How Christians should respond to new space images

[DialecticSkeptic]

You and I are going to have to agree to disagree.

What in my response did you disagree with?

 

[David's Harp]

Where does the Bible state that the earth is 6000 years old? It only indicates the generational time period from Adam to the present!
Gen. 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Now the earth was formless and void" but the Hebrew verb hayah. does not just denote the state of being “was” but can also describe a change from one state of being or became!
A preexisting previously destroyed earth and cities populated by life forms other than human is backed up in Jer. 4:23-28 "I looked on the earth, and behold, it was [became] formless and void; And to the heavens, and they had no light. I looked on the mountains, and behold, they were quaking, And all the hills moved to and fro. I looked, and behold, there was no man, And all the birds of the heavens had fled. I looked, and behold, the fruitful land was a wilderness, And all its cities were pulled down Before the LORD, before His fierce anger. For thus says the LORD, The whole land shall be a desolation, Yet I will not execute a complete destruction."
Also God told Adam and Eve to not plenish (fill up) but to replenish (refill) the earth!

I'm not a biblical scholar - nowhere near! But I feel you have taken that passage from Jeremiah out of context. Would anyone else with more knowledge care to agree or disagree on this?

 

[Bob8102]

Where does the Bible state that the earth is 6000 years old? It only indicates the generational time period from Adam to the present!
Gen. 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Now the earth was formless and void" but the Hebrew verb hayah. does not just denote the state of being “was” but can also describe a change from one state of being or became!
A preexisting previously destroyed earth and cities populated by life forms other than human is backed up in Jer. 4:23-28 "I looked on the earth, and behold, it was [became] formless and void; And to the heavens, and they had no light. I looked on the mountains, and behold, they were quaking, And all the hills moved to and fro. I looked, and behold, there was no man, And all the birds of the heavens had fled. I looked, and behold, the fruitful land was a wilderness, And all its cities were pulled down Before the LORD, before His fierce anger. For thus says the LORD, The whole land shall be a desolation, Yet I will not execute a complete destruction."
Also God told Adam and Eve to not plenish (fill up) but to replenish (refill) the earth!

From the geneologies, one can figure the 6,000 years.
The Jeremiah passage is a reference to God's dealings with Israel. Here is a link to a commentary:
Does Jeremiah 4:23-28 imply that Adam and Eve were not the first couple?

While talking about aliens is a whole other subject, let me just say that many Christians, including myself, do not believe in aliens. We think the universe was originally God's gift to mankind; our subduing and having dominion over the cosmos was short-circuited by sin. The promised new heavens and new earth will be ours. We think that any actual, personal encounters between humans and aliens, as with encounters between humans and ghosts, are actually encounters between humans and demons.

 

[d taylor]

Science is dictating nothing. You can either use new discoveries or ignore them.

It does for people like you (and others), it's just that you and others will not admit it, it is easily observed on this forum.

 

[Bob8102]

What in my response did you disagree with?

You say that God's word and the revelation of nature are a unified whole and do not disagree with each other. I agree. But you assume that assertions of the mainstream scientific community are at least as infallible as scripture. I disagree. Man's intellect is limited, fallen and prone to prejudices. Young-nature creationists assert that things like the Big Bang theory and the theory of evolution are scientifically refutable and they state the reasons this is so.

Earlier in my life, having been taught by the public schools and the media that standard theories of origins are fact, I could not take really seriously the claim that the Bible is the word of God. But after I saw counterclaims to evolutionism, I came to believe the Bible is the word of God. But for a long time I held to Big Bang cosmology. Eventually I changed my mind and decided that, since I believe the Bible is the word of God, then standard cosmology must be as wrong as evolutionism. Being very interested in science, as I read more, the more I saw holes in the Big Bang theory.

One would think that the creation-evolution debate among Christians would not be as bitter as that between Christians and non-Christians. Christians agree on the most important matter of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Non-Christians use standard origins theory as a basis for denying the God of the Bible and Christianity. For instance, I read in one book that "scientific" cosmology relieves us from having to ask the question, "Who created God?" But I perceive that Christians can be just as bitterly opposed to each other on the issue of origins as Christians versus non-Christians. For instance, one time, years ago, before I had studied the issue but was a creationist, I was making anti-evolutionism comments in an online forum about intelligent design. A man who identified himself as a Christian argued against my disbelief in evolutionism. And he was mad! He was hopping mad! He said he was ready to take on the creationists himself. Since I had not researched the matter very much, I didn't feel qualified to debate him. I thought about enlisting some folks at the ICR to join the forum. Now that I have done some relevant learning, I feel I could take him on myself.

