Implication of Origins

[Ben_Hur]

My Pastor (who is a YEC - I am Progressive Creationist) made the following statements which I have a big problem with. I don't mind people believing YEC, TE, or PC, but these two things should not be stated by a pastor.

1. Evolution is "specfically designed" to remove God from the equation.

This implies there is some sort of conspiracy out there amongst scientists who are trying to disprove the existance of God. This is utter nonsense. There are lots of Christians who are scientists that are not trying to disprove the existance of God. Anyone who says this has not done their homework.

2. With evolution, there was no fall, therefore no sin, therefore no need for Jesus.

This is totally based on certain "no sin" prior to the fall assumptions which are unverified (not necessarily wrong, just unverified).

I believe the utlimate implication of number 2, is that if you believe evolution, then you DON'T and CAN'T believe in Jesus and are therefore not a Christian. This raises the concept of YEC to salvation doctrine. I find it offensive and irresponsible to make such claims as being authoritative.

Anyone else?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Darwin was deeply concerned about natural theodicy. After his daughter Anna's death much of his questions revolved around solving this, see the sections on parasites esp. parasitic wasps on catepillars. There is also truth in the statement that it was Darwin's goal to eliminate the last traces of Aristotelian teleology from biological explanation and theorizing.

it is also certainly true that people with a naturalistic worldview use TofE to demonstrate their point that there is no need for God, but this is a metaphysical not a scientific argument.


....

 

[Ben_Hur]

it is also certainly true that people with a naturalistic worldview use TofE to demonstrate their point that there is no need for God, but this is a metaphysical not a scientific argument.

....

Just because something is used for something else doesn't mean it is designed for use on that something else. For instance, a .22 cal pistol may have been designed to kill people, but it may also be used as a crude drill for making holes in plywood. But it is certainly not specifically designed as a plywood-hole-making machine.

If I understood Teleology and Theodicy better, I might be able to address the earlier part of your response also. But I don't

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Just because something is used for something else doesn't mean it is designed for use on that something else. For instance, a .22 cal pistol may have been designed to kill people, but it may also be used as a crude drill for making holes in plywood. But it is certainly not specifically designed as a plywood-hole-making machine.

If I understood Teleology and Theodicy better, I might be able to address the earlier part of your response also. But I don't

it is an ancient principle:
Abusus non tollit usum


for research
the place to start for darwin and theodicy is:
Darwin, His Daughter, and Human Evolution (Hardcover)
by Randal Keynes

Darwin's God: Evolution and the Problem of Evil
By: Cornelius G. Hunter
is ok and interesting, but the first book is better.


...

 

[Joykins]

2. With evolution, there was no fall, therefore no sin, therefore no need for Jesus.

It is intuitively obvious to the casual observer of human life that there is plenty of sin to go around, no matter when or how it originated.

This is totally based on certain "no sin" prior to the fall assumptions which are unverified (not necessarily wrong, just unverified).

Could you flesh this out a little? I'm not sure I understand what you mean.

I believe the utlimate implication of number 2, is that if you believe evolution, then you DON'T and CAN'T believe in Jesus and are therefore not a Christian. This raises the concept of YEC to salvation doctrine. I find it offensive and irresponsible to make such claims as being authoritative.

Anyone else?

Exactly.

I think also the implication is that if you don't accept all of the Bible as literally true that you must not accept any of it and there's no way then that you can be a Christian. Or that you write off the parts which are personally inconvenient to you etc.

 

[billwald]

A tricot theory of the soul resolves the sin problem. God created H. sap by giving the critters a soul and putting them in a special place until they sinned.

 

[Ben_Hur]

Could you flesh this out a little? I'm not sure I understand what you mean.

Ya that was a bit criptic. I'm just saying that for one to say that there was no sin before the fall is a human interpretation. The Bible doesn't actually say there was no sin at all - just that the mortal sin of eating from the tree of life hadn't been committed yet.

So to say there was no sin, then you have to make some assumptions to do so. The concept may be correct, but to prove it is correct, you need to verify your assumptions are true. I don't think anyone has verified that assumption, nor do I think it is possible to verify it.

 

[Calminian]

My Pastor (who is a YEC - I am Progressive Creationist) made the following statements which I have a big problem with. I don't mind people believing YEC, TE, or PC, but these two things should not be stated by a pastor.

