Has Your OT View Changed?

[Assyrian]

I remember reading in my kiddies bible how God created created the heavens and the earth, then made the land and plants then fish and land animals, and thinking 'Oh, that's just like my book on dinosaurs...'

However from my teens I was pretty much YEC and got into the books in my 20s, the Genesis Flood, In the Minds of Men, Bones of Contention. Later I was more agnostic on the subject. I found when I checked YEC claims that they didn't add up, especially things like radioactive dating, which was a lot more solid than the YEC books said. But I just filed it away under 'hmmm'.

I explained how I got down off the fence to Vossler in Reasons To Believe...wow :

I read in a UK Christian Magazine of a conference where Phillip Johnson described Evolution as 'today's Babylonian idolatry' and seminar chairman Prof Andy McIntosh claimed "I believe there won’t be revival in this country until the Church repents of its acceptance of the idolatry of evolution". It was the ugliness that that slanderous accusation against fellow believers, as well as their abysmal lack of understanding of what idolatry means, that led me to TE.

I had been a YEC years before and read all the books, though I found when checked their scientific claims, they had a habit of falling apart. By that stage I was pretty much agnostic on origins. Science had a lot of evidence but it couldn't be proved, at the same time, if evolution had happened, it couldn't have happened without God.

But faced with the ugly bigotry I read in the magazine, I found I could no longer remain neutral. I got out my bible and started to read what it actually said. I was really surprised as I read through Gen 1 and it never actually said the world was created in six days. I read of great works of creation, followed by the evening of a new day, but with no indication of how long the works of creation took.

Then I remembered something about Hebrew days beginning in the evening, I looked it up and checked, and yes they did. That meant each evening and morning marked the beginning of a new day, rather than completing the day of the work that had gone before. The works of creation were separate from the evening and mornings! Gen 1 could be much longer than 6 days, In fact it had to be longer than six days because God created the heavens and the earth, and the Spirit of God brooded over the deep, before the six days even began. Not only that, I just couldn't imagine the Spirit of God having a quick brood and then getting on with the rest of creation.

 

[vossler]

I've always been YEC. The whole idea of evolution never made sense to me. God developing me out of a lesser lifeform into who I am today never, even for moment, was seriously considered. Therefore I always dismissed evolution out of hand as ridiculous and stupid, I never even gave it a second thought. It wasn't until I came here to CF that I realized that there were so many Christians who believed in evolution, it was then that I took the time to investigate just what the whole thing is about. I must say that after seeing all the evidence and reasons for believing I'm even less impressed with the theory. However, I did learn why so many are caught up in the web of deceit and how easy it is to allow yourself to believe.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

http://www.christianforums.com/t3791702-evolutionist-lies.html Vossler, go here!

 

[kenrapoza]

I've always been YEC. The whole idea of evolution never made sense to me. God developing me out of a lesser lifeform into who I am today never, even for moment, was seriously considered. Therefore I always dismissed evolution out of hand as ridiculous and stupid, I never even gave it a second thought. It wasn't until I came here to CF that I realized that there were so many Christians who believed in evolution, it was then that I took the time to investigate just what the whole thing is about. I must say that after seeing all the evidence and reasons for believing I'm even less impressed with the theory. However, I did learn why so many are caught up in the web of deceit and how easy it is to allow yourself to believe.

Interesting. What did you learn about why people get caught up in evolution - assuming that's what you mean by "web of deceit"?

 

[vossler]

Interesting. What did you learn about why people get caught up in evolution - assuming that's what you mean by "web of deceit"?

Just that we're all so hungry for knowledge, especially for answers to our most asked questions, and how we're willing to look for answers anywhere, even if it comes from a questionable source. Just make it sound plausible and you'll have people eating out of your hand. In the end it's a way for people to have a sense of control over one of life's most asked questions. Where did I come from?

 

[shernren]

For me my "changing over" to TEism came in two major spurts. The first was when I first joined here. I was a typical YECist, ready with all my arguments about how evolution is distorting the Word of God and Darwinists have blind faith in their interpretations. In fact, I thought I was a pretty good YEC, for all on my own I had already chucked anything to do with 2LoT (and animal death before the fall, but maybe that's my memory exaggerating things ) out of my "proofs". So here I came spouting most (not all ) the usual PRATTs, and getting myself corrected left right and center. What especially got to me was when I put forward the bombardier beetle argument ("its chemical-squirting system is irreducibly complex, if the two chemicals mix together without an inhibitor an explosion happens!") and got myself well and truly refuted.