Non-Christian evolutionists are motivated by the desire to be free of the God of the Bible. I suppose Christian evolutionists are bowled over by assertions about origins by the mainstream scientific community and don't want to be seen as opposing the proven truths of science, like the Jesuits versus Galileo. If scientists put man on the moon, how dare we argue with them? But the sciences range from the objective, like physics, to the subjective, like psychology, sociology and natural history. The scientists whose job it is to support the theory of evolution are not the same scientists who put us on the moon.

I say, again, that Christian old-universers and evolutionists put too much faith in the limited, fallen intellect of mankind. Non-Christian evolutionists do the same.

 

[RDKirk]

Whatever the heavens reveal that God created, however the heavens reveal that God created them...

...God created them.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

I'm not a biblical scholar—nowhere near!—but I feel you have taken that passage from Jeremiah out of context. Would anyone else with more knowledge care to agree or disagree on this?

John Walton (2009, pp. 46-49), citing such biblical scholarship as that of David Tsumura (2005, p. 35), argues that tohu and bohu together convey the idea of non-existence (under a function-oriented ontology), something that is non-functional, or has no purpose or worth (e.g., Isa 49:4), or is generally unproductive in human terms, or is not constituted as (or not a constituent of) a functioning ordered system, like a desolate waste (Gen 1:2; Deut 32:10; Job 12:24; Jer 4:23; Isa 40:17).

• John H. Walton, The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2009).
• David Tsumura, Creation and Destruction (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2005).

 

[David's Harp]

John Walton (2009, pp. 46-49), citing such biblical scholarship as that of David Tsumura (2005, p. 35), argues that tohu and bohu together convey the idea of non-existence (under a function-oriented ontology), something that is non-functional, or has no purpose or worth (e.g., Isa 49:4), or is generally unproductive in human terms, or is not constituted as (or not a constituent of) a functioning ordered system, like a desolate waste (Gen 1:2; Deut 32:10; Job 12:24; Jer 4:23; Isa 40:17).

• John H. Walton, The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2009).
• David Tsumura, Creation and Destruction (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2005), p. 35.

Thank you for your insight @DialecticSkeptic. It's way above my 'pay grade' honestly. How do you view this idea in the context of Jeremiah 4?

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

You say that God's word and the revelation of nature are a unified whole and do not disagree with each other. I agree.

Excellent.

But you assume that assertions of the mainstream scientific community are at least as infallible as scripture. I disagree.

Incorrect. I take natural revelation as authoritative and infallible; man's interpretation thereof is not (i.e., "assertions of the mainstream scientific community"). It is the same with Scripture. Divine revelation is authoritative, human interpretation is not.

Man's intellect is limited, fallen, and prone to prejudices.

I agree, but I would point out that this includes young-earth creationist scholars.

Young-nature creationists assert that things like the Big Bang theory, and the theory of evolution, are scientifically refutable and they state the reasons this is so.

And they are demonstrably mistaken more often than not—which, in fact, is routinely demonstrated.

Earlier in my life, having been taught by the public schools and the media that standard theories of origins are fact, I could not take really seriously the claim that the Bible is the word of God. But after I saw counter-claims to evolutionism, I came to believe the Bible is the word of God.

God is to be praised for rescuing you from that mire. And even though that's a strange route to believing the Bible is the word of God, I am very glad that you came to believe that.

But for a long time I held to Big Bang cosmology. Eventually I changed my mind and decided that, since I believe the Bible is the word of God, then standard cosmology must be as wrong as evolutionism. Being very interested in science, as I read more, the more I saw holes in the Big Bang theory.

In light of this, as well as our current discussion, I have two questions:

1. What were you reading?

2. If the Bible is the word of God, why must standard cosmology be wrong?

To elaborate on the second question, what is it about standard Big Bang cosmology that conflicts with the Bible being the word of God?

One would think that the creation–evolution debate among Christians would not be as bitter as that between Christians and non-Christians. ... I perceive that Christians can be just as bitterly opposed to each other on the issue of origins as Christians versus non-Christians.

It breaks my heart to hear stories like that, Christians being so unloving toward one another over secondary and even tertiary issues sometimes. But I get it. You said it yourself: Man is fallen and prone to prejudices. In the soul of every Christian, the flesh and the Spirit are opposed to one another and we fight to do and be what we want in the Lord (Gal 5:16-26). Among the works of the flesh are idolatry, hostilities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, selfish rivalries, dissensions, factions—exactly the sort of things we observe in those conflicts. We should be ashamed of ourselves when we are guilty of such things, but with a godly sorrow that produces repentance.

