Is it pointless to try to mesh science with religion?

[philadiddle]

I said the use of science. One stops at a certain point while the other continues. Funnily enough, it is the one accused of not doing science (creationism), which acknowledges it more fully. In your above quote, you merely accused the one accused of not doing science with not doing science. This was already given. And the engineer did it is the beginning of explanation, whether you consider the direct creation of a 747 to be science or not.

I was merely pointing out that creationism stops at "God did it" but evolution is the study of how He did it. If you think otherwise I may need further explanation to understand your view. I can't see any way that creationism goes further in science than the theory of evolution.

 

[shernren]

I think what scares me in my discussions with creationists (and hence what motivates me to keep talking to them here) is the absolute unwavering surety they have that their interpretation of the Bible is the correct one. Over the years, I have quoted Bible passages more times than I have quoted scientific journals, and the aggregate result is that my views have been labelled unbiblical (even though I always quote the Bible!) and un-Christian (even though Christ is the focal point of my beliefs!). Reading Augustine's On the Literal Meaning of Genesis recently has been quite thought-provoking. In his exposition on Genesis 1:3 he says this:

Let us suppose that in explaining the words, And God said, "Let there be light," and light was made, one man thinks that it was material light that was made, and another that it was spiritual. As to the actual existence of spiritual light in a spiritual creature, our faith leaves no doubt; as to the existence of material light, celestial or supercelestial, even existing before the heavens, a light which could have been followed by night, there will be nothing in such a supposition contrary to the faith until unerring truth gives the lie to it. And if that should happen, this teaching was never in Holy Scripture but was an opinion proposed by man in his ignorance.
​

Notice first that Augustine considers the most immediate (and literal!) meaning of light to be spiritual light possessed by spiritual creatures. This is a far cry from the creationists of today, whose thought has been so colonized by science that their first impression of "light" is that material, mechanistic light which we see with our physical eyes and produce with our physical machines. Their "literal" is a literal defined by the scientific; Augustine's "literal" was a literal steeped firmly in the powerful imagery of Scripture.

And so the idea of spiritual light is positively affirmed by Augustine, while the idea of it being physical light is only negatively affirmed - there is nothing "contrary to the faith". But this is "until unerring truth gives the lie to it". What unerring truth might this be? Surely Augustine is not referring to the Bible, or else he would not have spoken of the material light merely being not contrary to the faith. In fact, he is referring to science, or more broadly to human reason:

On the other hand, if reason should prove that this opinion [that there is a material light which could be the one spoken of in Genesis 1:3] is unquestionably true, it will still be uncertain whether this sense was intended by the sacred writer when he used the words quoted above, or whether he meant something else no less true.

And if the general drift of the passage shows that the sacred writer did not intend this teaching, the other [that the light is a spiritual light], which he did intend, will not thereby be false; indeed, it will be true and more worth knowing. [That is, just because a particular interpretation of a passage clashes with science doesn't mean the passage itself, with all its alternate interpretations, is then thrown out.]

On the other hand, if the tenor of the words of Scripture does not militate against our taking this teaching as the mind of the writer, we shall still have to enquire whether he could not have meant something else besides. And if we find that he could have meant something else also, it will not be clear which of the two meanings he intended. And there is no difficulty if he is thought to have wished both interpretations if both are supported by clear indications in the context.
​

Notice the humility in Augustine's thought! Even if a particular interpretation of Genesis 1:3 should be backed by both science and Scripture, that would not mean that it is the only possible interpretation or the only interpretation worth pursuing. This is the kind of thought that is foreign to modern creationism. Of course the six days of Genesis 1 are actual 24-hour durations of time, and of course the science confirms it, so what other meaning is needed? Let's sit back and relax now that we've pounded those evilutionists into the ground!

(The passage continues: "Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of the world ... " - yup, that passage.)

What concerns me most about creationism isn't the pseudoscience or even the damaging of reputations due to pseudoscience. It is that verificationist approach to Scripture, that attitude which simply asks "How can I prove that this happened?" This same attitude often flattens any given passage of Scripture into a single event-description which can either be verified or falsified. But Scripture was not given to us just to be proven (or proofread?); it was given to us to be read. "Take it and read, take it and read," Augustine heard - not "take it and prove it to be true and subsequently get distracted by the shiny pseudotoys you used to proved it true."

