Everyone welcome

[Didaskomenos]

I was for it until Herev pointed out the fine print.

Wow. Then you're more magnanimous than I!

 

[lucaspa]

Just remember everyone amongst all the dennounciations of Creationism, that these people are part of the Body of Christ as well, they just have different views on the orgins of the planet to us - a realitively small thing compared to the things we most likely have in common (ie the contents of the Nicene Creed), and as such we must treat their ideas with the respect we wish our ideas to be treated. After all it is through discussing things that we all learn.
Crayman

OK, I'm going to get myself in trouble here. My problem with creationism -- YEC -- and the Biblical literalism behind it is that it may violate the Nicene Creed.

"Maker of Heaven and Earth, (Genesis 1: 1)
and of all things visible and invisible."

However, when creationism finds things in "heaven and earth" that contradicts creationism, what happens? They deny that these are from God! We are to ignore them and look only at the Bible. This is at the heart of the ICR oath:

"(1)The Bible is the written Word of God, and because we believe it to be inspired thruout, all of its assertions are historically and scientifically true in all of the original autographs. To the student of nature, this means that the account of origins in Genesis is a factual presentation of simple historical truths." No mention of God making heaven and earth and, therefore, what we find there comes from God. Only the Bible is a factual representation. To the "student of nature", God making nature doesn't exist.

 

[herev]

OK, I'm going to get myself in trouble here. My problem with creationism -- YEC -- and the Biblical literalism behind it is that it may violate the Nicene Creed.

"Maker of Heaven and Earth, (Genesis 1: 1)
and of all things visible and invisible."

However, when creationism finds things in "heaven and earth" that contradicts creationism, what happens? They deny that these are from God! We are to ignore them and look only at the Bible. This is at the heart of the ICR oath:

"(1)The Bible is the written Word of God, and because we believe it to be inspired thruout, all of its assertions are historically and scientifically true in all of the original autographs. To the student of nature, this means that the account of origins in Genesis is a factual presentation of simple historical truths." No mention of God making heaven and earth and, therefore, what we find there comes from God. Only the Bible is a factual representation. To the "student of nature", God making nature doesn't exist.

Now you've done it--there coming after you--and they know where you live!

 

[lucaspa]

Let this thread always be remembered as the one where lucaspa shed his cool academic exterior for one of activism in the cause of Christian "orthodoxy"! I like this new side of you, man!

Seriously, I understand the reasoning behind not condemning our creationist brothers and sisters.

I try very hard to avoid equating the peeple with the idea. Ideas are independent of the advocates. And most creationists are honest people who are getting conned by a very few professionals who, for their own personal agendas, are spreading this false witness.

But lucaspa has a point as well: creationism isn't just bad science - it's anti-science, and that is a detriment to our witness. Creationism isn't just a bad interpretation - it's based on dangerous hermeneutical principles that subject to ridicule our Scriptures and the Truth they testify to. Creationism isn't just another view of the Bible - it's an oh-so-slippery slope into idolatry of the Bible.

It's the last one that is the problem. It's not that creationism is anti-science, it's that it is, at bottom, anti-Christian.

We all try to tiptoe around the problem, trying not to hurt anyone's feelings. But creationism is not the good guy. It is not the defender of the Right against the atheistic evil of Evolution! It is a leading of thousands of our brothers and sisters into worship of the false idol of a literal interpretation of the Bible. It says "ignore that God created, and consider the Bible the Word of God." We've seen this by several posters. No longer is Jesus the Word, but the Bible is "the Word" talked about in John 1:1!

If this trend is not stopped and reversed, eventually we will have a religion that is named "Christianity" but it really won't be Christianity anymore. It will be something else.

Given the Nicene Creed as their foundation, the forums should subject every topic to as much honest criticism as possible, rather than shielding it from evaluation by giving it an untouchable cave to thrive within.

Right. Whenever creationism has been introduced in the public schools, it has had to sneak around out of sight. What truth has to hide like that? After the fact, then Christians have to rise up and fight fellow Christians to get the offending standards or legislation removed. And creationism is always removed.

 

[pressingon]

OK, I'm going to get myself in trouble here. My problem with creationism -- YEC -- and the Biblical literalism behind it is that it may violate the Nicene Creed.