"Just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another," Jesus said. "Everyone will know by this that you are my disciples — if you have love for one another" (John 13:34-35).

For instance, one time, years ago, before I had studied the issue but was a creationist, I was making anti-evolutionism comments in an online forum about intelligent design. A man who identified himself as a Christian argued against my disbelief in evolutionism. And he was mad! He was hopping mad! He said he was ready to take on the creationists himself. Since I had not researched the matter very much, I didn't feel qualified to debate him. I thought about enlisting some folks at the ICR to join the forum. Now that I have done some relevant learning, I feel I could take him on myself.

As I said, my faith community is historically Reformed and in this community we have something called the Cage Stage. New converts to the five solas and doctrines of grace are often... well, let's say overbearing in their zeal for the truth (of which I was also once guilty). Such people need to be locked in a cage, as it were, until their zeal is finally seasoned with wisdom and love. That interim period is what we call the Cage Stage.

I bring this up because it sounds like that gentleman was in his own kind of Cage Stage. Best to not feed the animals, so to speak. Although I'm sure you could "take him on" now, it probably wouldn't be wise.

Non-Christian evolutionists are motivated by the desire to be free of the God of the Bible. I suppose Christian evolutionists are bowled over by assertions about origins by the mainstream scientific community and don't want to be seen as opposing the proven truths of science, like the Jesuits versus Galileo.

I don't know why you would suppose such a thing—perhaps you have evidence which proves it?—but I can assure you that I'm not even remotely concerned about the opinions of those who are perishing. And knowing what I do about people like Haarsma and others, they're not the least bit concerned either. As I said in my response to you, the tipping point for people like us was grasping the consequences of believing that God is every bit the author of the natural world as he is of the holy Bible. We were compelled to adjust our theology accordingly, treating Scripture and nature as equally authoritative and infallible (and self-consistent), as both are revelations of God.

But human interpretations, on the other hand, are not infallible. They not only can err but in fact do err. And science, at least, is self-consciously fallible; scientists know that their conclusions can be wrong and they actively try to falsify their own work before someone else does it (which could be embarrassing). Paleontologist Mary Schweitzer is a good example of this. While a graduate student of Jack Horner, she discovered what appeared to be 65-million-year-old fossilized red blood cells. When Horner eventually heard the gossip of what she found, he called her in to his office. After venting at her for taking his bone sample without his permission,

he asked to see her sample. There followed a ten-minute silence. Little red orbs were unmistakable. Some even had visible nuclei.

"So, what do you think they are?" he finally asked.

"They look like blood cells," she answered.

"Prove to me that they are not." [1]​

You see, that is a quintessential scientific attitude, right there. Take your conclusion and try your best to prove it wrong. That is a hallmark of good science. That's what I mean when I say that science is self-consciously fallible.

Young-earth creationists, I'm afraid, don't typically exhibit that degree of awareness. Time and time again, I read material from Answers in Genesis or Master Books (their publishing arm) which says that to believe the earth is billions of years old is to reject what the word of God says in favor of what man says. (And when I was a young-earth creationist I would often say the very same thing, and I see it being said on these forums, too.) They seem oblivious to the fact that they are equating their interpretation with the word of God, apparently unable to tell the difference between revelation and interpretation when it comes to young-earth creationism. Time and time again, I am forced to emphasize, "No, sir, what I reject is your interpretation. The word of God is infallible, whereas your human interpretation is not. I accept the word of God without reservation or question. I cannot say the same about human interpretations thereof. Those can be and should be questioned."

The scientists whose job it is to support the theory of evolution ...

If you think it's the job of scientists to support the theory, then you don't understand how science works. It is their job to poke holes in the theory—to prove it wrong, as it were. For example, phyletic gradualism versus punctuated equilibria. See also the competition between scientists about whether the evolution of genetic traits must perforce be framed in terms of adaptive responses to selection pressures (e.g., the focus is now shifting toward changes in gene regulatory networks). Or consider the "zero-force evolutionary law" proposed by Daniel W. McShea and Robert N. Brandon, Biology's First Law: The Tendency for Diversity and Complexity to Increase in Evolutionary Systems (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2010).

I say, again, that Christian old-universers and evolutionists put too much faith in the limited, fallen intellect of mankind.

1. On the one hand, I don't happen to know any but, sure, perhaps some do. (Can you name one?) However, that ignores the countless old-earthers and evolutionary creationists whose faith is in God alone, as the one author of both Scripture and nature. Our faith in the limited, fallen intellect of man is so weak and tentative that we are quick to abandon any human interpretation that conflicts with a biblical systematic theology—including young-earth creationism.