 

[juvenissun]

What concerns me most about creationism isn't the pseudoscience or even the damaging of reputations due to pseudoscience. It is that verificationist approach to Scripture, that attitude which simply asks "How can I prove that this happened?" This same attitude often flattens any given passage of Scripture into a single event-description which can either be verified or falsified. But Scripture was not given to us just to be proven (or proofread?); it was given to us to be read. "Take it and read, take it and read," Augustine heard - not "take it and prove it to be true and subsequently get distracted by the shiny pseudotoys you used to proved it true."

I have this attitude. But at the same time, I never say any other spiritual interpretation is wrong. I mind my business and not attacking people. When I provided my idea, it is people who attacked me. Creationism is defending attacks from evolutionism. There was only creationism for thousands of years.

So, what kind of damage my attitude would cause? I don't see anything.

Example:

I say: the Flood is global (because the Scripture says it)
You say: no. it is local. (or it never happened)
Then the argument begins. And I will try hard to find scientific arguments that support my idea.
If so, what is wrong with the argument? Literalism. So what?

But if you say: the Flood eliminated evil; or the Flood reduced the world population; or the Flood means ...
I would certainly say: agree ! (doesn't matter if the statement is accurate or not).

 

[Greg1234]

I was merely pointing out that creationism stops at "God did it"

I was merely pointing out that Creationism simply acknowledges science in its completion, while Darwinism stops short.

 

[philadiddle]

I was merely pointing out that Creationism simply acknowledges science in its completion, while Darwinism stops short.

This is what I don't understand. Care to ellaborate?

 

[Greg1234]

This is what I don't understand. Care to ellaborate?

Science in its completion means the totality of scientific revelation (on subject). Stop short means to cease before the end.

 

[solarwave]

I was merely pointing out that Creationism simply acknowledges science in its completion, while Darwinism stops short.

In what way? What is the extra evidence?

 

[Verticordious]

Science serves as a way to test scripture against reality. Anyone can make claims about what the correct interpretation of scripture is, but how do we know who is right and who is wrong? Reality is true by definition, so any interpretation of the Bible must accurately represent reality. Any theology that relies on an interpretation of the Bible that inaccurately represents reality would have to be rejected.

As for people not changing beliefs, that has less to do with available evidence and more to do with social issues. Most people do not pick a belief system based upon the evidence, they pick a belief system that supports their desired behavior or to gain the acceptance of others in their social circle. Very few people actually attempt to accurately understand the arguments being made by all sides, research the issue from a variety of sources, and come to an honest conclusion regardless of any social stigma that their respective social circle may put on them.

 

[marktheblake]

But no one has ever been convinced to change their minds based on these arguments. No atheist or creationist becomes a TE based upon arguments of how well the bible does or doesn't mesh with science. Same with leaving Chrisitanity, or becoming a creationist.

I like the way you open with an objective statement, treating all three different perspectives with respect.

A creationist no matter how much we debate the idea of the bible being a interpetation won't ever be convinced, in the end it's wether they accept the information about evolution, or can put their beliefs aside for what science finds.

Now you get biased, and belittle the creationist here and elsewhere in your post.

I mean has any of you that are creationists, did you ever become that because you knew evolution and such properly, and then someone made a bunch of arguments for the flood and fall of man and you were convinced?

I get the impression that whilst you are asking, it appears you will not be going to accept the answers, as you have already revealed your intention in your preceding comments.

Nevertheless, I became convinced because it made sense.

 

[matthewgar]

I like the way you open with an objective statement, treating all three different perspectives with respect.

Now you get biased, and belittle the creationist here and elsewhere in your post.
I get the impression that whilst you are asking, it appears you will not be going to accept the answers, as you have already revealed your intention in your preceding comments.

Nevertheless, I became convinced because it made sense.

I like how accepting evidence is being called being Biased. I accept the evidence, I would rather stick with what is true, and not what I wish was true. I would accept creationism if there was evidence for it, but no ammount of theological arguing will convince me.

When I say that creationists won't deconvert due to theology, it's because they and I was one for many years so I know, *yeah yeah we all hate this statement :> Even I do sorry* is because from a creationist point of view, the bible is the word of god, it's perfect. To read the bible differently is to question god and to deny the truth they feel god gave. What deconverts them like it did with me, is looking at the evidence, seeing that alot of what I was told about evolution was false, that many of the arguments just seem more like denials of it,then actual points against, the more I understood evolution, and then listened to the arguments made by Creationists, I realized they often are aruging against things no one believes. It was the evidence and the failure for me of the creationists to provide evidence that convinced me.

