Faith Presumptions and science

[Vance]

I think one way of looking at our approaches to this issue is where, on a spectrum, we place our “faith presumptions”. By this I mean those things which we accept by faith, not by reason (even if reasonable), and would use as a starting point presumption against which all must be measured. For these things, we would use the word “since” when discussing them, rather than “if”. For example, starting at the far end of the spectrum, we would say:

“Since God exists . . .”

then all kinds of things.

And I think that all Christians would agree that we should qualify everything and measure everything, including our study of the natural world, by that “faith presumption”. There are many other “faith presumptions” common to all Christians, “Since God created everything”, “Since Jesus is the Son of God”, “Since Jesus came to die for our sins”, etc.

The question for the topic of origins is how far down you shift your “faith presumptions” and whether you shift it too far. Personally, I do say “Since God created everything . . .” and I think most would agree with this one. This is a presumption of faith, and from that starting point, and I would measure all scientific discoveries against this statement, so that the sentence might be completed “. . . however life started, it was part of His creation and His plan.", for example. Every conclusion I would reach about our understanding of nature would be seen through that lens and be interpreted by that presumption. Again, a faith presumption by which SCIENCE is filtered.

And, importantly, everything which was not compatible with that faith presumption would be ultimately rejected. Thus a statement by a scientist (or anyone else) that the universe was created without God would be rejected.

Stepping a bit further down the spectrum, I hold just as strongly to the idea that the Scripture is Holy and God’s messages to all of us. So, I would say “Since the Bible is God’s Holy Scripture . . .” and all is measured against that. I even go further and say that the Scripture is completely inerrant in the presentation of it’s intended message, so I would say “Since Scripture is inerrant in the presentation of the message intended by God . . .” without compromise on this idea.

Thus, any statement, by anyone, on any subject, that Scripture is not God's message to us because of X or Y would be rejected.

So, against all these “faith presumptions”, all else, including scientific inquiry, is measured. In this way, I can say with great conviction that, contrary to the assertion of many YEC's, I do not let scientific knowledge control Scripture. My “faith presumptions” trump all else, including what any scientist may say about the history of our planet or how it works. But in the areas not mandated by a faith presumption, I use the word “if” instead. “If God created by allowing a form of abiogenesis” or “If God created a literal Garden”.

What YEC’s do is shift their “faith presumption” all the way down to “Since God created the world in six 24 hour days less than 10,000 years ago . . .” and then measure all against THAT. I have no problem with having faith presumptions against which we measure scientific conclusions. I do that myself. I just think that the YEC’s have made a “since” out of something that should be an “if”.

Regardless, they can set their presumptions where they like. But I would like them to realize and respect the fact that TE's also have faith presumptions which entirely override anything that science might say, no matter how strongly they say it.

 

[Vance]

I really think this gets to the crux of the debate, the more I think about it. I wonder what a Young Earth Creationist thinks about this.

 

[mhess13]

I really think this gets to the crux of the debate, the more I think about it. I wonder what a Young Earth Creationist thinks about this.

The post is too boring to hold my attention span. Sorry. But maybe this will answer your question. Since God exists and since he is infallible and since he gave us the Bible and since the Bible is infallible and since the Bible goes out of it's way to say that God created man by a direct act and created the world in 6 days, THEN anything that FALLIBLE man says that contradicts GOD'S INFALLIBLE word, I must be very skeptical of. Especially something as retarded with no evidence like evolution

 

[Didaskomenos]

Great post, Vance. You really do get at the heart of this. Unfortunately, replies such as mhess's suggest that all this discussion is pointless. mhess, you are claming that FALLIBLE mhess knows INFALLIBLY what the INFALLIBLE scriptures say on any given matter, to the point where anything that contradicts mhess's interpretation is ipso facto a false human perspective. How can we argue with that? It's impossible to dialogue with that narrow a list of "faith presumptions". Here we have the ducklings so sure that the gosling isn't a duckling that they deny its very birdhood. We can't hope to roll the rock of fair discussion up the side such a deep pit of arrogance and ignorance.

 

[Vance]

Exactly Didaskomenos.

mhess, I am sorry I overshot your attention span. Maybe some of the other YEC's can deal with it.

 

[1denomination]

Vance I will post on this tommorow but for tonight I'm Going to bed.
To be continued.........