2. On the other hand, I would counter-argue that young-earth creationists put too much faith in the limited, fallen intellect of man, evidenced by the fact that their entire world-view rests upon that human interpretation which they equate with the word of God.

---

References:

[1] Tim C. Stafford, The Adam Quest (Nashville, TN: Nelson, 2013). This book provides a biographical sketch of eleven scientists exploring the divine mystery of human origins. Chapter 7 is about former young-earth creationist Mary Schweitzer.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

How do you view this idea in the context of Jeremiah 4?

I understand this passage (Jer 4:3-31) as concerning the people of Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem (v. 3ff) and God's warning against their sins and call to repent (vv. 4-18). His anger will be like a conflagration against them that no one will be able to extinguish (i.e., Nebuchadnezzar and his forces; cf. v. 20), and all because of the evil they have done. This judgment of God will be (and was) so severe that the prophet likens it to the undoing of creation (vv. 19-31, esp. v. 23, "I looked at the earth, and it was formless and empty; and at the heavens, and their light was gone").

 

[Bob8102]

Excellent.




Incorrect. I take natural revelation as authoritative and infallible; man's interpretation thereof is not (i.e., "assertions of the mainstream scientific community"). It is the same with Scripture. Divine revelation is authoritative, human interpretation is not.




I agree, but I would point out that this includes young-earth creationist scholars.




And they are demonstrably mistaken more often than not—which, in fact, is routinely demonstrated.




God is to be praised for rescuing you from that mire. And even though that's a strange route to believing the Bible is the word of God, I am very glad that you came to believe that.




In light of this, as well as our current discussion, I have two questions:

1. What were you reading?

2. If the Bible is the word of God, why must standard cosmology be wrong?

To elaborate on the second question, what is it about standard Big Bang cosmology that conflicts with the Bible being the word of God?




It breaks my heart to hear stories like that, Christians being so unloving toward one another over secondary and even tertiary issues sometimes. But I get it. You said it yourself: Man is fallen and prone to prejudices. In the soul of every Christian, the flesh and the Spirit are opposed to one another and we fight to do and be what we want in the Lord (Gal 5:16-26). Among the works of the flesh are idolatry, hostilities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, selfish rivalries, dissensions, factions—exactly the sort of things we observe in those conflicts. We should be ashamed of ourselves when we are guilty of such things, but with a godly sorrow that produces repentance.

"Just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another," Jesus said. "Everyone will know by this that you are my disciples — if you have love for one another" (John 13:34-35).




As I said, my faith community is historically Reformed and in this community we have something called the Cage Stage. New converts to the five solas and doctrines of grace are often... well, let's say overbearing in their zeal for the truth (of which I was also once guilty). Such people need to be locked in a cage, as it were, until their zeal is finally seasoned with wisdom and love. That interim period is what we call the Cage Stage.

I bring this up because it sounds like that gentleman was in his own kind of Cage Stage. Best to not feed the animals, so to speak. Although I'm sure you could "take him on" now, it probably wouldn't be wise.




I don't know why you would suppose such a thing—perhaps you have evidence which proves it?—but I can assure you that I'm not even remotely concerned about the opinions of those who are perishing. And knowing what I do about people like Haarsma and others, they're not the least bit concerned either. As I said in my response to you, the tipping point for people like us was grasping the consequences of believing that God is every bit the author of the natural world as he is of the holy Bible. We were compelled to adjust our theology accordingly, treating Scripture and nature as equally authoritative and infallible (and self-consistent), as both are revelations of God.

But human interpretations, on the other hand, are not infallible. They not only can err but in fact do err. And science, at least, is self-consciously fallible; scientists know that their conclusions can be wrong and they actively try to falsify their own work before someone else does it (which could be embarrassing). Paleontologist Mary Schweitzer is a good example of this. While a graduate student of Jack Horner, she discovered what appeared to be 65-million-year-old fossilized red blood cells. When Horner eventually heard the gossip of what she found, he called her in to his office. After venting at her for taking his bone sample without his permission,

he asked to see her sample. There followed a ten-minute silence. Little red orbs were unmistakable. Some even had visible nuclei.

"So, what do you think they are?" he finally asked.

"They look like blood cells," she answered.

"Prove to me that they are not." [1]​

You see, that is a quintessential scientific attitude, right there. Take your conclusion and try your best to prove it wrong. That is a hallmark of good science. That's what I mean when I say that science is self-consciously fallible.