I could be convinced to become a creationist if there was scientific evidence for it, I say least current no one is convinced by the evidence, is because when I look at the creationist evidence, what I see is, throwing away of science, of denial of it. It's alot of ad hoc made up explanations, that could be true, but just because there is a plausible excuse, or plausible way something could have happened, isn't reason enough to accept it.There are dozens of theories for how the flood happened scientificly, ignorign that they all kill everything on the planet, there isn't any evidence or reason to accept them.

I made a post asking how sea fossils on mountains prove the flood, when no known flood could leave sea fossils on mountains, then turn them all into stone, since it's not like we find sea shells, we find fossilized stone reliefs and such of sea shells and other fossils, or stuff burried within mountains. The answer I got, "Well physics are different back then."

Sorry if it sounded biased, my main point wasn't to attack TE's for using theology or to imply creationists are dumb to understand theology, or that creationists might not be able to provide evidence. It's that were talking past each other. We have creationists providing evidence that they feel is compelling, that people that know the subjects just see as failure on the most basic level to understand the subjects. This isn't a insult, but many arguments I see from creationists are just ones they are parroting, and they don't really understand what they are arguing against. Take the whole same designer same design argument, this fails because there are things that arn't explained, but they don't understand enough of the evidence to understand this. And many other places.

With us TE's were trying to convince someone that sees the sky as pink, while we see it's blue that it's blue. Maybe they are colour blind, or maybe we are, but just arguing that it's blue when they don't see blue won't work, we have to show them in other ways that it's blue *not sure how you would wich ends up being part of the problem*. My main feeling is just that too much time gets wasted arguing for things that dont' change peoples minds. How many arguments are there on here about wether genesis was literal or not? But is there any argument a TE could make that could convince a creationist that genesis isn't literal? A TE mght show there is too much evidence against Genesis being literal, but what theological argument could be done that would convince a creationist that genesis is literal and it's important to believe so to save souls?

Bleah too much rambling :> I didn't mean this to be a fight, but to start a discussion, and get people thinking about what made them change their mind, what doesn't work for them. For TE's is there any creationist arguments for evidence that would convince you? And for those like me that were Creationists what made you change your mind? Theological arguments or perponderance of the evidence? And for Creationists that were AE's or TE's what made you change your mind? Was it evidence for creationism, or was it theological arguments and a need to believe in god that changed, and then looked for evidence afterwards?

 

[marktheblake]

I like how accepting evidence is being called being Biased.

That is not why you were called Biased.

I accept the evidence, I would rather stick with what is true, and not what I wish was true. I would accept creationism if there was evidence for it, but no ammount of theological arguing will convince me.

The creationist says exactly the same thing, as does the Atheist on their respective position. It is being ignorant to deny that either one or both have no evidence for what they beleive.

I could be convinced to become a creationist if there was scientific evidence for it,

There are a lot of scientists out there that practice in the Creation movement and others who work in mainstream science. Its incredible that you ignore that they do have scientific evidence for what they beleive.

I say least current no one is convinced by the evidence, is because when I look at the creationist evidence, what I see is, throwing away of science, of denial of it.

The creationist says all the same things about the evolutionist or the athesit. That is irrelevant.

The answer I got, "Well physics are different back then."

That is not the answer I gave, and I notice you didn't even demonstrate how the shells go there either. Did you also address the reasons the Creationist give for that scenario? No.

Sorry if it sounded biased, my main point wasn't to attack TE's for using theology or to imply creationists are dumb to understand theology, or that creationists might not be able to provide evidence.

But you did.

many arguments I see from creationists are just ones they are parroting, and they don't really understand what they are arguing against

Most people that beleive in evolution do exactly the same thing, there is nothing wrong with this. It is not a requirement of the truth of TE/AE/YEC that every person has infallible knowledge of their respective position.

Maybe they are colour blind, or maybe we are,

yes, you should be mindful of that.

My main feeling is just that too much time gets wasted arguing for things that dont' change peoples minds.

Agreed. Perhaps then you could give both the Creationist and Atheist both the respect they deserve and give them both the courtesy of accepting that they do have evidence to support their view. Just because you do not agree with their interpretation does not mean they have not formed their conclusions by using reason and logic.

 

[matthewgar]

That is not why you were called Biased.