"Maker of Heaven and Earth, (Genesis 1: 1)
and of all things visible and invisible."

However, when creationism finds things in "heaven and earth" that contradicts creationism, what happens? They deny that these are from God! We are to ignore them and look only at the Bible. This is at the heart of the ICR oath:

"(1)The Bible is the written Word of God, and because we believe it to be inspired thruout, all of its assertions are historically and scientifically true in all of the original autographs. To the student of nature, this means that the account of origins in Genesis is a factual presentation of simple historical truths." No mention of God making heaven and earth and, therefore, what we find there comes from God. Only the Bible is a factual representation. To the "student of nature", God making nature doesn't exist.

I don't know that you'll get yourself into trouble... it's enlightening for all of us to understand what theological problems you believe are contained within the YEC viewpoint.

Maybe I'm just confused by your wording, but I was aware not of any YEC claim denying that something found in nature is from God, violating the Nicene creed in that manner. So I can better understand where you're coming from, could you provide examples of what you mean, as well as a link to the ICR Oath (I'm not familiar with ICR, to be honest, even though I hold to the YEC viewpoint)?

For the record, I'm not trying to start a debate, but simply want to gain a better understanding of where you're coming from. That's the real value of these sub-forums, in my opinion.... both sides are free (hopefully) to post their viewpoints and their problems with the opposing viewpoint without the distraction of debate.

 

[lucaspa]

Maybe I'm just confused by your wording, but I was aware not of any YEC claim denying that something found in nature is from God, violating the Nicene creed in that manner. So I can better understand where you're coming from, could you provide examples of what you mean,

Over in the Creation Forum, Potluck just posted:
"But no matter what the author is trying to say The Creator himself always says it best.

The Lord is my banner makes a good point of caution. If the author gets off the path then maybe it's best to find another book more aligned with the bible. The bible is our measuring stick, our foundation. [/quote] http://www.christianforums.com/t802705
This was in response to a comment about a book by Lee Strobel that sought to show that science supports the idea of a Creator. However, TheLordisMyBanner noted: "2/ He doesn't seem to be supporting a creationist view, rather guided evolution.
More a TE-friendly book I think." So, God's Creation as viewed by science had shown guided evolution. That had to be wrong, because only the Bible is our measuring stick! NOT "God is our measuring stick" or even "Jesus is our measuring stick." But "the bible is our measuring stick." God is pushed away and "the bible" replaces Him.

ICR is the Institute for Creation Research and is the oldest of YEC organizations. You can find it at www.icr.org The Oath was one required of ICR scientists and can be found by searching for Act 590 on the web. It was entered in testimony at the Arkansas Trial in 1982.

ICR has since modified the oath. However, it still places the Bible as the only means of knowing science:
"The Bible, consisting of the thirty-nine canonical books of the Old Testament and the twenty-seven canonical books of the New Testament, is the divinely-inspired revelation of the Creator to man. Its unique, plenary, verbal inspiration guarantees that these writings, as originally and miraculously given, are infallible and completely authoritative on all matters with which they deal, free from error of any sort, scientific and historical as well as moral and theological. "

Once again, anything in Creation that goes against this must be ignored. Only the Bible is from God and, therefore, accurate.

"However, a part of the spiritual creation, Satan and his angels, rebelled against God after the creation and are attempting to thwart His divine purposes in creation. " This is unclear to me. Is it to imply that anything in Creation that goes against "the Bible" are put there by Satan? That Creation is not all God's anymore?

(I'm not familiar with ICR, to be honest, even though I hold to the YEC viewpoint)?

This I don't understand. Henry Morris founded modern YEC with The Genesis Flood in 1962. He then founded ICR when that American Scientific Affiliate -- an organization of evangelical, conservative Christian scientists refused to accept YEC as valid. How can anyone be a YEC and not know about ICR? Sorry, but it is inconceivable to me to hear someone say they hold to a viewpoint but know so little about it. It's like me saying: "I hold to evolution. Who is this guy Darwin? What is On the Origin of Species? Never read it." Does most of humanity just jump and "know" without trying to find out anything and everything they can about a subject?

To add to your education, in the Arkansas Trial the creationists -- trying to get "scientific creationism" in public schools -- did pretrial discovery of statements of fact. Here is the theological result of one of those statements.

