Glenn Morton debates

[busterdog]

Reading him reminded me that the origins debate is by no means polarized into a simple "us Scripture - them science" difference, it may not even be a matter of different positions on a single Scripture-science line with flat-earthers on the left and Bishop Spong on the right. There are more dimensions to the debate than a single, linear "Scripture-science" difference.

My very conservative Catholic friend was just telling me today that as a Protestant, I am accountable for Bishop Spong, despite my attempts to disown him.

I think the piece assumes that we can simply erase things like the names ages and lineages of the patriarchs. How or why do that? I can think of only one reason. Science says otherwise. I can't find any basis in the text itself. While his charm in the presentation was appreciated, that conflict really kinks up my shorts quite a bit. Apart from YEC, you have to start talking about editorial problems and just basic sloppy record keeping by the original makers of the canon.

However, the properties of scripture don't support that view. There are textual codes that put the holy watermark on much of it. If editors were a problem, where is the heresy in the Bible, which you would invariably get? There is evidence of the integrity of the text that should, again, really give one pause.

And in that pause there should be the conflict between the Bible saying X with a straight face and science saying, "you can't possibly be serious."

If receing corrupt influence or bad information were all that were at issue, Gen. 2 and 3 would be about "knowledge of evil." It isn't. Its about knowledge of good and evil. So, why do we trust what we "know?" There is example after example of this distinction between what we think we know and what really is or can be. There isa conflict.

It is not a conflict that requires no science at all. Far from it. But, it is a conflict which puts every single one of our ultimate conclusions and most of our major premises into doubt and into conflict with the Word of God. Not conflict for all purposes, certainly.

But, in order to make sense of it all, one must choose one way of thinking or the other. Either you measure science by the Bible or you measure the Bible by science.

I just don't see that problem disappearing -- as hard and as often as I look at the problem.

 

[shernren]

To be clear, the amount of science for the proposition that people don't come back from the dead is virtually equivalent to the amount of science that teaches that human beings aren't constructed in a day. To overlook one body of evidence, but not the other is inconsistent thinking. There may be reasons for it, or exceptions, but it does appear to be different types of thinking, if inconsistency.

But Christianity has never claimed that "people (without qualification) come back from the dead". It's far more modest: it claims that at certain points in history a few people (like the bloke thrown into Elisha's tomb, and Lazarus, and Jairus' daughter, etc.) managed to cheat death for a while, and that one Person in particular never went back to that grave He came out of. It's not a universal proposition that everywhere at every time we should see all people have the potential to come back from the dead.

It's a specific statement about a specific event, and furthermore this specific event is stated to be a miracle, in which case science has no hope of repeating it. I don't have to prove that people are allowed by science to rise from the dead just to prove that Jesus rose from the dead. How do I prove that a specific event occurred? By considering the possible consequences of that event and then seeing if these consequences can actually be observed. The consequences of Jesus' resurrection are an empty tomb, a missing body, and changed lives. Those are evidence for the resurrection.

The consequences of the Flood, however, would have been lots of strata which look like they have been laid down in a global Flood, genetic bottlenecking among all major land species extant today (including humans), no deep sea hydrothermal vent ecologies (since those habitats were completely destroyed in the Flood, according to creationists themselves, and life cannot start from scratch, also according to creationists), far less coal and oil than we see, etc. Note that little or none of this has to do with mechanism. In fact, all this tacitly assumes that a global Flood is possible in the first place. But, do we see evidence for the Flood? No.

It boils down to evidence. There is no reasonable evidence which can contradict the story of the Resurrection. But there is a wealth of reasonable evidence which does contradict the global Flood. There are no two different standards here. Both are miracles, both are judged by the same standard, one comes out good, the other clearly needs an adjustment of interpretation.

No inconsistencies here.

 

[busterdog]

How do I prove that a specific event occurred? By considering the possible consequences of that event and then seeing if these consequences can actually be observed. The consequences of Jesus' resurrection are an empty tomb, a missing body, and changed lives. Those are evidence for the resurrection.

* * *

No inconsistencies here.

So, arguably, there should be a consequence for "YEC". We would probably be looking for in the same province -- ie, not necessarily cosmology, but in that part of our lives where "the dead are raised." When (and some say if) history can be brought to an equivalent and precipitous conclusion, that would certainly look much like the six days of creation. That story might be of greater signficance when people are hanging on during the end times. BUt, that is in the future.

