Creationism and Theology

[Resha Caner]

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

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

 

[2PhiloVoid]

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

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

Great question, Resha! I know that from my own experience as an evolutionist, it has been difficult (to put it mildly) to attempt to reconcile the physical fact of a long evolutionary history with the much shorter, genealogically laden, Hebrew representation of human history we find in the Bible. So, for me, the main issue has been dealing with the main bug-a-boo of "if Adam didn't exist, then what was Jesus needed for?" and related kinds of questions.

Other than that, I'm busting my chops to try to think of some other major theological hurdle I had to jump over in order to accept Christianity and the Bible as God's Work. I guess there was also the question of whether and how we have something like a soul ... and all that.

 

[Resha Caner]

"if Adam didn't exist, then what was Jesus needed for?" and related kinds of questions.

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

I guess there was also the question of whether and how we have something like a soul ... and all that.

I don't think most people have a clear conception what they're talking about when they speak of spirit and soul. It's just some vague "other". That's a big roadblock to discussing how or if we have one.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

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

...one hurdle is to face up to the fact that, however ironic it may sound to them, Christians who are Theological Evolutionist (OR even Evolutionary Theists) very often consider themselves to fall under the category of 'Creationists.' Obviously, the conceptual warp and woof of what TEs mean in placing themselves in the category of Creationism is a little different that what YECs would define as their definitional position when using the same term. Nevertheless, YECs need to understand that even someone like me considers himself to be a kind of 'Creationist,' even if you won't hear me use that term to describe my theological position unless pressed.

I don't think most people have a clear conception what they're talking about when they speak of spirit and soul. It's just some vague "other". That's a big roadblock to discussing how or if we have one.

Sure. At present, I take a generally agnostic position on the whole thing, and on a theological level, I lean more toward one of the older Jewish concepts of a unified personhood rather than a Grecian substance of being that is eternal which can be separated clearly from the body. But again, I don't debate it either way with Fundamentalist Christian brethren since I don't think we have very much info to enable us to really know.

 

[Resha Caner]

...one hurdle is to face up to the fact that, however ironic it may sound to them, Christians who are Theological Evolutionist (OR even Evolutionary Theists) very often consider themselves to fall under the category of 'Creationists.'

I, myself, don't like TEs calling themselves creationists. IMO it's a disingenuous appropriation of a word. But I do see many YECs struggle to accept TEs as Christians, which is something I've gotten over. I think the struggle stems from a different theological issue wherein many American evangelicals seem to think they can create a checklist that will verify if other people are saved. IMO they're playing God.

I lean more toward one of the older Jewish concepts of a unified personhood rather than Grecian substance of being that is eternal and can be separated clearly from the body.

I tend that way myself. Most don't seem to realize many ideas about "soul" are Greek imports into their religion.

But again, I don't debate it either way with Fundamentalist Christian brethren since I don't think we have very much info to enable us to really know.

I don't either ... anymore. I didn't like the muddle and wanted clarity in my own mind. My way of achieving that clarity tends to be debate (my apologies to those who had to suffer through those debates with me). But now that the clarity is there, I don't think about it much anymore.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

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

Ok. After mulling over your question one more time, I'm beginning to think you're wanting to ask something that is more nuanced. So, what theological hurdles do I think creationists (on the whole) face?

I'd have to say that it comes down to the epistemic issues inherent to how any one of us tries to identify and interpret "meaning" in the structures of the world/universe around us, structures that might indicate in some fashion "HI, Everyone! It's Me, God! Surprise!"

 

[Resha Caner]

Ok. After mulling over your question one more time, I'm beginning to think you're wanting to ask something that is more nuanced. So, what theological hurdles do I think creationists (on the whole) face?

Yes.

I'd have to say that it comes down to the epistemic issues inherent to how any one of us tries to identify and interpret "meaning" in the structures of the world/universe around us, structures that might indicate in some fashion "HI, Everyone! It's Me, God! Surprise!"

Interesting. Not what I expected, but that's what makes it worth asking the question.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I, myself, don't like TEs calling themselves creationists. IMO it's a disingenuous appropriation of a word. But I do see many YECs struggle to accept TEs as Christians, which is something I've gotten over. I think the struggle stems from a different theological issue wherein many American evangelicals seem to think they can create a checklist that will verify if other people are saved. IMO they're playing God.

I know. I get how it must appear and how some fellow Christians think I'm promoting a "disingenuous" appropriation of the creationist's jargon. But, I've been called worse -- like "frigg'n heretic," or some other identifiable yet choice aspersion. However, at the end of the day, I'll line up with the rest and be one of those who'll say, even if for different philosophical reasons, "God Did It!"

I tend that way myself. Most don't seem to realize many ideas about "soul" are Greek imports into their religion.

I don't either ... anymore. I didn't like the muddle and wanted clarity in my own mind. My way of achieving that clarity tends to be debate (my apologies to those who had to suffer through those debates with me). But now that the clarity is there, I don't think about it much anymore.

Same here.

 

[PloverWing]

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

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

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

 

[Hammster]

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

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

That could be valid. Do you have scripture that you could use to make this argument?