"In the final issue I would like to address the question of out-and-out heresy, potentially the destruction of the whole Christian enterprise through the ham-handed activities of well-intentioned but historically and theologically illiterate Christians. In the "Findings of Fact" filed by the Defendants in the Arkansas Case prior to adjudication, a truly deplorable statement was asserted in paragraph 35: 'Creation-science does presuppose the existence of a creator, to the same degree that evolution-science presupposes the existence of no creator. As used in the context of creation-science, as defined by 54(a) [sic]of Act 590, the terms or concepts of "creation" and "creator" are not inherently religious terms or concepts. In this sense, the term "creator" means only some entity with power, intelligence, and a sense of design. Creation-science does not require a creator who has a personality, who has the attributes of love, compassion, justice, etc., which are ordinarily attributed to a deity. Indeed, the creation-science model does not require that the creator still be in existence."
It would be hard to set emotional priorities, from bitter sorrow to deep anger, which this wretched formulation and its obvious and cynical compromise with mammon should evoke in any sensitive theological soul. Let us say nothing about the hypocrisy of good people who have obviously convinced themselves that a good cause can be supported by any mendacious and specious means whatsoever. The passage is perverse, however, not only because it says things that are untrue, namely that creationism presupposes a creator whereas evolutionism necessarily does not, and not only because 'creation' and 'creator' are proffered speciously secular, nonreligious definitions.
The worst thing about these unthinking and unhistorical formulations is what Langdon Gilkey pointed out at the Arkansas trial in December of 1981. The concept of a creator God distinct from the God of love and mercy is a reopening of the way to the Marcionist and Gnostic heresies, among the deadliest ever to afflict Christianity. That those who make such formulations do not seriously intend them save as a debating ploy does not mitigate their essential malevolence." Bruce Vawter, "Creationism: creative misuse of the Bible" in Is God a Creationist? Ed. by Roland Frye, Charles Scribner's Sons, 1983

 

[pressingon]

Thanks for your thoughtful response!

Once again, anything in Creation that goes against this must be ignored. Only the Bible is from God and, therefore, accurate.

Considering the text that prompted my original question, I can see where you're coming from much better from this. Your original wording said:

However, when creationism finds things in "heaven and earth" that contradicts creationism, what happens? They deny that these are from God! We are to ignore them and look only at the Bible."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but what you intended to convey was not so much that YEC's dismiss the "things" (rocks, fossils, DNA, whatever) themselves as not from God, but rather the interpretations of what these things mean (evidence, I suppose) which go against a literal interpretation of the Bible. In that sense, I guess the interpretation could be said (by a YEC) to be coming, "not from God." (I feel a bit foolish for my initial confusion, to be honest!)

(I'm not familiar with ICR, to be honest, even though I hold to the YEC viewpoint)?

This I don't understand. Henry Morris founded modern YEC with The Genesis Flood in 1962. He then founded ICR when that American Scientific Affiliate -- an organization of evangelical, conservative Christian scientists refused to accept YEC as valid. How can anyone be a YEC and not know about ICR? Sorry, but it is inconceivable to me to hear someone say they hold to a viewpoint but know so little about it. It's like me saying: "I hold to evolution. Who is this guy Darwin? What is On the Origin of Species? Never read it." Does most of humanity just jump and "know" without trying to find out anything and everything they can about a subject?

I can understand your confusion. I use the term YEC simply because it best characterizes my viewpoint regarding our origins. As I've outlined in previous posts in this forum (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=8523383#post8523383), my YEC viewpoint comes not from institutions such as ICR, but from careful examination of the evidence for / against evolution in preparation for a new study I was planning to teach in Sunday School. Since then, yes, I've heard of ICR (and various other creationist groups), but as the quote above SHOULD have said, I'm not VERY familiar with them.

Anyway, believe me on this one... my worldview is certainly not something that I just jumped into, but came through a lot of prayer, research (both scientific and Biblical), and soul-searching. Maybe that seems a little unbelievable to some of you, but it's true nonetheless.

Hope this helps you to understand where I'm coming from. I feel I'm gaining a better understanding of your viewpoints as well.

God bless....

 

[Bushido216]

There once was a hobbit named Nob,
He was feeling quite bored,
And wanted to Lord,
So he set out to find Bob.