Hard to think of something with a current application. Letting the day's cares be sufficient for the day (since God can fix or make anything in a day) is about as close as I can think of.

As for the inconsistency, your way of viewing resurrection and creations needs some mulling on my part.

 

[shernren]

So, arguably, there should be a consequence for "YEC". We would probably be looking for in the same province -- ie, not necessarily cosmology, but in that part of our lives where "the dead are raised." When (and some say if) history can be brought to an equivalent and precipitous conclusion, that would certainly look much like the six days of creation. That story might be of greater signficance when people are hanging on during the end times. BUt, that is in the future.

From a physical point of view all we can say about Jesus' resurrection is that maybe 90kg of organic matter (hey, Jesus wasn't called a glutton and a drunkard for nothing, right? ) was spirited out of the tomb, reanimated for a few days, and then removed from the earth altogether. I have no idea how any scientist would try to ascertain that, do you?

As for YECism however, almost by definition the entire [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth]' universe should be showing the consequences of having been created rapidly and recently. And yet we see multiple signatures of extreme age in almost anything with measurable age - corals, varves, meteorites, stars, etc. etc. with hardly any dissenters.

It's the same standards of evidence. Merely different conclusions.

 

[Mallon]

To paraphrase shernren, ask yourself what predictions Jesus' resurrection and the Genesis account make that we should physically observe today:

Taken literally, Genesis 1-3 predicts evidence for a young earth created in six days. It also predicts
major flood events that should be observed in the fossil record. But none of these predictions hold true; all evidence points to the contrary.

Jesus' resurrection predicts an empty tomb. Do we have evidence to the contrary? No. We don't even know where the tomb is. We must take it on faith, therefore, that the resurrection happened. "lessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed" (John 20:29).

 

[busterdog]

From a physical point of view all we can say about Jesus' resurrection is that maybe 90kg of organic matter (hey, Jesus wasn't called a glutton and a drunkard for nothing, right? ) was spirited out of the tomb, reanimated for a few days, and then removed from the earth altogether. I have no idea how any scientist would try to ascertain that, do you?
.

A famous legal case involves the exoneration of an accused where the corpus delicti of the supposed murder victim can't be found. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corpus_delicti

My Mom and Dad spent a pretty penny sending me to a darn good school where I could learn a la Rudolf Bultman that this same principle applies to the resurrection.

Whether it is a special case actually turns a view of lots of passages in Paul and the Gospels themselves. Is a leper made clean the same as a dead body resurrected? Dead skin -> living skin? Is the resurrection the basis for assuming that other promises are true, like receiving wisdom a al James? Seems to be.

You and I differ greatly on whether or not you have the body in terms of the Big Bang or Darwinism. Both are historical looks backward to events based not upon an observed body (or crime), but the supposed effects of its presence. Understanding that you would take background microwave radiation and redshift as the body.

I assume you are arguing against many fellow scientists and decendants of Bultman, which is fine. But, the Bible seems to assume that proving this point opens up a world of other proofs (healing, wisdom, new life, etc.). Wikipedia at least, thinks I am correct about this. ("In conclusion the resurrection of Jesus and His ability to resursect others is 'The' central belief in Christianity that validates Jesus as the messiah and as God incarnate. In this respect it is the most debated and denied doctrine by non-Christian groups who seek to disproof the Christian faith.")

As Wittgenstein said in giving a dramatic example of the practical doubts linking human experience to reality, "Prove to me that this is really your hand and I will grant you all the rest."

As a form of reason, the miracle of resurrection is intended to prove a great many other things. Granted, this is by inference. BUt, that I think is a fair assessment of the intentions of the NT.

How far you take that is a matter of interpretation and a difference in non-essentials. But, Scripture suggests that this "Sign of Jonas" is not a special case, but rather, the fundamental a priori on which everything else follows.

However, I would have to proceed from the assumption that the resurrection was a special case since, 1. the other doctrines are not essential (ie, the resurrection is special as a salvation condition); 2. this part of the discussion could end at this point.

As for YECism however, almost by definition the entire [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth]' universe should be showing the consequences of having been created rapidly and recently. And yet we see multiple signatures of extreme age in almost anything with measurable age - corals, varves, meteorites, stars, etc. etc. with hardly any dissenters.

It's the same standards of evidence. Merely different conclusions.

It seems that you are assuming all evidential standards are the same. They may be the same in terms of weight. But these are different types of reason.