The creationist says exactly the same thing, as does the Atheist on their respective position. It is being ignorant to deny that either one or both have no evidence for what they beleive.



There are a lot of scientists out there that practice in the Creation movement and others who work in mainstream science. Its incredible that you ignore that they do have scientific evidence for what they beleive.



The creationist says all the same things about the evolutionist or the athesit. That is irrelevant.


That is not the answer I gave, and I notice you didn't even demonstrate how the shells go there either. Did you also address the reasons the Creationist give for that scenario? No.



But you did.




Most people that beleive in evolution do exactly the same thing, there is nothing wrong with this. It is not a requirement of the truth of TE/AE/YEC that every person has infallible knowledge of their respective position.



yes, you should be mindful of that.



Agreed. Perhaps then you could give both the Creationist and Atheist both the respect they deserve and give them both the courtesy of accepting that they do have evidence to support their view. Just because you do not agree with their interpretation does not mean they have not formed their conclusions by using reason and logic.

Having evidence, and valid evidence of true evidence are different. Creationist sure they have what they claim is evidence, but calling it evidence doesn't make it true. What we find when we study and examine the evidence, it falls apart, or requires rewriting of everything that we know and many of the same things that got us to where we are.

As for fossils on mountains, I think you already know how they got there from a TE and Ae's point of view, they land mass that are the tops of mountains at one time were under the ocean but as the plates moved they got pushed up. Hence why many of these fossils are under feet of stone, and not just laying ontop of mountains, even those on the surface are rocks and part of the rocks, not burried in the dirt or sand as whole shells.

You mention a few creationist scientits, but funny how majority of those including many in the actual fields that have spent their lives studying the sciences reject creationism. There are less scientists that reject evolution in the field of biology then there are scientists over all that reject the holocaust. Project Steve alone has, 1, 147 people named steve that are scientists in the appropriate fields that accept evolution.

Now one might argue this is a appeal to authority, but it's hard to ignore that very few people from many countries backgrounds, religions and such that are in biology and such reject evolution. Is it a grand conspiracy of Christians, muslims, atheists, budhists and so on, or is it that nothing else explains better?

I reject creationism, because I've looked at their evidence, I've listened to their arguments, and listened to the evidence for evolution and watched and listened to the counter arguments on both sides. I'm not sure what makes me biased, because I reject failed evidence of creationists? I say this because I've studied both evidence, I've seen how many arguments by creationists don't make sense, even without understanding evolution. Fossils on mountains that are not just in stone, but are stone. Same desginer, same design...except this doesn't explain why the same errors are in the same places, why genes that species X uses that humans have no use for are in our genomes, why 4% of our DNA is devoted to scent receptors when we barly use any of them. And so on.

 

[matthewgar]

That is not why you were called Biased.



The creationist says exactly the same thing, as does the Atheist on their respective position. It is being ignorant to deny that either one or both have no evidence for what they beleive.



There are a lot of scientists out there that practice in the Creation movement and others who work in mainstream science. Its incredible that you ignore that they do have scientific evidence for what they beleive.



The creationist says all the same things about the evolutionist or the athesit. That is irrelevant.


That is not the answer I gave, and I notice you didn't even demonstrate how the shells go there either. Did you also address the reasons the Creationist give for that scenario? No.



But you did.




Most people that beleive in evolution do exactly the same thing, there is nothing wrong with this. It is not a requirement of the truth of TE/AE/YEC that every person has infallible knowledge of their respective position.



yes, you should be mindful of that.



Agreed. Perhaps then you could give both the Creationist and Atheist both the respect they deserve and give them both the courtesy of accepting that they do have evidence to support their view. Just because you do not agree with their interpretation does not mean they have not formed their conclusions by using reason and logic.

Oh and PS, I disagree with their beliefs, but I dont' believe I've said correct me if I'm wrong though, they don't use logic, my point is that what dominates. It's either scientific evidence, and if you prefer theological evidence. I don't think any atheist is going to convert to creationism that understands evolution because of evidence creationists give in the way of scientitific evidence.

 

[marktheblake]

my point is that what dominates. It's either scientific evidence, and if you prefer theological evidence.

Not applicable.

The Creationist starts out using the Bible as the framework (Genesis literally for lack of a better term) and then interprets the data according to that framework.

As you were once a creationist, you should know this, its a basic tenet of their position. This does not mean Theology dominates, it means that the opposing position of long ages and the conclusions drawn from it are not applicable, obviously.

