Creation & Evolution ‘Free-for-all’

[inquiring mind]

I like Warden_of_the_ Storm’s thread. From the comments everyone seems like horses at the starting gate, so I thought I’d open it up a little.


No specific topic… hopefully, comments will fuel the discussion.

 

[inquiring mind]

I like Warden_of_the_ Storm’s thread. From the comments everyone seems like horses at the starting gate, so I thought I’d open it up a little.

One Rule Only: To enter it in any form or fashion first state a quandary, difficulty, something ‘you’ find lacking or that ‘stumps’ you when you are defending ‘your own explanation of your own position,’ and that includes before giving a response to someone who has stated theirs. After you have stated it once, you no longer have to include it in any comments (I’m sure someone will call you out if you have failed to do so). It’s not rocket science and if you have nothing perplexing in your personal position this is not the discussion for you.

No specific topic… hopefully, comments will fuel the discussion.

I’m a Creationist and I believe in the Bible, even though I often misinterpret it, and I try to avoid getting into ‘literal or not’ discussions. Having said that, ‘time’ seems to be the most perplexing thing for me in most arguments. I don’t question the Bible, but I question our understanding of time, whether it be a little or a lot, in regard to interpreting it.

 

[pitabread]

To enter it in any form or fashion first state a quandary, difficulty, something ‘you’ find lacking or that ‘stumps’ you when you are defending ‘your own explanation of your own position,’ and that includes before giving a response to someone who has stated theirs.

What stumps me the most is how to bridge the gap between understandings of the subject matter in question.

More often than not, I find creationists' interpretation or understanding of the science in question to not be reflective of my own understanding. I'm usually at a loss as to how to proceed beyond that, since I find people get awfully defensive when told they don't understand a subject. :/

 

[pitabread]

Having said that, ‘time’ seems to be the most perplexing thing for me in most arguments. I don’t question the Bible, but I question our understanding of time, whether it be a little or a lot, in regard to interpreting it.

Can you elaborating on what you mean by this? Are you talking about in terms of how time is determined (e.g. age of the Earth, etc)? Or are you talking about time in a conceptual fashion?

 

[inquiring mind]

Can you elaborating on what you mean by this? Are you talking about in terms of how time is determined (e.g. age of the Earth, etc)? Or are you talking about time in a conceptual fashion?

Conceptional mostly... 24 hr. days vs. ages etc. Also, things like were the generations in Genesis intended for dating purposes?

 

[inquiring mind]

More often than not, I find creationists' interpretation or understanding of the science in question to not be reflective of my own understanding. I'm usually at a loss as to how to proceed beyond that, since I find people get awfully defensive when told they don't understand a subject. :/

Do you not think that your lack of interpretation or understanding of the Creationist perspective contributes to that?

 

[pitabread]

Do you not think that your lack of interpretation or understanding of the Creationist perspective contributes to that?

Quite possibly. And I've tried to ask myself this question, drilling down to the fundamental gaps in the discussion.

For example, one difference I have noticed in some discussions it this idea of equating understanding with belief. I've had discussions with a couple creationists whereby the resistance to learning about scientific subjects (e.g. biological evolution) seemed to predicated on their lack of acceptance of the ideas.

To me belief and understanding are distinct ideas. It's possible to understand something without necessarily believing it (e.g. you can learn about something you disagree with) and vise-versa; it's possible to believe something without understanding it. For example, I've consumed loads of creationist literature over the years in an effort to understand the arguments they make, even though I fundamentally disagree with a lot of it.

I'll ask you though, is there something you feel I lack in understanding or interpretation of the creationist perspective?

 

[inquiring mind]

Quite possibly. And I've tried to ask myself this question, drilling down to the fundamental gaps in the discussion.

For example, one difference I have noticed in some discussions it this idea of equating understanding with belief. I've had discussions with a couple creationists whereby the resistance to learning about scientific subjects (e.g. biological evolution) seemed to predicated on their lack of acceptance of the ideas.

To me belief and understanding are distinct ideas. It's possible to understand something without necessarily believing it (e.g. you can learn about something you disagree with) and vise-versa; it's possible to believe something without understanding it. For example, I've consumed loads of creationist literature over the years in an effort to understand the arguments they make, even though I fundamentally disagree with a lot of it.

I'll ask you though, is there something you feel I lack in understanding or interpretation of the creationist perspective?

Do you recall the old magistrate's comment in the movie Sleepy Hollow, "Seeing is believing"? Maybe it's not so much your interpretation of 'understanding & believing' as it is 'seeing.'

 

[pitabread]

Do you recall the old magistrate's comment in the movie Sleepy Hollow, "Seeing is believing"? Maybe it's not so much your interpretation of 'understanding & believing' as it is 'seeing.'

What do you mean specifically? Can you give me an example of what you're referring to?

 

[pitabread]

Conceptional mostly... 24 hr. days vs. ages etc. Also, things like were the generations in Genesis intended for dating purposes?

TBH, I'm probably not the right person to answer that.

I tend to look at it from a broader, extra-Biblical perspective; e.g. what does the sum total of knowledge indicate.