 

[1denomination]

Vance this was a good read. Apparently well thought out. As you have asked for a YEC perspective I will give you mine. It may not be the best but you cant win them all.

This thread reminds me of a post I made once,(which you refuted)that stated evidence is in the eye of the beholder. Now granted evidence is evidence reguardless of how it fits with our views, but if it doesn't fit with our already preconcived ideas we generally dismiss it, so to the person doing the dismissing it is not actually accounted for as evidence. On this note I belive both TE's and YEC's are guilty.

Stepping a bit further down the spectrum, I hold just as strongly to the idea that the Scripture is Holy and God’s messages to all of us. So, I would say “Since the Bible is God’s Holy Scripture . . .” and all is measured against that. I even go further and say that the Scripture is completely inerrant in the presentation of it’s intended message, so I would say “Since Scripture is inerrant in the presentation of the message intended by God . . .” without compromise on this idea

I agree with you that the bible is inerrant in it's message, it is our interpretation of that message that is errant. Although when trying to represent your intepretation you turn to a science book I just turn to the bible, and since the bible is infallable I'll just keep mine. This is in no way an attempt to say I have greater faith, just trying to help you see where I am coming from.

What YEC’s do is shift their “faith presumption” all the way down to “Since God created the world in six 24 hour days less than 10,000 years ago . . .” and then measure all against THAT. I have no problem with having faith presumptions against which we measure scientific conclusions. I do that myself. I just think that the YEC’s have made a “since” out of something that should be an “if”.

You make it sound as if we YEC's made some concious decision to make this "shift", when thats not how it is for me.I accept YEC actually inspite of my own self, as I was once atheist, and as such, evolution is the only refuge I found to answer the ever burning question of "Where do we come from". When however, I accepted christ and began to study the bible I could find no other way to interpret the scripure's than YEC'ism.If I am incorrect in my interpretation I dont belive I will somehow be left out of heaven, as neither will you if you are incorrect. Vance I accept your right to your theology and praise God that you are my brother. I cannot give you some great compelling speech, about how your "since and if" theory is incorrect mostly because I agree with you. And so as we are agreed about the presumptions what do you my brother propose the next step is. God Bless

 

[Vance]

1denomination, thanks for the serious response. I really don't have any particular argument against what you say, since you seem to respect that we just differ on interpretive issues, but that it is not a matter of "degree of faith" and definitely not a salvation issue.

Where do we go from there? I think simply maintain the sensible approach you seem to embrace, which I wholeheartedly agree with, that Christians should simply agree to disagree on the exact interpretation of the HOW and WHEN of Creation and agree to agree joyfully on the WHO and WHY. Doing this in humility and love, and asking our fellow Christians to do the same, will help remove any potential stumbling blocks this issue may cause, and let the more important messages take center stage. Whenever we hear a discussion of Genesis, maybe it will be about God's power and His grace, and not whether God created over six literal days or billions of years.

 

[1denomination]

agree joyfully on the WHO and WHY. Doing this in humility and love, and asking our fellow Christians to do the same, will help remove any potential stumbling blocks this issue may cause, and let the more important messages take center stage. Whenever we hear a discussion of Genesis, maybe it will be about God's power and His grace, and not whether God created over six literal days or billions of years.

*emphasis mine*

 

[SBG]

Interesting post. I agree that we ALL start off with presumptions of faith. In a college science class(evolution), the PhD professor taught that when scientists first started to date things, they got a very low date, ie. a few thousand years ago. They believed this was wrong because they have their own faith presumptions that the earth was extremely ancient.(much like the Greek belief) So they adjusted this dating system to get a more *correct* date, according to their belief on the age of the earth.

All Christians start with the belief that God created everything. Then this is where the change happens.... how did God create? Did He created in six days as the Bible says, or did He create via big bang -> abiogenesis -> evolution, thus an allegorical reading of Genesis. In order to follow the interpretations that scientists give about the evolutionary theory, one must believe Genesis is allegorical, otherwise they run into difficult theological questions. I realize Morton believes a literal Genesis and evolution, and I would venture he has some theological problems that he is unsure about in the book of Genesis.

If one is to believe that Genesis is literal history, then one cannot follow the interpretations given about the evolutionary theory. They do not coincide, hence the term 'evolution is unBiblical.'