Your resurrection argument seems to suggest that this one resurrection was so special that the case against it is too impractical to be attempted. Having disposed of that question, what the Gospel is able to accomplish today would seem to be the basis for accepting the Gospel's conclusions about this special case. I am not saying this is how you think, but it seems to be the way your argument is constructed. So please don't take offense.

Thus, you overlook the lack of revived corpses in modern (conventional) history.

Similarly, YEC cannot be disproven, since none of us was there. However, we have the evidence that the creator can similarly conjure manna, pillars of fire, the restoration of severed ears and his own resurrected body. THus, we accept the testimony of Gen 1 and 2 and overlook the (arguable) absence of huge mountain ranges formed in a mere thousand years.

I understand how fasciating the old rocks are to you. I am more impressed with the nature of the arguments and ideas themselves. Arguably, the BIble says to look at the ideas themselves as your guide. However, there aren't many easy ways to decide this contest. The fact that there are more lawyer jokes than geologist jokes should not be persuasive.

 

[artybloke]

A famous legal case involves the exoneration of an accused where the corpus delicti of the supposed murder victim can't be found.

However, it is not and never has been, impossible to convict someone even without a body. And besides, the empty tomb is evidence not proof. There is an empty tomb, there are grave cloths scattered about: two hpotheses possible:

1) the body has gone
2) the body was never there but someone mocked it up to look as it there was.

Then you proceed to look for circumstantial evidence. Witness testimony to the burial, medical testimony to the death, witness testimony to the "appearances" after the resurection.

Of course, these are are not entirely reliable. There are alternative explanations; but it is still evidence. Unclear, and you probably couldn't come to a conclusion on the simple basis of the evidence; but they do point to the possibility of a resurection.

Whereas the evidence of the age of the earth is entirely, and exhaustively, that the earth is old, that there was no worldwide flood, etc... There are things that exist that couldn't have if the earth is young etc...

YEC cannot be disproven,

That's right, and that's why it isn't scientific.

 

[Assyrian]

As Wittgenstein said in giving a dramatic example of the practical doubts linking human experience to reality, "Prove to me that this is really your hand and I will grant you all the rest."

Science takes a very different approach and would use DNA to prove it wasn't.

 

[shernren]

Your resurrection argument seems to suggest that this one resurrection was so special that the case against it is too impractical to be attempted. Having disposed of that question, what the Gospel is able to accomplish today would seem to be the basis for accepting the Gospel's conclusions about this special case. I am not saying this is how you think, but it seems to be the way your argument is constructed. So please don't take offense.

I don't understand how you disposed of it, but it's ok because it wasn't the question I was asking! I'm in no way arguing that the case against the Resurrection is too impractical to be attempted. Sure the resurrection can be disproved. Bring me the (suitably proved) body of Jesus and I'll be an atheist in a heartbeat. That might be a little impractical today (that was all I was saying), but it would certainly have been practical for the Roman authorities of the first century.

The thing is, it doesn't matter that the resurrection is a miracle, or that we have no scientific explanation, or indeed if we ever find a scientific explanation for it: if the body of Jesus is around, the resurrection didn't happen, simply because the resurrection predicts that the body of Jesus disappeared.

If the resurrection happened, then the body of Jesus isn't present on Earth any more.
If the global Flood happened, the majority of fossiliferous strata on Earth today were deposited via aqueous action.

Note that the first statement doesn't need me to say anything about whether there was a scientific mechanism for the resurrection or not. I can believe that the resurrection was scientifically impossible and still accept that it happened. And similarly, the second statement doesn't need me to say anything about whether there was a scientific mechanism for the Flood or not. Quite apart from whether we know of any conceivable means to cause a global Flood, if all creatures in the fossil record looked drowned and all rocks look like they were laid down under 20 feet of water, that would convince me of a global Flood no matter if I had no idea where all that water came from or went.

I don't have the body of Jesus: so I see no good reason to doubt the resurrection. I do see lots of rocks that could not have been laid down underwater. So I see good reason to doubt the Flood.

Nowhere have I excluded miracles from the realm of the possible. All I ask is that miracles should be obvious. If the Flood waters were real water then they should do whatever real water does, wherever they came from. The miracles Jesus performed were the same: He made real wine at Cana and real bread and fish to feed the five thousand. If the Flood waters were real, then they would have left geological traces. If you have to make the Flood waters unreal to salvage the global Flood (as some creationists do when they realize that many rocks could not have been laid down under "real" water) then why should I believe in a global Flood at all?