It was a pretty shocking experience, especially since it was happening at the same time on another forum (which I have subsequently been inactive in). And I thought I knew what evolutionists think and believe, but I was very wrong. So I ended up posting a sort of "challenge" on C&E. I had a bunch of scientific questions for the YECs, and a bunch of exegetical questions for the evolutionists (as to how evolution and the Bible could make sense). What I distinctly remember was that there was far more evolutionist response than creationist response, and that it made more sense, too.

For a while I was toying with the idea of taking up a radical Omphalos position ("The earth is 6,000 years old, the Bible says so, it's God's problem that it looks far older not mine!") and backing out of the debate altogether. But somehow (I can't remember exactly how) I started looking at what myths really are and what the implications of a non-literal interpretation of Genesis really were.

And so I became a TE. And I was pretty happy with it.

My next big spurt came when I started a series here ( http://www.christianforums.com/t2848141-the-scientific-myth-of-creationism.html ) where I tried to really get to the root of what scientific creationists think. And when I got to it I found it not to my taste. And so I became a full-blown TE.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Shernren, I have the utmost respect for anyone prepared to alter their opinion through reasoned discussion

 

[Starforsaken]

for a while i believed the old earth, genesis is not literal bit. then i thought i had enough information to believe in a literal flood and 6000 year old earth. then i started college, took archeology and geology, now i dont know whos lying to me, my professors or answers in genesis. im 90% sure its AIG, ICR.

-edit: i also think its worth saying that for months before i had taken the college courses, i had posted in many forums, spent many hours online reading pages and pages of info. when it came down to it more often than not YEC did not answer my questions, or clearly did not have an understanding of what they were talking about.

 

[kenrapoza]

For me my "changing over" to TEism came in two major spurts. The first was when I first joined here. I was a typical YECist, ready with all my arguments about how evolution is distorting the Word of God and Darwinists have blind faith in their interpretations. In fact, I thought I was a pretty good YEC, for all on my own I had already chucked anything to do with 2LoT (and animal death before the fall, but maybe that's my memory exaggerating things ) out of my "proofs". So here I came spouting most (not all ) the usual PRATTs, and getting myself corrected left right and center. What especially got to me was when I put forward the bombardier beetle argument ("its chemical-squirting system is irreducibly complex, if the two chemicals mix together without an inhibitor an explosion happens!") and got myself well and truly refuted.

It was a pretty shocking experience, especially since it was happening at the same time on another forum (which I have subsequently been inactive in). And I thought I knew what evolutionists think and believe, but I was very wrong. So I ended up posting a sort of "challenge" on C&E. I had a bunch of scientific questions for the YECs, and a bunch of exegetical questions for the evolutionists (as to how evolution and the Bible could make sense). What I distinctly remember was that there was far more evolutionist response than creationist response, and that it made more sense, too.

For a while I was toying with the idea of taking up a radical Omphalos position ("The earth is 6,000 years old, the Bible says so, it's God's problem that it looks far older not mine!") and backing out of the debate altogether. But somehow (I can't remember exactly how) I started looking at what myths really are and what the implications of a non-literal interpretation of Genesis really were.

And so I became a TE. And I was pretty happy with it.

My next big spurt came when I started a series here ( http://www.christianforums.com/t2848141-the-scientific-myth-of-creationism.html ) where I tried to really get to the root of what scientific creationists think. And when I got to it I found it not to my taste. And so I became a full-blown TE.

That's interesting, I recognize some of myself in your description. I have also read your other thread about the scientific myth of creationism (though it took me quite a while ) and found it to be an insightful analysis. You raised quite a few points and made some observations that I hadn't thought of before; it got me thinking about some foundational assumptions. Usually getting me to think is accomplishment in and of itself. (As an aside, you seem to have an impressive ability to deconstruct an opposing argument. Have you had any formal training in logic or argumentation? It almost reminds of me Ravi Zacharias' methodology, but directed in a different area.) I would have to say that I am still on the journey myself.

Please forgive my ignorance, but I am not familiar with the terms "2LoT" and "PRATT." What do you mean by those?

