Vance said:
I hear what you are saying, but what I say is that simply doesn't happen. Those who are inextricably attached to a literal reading will usually not budge off of it. Those who are willing to budge off of it will, in every case I have ever seen, including probably a dozen on these very boards, simply realize that it was the interpretation itself that was wrong, not Scripture.
I used to be a card carrying paygan with evolution as my fighting tool against religons of all sorts. when i became a Christian all these issues popped up, and Creation/Evol. was the one for me. I still have hard-core Jesus Christ believing Christians who hold to evolution as true science.
For me, I have gone to Creationism, because when I scratched the surface of Evolution the theory died, literally. The book that did it was Michael J Behe's "Darwin's Black Box". After that I looked into other critiques of Darwinism as in Origins. All I will say is that Darwinian theory (as held by Huxley, Dawkins, Singer etc.) is a farce, one mega wool pulled over the eyes. Like Neo, you need to take the red pill - but that is just my opinion
(the scientific validity of Darwinian theory as a "true science" like physics is debatable to perhaps no end, and maybe not for a discussion on this thread.)
Vance said:
But to the extent that there is someone who so strongly clings to a literal interpretation that they lose faith in Scripture, I would say this just shows the danger of promoting such a dogmatic literalism. The fewer people who cling that tightly, and don't even know that there is another possibility, the fewer who will face such a dilemma.
if Scripture is to hold conscisly for generations to come until our Lord's Second Coming, then there is some... err... as you put it "dogmatic literalism" that must hold true. Scripture is trans-cultural and trans-human-philosophy. I mean, that is one of the things that keeps me a Christian (and the Holy Spirit too) - why would I stay a Christian if the Bible can be re-interpreted to fit "our agendas?" I might as well as stayed as a card carrying paygan, making and modifying the rules as I see fit day by day.
The Psalmist says: "where else have we to go when you alone have the words of eternal life?"
Jesus died, Jesus rose. Would you say that was "dogmatic literalism?" Would you water down the message of Christ if people found that offensive? anti-semitic? The controversy stirred when Mel Gibson released his Passion movie is a great example. He was accused of all and everything the paygan world could throw at him, yet by what I'm reading on this thread one could also ascribe Gibson to 'dogmatic literalism'. Just firing questions...
Vance said:
Now, what I HAVE seen are those who have been raised to hold exclusively to a literal reading of the Creation accounts, and a young earth creationism, and then they come in contact with the evidence for evolution and an old earth. Now, to the extent they find this evidence convincing is the extent to which they begin to doubt Scripture. Why? Because they are convinced that the literal reading is the only possible one, and if it is wrong, Scripture is wrong. When confronted with that (usually when working with youth), I have seen some serious crises of faith. And this is based solely on the tension between the dogmatic literalism and YEC'ism and the evidence itself. I then present the statement similar to what I have suggested elsewhere, and explained that Scripture is true regardless, that they don't have to doubt Scripture, that many devout, Bible-believing Christians simply don't read that text in a way that is in conflict with the evidence they find so convincing. This works. Faith solidified. Good fruit.
That brings me to my next point - Evolution has not been proven and CANNOT be proven. The SAME goes with Creationism.
Point:
1. Facts DO NOT speak for themselves.
2. Dig up fossil - INTERPRET in YOUR Worldview, Evolutionist? or Creationist.
3. Authority - Creationist - hold Authority of Bible, Fossil is 5,000 YO.
Evolutionist - hold Authority of Self, Fossil is 5,000 MYO (that's million years old.)
Now the validity of both arguments are sound (Creation + Evolution). So as a philosopher, one naturally pokes at the roots of these two paradigms. Which is more scientifically valid? At this point it might turn metaphysical upon investigation.
I can expound more but won't unless ppl ask Q's
I will say that the evidence (that we dig) fits better with Creation Science AND a Global Flood. Without the Flood, there are gaping holes the size of the Andromeda galaxy in our earthly fossil records. ONE that comes to mind is the Cambrian Explosion. gg Evolutionists trying to explain that one. Also, if you want Astronomy I can give you some evidence that refutes the current paradigm - Disc theory or Disc model.
I doubt the science, build on man's fallible theories.
I don't doubt the Scriptures (don't even get me started on trying to take Gen1-2 allegorically - 'cos in the Hebrew the Psalms read like 5,000,000 times differently than to Genesis, meaning that Psalms are poetry, and Genesis is not.) On that I can point people to extremely large portions on the Hebrew grammer usage, and whether it is allegorical or not - just on the text of Gen1-2.
In Christ