So where are we left? If we can see that both have this faith presumption, what do we do to truly find the truth? We look to the early Church and its formation and understanding of how they viewed the Scriptures on this THEOLOGICAL view point. Really, where we are at is how do we handle Genesis 1-11. Science shouldn't be the issue and it shouldn't be used as an interpretative guide. If the Bible is not a science text book, then Science shouldn't be used to understand the Bible. The Bible is theology, theology that was meant for all mankind to be able to understand. We may not get every detail, but the big picture should be easy enough.

So if it is theology, then even the Apostles and Church Fathers should have been able to come to the right conclusion of how to interpret Genesis. There is overwhelming support from these authors that say Genesis is literal history and the earth is not old and the flood was global. We are still in theology remember, not science. If this was understood then and commonly preached, it really shouldn't change today, unless God's Word does change with the times, which the Bible says God's Word is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. To suggest it must be understood differently now than it was then, is to indicate God's Word must change in understanding.

With this said, as Christians we must first start with a firm theological understanding of the Bible and view the world in this view point, including science. I don't doubt that some Yec Scientists are wrong, we are all wrong at many times in our lives. But what I do give them credit for, is that they view the world with what is written in the Bible first and foremost.

Sadly, Te's view the world first and foremost through science then followed by the Bible. And if you understood Genesis to be allegorical before your understanding of science, as Vance has said, then I believe you have not be intellectually honest with the interpretation you have arrived at. If you truly want to investigate Genesis and find out if it is literal or allegorical, you HAVE to study hebrew and learn how narratives and allegories are written in the hebrew language. Otherwise you are being intellectually dishonest.

 

[Vance]

SBG:

First of all, you have your history wrong. When scientist first looked at age of the earth, they came with young earth presumptions and were actually seeking to prove this presumption true. What they found was a shock to them, in that the earth proved to be vastly older than they expected.

You are right in saying that the Bible is not a science book, but you are missing the point of what this means. What it means is that Genesis was not attempting to give a SCIENTIFIC explanation of what happened. It was not attempting to be accurate on the methods and timing. You are right, it is THEOLOGY, which has nothing at all to do with the WHEN and HOW, but only with the WHO and WHY. We do not need to determine scientific reality based on what a theological text tells us, but that is exactly what YEC's do. They base their beliefs about scientific matters on what a theological text is telling them, which makes no sense.

Yes, on the theological issues, all great Christian teachers, including the early Christian writers, can be informative about what Scripture tells us. But when those same Christian writers step BEYOND theology and attempt to read scientific facts into Genesis, they fall into error, and they are not in the least authoritative on those points.

You are right, the Scripture does not change. It is the same yesterday, today and forever. The theological message of the Creation accounts IS the same, and it has nothing at all to do with the scientific facts about the age of the earth, how or when God actually performed His creative work. And, since Scripture is thus silent on the science, we can look to God's Creation to determine those matters.

I believe it is completely wrong to attempt to determine the truths about the natural world from a book of theological truths. It is a theological truth that God created the universe and everything in it. It is a scientific question of how He did this. It is a theological truth that Mankind is made in God's image, but nothing in that theology attempts to tell us exactly HOW God did this, instead choosing to use the figurative "breathed" to describe this process. We don't know, and theologically it does not matter, exactly what this process was.

I suppose ALL those who have read the Creation accounts non-literally over the centuries before any science contradicted that literal reading were also being "intellectually dishonest"?

What is intellectually dishonest is to claim to be doing "science" when what you are really doing is apologetics. That is what AiG, ICR and other Creation "scientists" are doing, as I describe in another thread.

 

[SBG]

Ok, you asked for opinions, and then you go on how I miss the point. Did you want an opinion or an argument?

Because your address to me is to argue against my opinion.

 

[Vance]

I thought this was a dialogue, not just an opinion poll. But, regardless, your opinion is duly noted.

 

[SBG]

You came into another thread and told me hardly any yec has given their opinion on this topic. SO I did, and of course, your response was the typical, you miss the point.

And let me just say one thing. Theology has everything to do with HOW and WHEN. Point in case, JESUS CHRIST. Do you care HOW He saved you from your life of death? Do you care WHEN He did so?

Someday you will need to stop cramming science down your throat and spend some time on Theology and Jesus Christ.

 

[]RiSeN[]

This is also just an opinion. This argument or discussion is like 2 guys driving down the highway looking at an "Eternal Life Next Exit" sign and arguing about what color the sign is. But thats just me.