 

[kenrapoza]

for a while i believed the old earth, genesis is not literal bit. then i thought i had enough information to believe in a literal flood and 6000 year old earth. then i started college, took archeology and geology, now i dont know whos lying to me, my professors or answers in genesis. im 90% sure its AIG, ICR.

-edit: i also think its worth saying that for months before i had taken the college courses, i had posted in many forums, spent many hours online reading pages and pages of info. when it came down to it more often than not YEC did not answer my questions, or clearly did not have an understanding of what they were talking about.

Sounds like you moved from Old Earth Creation to Young Earth Creation and are now in the process of moving back to OEC or maybe TE?

 

[kenrapoza]

Just that we're all so hungry for knowledge, especially for answers to our most asked questions, and how we're willing to look for answers anywhere, even if it comes from a questionable source. Just make it sound plausible and you'll have people eating out of your hand. In the end it's a way for people to have a sense of control over one of life's most asked questions. Where did I come from?

It sounds like you believe that the "root" of this discussion is really stemming from human pride; therefore, for a person committed to a "truthful" reading of Genesis, the question is simply a non sequitur. I put the word "truthful" in quotation marks because I am inferring from your above statements and other posts that a literal or "plain" (according to modern western understanding) reading of the Creation account is a correct understanding. Therefore I am not trying to be tongue-in-cheek, just acknowledging that different Christians here define a truthful reading differently.

 

[vossler]

It sounds like you believe that the "root" of this discussion is really stemming from human pride; therefore, for a person committed to a "truthful" reading of Genesis, the question is simply a non sequitur.

Yes that would be a good description of how I see it. Pride comes before the fall. Remember that I too am afflicted with the same problem, as humans pride is probably our greatest weakness and the simplist way I know how to squelch or minimize it is through God's Word. It is only through His Word that we can truly come to a complete understanding of God and His nature.

 

[ArcticFox]

My process started before my conversion to Christ. I had no concrete beliefs whatsoever, even though high school taught me over and over that Evolution is FACT, not theory. I always held a deep doubt in the evidence presented by Evolution, but had no alternative and never considered anything else.

When I was converted to Christ, over time I was taught about Creation. I was never taught YEC/OEC directly, and no one ever gave a number of years. I don't know for certain how old the earth is, and wouldn't dare to guess.

In the end I am still Creationist with no bend towards YEC or OEC. I specifically do not believe in TE because I believe it is contrary to Scripture. I remain unconvinced by scientific evidence, despite having studied it in-depth for years and reading up on all of the major arguments for and against Creation and for and against Evolution.

 

[gluadys]

In the end I am still Creationist with no bend towards YEC or OEC. I specifically do not believe in TE because I believe it is contrary to Scripture. I remain unconvinced by scientific evidence, despite having studied it in-depth for years and reading up on all of the major arguments for and against Creation and for and against Evolution.

Well, evolution, like gravity, is both fact and theory. And if that doesn't make sense to you, I query whether you have, in fact, studied science--any science--in depth.

I can accept that people, for reasons of faith, refuse to accept evolution. But I am very doubtful that anyone can really study the science in depth and reject evolution on scientific grounds.

Most often the"scientific" reasons given for doubting evolution turn out to be a misapprehension either of evolution in particular or science in general.

So I would appreciate a description of what you mean when you say you have studied evolution "in-depth". Does it mean you took post-secondary courses in evolutionary biology?

 

[theFijian]

I remain unconvinced by scientific evidence, despite having studied it in-depth for years and reading up on all of the major arguments for and against Creation and for and against Evolution.

What particular evidence for evolution did you find 'unconvincing'?

 

[ArcticFox]

What particular evidence for evolution did you find 'unconvincing'?

For the two previous posters:

I'm pretty sure that the poster of this thread did not intend for this to be a debate thread.

To answer you questions in the most generic, non-debate manner possible:

I had various courses which included Evolutionary biology, but no course specifically on Evolutionary Biology. I also pursued my own study of the material using the latest arguments I could procure from websites, and debated in various online messageboards that had degree-holders in the relevant areas. However, please refrain from the 'if you really knew you'd believe' argument;' it's presumptious and stale. Forgive me if you were never going to go there, but I have heard it so many times that it just becomes an old horse that needs to die.

As for what evidence I am unconvinced by, any details would lead to debate, I'm sure.

 

[gluadys]

I had various courses which included Evolutionary biology, but no course specifically on Evolutionary Biology.