In your context it could be easily argued that the 'theology' of the materialist is what dominates secular science, because they have an 'a priori commitment of not allowing a divine foot through the door' (quote stolen).

I don't think any atheist is going to convert to creationism that understands evolution because of evidence creationists give in the way of scientitific evidence.

Creationists already understand this quite clearly.

 

[matthewgar]

Not applicable.

The Creationist starts out using the Bible as the framework (Genesis literally for lack of a better term) and then interprets the data according to that framework.

As you were once a creationist, you should know this, its a basic tenet of their position. This does not mean Theology dominates, it means that the opposing position of long ages and the conclusions drawn from it are not applicable, obviously.

In your context it could be easily argued that the 'theology' of the materialist is what dominates secular science, because they have an 'a priori commitment of not allowing a divine foot through the door' (quote stolen).



Creationists already understand this quite clearly.

It's a excuse, There is no framework, it's either accepting what science says or doesn't. It's more a case of, only accepting the evidence that fits what you want. I don't mean to sound harsh, but from what I see for creationism to work, it requires alot of adding suppositions, or making Ad Hoc's to explain things. And yes I was a creationist, but a old school, none of this world view/biblical glasses and such even had been thought up. I was about 10-20 years ago, then didn't look at either side, untill 2 years ago I actually looked at the evidence. Sat down and said, "Okay what does evolution really say about stuff." watched it, watched creationists videos by Ken Ham, kent hovind, that one guy in the cowboy hat I can never remember, then I watched videos doing bit by bit refutations of them. Looking up the claims made by the creationists, and seeing that not only were they wrong, there just wasn't any evidence for them, or in many cases the guys lied or missrepersented the evidence.


But here lets test your theory, show me evidence, that can be shown to be true for either evolution or creationism based upon wich you accept, without requiring breaking okham's razor.

 

[mark kennedy]

I should see a therapist for going back to these debates again and again....Any hoot....

Now I think they can be combined, but something I keep seeing here is, the creationists argue for literal interpetation of the bible, us TE's argue for evolution and such meshing with the bible, atheists argue that the bible is complete bunk or mostly. But no one has ever been convinced to change their minds based on these arguments. No atheist or creationist becomes a TE based upon arguments of how well the bible does or doesn't mesh with science. Same with leaving Chrisitanity, or becoming a creationist.

Since we are fielding random thoughts here, science needs to be defined before your argument makes any sense. A comprehensive understanding of the epistemology of both naturalistic and theistic reasoning would be helpful as well. Oh yea, let's not forget that the evolutionists are not interested in persuasion, debate forums like this one are theaters where they perform for one another. Creationists generally outnumber TEs and yet are grossly outnumbered in these discussions, there is a good reason for that. They are not worried about it, evolutionists obviously are.

In the end it boils down to religious only arguments or science. A creationist no matter how much we debate the idea of the bible being a interpetation won't ever be convinced, in the end it's wether they accept the information about evolution, or can put their beliefs aside for what science finds.

Yet another definition is assumed, evolution as it is defined scientifically is perfectly consistent with a young earth and special creation. What it boils down to is the a priori assumption of universal common descent arranging evidence around exclusively naturalistic causes.

No AE or TE is ever convinced by the mental gymnastics done by creationists to make science fit their beliefs, it's religious or emotional things that change their mind, they are changed theologically, not scientificly, the change in science beliefs are later.

...I have no idea what that means, let's move on....

Anyone else find this? I mean has any of you that are creationists, did you ever become that because you knew evolution and such properly, and then someone made a bunch of arguments for the flood and fall of man and you were convinced? Or is it more likly that you were convinced of the fundementalist side of things, and the rest is just trying to mesh your beliefs, something that comes later.

I have always been a creationist by default. I considered the claims of TOE and the multitude of Darwinian scientists and rejected them based on the evidence. My theology is not based on the findings of secular clerics or Christian groups who entered the culture war. Wave after wave of skepticism has yielded some deeply anti-theistic rationalizations completely inconsistent with Biblical theism. My issues were first and foremost, theological. Over time I chose to consider the evidence carefully and over a number of years. What I found is that evolutionists conflate and confuse the evidence which indicates to me they don't have the courage of their convictions.

I mean I don't see any atheist being convinced of the scientific arguments for creationists, or theistic evolution, it's the theological arguments, or something that changes in their lives that brings them to Christ, and again the rest is just ad hoc reasoning.

