardener came and watered the field."

Now, these are theories. They make testable predictions. For example, one can estimate the amount of water that fell on the field and see whether it's consistent with a rainstorm or a showering can. One can ask other witnesses to corroborate the arguments, and even ask the gardener if he really was watering the field at that time. One can even, if he/she is careful enough, try and measure the water composition from the field, subtract the mineral content of the soil and see if there are mineral concentrations consistent with pipe water, or with rainwater. In the end, one or the other of the theories will be falsified (unless we have a weird gardened who waters the field in the rain ).

So you see that in the same way, YECism and TEism make different, testable hypotheses. They predict that as one studies geology (in particular) and the rest of the sciences, one should come up with certain measurements and results that will eliminate the other theory, and right now any intellectually honest person would admit that TEism seems to have the upper hand. Notice that an evolutionary theory, suitably modified, may not have to be contrary to a supernaturalist interpretation.

Evolution is impressive not because of the evidence but because of the science elites. In the real world it's not what you know that counts but who you know. Powerful elites controls business, science, churches and politics. If you go againest these elites you will go nowhere.

Science knows no elites. If you discover something new and bold you will be applauded. With proper verification, of course. Hunger of discovery is a most powerful driving force.
Then again, come to think of it, YEC does have its elites. Humphrey, Hovind, Behe, Philip Johnson... criticise them and you are a heretic turning from your faith. (I'm not making this up. There are actual testimonies from former YECists who were disillusioned partly because of how negatively YEC theorists responded to their "crying wolf".) Maybe that's why YEC scientists are so dogged: maybe they know they have to produce the results that their hierarchy demands.

There is still people who believes in the Big bang theory no matter how bad off the theory is. (90% of the theory is held up by 90% of something that hasn't been prove to exist)

Actually, the basics behind the Big Bang theory (relativity and quantum physics) keep most of the rest of nature running too. Quite surprising that a theory, 90% of which is held up by 90% of something that hasn't been proven to exist, also holds up 90+% of the electronic industry and successfully predicts 90+% of the experimental results of particle accelerator experiments. *shrugs*

Richard Sternberg today knows very well what happens if you go againest these elites.

Read the critiques of his paper online. (While you're at it, have you read his paper itself?) He didn't show what happens if you go against the elites: he shows what happens to a screwy paper under the process of scholastic peer review. Besides, why the stigma against "religious" scientists anyway? Guess which camp of religious science scares the community away from religious scientists. *wink*

 

[gluadys]

here's one example:
It was reported over 10 years ago a man invented a washing machine that used 1/3 the water and a 1/3 of electricity without using any detergents. He want to sell his invention and needed cash to start a business but because the man refused to lie and say his machine needs atleast some detergents the elites made sure he would never be able to sell his invention. I've still haven't seen this washing machine sold anywhere today.

That's got nothing to do with science. That's business protecting its profits.

 

[Remus]

I officially renounce Young-earth creationist theory and the support I have given it in the past.

There. That's done. *phew*

...I wish it didn't have to come to this. Let me explain why I have taken this course of action.

Well, you can't make yourself believe something. You're going to have an interesting journey I'd wager.

I posted two threads in the open evolt forums: a challenge to YECs, and a challenge to theistic evolutionists. The reply from the evolutionists was predictable: open your mind, Genesis may not have been literal, etc. But the YEC answer was even more predictable, and lamentably so:

Don't you think that that is an odd place to be asking opinions from Christians? Especially since it’s open season on YEC’s there, but you should know this. Perhaps you would have received a better response had you asked in a friendlier place. Then again, would it really have made a difference?

The Earth was made in 6 days 6000 years ago! The Bible tells me so! And if science says a different thing then forget about science!

Not to be picky, but I didn't see this response in either of those threads.

Here is my reasoning: If you believe that God is self-consistent (which is pretty basic), then everything He does or says must in some way reflect who He is.

Can you expound on this? I fail to see the logic here.

Thus He reveals Himself not just through His Word in Scripture, but also through nature and the scientific study of nature. God's Word is revealed in writing to us in Scripture; but He also speaks, albeit a little softer and sometimes with confusing distractions, in science.

I’ve wasted a fair amount of my time in thinking about this argument. On one side it seems to be true that the creation cries out that there had to be a Creator. On the other hand, to say that the scientific study of His creation is on anywhere close to being on par with the Bible is going a little overboard IMHO.

Now, how would you like it if I told you that the Bible is atheistic? I would begin ...

If I dared say that I actually meant all that XP I'd be stoned on the spot. And rightly so. So why should YEC "scientists" get away with doing the same thing to the Word of God as revealed in nature?

Hypothetical speaking, let’s assume that we can elevate science to “the Word of God as revealed in nature.” Does it not bother you that those that have been entrusted with it are not solely men of God that are dedicated in maintaining His Word? To add insult to injury, science has been defined as a naturalistic process, right? If we are to accept this definition, then by this very definition science is shown to be biased. It can never consider all of the possibilities if it disregards a supernatural creation.

If science seems to contradict the Bible, there can only be these choices:
1. Science is of the devil, and the Bible is of God.
2. Science is of God and/or right, and the Bible is inaccurate and/or wrong.
3. Science and the Bible are both of God; I need to understand how they fit.
4. Science and the Bible are both of God - I don't know how and I don't care to know!

Position 1 is taken by YECs who are too stubborn to face the evidence. But this position can't be valid! Position 2 is taken by atheists, etc.

Where do I fit in? I believe the Bible is the Word of God, but I'm open to the possibility that I've misunderstood it. I personally love science (especially physics), but on the other hand, I have lost complete faith in parts of the scientific community (mainly biology). So, I'm left with the Bible that has never been wrong telling me one thing and the scientific community telling me that 'they got it right... again'. Can you guess which one I believe?

I'm going to spend this year (as I had already planned before this) finishing the rest of the Bible (I'm at Deuteronomy now), figuring out how this adjusted view of things would fit in with the rest of the Bible. Until then, I have no fixed views (other than that many YEC scientists are pretty irresponsible =P).

I wish you the best on your journey. Feel free to pm me if you have any questions or would just like to argue about something

God bless,
Remus

 

[Calminian]

miracles are not contrary to science, only to the naturalistic philosophy.

Who said miracles are contrary to science? Scientists themselves say science cannot verify nor falsify a miracle. Miracles are outside the realm of scientific investigation. That miracles are contrary to science is a nonsensical statement. One a form if investigation, the other is an event. It's like saying clowns are contrary to volleyball.