Young-earth creationists, I'm afraid, don't typically exhibit that degree of awareness. Time and time again, I read material from Answers in Genesis or Master Books (their publishing arm) which says that to believe the earth is billions of years old is to reject what the word of God says in favor of what man says. (And when I was a young-earth creationist I would often say the very same thing, and I see it being said on these forums, too.) They seem oblivious to the fact that they are equating their interpretation with the word of God, apparently unable to tell the difference between revelation and interpretation when it comes to young-earth creationism. Time and time again, I am forced to emphasize, "No, sir, what I reject is your interpretation. The word of God is infallible, whereas your human interpretation is not. I accept the word of God without reservation or question. I cannot say the same about human interpretations thereof. Those can be and should be questioned."




If you think it's the job of scientists to support the theory, then you don't understand how science works. It is their job to poke holes in the theory—to prove it wrong, as it were. For example, phyletic gradualism versus punctuated equilibria. See also the competition between scientists about whether the evolution of genetic traits must perforce be framed in terms of adaptive responses to selection pressures (e.g., the focus is now shifting toward changes in gene regulatory networks). Or consider the "zero-force evolutionary law" proposed by Daniel W. McShea and Robert N. Brandon, Biology's First Law: The Tendency for Diversity and Complexity to Increase in Evolutionary Systems (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2010).




1. On the one hand, I don't happen to know any but, sure, perhaps some do. (Can you name one?) However, that ignores the countless old-earthers and evolutionary creationists whose faith is in God alone, as the one author of both Scripture and nature. Our faith in the limited, fallen intellect of man is so weak and tentative that we are quick to abandon any human interpretation that conflicts with a biblical systematic theology—including young-earth creationism.

2. On the other hand, I would counter-argue that young-earth creationists put too much faith in the limited, fallen intellect of man, evidenced by the fact that their entire world-view rests upon that human interpretation which they equate with the word of God.

---

References:

[1] Tim C. Stafford, The Adam Quest (Nashville, TN: Nelson, 2013). This book provides a biographical sketch of eleven scientists exploring the divine mystery of human origins. Chapter 7 is about former young-earth creationist Mary Schweitzer.

You said:

In light of this, as well as our current discussion, I have two questions:

1. What were you reading?

2. If the Bible is the word of God, why must standard cosmology be wrong?

To elaborate on the second question, what is it about standard Big Bang cosmology that conflicts with the Bible being the word of God?



1. I have, off and on, for years read both creationist and evolutionist sources. Such as, Science News magazine, Scientific American magazine, website of the Institute for Creation Research, among others.

2. Because the Bible says God created the world in six days. Building a calendar based on the history the Bible gives, you arrive at something on the order of a 6,000 year age of the earth. The Jewish calendar, which is supposed to start at the date of creation, says this is year 5782.



You keep saying that the revelation of nature is infallible, but human interpretation thereof is not. But then you implicitly or explicitly assert that the Big Bang/Evolution/old nature view is not just another interpretation, but it is. You say or imply that scientists try to prove their theories wrong and that science is self-correcting. I disagree. Those of the standard origins view censor the opposition.

You show yourself to be a typical adherent to the official view of origins, as I show myself to be a typical adherent to the creationist view. We can never agree.

 

[Bob8102]

PS - It is not the job of most scientists to support standard theories of origins. Only a few, relatively speaking, build their careers on this. The rest of the mainstream science community members believe the official view because that is what they are taught. In their education and community media, they are sheltered from scientific opposition.

 

[David's Harp]

I understand this passage (Jer 4:3-31) as concerning the people of Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem (v. 3ff) and God's warning against their sins and call to repent (vv. 4-18). His anger will be like a conflagration against them that no one will be able to extinguish (i.e., Nebuchadnezzar and his forces; cf. v. 20), and all because of the evil they have done. This judgment of God will be (and was) so severe that the prophet likens it to the undoing of creation (vv. 19-31, esp. v. 23, "I looked at the earth, and it was formless and empty; and at the heavens, and their light was gone").

Thank you for your answer. So it would seem that most people would be in agreement that this passage cannot be used to suggest a pre-existing population prior to Genesis 1. @DaveISBA Do you want to comment any further on your statement?

 

[David's Harp]

Excellent.




Incorrect. I take natural revelation as authoritative and infallible; man's interpretation thereof is not (i.e., "assertions of the mainstream scientific community"). It is the same with Scripture. Divine revelation is authoritative, human interpretation is not.




I agree, but I would point out that this includes young-earth creationist scholars.




And they are demonstrably mistaken more often than not—which, in fact, is routinely demonstrated.