1. Evolution is "specfically designed" to remove God from the equation.

This implies there is some sort of conspiracy out there amongst scientists who are trying to disprove the existance of God. This is utter nonsense. There are lots of Christians who are scientists that are not trying to disprove the existance of God. Anyone who says this has not done their homework.

2. With evolution, there was no fall, therefore no sin, therefore no need for Jesus.

This is totally based on certain "no sin" prior to the fall assumptions which are unverified (not necessarily wrong, just unverified).

I believe the utlimate implication of number 2, is that if you believe evolution, then you DON'T and CAN'T believe in Jesus and are therefore not a Christian. This raises the concept of YEC to salvation doctrine. I find it offensive and irresponsible to make such claims as being authoritative.

Anyone else?

I think your Pastor is just speaking of taking things to their logical conclusion. But does God punish bad logic? I don't think so, which is why I think TE's can be christians.

And scientists don't need to be conspirators to be wrong and make flawed assumptions. Evolution is a theory about how the universe came to be if there were no supernatural contributions. It assumes naturalism (no miracles of God).

 

[Rusticus]

Ben_Hur, maybe you ask your pastor if he feels that the theory of Earth having the shape of a sphere is specificially designed to discredit the Bible. (There are numerous references in the Bible stating that Earth has four corners, which is incompatible with the "Theory of Spherical Earth".)

Needless to say, of course, that the "Theory of Spherical Earth" is only a theory, and there is no scientific evidence for it at all. After all, the Bible says otherwise.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Evolution is a theory about how the universe came to be if there were no supernatural contributions. It assumes naturalism (no miracles of God).

this is probably the heart of the YECist argument.
and it is wrong.
evolution does not assume naturalism, naturalism is a metaphysical position and as such is a conclusion, a very high order, general principle of sufficiency. It is possible that TofE assumes something like a provisional methodological naturalism as a shaping principle but even that is not quite true, despite its common assertion. The presuppositions involved are much simpler ideas perhaps something like: we probably can't see supernatural forces scientifically and clearly understand them to be supernatural. but it doesn't matter because supernatural forces are primary explanations and science really only deals in secondary causes. If supernatural forces are involved in say the pushing of certain keys on my keyboard now, science would not be interested nor able to attribute them to those supernatural causes. This is not really an assumption but part of the domain of science.

the big problem with YECism is that it really doesn't make a distinction between levels, between science as mechanism and tool and scientism as a world view and as a result confuses it's attack on the metaphysics of scientism with an attack on the tools of science.

The problem is that YECism has yet to show that an assumption(?) of methodological naturalism is not a good assumption to make when dealing with the world. We don't expect God to perform miracles constantly in the physical world, YECism basically has miracles so involved in the physical world that nothing can be explained in secondary terms but everything has its root in the miraculous creative work of God rather than in the "normal" work of Providence.


....

 

[Ben_Hur]

Ben_Hur, maybe you ask your pastor if he feels that the theory of Earth having the shape of a sphere is specificially designed to discredit the Bible. (There are numerous references in the Bible stating that Earth has four corners, which is incompatible with the "Theory of Spherical Earth".)

Needless to say, of course, that the "Theory of Spherical Earth" is only a theory, and there is no scientific evidence for it at all. After all, the Bible says otherwise.

Well, that is an interesting way of approaching it, but my Pastor believes that the Bible teaches a spherical earth.

And...uh...I'm pretty sure that a spherical earth is NOT a theory but a proven fact. It has been observed from space and experienced via around-the-world travels.

 

[Rusticus]

Well, that is an interesting way of approaching it, but my Pastor believes that the Bible teaches a spherical earth.

And...uh...I'm pretty sure that a spherical earth is NOT a theory but a proven fact. It has been observed from space and experienced via around-the-world travels.

But the Bible cleraly states that the earth has 4 corners. So, is your Pastor into selective literal interpretation of the Bible?


Don't get me wrong, I believe that YE is just a lot of hogwash. And I think that the christians who believe in it on the basis of literal interpretation of the Bible need to - in order to be consistent and credible - apply that literal interpretation not selectively, but across the board.

If they were to do that, they would soon realise how untenable some of their beliefs are....


