Light created in transit, not from the past, but the future...

[mindlight]

Or could it be that people started falling away from the church after people started insisting on literal interpretations that were obviously false when compared to the real world? Remember that non-literal interpretations (your idea of "questioning the authority of scripture") have been around since the church fathers, such as Origen and Augustine, who could see that Genesis was not best interpreted literally.

Origen and Augustines views on this matter were based on pagan systems of thought which have subsequently been rejected by church and world. They employed a literary framework theory in order to show how the bible could be used with these generally accepted worldly systems. They were trying to be trendy in other words. When Darwin finally falls into the same disrepute as the other atheist messiahs of the current era e.g. Marx, Nietzsche, Freud then buying into macroevolution will not look so cool as it does now to so many Christian intellectuals.

There is nothing obviously false about a literal interpretation of Genesis which is talking about events 6000 years ago which no one living today is a witness to. What is false is to apply the scientific method to these events as if it could speak as authoritatively over then as it does on more verifiable and immediate events in the real world we live in here and now.

Neither JWs or Mormons have credible theologies or Christologies but there are Christians in both movements.

 

[Papias]

Mindlight wrote:

Origen and Augustines views on this matter were based on pagan systems of thought which have subsequently been rejected by church and world.

Simply false. Much of Augustine's view of Genesis in particular, and Origen's as well, are consistent with much of Christianity's views today. One example of this is the RCC, another are many Protestant churches and individual Protestants. Maybe be clear about which aspects you mean? Maybe that's big enough for a separate thread?

They employed a literary framework theory in order to show how the bible could be used with these generally accepted worldly systems. They were trying to be trendy in other words.

"Literary framework theory" sounds like an idea for a separate thread.

There is nothing obviously false about a literal interpretation of Genesis which is talking about events 6000 years ago which no one living today is a witness to. What is false is to apply the scientific method to these events as if it could speak as authoritatively over then as it does on more verifiable and immediate events in the real world we live in here and now.

Science is applied regularly to nearly all historical events. Your position otherwise collapses to Last Thursdayism.

Neither JWs or Mormons have credible theologies or Christologies but there are Christians in both movements.

I agree.

Papias

 

[mindlight]

Much of Augustine's view of Genesis in particular, and Origen's as well, are consistent with much of Christianity's views today. One example of this is the RCC, another are many Protestant churches and individual Protestants. Maybe be clear about which aspects you mean? Maybe that's big enough for a separate thread?

The sympathy with neoPlatonist thought comes across in their views of creation. But as you say this is a big discussion.

"Literary framework theory" sounds like an idea for a separate thread.

The basic idea is that the primary purpose of the creation account(s) is as a hymn of praise to the Creator and a kind of apologetic against the key theological themes of rival contemporary religions rather than as scientific account of the "how" of creation. In that sense we read it better when we understand it as a "literary framework". This was convenient for Origen and Augustine cause it allowed them to bring many neoPlatonic readings into the creation account /cosmology. It is convenient to those today who have bought into the naturalism of macro-evolutionary scientific materialism regarding our origins and who therefore accept uniformitarianism, as it allows them to accept the conclusions of mainstream science while still affirming the validity of the creation account for its original non scientific purposes.

Science is applied regularly to nearly all historical events. Your position otherwise collapses to Last Thursdayism.

Except for things like the flood for example which provides an alternate explanation for much of the biological "evidence".

There is a diminishing return for the value of the scientific facts the greater the distance in time and space from the unspoilt original evidence.

 

[shernren]

This was convenient for Origen and Augustine cause it allowed them to bring many neoPlatonic readings into the creation account /cosmology. It is convenient to those today who have bought into the naturalism of macro-evolutionary scientific materialism regarding our origins and who therefore accept uniformitarianism, as it allows them to accept the conclusions of mainstream science while still affirming the validity of the creation account for its original non scientific purposes.

How on earth are neo-Platonism and modern scientific materialism similar? The former states that the fundamental realities are forms which evanescent matter simply reflects, while the latter states that the fundamental realities are cold inert matter and energy on which minds (themselves epiphenomena) impose arbitrary forms.

The two systems could not be any more different. And you are saying that they result in exactly the same readings of Scripture?

 

[Papias]

Mindlight wrote:

Except for things like the flood for example which provides an alternate explanation for much of the biological "evidence".

The flood doesn't explain anything. Did you know that Christian geologists debunked the whole flood idea decades before Dawin published anything?

You might want to look over that history, especially with regard to the Rev. Adam Sedgewick. Here is one link:

History of the Collapse of Flood Geology and a Young Earth

This greatly detailed history of the Christian rejection of flood geology is by an evangelical Christian from Calvin College. It's detail makes it very long, so you might want to just skip to the conclusion. However, reading some of this detail shows why Christians rejected flood geology, and ends with this evangelical Christian hoping that the remaining Christians who ascribe to a global flood catch up with evangelicals like himself, for the sake of Christ's message.

Plus, the flood requires tons of miracles to work (see Problems with a Global Flood, 2nd edition). If that many miracles are going to be invoked, then why care about what any evidence says about anything? God could have used miracles to make any evidence we find - and so we are back to Last Thursdayism again.

Papias

 

[mindlight]

How on earth are neo-Platonism and modern scientific materialism similar? The former states that the fundamental realities are forms which evanescent matter simply reflects, while the latter states that the fundamental realities are cold inert matter and energy on which minds (themselves epiphenomena) impose arbitrary forms.

The two systems could not be any more different. And you are saying that they result in exactly the same readings of Scripture?

Both required a reinterpretation of the straight forward meaning of scripture. Their similarity lies in the literary framework hermeneutical approach they employed for this purpose.