I've spent years looking into young Earth creationism and to me there is just too much in fundamental human knowledge that would have to be flat out incorrect (including physics, cosmology/astronomy, geology, biology/biogeography, and human history/anthropology) to support the notion that the world is only thousands of years old based on a literalistic interpretation of the Biblical text. There are also no independent methods that specifically corroborate the ages of the Earth/universe as suggested by YECs.

Likewise, predating the 19th century there were already notions of a non-literal interpretation of the Bible and Genesis. St. Augustine for example believed that creation was instantaneous as opposed to requiring a literal 6 days. Contemporary young-Earth creationist views are relatively modern phenomenon.

 

[inquiring mind]

What do you mean specifically? Can you give me an example of what you're referring to?

Generally speaking, maybe for you, like the old Sleepy Hollow magistrate, the simple answer is that 'seeing' only involves something physical and external.

 

[Speedwell]

Conceptional mostly... 24 hr. days vs. ages etc. Also, things like were the generations in Genesis intended for dating purposes?

I don't think so. But I'm not one to ask, either. I'm an Anglican, educated by Catholics, and my friends who are Christian tend to be Anglicans, Catholics, Orthodox or Oriental Christians. I don't have much contact with Protestants, particularly Evangelicals, except in forums like this one. It has always been a mystery to me that creationists believe what they do about the Word of God. I know people have tried to deduce the biblical age of the Earth from such things as the genealogies but to suppose that they were put there for that purpose seems unfathomable to me.

 

[pitabread]

Generally speaking, maybe for you, like the old Sleepy Hollow magistrate, the simple answer is that 'seeing' only involves something physical and external.

I'm still not following you. Explain it like I'm five.

 

[inquiring mind]

TBH, I'm probably not the right person to answer that.

I tend to look at it from a broader, extra-Biblical perspective; e.g. what does the sum total of knowledge indicate.

I've spent years looking into young Earth creationism and to me there is just too much in fundamental human knowledge that would have to be flat out incorrect (including physics, cosmology/astronomy, geology, biology/biogeography, and human history/anthropology) to support the notion that the world is only thousands of years old based on a literalistic interpretation of the Biblical text. There are also no independent methods that specifically corroborate the ages of the Earth/universe as suggested by YECs.

Likewise, predating the 19th century there were already notions of a non-literal interpretation of the Bible and Genesis. St. Augustine for example believed that creation was instantaneous as opposed to requiring a literal 6 days. Contemporary young-Earth creationist views are relatively modern phenomenon.

Hence, my perplexing with time. As I said, I don’t think we understand time. But, if the Bible really meant ages instead of hours, would you still consider it irrelevant?

 

[pitabread]

But, if the Bible really meant ages instead of hours, would you still consider it irrelevant?

What do you mean "consider it irrelevant"?

If you mean in the context of dating the age of the Earth and universe, I don't think that is the intent of the Bible.

If one wants to determine the ages of the Earth and universe, you do it by examining them directly.

 

[Speedwell]

Hence, my perplexing with time. As I said, I don’t think we understand time. But, if the Bible really meant ages instead of hours, would you still consider it irrelevant?

It would be irrelevant even if science and the Bible happened to agree on the age of the Earth. As Pitabread pointed out, if you want to know the age of the Earth, you find out by examining the Earth, not by reading a book which is about something else altogether.

 

[inquiring mind]

I'm still not following you. Explain it like I'm five.

But, you’re not five. Do you not believe there is a reality outside of a Spock-like and Sherlock Holmes-like perception… things beyond the physical world and our immediate senses? Call it heart-felt, Holy Spirit led, whatever. Do you not believe these involve ‘seeing?’

 

[pitabread]

But, you’re not five.

It's an Office reference (which has become somewhat of a meme).

Do you not believe there is a reality outside of a Spock-like and Sherlock Holmes-like perception… things beyond the physical world and our immediate senses? Call it heart-felt, Holy Spirit led, whatever. Do you not believe these involve ‘seeing?’

I don't actually know. Insofar as what I have experienced directly, I don't have any evidence of such a thing.

However, I'm at a bit of a loss as to what this has to do with bridging the gap when it comes to understanding of physical phenomena (e.g. biological evolution).

 

[inquiring mind]

What do you mean "consider it irrelevant"?

If you mean in the context of dating the age of the Earth and universe, I don't think that is the intent of the Bible.

If one wants to determine the ages of the Earth and universe, you do it by examining them directly.

No, I'm not dating anything or saying the Bible does. Remember, I said it's time we don't understand. You infer the Bible is wrong if it means the Creation was in 24-hour days, but if it really meant ages...

 

[TJB]

What do you mean "consider it irrelevant"?

If you mean in the context of dating the age of the Earth and universe, I don't think that is the intent of the Bible.

If one wants to determine the ages of the Earth and universe, you do it by examining them directly.

Maybe helpful to chip in here - the father of geology was a priest, who became a Bishop. Nicholas Steno. Very interesting guy - made cutting edge breakthroughs with fossils and crystallography.... but also a man of deep faith, both the science and the faith are compatible.