Well, he tripped on the Lump,
Let out quite a sound,
Spun right round,
And landed with a BUMP!

 

[lucaspa]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but what you intended to convey was not so much that YEC's dismiss the "things" (rocks, fossils, DNA, whatever) themselves as not from God, but rather the interpretations of what these things mean (evidence, I suppose) which go against a literal interpretation of the Bible. In that sense, I guess the interpretation could be said (by a YEC) to be coming, "not from God." (I feel a bit foolish for my initial confusion, to be honest!)

Creationism does both! Depending on what argument they are using at the time.

When the evidence against creationism gets overwhelming, creationists have said that the evidence was planted by Satan! That's what the other quote from the present ICR site seems to be saying to me, but I've seen it said in much plainer terms.

They reject that Creation is from God and has equal, if not superior, standing to their interpretation of the Bible. Notice that Potluck stated that the Bible is the standard. Not GOD! The ICR site said that the Bible is absolutely correct. Again, not God is correct, but the Bible. So, the evidence found in Creation that goes against "the Bible" is dismissed or ignored. Not re-interpreted or explained, but dismissed or ignored.

I can understand your confusion. I use the term YEC simply because it best characterizes my viewpoint regarding our origins. As I've outlined in previous posts in this forum (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=8523383#post8523383), my YEC viewpoint comes not from institutions such as ICR, but from careful examination of the evidence for / against evolution in preparation for a new study I was planning to teach in Sunday School.

1. What exactly do you mean by "careful examination of the evidence for/against evolution"? What did you use for sources?

2. If YEC best characterizes your viewpoint, don't you think you should know exactly and in detail what YEC is so that you can know where the differences and similarities your viewpoint has with YEC? And wouldn't that lead you to ICR?

Anyway, believe me on this one... my worldview is certainly not something that I just jumped into, but came through a lot of prayer, research (both scientific and Biblical), and soul-searching. Maybe that seems a little unbelievable to some of you, but it's true nonetheless.

Pardon my skepticism, but whenever I've encountered this statement before, I have found that the "research" has included only creationist sources! That, to me, is not research.

What I find difficult to believe is that anyone who has done real research into the science could reach your conclusion. The evidence is overwhelming that YEC is wrong. And yes, I find it difficult to think that prayer led you to a conclusion of YEC when God so clearly shouts in His Creation and in the Bible that YEC is wrong.

 

[PaladinValer]

OK, I'm going to get myself in trouble here. My problem with creationism -- YEC -- and the Biblical literalism behind it is that it may violate the Nicene Creed.

"Maker of Heaven and Earth, (Genesis 1: 1)
and of all things visible and invisible."

However, when creationism finds things in "heaven and earth" that contradicts creationism, what happens? They deny that these are from God! We are to ignore them and look only at the Bible. This is at the heart of the ICR oath:

"(1)The Bible is the written Word of God, and because we believe it to be inspired thruout, all of its assertions are historically and scientifically true in all of the original autographs. To the student of nature, this means that the account of origins in Genesis is a factual presentation of simple historical truths." No mention of God making heaven and earth and, therefore, what we find there comes from God. Only the Bible is a factual representation. To the "student of nature", God making nature doesn't exist.

!

Holy cow...

Your right......

Then it is denial of the Nicene Creed!

 

[lucaspa]

Pressington in another thread:

What a coincidence! I'm not a "scientist" either, but studied physics while majoring in electrical engineering in college. I completed my bachelor of science degree in electrical engineering (graduating summa cum laude), and have just recently obtained licensure as a professional engineer.

That explains it. Most of the scientists who are creationists are engineers. Henry Morris was a hydraulic engineer. There's something in the education of an engineer that makes it difficult for them to understand biology.

Found nothing wrong with the concept of natural selection, but ended up being convinced that there was not sufficient evidence to accept evolution as truth and abandon a straightforward reading of the Bible. The most convincing evidence (to me) was how improbable the formation of life from non-living things seems, and how improbable it seems that life could go from simple single-celled organisms to such complex creatures as humans by genetic information increase.