God is to be praised for rescuing you from that mire. And even though that's a strange route to believing the Bible is the word of God, I am very glad that you came to believe that.




In light of this, as well as our current discussion, I have two questions:

1. What were you reading?

2. If the Bible is the word of God, why must standard cosmology be wrong?

To elaborate on the second question, what is it about standard Big Bang cosmology that conflicts with the Bible being the word of God?




It breaks my heart to hear stories like that, Christians being so unloving toward one another over secondary and even tertiary issues sometimes. But I get it. You said it yourself: Man is fallen and prone to prejudices. In the soul of every Christian, the flesh and the Spirit are opposed to one another and we fight to do and be what we want in the Lord (Gal 5:16-26). Among the works of the flesh are idolatry, hostilities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, selfish rivalries, dissensions, factions—exactly the sort of things we observe in those conflicts. We should be ashamed of ourselves when we are guilty of such things, but with a godly sorrow that produces repentance.

"Just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another," Jesus said. "Everyone will know by this that you are my disciples — if you have love for one another" (John 13:34-35).




As I said, my faith community is historically Reformed and in this community we have something called the Cage Stage. New converts to the five solas and doctrines of grace are often... well, let's say overbearing in their zeal for the truth (of which I was also once guilty). Such people need to be locked in a cage, as it were, until their zeal is finally seasoned with wisdom and love. That interim period is what we call the Cage Stage.

I bring this up because it sounds like that gentleman was in his own kind of Cage Stage. Best to not feed the animals, so to speak. Although I'm sure you could "take him on" now, it probably wouldn't be wise.




I don't know why you would suppose such a thing—perhaps you have evidence which proves it?—but I can assure you that I'm not even remotely concerned about the opinions of those who are perishing. And knowing what I do about people like Haarsma and others, they're not the least bit concerned either. As I said in my response to you, the tipping point for people like us was grasping the consequences of believing that God is every bit the author of the natural world as he is of the holy Bible. We were compelled to adjust our theology accordingly, treating Scripture and nature as equally authoritative and infallible (and self-consistent), as both are revelations of God.

But human interpretations, on the other hand, are not infallible. They not only can err but in fact do err. And science, at least, is self-consciously fallible; scientists know that their conclusions can be wrong and they actively try to falsify their own work before someone else does it (which could be embarrassing). Paleontologist Mary Schweitzer is a good example of this. While a graduate student of Jack Horner, she discovered what appeared to be 65-million-year-old fossilized red blood cells. When Horner eventually heard the gossip of what she found, he called her in to his office. After venting at her for taking his bone sample without his permission,

he asked to see her sample. There followed a ten-minute silence. Little red orbs were unmistakable. Some even had visible nuclei.

"So, what do you think they are?" he finally asked.

"They look like blood cells," she answered.

"Prove to me that they are not." [1]​

You see, that is a quintessential scientific attitude, right there. Take your conclusion and try your best to prove it wrong. That is a hallmark of good science. That's what I mean when I say that science is self-consciously fallible.

Young-earth creationists, I'm afraid, don't typically exhibit that degree of awareness. Time and time again, I read material from Answers in Genesis or Master Books (their publishing arm) which says that to believe the earth is billions of years old is to reject what the word of God says in favor of what man says. (And when I was a young-earth creationist I would often say the very same thing, and I see it being said on these forums, too.) They seem oblivious to the fact that they are equating their interpretation with the word of God, apparently unable to tell the difference between revelation and interpretation when it comes to young-earth creationism. Time and time again, I am forced to emphasize, "No, sir, what I reject is your interpretation. The word of God is infallible, whereas your human interpretation is not. I accept the word of God without reservation or question. I cannot say the same about human interpretations thereof. Those can be and should be questioned."




If you think it's the job of scientists to support the theory, then you don't understand how science works. It is their job to poke holes in the theory—to prove it wrong, as it were. For example, phyletic gradualism versus punctuated equilibria. See also the competition between scientists about whether the evolution of genetic traits must perforce be framed in terms of adaptive responses to selection pressures (e.g., the focus is now shifting toward changes in gene regulatory networks). Or consider the "zero-force evolutionary law" proposed by Daniel W. McShea and Robert N. Brandon, Biology's First Law: The Tendency for Diversity and Complexity to Increase in Evolutionary Systems (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2010).




1. On the one hand, I don't happen to know any but, sure, perhaps some do. (Can you name one?) However, that ignores the countless old-earthers and evolutionary creationists whose faith is in God alone, as the one author of both Scripture and nature. Our faith in the limited, fallen intellect of man is so weak and tentative that we are quick to abandon any human interpretation that conflicts with a biblical systematic theology—including young-earth creationism.