 

[Pavel Mosko]

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

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

Fascinating Questions.

I am an Old Earth Creationist myself. I really had trouble making sense of things until I found Hugh Ross Reasons to believe around late 1990. I found his view that Genesis could be reconciled with Science based on the interpret of Yom/day as an age a breath of fresh air. Previously I deferred with Young Earth Creationists. But that point of view is problematic. We have various ways of calculating time. In some ways calculating time is not that much different than how we calculate distance abstractly speaking. While there are things that can throw off radar and other instruments, those kind of variables do not exist to an extant that we consider radar useless, but that is the exact point of view of many Young Earth Creationists on the topic. Even my father, an electrical engineer, an expert in radar etc. adopts this point of view on carbon dating etc. Even though he is much more an expert in statistics than I am, when it comes to all the measurement error, standard deviation stuff. But mathematically this is not something that is really logical, it is a point of view driven by ideology.


I understand that most if not all Church Fathers assume a Young Earth straightforward reading of Genesis. Augustine was the most flexible conceding that the Genesis account "was difficult" and that Church should not paint themselves into a corner when it came to understanding it (Time and study of the book might influence its interpretation). But saying all this, Young Earth Creationism wasn't dogmatized until the Scopes Monkey trial of the late 1800s where Biblical Fundamentalists made this a litmus test of orthodoxy. So I would hope, based on that point that (Christian) Theistic Evolutionists would be able to have their point of view respected as being inside the big tent of mainstream Christian orthodoxy.

 

[Brightmoon]

I’ve slways had this thing about science. If a science fact disagrees with a religious belief , then I accept the science. If it interferes with a specific dogma then either the dogma is wrong or it has been misinterpreted. In other words, it’s not something I worry about much.

 

[trophy33]

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

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

The biggest problem I see with the YEC is that it forces people to believe in something that did not happen. That it forces some Christians to accept ancient summerian ideas about the universe as "given by God and perfectly technical".

This forced contradiction with reality has many wrong outcomes for both Christians and potential Christians.

 

[Resha Caner]

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

Yeah. It always seems to me the "God buried dinosaur bones to test us" line is given out of fear.

However, this does somewhat relate to my biggest struggle in this debate. I think there is a reasonable creationist answer to the data.

I also think it's fascinating that, scientists who are exceptionally rigorous in the particulars, think sweeping extrapolations are acceptable on bigger scales, e.g. Sagan's "billions and billions" or Tyson's pontificating about God. It's their own version of "God buried dinosaur bones".

But that's a digression. As I was saying, my struggle is that I want to be able to relate to evolutionists. The problem, though, is their refusal to move beyond the mechanistic. IMO it's an implicit claim that humans can comprehend everything. But the problem is that if I meet their mechanistic demand, I've conceded the argument from the get-go. That's not a theological problem, but it is a problem.

 

[Resha Caner]

We have various ways of calculating time. In some ways calculating time is not that much different than how we calculate distance abstractly speaking.

Very true. You may be the first person here (besides myself) who has said that. Most react as if I'm insane when I start talking measurement theory.

I'm not OEC. I take Genesis at face value. However, I do think perception of time plays a big part.

 

[Tree of Life]

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

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

Why should this be the case?

Imagine that the creation story is true and that God created the world in six regular days. Then suppose on the eighth day God asked Adam:

"Adam, how old do you think these rocks are?"
"Adam, how old is this tree? Cut it open and count the rings, what do you think?"
"Adam, dig through the soil. What's it made of? Decomposing organic matter? How old do you suppose this soil is?"
"Adam, you're a full grown man. But how old are you? How long have you been around?"

Any version of creationism, no matter how you cut it, implies that God created a mature world. Does this mean that God is deceptive? Does this mean that we must deny what our senses tell us? Not at all. It simply means that our sense perception is not the only thing to take into account. We must also take into account God's own testimony which we have in Scripture.

 

[Resha Caner]

I’ve slways had this thing about science. If a science fact disagrees with a religious belief , then I accept the science. If it interferes with a specific dogma then either the dogma is wrong or it has been misinterpreted. In other words, it’s not something I worry about much.

Mmm. "Fact" is a tricky word. When I hit a wall in my research many years ago (I'm an engineer) I dug into the philosophy of science. Things are not always as they seem.

 

[Resha Caner]

The biggest problem I see with the YEC is that it forces people to believe in something that did not happen. That it forces some Christians to accept ancient summerian ideas about the universe as "given by God and perfectly technical".

What Sumerian ideas?

 

[Tree of Life]

I think the biggest problem that YECs have with other positions is that it seems like they don't take Scripture seriously. This is not universally the case, but I think we'll see on this thread many people dismiss the early chapters of Genesis as uninformed Sumerian mythology. And the problem with this is that there is no good method of determining what parts of the Bible we decide to take seriously and what other parts we might dismiss as myth. We ourselves become the ultimate arbiter. We accept what is acceptable to us and reject what appears to us to be absurd. That's a dangerous place to be.

 

[Jamsie]

That could be valid. Do you have scripture that you could use to make this argument?

I appreciate that the question you pose is not asked of me but...Romans 1:20, and Psalm 19.