 

[SBG]

lol, point taken.

 

[Vance]

This is also just an opinion. This argument or discussion is like 2 guys driving down the highway looking at an "Eternal Life Next Exit" sign and arguing about what color the sign is. But thats just me.

Exactly! And the idea of developing a ministry to promote one color to the exclusion of the other is ridiculous!

And then to go around telling people that if they believe in one color and not the other . . . well, you get my point.

The fact is that we DO agree on the essentials, which is that exit sign, and that is all that should matter. All the rest of this is interesting for discussion, but should not be a matter of dogma.

 

[SBG]

Exactly! And the idea of developing a ministry to promote one color to the exclusion of the other is ridiculous!

And then to go around telling people that if they believe in one color and not the other . . . well, you get my point.

The fact is that we DO agree on the essentials, which is that exit sign, and that is all that should matter. All the rest of this is interesting for discussion, but should not be a matter of dogma.

Would one of those essentials be Jesus being conceived by the Holy Spirit, one of which you say doesn't matter if it happened or not? You and others argued against this being necessary. You have also said that those who preach against Jesus' resurrection are not as damaging to the faith as yec's. You have also said Jesus could not have had nor could He have taken back at any time during His life on earth, God's attributes.(all knowing, all powerful, ability to be everywhere at once)

So these statements tell me, we differ on many more things than just creation.

 

[Vance]

Would one of those essentials be Jesus being conceived by the Holy Spirit, one of which you say doesn't matter if it happened or not? You and others argued against this being necessary. You have also said that those who preach against Jesus' resurrection are not as damaging to the faith as yec's. You have also said Jesus could not have had nor could He have taken back at any time during His life on earth, God's attributes.(all knowing, all powerful, ability to be everywhere at once)

So these statements tell me, we differ on many more things than just creation.

As to the virgin birth, I don't know if a belief in it is an essential or not. What do you think? Can a person who accepts Jesus as the Son of God and accepts the redemptive gift of salvation and asks Jesus to come into their heart and be the Lord of their life, but does not accept the virgin birth still be saved and going to Heaven? Unless you say "absolutely not", then it sounds as if you are not sure whether that is an essential for salvation either.

As to the resurrection question. You have to remember the explanation I gave of that statement. As I said, I find teaching against the resurrection dramatically more damaging, in and of itself, than YEC'ism. But, in an absolute sense, meaning those who are actually negatively effected by the teaching, I believe YEC'ism has actually caused more damage to the faith of the believers, the spread of the Gospel, etc. This is simply because YEC'ism is so widespread and a rejection of the resurrection by Christians is so limited. Which is more lethal in and of itself, anthrax or influenza? But which causes more deaths each year?

As for Christ's divine attributes while here on earth, my position is actually very orthodox. I have no idea the degree to which He retained or voluntarily, and temporarily, gave up these attributes during the time while He was on earth, but I am fully willing to accept that He gave up a great deal of them. To say otherwise is to come very close to the heresy of Apollonarianism, in which you view Jesus as a human body with the mind of God. This was condemned at Chalcedon by . . . the early church fathers.

Do you think THAT is an "essential for salvation" issue?

And these issues have nothing to do with TE and YEC since there are those on both sides of this debate which hold positions on those other issues all over the board. You are wanting to say "those who accept TE are those who also accept all these other things" which is simply false. You and I may differ on some of these other points, but that has nothing to do with the TE or YEC issue.

 

[]RiSeN[]

God paved the highway. We all have taken the backroad. Jesus is the "Eternal Life Next Exit" sign. Each of us is traveling from a different location. Its not where we came from that matters. All we have to do is make sure we take the "Exit" he is showing us.

This is a timed event. Not the Daytona500. A drag-race with ourselves. We shouldnt put anyone in the other lane. Only try and beat our own time. Of course this doesnt mean we cant give each other usefull "mechanical" tips we've learned over the years when we hang out in the garage. But they should be kept as "tips" not "rules". Just because i run my rpm higher thru my first three gears doesnt mean it will work or suit someone elses driving style. In fact it might cause them to crash.

Just an analogy i found from bullriding. All the bullriders are competing for that gold buckle, but in the end, its still the cowboys vs the bulls. And if all your thinkin is how the last guy rode, instead of the bull your riding, you aint gonna make 8.