2. On the other hand, I would counter-argue that young-earth creationists put too much faith in the limited, fallen intellect of man, evidenced by the fact that their entire world-view rests upon that human interpretation which they equate with the word of God.

---

References:

[1] Tim C. Stafford, The Adam Quest (Nashville, TN: Nelson, 2013). This book provides a biographical sketch of eleven scientists exploring the divine mystery of human origins. Chapter 7 is about former young-earth creationist Mary Schweitzer.

That was an excellent and well-crafted post. What, in your opinion, is the best example of evidence that clearly demonstrates the age of the earth in line with what we can interpret from the Bible?

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

I have, off and on, for years read both creationist and evolutionist sources, such as Science News magazine, Scientific American magazine, the website of the Institute for Creation Research, among others.

All right. So, you said that, the more you read, the more holes you saw in Big Bang cosmology. What did you read in either Science News or Scientific American that demonstrated or suggested holes in Big Bang cosmology?

Because the Bible says God created the world in six days. Building a calendar based on the history [that] the Bible gives, you arrive at something on the order of a 6,000-year age of the earth.

To remind both you and our readers, I had asked you, "What is it about standard Big Bang cosmology that conflicts with the Bible being the word of God?" Your answer here plainly demonstrates that you are guilty of the very thing I had pointed out in my last response (15-Aug-2022), namely, you are equating a human interpretation (young-earth creationism) with divine revelation, as if they were the same thing. But they are not. There is a fundamental, categorical difference between revelation and interpretation.

So, that's what I wanted to draw out and expose to the light, this incorrigible tendency to treat young-earth creationism like it's not a human interpretation but rather divine revelation, the word of God.

Standard Big Bang cosmology doesn't conflict with the Bible being the word of God because we have (a) no reason to believe that young-earth creationism is true and (b) plenty of reasons to think it is false.

You keep saying that the revelation of nature is infallible but human interpretation thereof is not.

False. I said precisely the opposite (15-Aug-2022): "I take natural revelation as authoritative and infallible; man's interpretation thereof is not (i.e., ‘assertions of the mainstream scientific community’)."

Edit: I misread that. Yes, that is correct. Natural revelation is infallible, human interpretations thereof are not.

But then you implicitly or explicitly assert that the Big Bang, or evolution, or an [old-earth] view is not just another interpretation, ...

No, I did not—as anyone can verify by reviewing my response (which you very conveniently avoided quoting when making this allegation). See above, where I explicitly identified the "assertions of the mainstream scientific community" as human interpretation.

You say or imply that scientists try to prove their theories wrong and that science is self-correcting. I disagree.

I think it's quite foolish of you to disagree, given the explicit examples I provided where scientists have done that very thing (with specific citations included) and the stark absence of any evidence to the contrary.

P.S. I did not say that science is self-correcting, although in a sense it is. I said it is "self-consciously fallible." It's built right into the system.

Those of the standard origins view censor the opposition.

What was the opposition? Was it likewise scientific? If so, please provide evidence of it being censored.

You show yourself to be a typical adherent to the official view of origins, ...

Then you are not paying attention, for I am a creationist and fundamentalist Christian.

... as I show myself to be a typical adherent to the [young-earth] creationist view.

I don't disagree with that.

We can never agree.

"The one who refuses correction despises himself, but whoever hears reproof acquires understanding" (Prov 15:32).

I am not beyond teaching, rebuking, correcting, etc. (2 Tim 3:16-17). Are you?

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

Thank you for your answer. So, it would seem that most people would be in agreement that this passage cannot be used to suggest a pre-existing population prior to Genesis 1. @DaveISBA Do you want to comment any further on your statement?

It cannot be used to suggest a pre-existing population, agreed. However, it does show that "formless and empty" doesn't rule out a pre-existing population.

---

That was an excellent and well-crafted post.

I appreciate that, thank you.

What, in your opinion, is the best example of evidence that clearly demonstrates the age of the earth in line with what we can interpret from the Bible?

As far as I can tell, the Bible doesn't suggest an age for the earth. I think nearly all Christians can agree that the Bible is a record of redemptive history. I too believe that. But, unlike most Christians, I don't believe the Bible is a record of natural history. In other words, I firmly believe that Genesis records the dawn of redemptive history but says nothing about natural history. I have no reason to believe that the creation account in Genesis refers to origins in material-oriented terms, but I have good reasons for believing it refers to origins in function-oriented terms. Hence, the Bible doesn't suggest an age for the earth. It could be old, it could be young. That's a scientific question. Natural history is the stage upon which the drama of redemptive history unfolds, and it is redemptive history that reveals the meaning and purpose of natural history, all things pointing to Jesus Christ for the glory of God. We explore natural history scientifically; we explore redemptive history theologically.