In my opinion the problem with taking everything literally is that some christians get so absorbed by the words that they completely miss the meaning, the Divine Message.

 

[Calminian]

But the Bible cleraly states that the earth has 4 corners. So, is your Pastor into selective literal interpretation of the Bible?

Actually I don't think that will be a persuasive argument as "four corners of the earth" was merely an idiom for the cardinal directions. The writers of that time actually believed in a spherical earth and even from a strict visual perspective the earth does not appear to be a flat square but rather a flat circle or pancake. This makes it obvious even to those ignorant of modern science this was not a literal description. It's similar to the idiom "four winds" used in Daniel and other places.

Dan. 7:2 Daniel spoke, saying, “I saw in my vision by night, and behold, the four winds of heaven were stirring up the Great Sea.

It's simply a metaphorical way of referring to the four compass directions. On the other hand, for the days of creation there is strong (irrefutable really) evidence they were meant literally. Moses gives us a frame of reference in the jewish work week.

Ex. 20:9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God. ... 11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.

There's no getting around it. If you believe the jewish week was 7 literal days, you have to believe the same about creation week.

Don't get me wrong, I believe that YE is just a lot of hogwash. And I think that the christians who believe in it on the basis of literal interpretation of the Bible need to - in order to be consistent and credible - apply that literal interpretation not selectively, but across the board.

Actually that whole line of reasoning is hogwash. Just because the Bible uses figurative language in some places doesn't mean the entire book has to be figurative (which is taking what you said above to its logical conclusion). All passages have to be understood in context. It's context that determines what is literal and what is not and what is equivocal—not modern scientific theories. What's interesting is the "four corners" saying is unequivocally metaphorical. Given the historical context there's no other possible way to understand it.

 

[gluadys]

There's no getting around it. If you believe the jewish week was 7 literal days, you have to believe the same about creation week.

Why? I don't understand the reasoning that leads to this conclusion. I would see the jewish week as a miniature of creation week. Creation week can be any period of time divided into seven sections, metaphorically called days, and the command to keep the sabbath still makes sense.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Well, that is an interesting way of approaching it, but my Pastor believes that the Bible teaches a spherical earth.

And...uh...I'm pretty sure that a spherical earth is NOT a theory but a proven fact. It has been observed from space and experienced via around-the-world travels.

Technically, it would be a theory, a theory that explains our observations so well that it is almost impossible to question without some insanity involved, but still a theory.

Theories are broad explanations for a set of observations. Whether something is a theory is completely independent of how well it is supported.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

There's no getting around it. If you believe the jewish week was 7 literal days, you have to believe the same about creation week.

No, you don't. A literal week in a non-literal text no longer is a non-literal week. Just like the literal Samaritan in the non-literal parable did not actually exist.

 

[Calminian]

No, you don't. A literal week in a non-literal text no longer is a non-literal week. Just like the literal Samaritan in the non-literal parable did not actually exist.

The week is actually defined guys. 6 days working, 1 resting. And who said the Samaritan didn't really exist? Can you please show me that in the text? See what we mean about the slippery slope?

 

[Rusticus]

....The writers of that time actually believed in a spherical earth ....

Absolutely not true. They believed no such thing.

Bending the truth in order to make a point is not acceptable practice, in my opinion.

 

[gluadys]

The week is actually defined guys. 6 days working, 1 resting. And who said the Samaritan didn't really exist? Can you please show me that in the text? See what we mean about the slippery slope?

What difference does it make that the week is defined? It still does not have to be literal.

As for the Samaritan, most creationists agree the context identifies this story as a parable. That has been the traditional interpretation for millennia. You seem to be sliding down the slippery slope to hyper-literalism.

 

[Ben_Hur]

Technically, it would be a theory, a theory that explains our observations so well that it is almost impossible to question without some insanity involved, but still a theory.

Theories are broad explanations for a set of observations. Whether something is a theory is completely independent of how well it is supported.

The next step up from theory is fact. We've observed the earth from space. We've measured it, we've traveled around it. It is a fact, not a theory. It has been observed and measured in all ways possible. If you can think of a way we haven't measured it that is independent of all other ways that will either confirm or deny the possibility that it is a sphere, then you may be right in saying it is still a theory. I don't think you will be able to though.