I don't know where you are looking but I have seen a lot of people who switched sides based on a lot of reasons. Core convictions would seem to be at stake even though the issues raised rarely go to scientific or religious tenants directly.

Think I'll let it go at that.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Faith.Man]

Now I think they can be combined, but something I keep seeing here is, the creationists argue for literal interpetation of the bible, us TE's argue for evolution and such meshing with the bible, atheists argue that the bible is complete bunk or mostly. But no one has ever been convinced to change their minds based on these arguments. No atheist or creationist becomes a TE based upon arguments of how well the bible does or doesn't mesh with science. Same with leaving Chrisitanity, or becoming a creationist.

In the end it boils down to religious only arguments or science. A creationist no matter how much we debate the idea of the bible being a interpetation won't ever be convinced, in the end it's wether they accept the information about evolution, or can put their beliefs aside for what science finds.

No AE or TE is ever convinced by the mental gymnastics done by creationists to make science fit their beliefs, it's religious or emotional things that change their mind, they are changed theologically, not scientificly, the change in science beliefs are later.

Anyone else find this? I mean has any of you that are creationists, did you ever become that because you knew evolution and such properly, and then someone made a bunch of arguments for the flood and fall of man and you were convinced? Or is it more likly that you were convinced of the fundementalist side of things, and the rest is just trying to mesh your beliefs, something that comes later.

I mean I don't see any atheist being convinced of the scientific arguments for creationists, or theistic evolution, it's the theological arguments, or something that changes in their lives that brings them to Christ, and again the rest is just ad hoc reasoning.

Same with a Atheist, the anthropic principle, the ogical arguments, creationism or Theistic evolution will never convince any atheist, it will again be something in their lives that changes their minds, and then they look for things to back it up.

And a creationist becomes a TE or a atheist, after they can't deny the science any more and accept it.

Bleah alot of rambling and long post, just wondering peoples thoughts, I mean it's good for convincing yourself, but going from atheist to creationist, it's theological information and stuff that changes someone, and from creationist to atheist it's science information that changes, and the trying to argue the both I don't think ever does anything directly.

It's probably close to pointless and it's definitely frustrating. As an OEC when I try to discuss the big bang, I get accused of calling God a liar. For me, science and the Bible are reconciled in the gap theory. When I try to explain the gap theory to someone I get accused of being a theistic evolutionist, which I'm not. I am beginning to think I cannot have a reasonable conversation about this subject with a "fellow" Christian.

 

[mark kennedy]

It's probably close to pointless and it's definitely frustrating. As an OEC when I try to discuss the big bang, I get accused of calling God a liar. For me, science and the Bible are reconciled in the gap theory. When I try to explain the gap theory to someone I get accused of being a theistic evolutionist, which I'm not. I am beginning to think I cannot have a reasonable conversation about this subject with a "fellow" Christian.

Hang on a sec, I have no problem with on OEC perspective. I'm a YEC by default and my only real issue with evolution is human lineage. Maybe you would like to take another pass at this. Would you like to elaborate on this 'Gap Theory' or the 'Big Bang'. I assure you I would be interested.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Faith.Man]

Hang on a sec, I have no problem with on OEC perspective. I'm a YEC by default and my only real issue with evolution is human lineage. Maybe you would like to take another pass at this. Would you like to elaborate on this 'Gap Theory' or the 'Big Bang'. I assure you I would be interested.

Grace and peace,
Mark

The Gap Theory is too involved to get into a discussion with a single post. If you Google it, you'll mainly get YEC misinterpreting the theory and putting down those of us that see a reconciliation between a strict Genesis interpretation, science and the origin of the universe. In one sentence, the Gap Theory believes there is a gap of time between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. I have written on both subjects at length before.

 

[mark kennedy]

The Gap Theory is too involved to get into a discussion with a single post. If you Google it, you'll mainly get YEC misinterpreting the theory and putting down those of us that see a reconciliation between a strict Genesis interpretation, science and the origin of the universe. In one sentence, the Gap Theory believes there is a gap of time between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. I have written on both subjects at length before.

Oh ok, there have been a number of Creationists who followed the vein, don't have a problem with it myself. Actually I kind of like it, it could explain a lot. If that is all there is to it then there isn't a dimes worth of difference between OEC and YEC, at least not in my estimation.

Grace and peace,
Mark