 

[Bob8102]

My response to DialecticSkeptic:

You are guilty of the very thing I had pointed out in my last response, namely, you are equating a human interpretation (old-earth Big Bang/evolutionism) with divine revelation, as if they were the same thing. But they are not. There is a fundamental, categorical difference between revelation and interpretation.

If you want to read about things that I have read about the Big Bang in both mainstream and creationist sources, go to my website, www.cosministry.com, and click on "Big Bang Busted."

Old-nature evolutionists and young-nature creationists will never agree. This argument and insult-trading could go on forever. But to all Christians, old-universers or young-universers: Peace, brothers!

Signing off.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

@Bob8102 tried to flip the script, as it were, and use my words against me. The attempt has to fail, of course, because there is clear evidence accessible to all—including him!—that the opposite is the case. That is to say, I have maintained a clear distinction in each one of my posts (#16, #29, and #35) between divine revelation (Scripture and nature) and human interpretation (theology and science). Here are two examples from Post #29 that could not spell it out any clearer (emphasis added):

• "I take natural revelation as authoritative and infallible; man's interpretation thereof is not"—and I even went so far as to say that "human interpretation" includes the assertions of the mainstream scientific community. "It is the same with Scripture. Divine revelation is authoritative, human interpretation is not."
  .
• "... the tipping point for people like us was grasping the consequences of believing that God is every bit the author of the natural world as he is of the holy Bible. We were compelled to adjust our theology accordingly"—obviously a human interpretation—"treating Scripture and nature as equally authoritative and infallible (and self-consistent), as both are revelations of God."

So, no, I am not "equating a human interpretation (old-earth Big Bang/evolutionism) with divine revelation, as if they were the same thing."

 

[Laconia79]

Just this morning, on MSN, I saw an article that was about how Christians should feel about new images of space, such as those from the James Webb telescope. The article includes an interview with a woman scientist who apparently is also a Christian. She seems to believe in the Big Bang and old ages of the universe. A brief reference is made in the article about some pastors 'forcing their congregations to accept young universe notions.' While I respectfully disagree with this lady's loyalty to standard cosmology, she at least referred to the universe and its wonders as God's creation. I see no reason for anyone to have to maintain loyalty to the Big Bang and old universe assertions of the mainstream scientific community. I have written a treatise called "Big Bang Busted." It is available on my website, COSMINISTRY - Cosmos Ministry

If you go to this website, please do not click on the "discussion" link because I am not maintaining this website and the discussion forum link is now inoperable. But please do go to the article entitled "Big Bang Busted." This website is best viewed on a desktop PC or laptop, not on a mobile device.

To those Christians who want to reconcile the assertions of the mainstream scientific community about origins and natural history with the Bible, I say the two views are distinctly different and cannot be matched up. To these Christians, I say, what? Did God lack the power to create the cosmos in six days, about 6,000 years ago, or did He choose NOT to do so? The Bible, if you don't want to play debilitating interpretation games with it, straightforwardly asserts that the infinite God has the power to have created the universe in six, calendar days. And He used that power, to His glory.

Here is a link to the MSN article I read this morning:

How should Christians feel about the new images of outer space?

There is no question about the age of the universe. If you follow the bible it is no older than 7 to 8000 years. Now the andromeda is 2.5 million light years away from us, that means the light from galaxy takes 2.5 millions years to reach us. What we see through a telescope is the past. The farthest thing we have found is about 13 billion lightyears away. It is math and 1+1 is 2, now if there was a line in the bible that said 1=1 is 5 Christianity would start another crusade to argue that. But 1+1=2 and nothing Christianity says can change that. The Jews who wrote the old testament were an ancient bronze era people. In the world they lived in, Illness was evil spirits, the earth was flat and the center of the universe. We know now that almost everything they believe was ignorance. That does not take away from gods existence, but it does show us the bible is part history, parable and lesson on having a relationship with god and the myths of the Jewish people.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

If you follow the Bible, [the earth] is no older than 7,000 to 8,000 years.

That follows only if Genesis 1 is about material origins. So, is it? I've never been given any reason to believe that it is. Creationists of all kinds assume as much, but assumptions are not convincing except to the already convinced.

If Genesis 1 is not about material origins, then the Bible doesn't say anything about the age of the earth.