As an engineer, you should know the pitfalls of GIGO. The "improbability" comes from GIGO. Life arises from very probable (read "certain") chemical reactions:
http://www.siu.edu/~protocell/issue1.htm
http://www.siu.edu/~protocell/
http://www.theharbinger.org/articles/rel_sci/fox.html
http://www.christianforums.com/t155621

Notice that your objection about abiogenesis also reveals that you mistakenly equate evolution with absence of God.
Now, engineering should have taught you that selection increases information. And what do you have? natural selection! Mutations that end up making more DNA -- gene duplication, chromosome duplication, transposon insertions, etc -- increase the material where the information is stored. Like adding more pages of text to a book. Natural selection takes that extra text and increases the information in it.

There, that should solve your problems with evolution.

 

[Didaskomenos]

"Maker of Heaven and Earth, (Genesis 1: 1)
and of all things visible and invisible."

However, when creationism finds things in "heaven and earth" that contradicts creationism, what happens? They deny that these are from God! We are to ignore them and look only at the Bible. This is at the heart of the ICR oath:

"(1)The Bible is the written Word of God, and because we believe it to be inspired thruout, all of its assertions are historically and scientifically true in all of the original autographs. To the student of nature, this means that the account of origins in Genesis is a factual presentation of simple historical truths." No mention of God making heaven and earth and, therefore, what we find there comes from God. Only the Bible is a factual representation. To the "student of nature", God making nature doesn't exist.

Oh, great. Another reason for fundamentalists to reject the faith of the Church prior to 1517. Good job, lucaspa!

 

[lucaspa]

Oh, great. Another reason for fundamentalists to reject the faith of the Church prior to 1517. Good job, lucaspa!

would you care to explain this?

 

[Didaskomenos]

A bit of a joke. Fundies love to despise everything having to do with the Catholic church, and often roll their eyes when a "creed" is mentioned. I was joking that the Nicene Creed arguing against literalism was another reason to distrust the pre-Protestant church.

 

[Bushido216]

No one liked my poem... I made that up myself...

 

[pressingon]

I apologize if this response is a bit incomplete... I've been trying to get to this all day, but preparations for the holiday weekend (travelling) have prevented such until now (when I really should be sleeping). If there's anything that it seems I've left out, let me know and I'll get to it next week when I'm back.

When the evidence against creationism gets overwhelming, creationists have said that the evidence was planted by Satan! That's what the other quote from the present ICR site seems to be saying to me, but I've seen it said in much plainer terms.

Seems like I need to do some more reading about ICR. That's about the most ludicrous explanation for evidence contrary to YEC I've ever heard. I guess I can't say for fact that Satan DOESN'T do that, but then again, to say he does seems quite a stretch. I would say that it's more likely that he influences our interpretations and understandings of what God has created (of course, we do that without his "help" plenty!).

Anyway, I guess what I've just written, to some extent, sounds like what you're talking about ICR doing. It's not intended as such, but rather just to state an observation that we all tend to pick falsehood over truth from time to time, even when truth should seem obvious.

They reject that Creation is from God and has equal, if not superior, standing to their interpretation of the Bible. Notice that Potluck stated that the Bible is the standard. Not GOD! The ICR site said that the Bible is absolutely correct. Again, not God is correct, but the Bible. So, the evidence found in Creation that goes against "the Bible" is dismissed or ignored. Not re-interpreted or explained, but dismissed or ignored.

I think we can both agree that God has given us two accounts of the "hows" of Creation... one being the creation itself, the other being the Bible. BOTH require interpretation to glean truth, and it's our interpretations that lead us astray. If ICR dismisses evidence rather than re-interpreting or explaining it, then they're certainly, at minimum, not fully supporting their position, and, at worst, being dishonest. Before making that judgment, though, I need to research their organization thoroughly.

I realize this is not a debate forum, but can I make one quick point in their defense (to promote understanding, not in an attempt at argument)? Most (if not all) YEC's believe that the Bible is 100% correct, and contains the word of God (not to be confused with the Word, Jesus, as outlined in John 1:1). Perhaps given that assumption, you can see why it's generally treated by YEC's as the more reliable testament? To most YEC's, the Bible clearly reveals God's truth (as it's taken to be His divinely inspired words), and is understood by plain reading... little interpretation is required (primarily just recognizing when specific literary devices are in use). Understanding God's creation seems to take more interpretation, and in the viewpoint of YEC's, is thus more likely to be incorrectly understood.

1

. What exactly do you mean by "careful examination of the evidence for/against evolution"? What did you use for sources?