So basically you are an interested amateur like myself. But for some reason, you have rejected the scientific view of evolution for a counterfeit of evolution that is anti-Christian. Perhaps because the counterfeit view is promoted on ostensibly "Christian" web-sites, while the scientific sites, for the most part, don't discuss religious matters.

However, please refrain from the 'if you really knew you'd believe' argument;' it's presumptious and stale. Forgive me if you were never going to go there, but I have heard it so many times that it just becomes an old horse that needs to die.

If you really knew you would not need to believe. You would be convinced beyond the necessity of belief. Or if you were not, at least you would not be rejecting evolution for the wrong reasons.

I have nothing against someone rejecting the whole concept of evolution on a religious basis. It is only when they claim a scientific basis for rejecting it that I feel they are off base. I have not found any scientific reason to reject evolution.

As for what evidence I am unconvinced by, any details would lead to debate, I'm sure.

I agree. Would you be willing to continue in a separate thread?

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

So basically you are an interested amateur like myself. But for some reason, you have rejected the scientific view of evolution for a counterfeit of evolution that is anti-Christian. Perhaps because the counterfeit view is promoted on ostensibly "Christian" web-sites, while the scientific sites, for the most part, don't discuss religious matters.

I haven't seen any direct evidence in this thread that he has a counterfeit view of evolution.

However, please refrain from the 'if you really knew you'd believe' argument;' it's presumptious and stale. Forgive me if you were never going to go there, but I have heard it so many times that it just becomes an old horse that needs to die.

The number of YECists who appear to me to be modestly well informed about evolution and/or geology and/or astro-physics is extremely small.

And only a fraction of those don't have one or more serious flaws in their understanding.

The very best I've seen that fraction muster is to point to some detail and say "This doesn't fit with the current scientific understanding of the universe".

I have nothing against someone rejecting the whole concept of evolution on a religious basis. It is only when they claim a scientific basis for rejecting it that I feel they are off base.

Quite so.

Would you be willing to continue in a separate thread?

 

[ArcticFox]

I have nothing against someone rejecting the whole concept of evolution on a religious basis. It is only when they claim a scientific basis for rejecting it that I feel they are off base. I have not found any scientific reason to reject evolution.

I agree. Would you be willing to continue in a separate thread?

Actually, although I am not one to turn down offers, no I would not. For two main reasons: 1) I've done it so many times now, and it never gets me or the other person anywhere; no one ever changes their mind and it becomes an insulting issue where I either give in and join in the insults, or I just take them and eventually leave. 2) I may be wrong, but your attitude belies an almost prideful sense of 'anyone who disagrees with me must be ignorant', and so a new thread would just be your attempt to shoot me down as hard as you can. I'm not interested in that kind of debate, because it isn't mutually edifying.

You don't have to answer this in a post, but what is your purpose for wanting a new thread? For intelligent, mutual discussion, or just to try to prove me wrong?

 

[gluadys]

Actually, although I am not one to turn down offers, no I would not. For two main reasons: 1) I've done it so many times now, and it never gets me or the other person anywhere; no one ever changes their mind and it becomes an insulting issue where I either give in and join in the insults, or I just take them and eventually leave. 2) I may be wrong, but your attitude belies an almost prideful sense of 'anyone who disagrees with me must be ignorant', and so a new thread would just be your attempt to shoot me down as hard as you can. I'm not interested in that kind of debate, because it isn't mutually edifying.

No, it is not a matter of personal pride or assuming that those who disagree with me are in the wrong. It is a matter of clarifying what you mean when you say there are scientific objections to evolution.

I wouldn't ask you to change your beliefs; if you take the position of Kurt Weise (one of the few creationists I respect) or even of Vossler here e.g. the science appears to support evolution, but based on how I understand scripture I believe it is wrong anyway--that I would not question, although I also disagree profoundly with the theology behind that sort of scriptural understanding.

You don't have to answer this in a post, but what is your purpose for wanting a new thread? For intelligent, mutual discussion, or just to try to prove me wrong?

The new thread was proposed to avoid debate in this thread as the OP expressed a desire to avoid that. Also I think the topic warrants a thread of its own anyway. And absolutely--intelligent, mutual discussion.

And perhaps another time, we could leave the science behind and discuss our different theological perspectives as well as they touch on both evolution and scripture. That also deserves a thread of its own.