Don't jump my case here, but the study I was preparing for was "How Now Shall We Live?", by Chuck Colson. In reading his book, he outlined the creationist viewpoint, but what really struck me was a fictional story he wrote in that book detailing a father dealing with a son that was rejecting his faith due to overwhelming evidence contrary to the literal Genesis account of creation. In that story, the father made an agreement with the son that if he could not adequately explain how current science either was flawed in its support of evolution or how it actually supported the creation story, he would also abandon his faith. Of course, the story goes on to tell how he did indeed convince his son that evolution was wrong, and how everyone lived happily ever after, blah blah blah.

That's not the point I want to make though. The story itself intrigued me as a father-to-be... how would I answer questions like that from my children? I felt compelled to actually look at the evidence myself to be prepared for the questions that they'd no doubt ask as they read the Bible and learned about science. I felt as if my answer to that potential conflict, "well, God directed evolution", would not have been sufficient should those questions arise, so re-examining my stance and the evidence seemed most prudent.

Anyway, as for sources... I started with a list of questions that seemed to be problematic to a literal reading of the Bible. "How do scientists know the earth is billions of years old?", "How do we know that organisms evolve?", "How did organisms evolve?", "What about the dinosaurs?", etc. (I wish I would have written it down). Given that I had one explanation to most of these given to me from the book I was currently reading (again, Colson's work), I really didn't feel the need to research the creationist side too much (which is probably why I never ran across ICR). I searched for scientific evidence for these on the web, read a number of articles on each, and prayerfully considered what I'd learned from my reading of these and the Bible (again, wish I'd kept a record of what articles, journals, etc. that I came across).

Initially, some of the scientific arguments I'd read seemed quite bulletproof. However, as I got into the hows of evolution, specifically how we could conceivably end up with new species and new structures, I began to have my doubts whether what I was reading really was all that feasible. I understood how genetic information increase and change could occur... insertion mutations, transposition mutations, etc., but the odds seemed pretty unlikely, especially given the rates of mutation in genetic base pairs, the length of DNA strands, and the number of base pairs that are required for most genes. Being an engineer, and being oh too familiar with probabilities... it just didn't add up.

Anyway, once the first wall crumbled, it wasn't long before I started questioning more of the supporting evidence for evolution, and in time, I came to the opinion it had too many holes to hold as truth.

2. If YEC best characterizes your viewpoint, don't you think you should know exactly and in detail what YEC is so that you can know where the differences and similarities your viewpoint has with YEC? And wouldn't that lead you to ICR?

To be honest, I hadn't ever seen the term before I came to this site. I don't really see that ICR is the authority on exactly what a YEC is and isn't, anyway... the term seems pretty self-explanatory to me.

Anyway, having read what you've written about them, they're on my list of things to look into now.

That explains it. Most of the scientists who are creationists are engineers. Henry Morris was a hydraulic engineer. There's something in the education of an engineer that makes it difficult for them to understand biology.

I appreciate your humor there.... ever hear the one about the engineers arguing over what kind of engineer God was? Probably didn't help that perception much....

BTW, who's Henry Morris? (I'm tired and lazy tonight, and haven't done a websearch yet.)

As an engineer, you should know the pitfalls of GIGO.

Absolutely. GIGO is part of the reason I rejected evolution, interestingly enough (assumptions count as garbage in, from time to time).

There, that should solve your problems with evolution.

Thanks for your efforts...

Anyway, I'm gonna call it a night (and weekend). Hope you've gained a better understanding of at least one creationist as a result of this novel I've written. I do appreciate your well-crafted responses, and the civil manner I've been treated by you and others here in the TE sub-forum.

I guess, contrary to what I'd seen so much of previously, we CAN get along as fellow Christians, even if we do have a hard time seeing how it's possible anyone could believe God created the world via different processes than we believe he did.

God bless, and have a great weekend.

 

[Didaskomenos]

*double post!*

 

[Didaskomenos]

What kind of award can we give pressingon to recognize his status as Most Civil Creationist? Makes this Baptist proud

 

[herev]

What kind of award can we give pressingon to recognize his status as Most Civil Creationist? Makes this Baptist proud

How about the Darwin!!!

It could look like this:

 

[Didaskomenos]

So let it be decreed!