 

[mindlight]

Mindlight wrote:


The flood doesn't explain anything. Did you know that Christian geologists debunked the whole flood idea decades before Dawin published anything?

You might want to look over that history, especially with regard to the Rev. Adam Sedgewick. Here is one link:

History of the Collapse of Flood Geology and a Young Earth

This greatly detailed history of the Christian rejection of flood geology is by an evangelical Christian from Calvin College. It's detail makes it very long, so you might want to just skip to the conclusion. However, reading some of this detail shows why Christians rejected flood geology, and ends with this evangelical Christian hoping that the remaining Christians who ascribe to a global flood catch up with evangelicals like himself, for the sake of Christ's message.

Plus, the flood requires tons of miracles to work (see Problems with a Global Flood, 2nd edition). If that many miracles are going to be invoked, then why care about what any evidence says about anything? God could have used miracles to make any evidence we find - and so we are back to Last Thursdayism again.

Papias

The flood was a unique and miraculous event as was the preservation of Noahs Ark through the catastrophic tidal waves etc that accompanied it. I do not accept the findings of these people who I believe were swept along by the increasingly naturalistic tendencies of their age.

 

[Papias]

Mindlight wrote:

The flood was a unique and miraculous event as was the preservation of Noahs Ark through the catastrophic tidal waves etc that accompanied it. I do not accept the findings of these people who I believe were swept along by the increasingly naturalistic tendencies of their age.

Oh, OK. Then you must surely reject that atheistic and anti-biblical idea that germs cause disease, or that atheistic and anti-biblical idea that babies form from blastulas, and others, since those too contradict a literal reading of scripture and are due to people who were swept along by the increasingly naturalistic tendencies of their age, right?

Papias

 

[mindlight]

Mindlight wrote:



Oh, OK. Then you must surely reject that atheistic and anti-biblical idea that germs cause disease, or that atheistic and anti-biblical idea that babies form from blastulas, and others, since those too contradict a literal reading of scripture and are due to people who were swept along by the increasingly naturalistic tendencies of their age, right?

Papias

No cause that kind of science is actually true to the principles and actual value of the scientific method and can be empirically verified in repeatable experimental circumstances. Claims about fossils and the age of the rocks we find them in are conjecture by comparison based on degraded and partial evidence. With the former I am asked to accept verifiable facts with the latter I am asked to accept speculations based on premises I do not agree with.

 

[Papias]

No cause that kind of science is actually true to the principles and actual value of the scientific method and can be empirically verified in repeatable experimental circumstances.

So you are saying that science can't tell us if any past diseases were caused by germs, or if gravity actually worked yesterday, and instead can only tell us about how it might work at the instant present moment?

More importantly, you avoided the question of why you accept the atheistic sciences of germs and gravity, when they are clearly contradicted by scripture.

Claims about fossils and the age of the rocks we find them in are conjecture by comparison based on degraded and partial evidence. With the former I am asked to accept verifiable facts with the latter I am asked to accept speculations based on premises I do not agree with.

Do you understand the fact that dozens of different dating methods all agree on the ages of thousands of samples? Do you think that happened just by chance? Oh, and what premises do you not agree with?

Papias

 

[mindlight]

So you are saying that science can't tell us if any past diseases were caused by germs, or if gravity actually worked yesterday, and instead can only tell us about how it might work at the instant present moment?

More importantly, you avoided the question of why you accept the atheistic sciences of germs and gravity, when they are clearly contradicted by scripture.

What is it about the science of Germs or gravity that you think contradicts scripture?

The point about time is that there has to be a reasonable biological sample on which to conduct scientific tests. This degrades over time.

Do you understand the fact that dozens of different dating methods all agree on the ages of thousands of samples? Do you think that happened just by chance? Oh, and what premises do you not agree with?

Papias

We covered this one quite extensively in an OP on fossils some years back.

All these methods share similar premises and the conclusions reflect the consistent cross discipline acceptance of these.Uniformitarian naturalism and no allowance for miraculous and catastrophic interventions like the Creation or the Flood.

The samples are degraded, partial and form only a limited subset of the total possible sample size.

 

[Calminian]

So you are saying that science can't tell us if any past diseases were caused by germs, or if gravity actually worked yesterday, and instead can only tell us about how it might work at the instant present moment?

Science is primarily inductive logic, and therefore, by its very nature can only speak of probabilities. Only deductive logic gives us definite answers. If we ask if 1+1=2, we can answer with certainty, yes. On the other hand, if we look at the number sequence 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, we can conclude with only limited certainty that the number preceding 2 was 1, and that the number following 10 is 11. ..........1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11........... To do that we would have to assume uniformity in the pattern, and eventually we'd have to deal with the issue of infinite regression. But even if the sequence is not infinite, it may extend beyond 10, and prior to 2. It's also possible this is the entirety of the group, and after 10, it starts over at 2. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10,

So, as do all scientists, one has to start with presuppositions. In the case of germs, I do believe the pattern extends through history a few thousand years. I can't prove this deductively, but I do believe it.

 

[Papias]

mindlight wrote:

What is it about the science of Germs or gravity that you think contradicts scripture?

A literal interpretation of scripture repeatedly gives the cause of diseases as demons (examples include Lk 4:40, Mt 17, Mk 9, Lk 9:~40, same in the old testament). Scripture never once says that diseases are ever caused by germs.

Gen 1:17 says that the position of the sun and moon are due to God setting them there, "gravity" is never mentioned.

Others are like that too, such as the fact that a literal interpretation of Job 9:6 says that earthquakes are due to God shaking the pillars of the earth - plate tectonics is never mentioned.

Mindlight, did you form from a blastula? You must reject that idea, since the Bible says otherwise, in Psalm 139.

The point is that in all these cases, you accept the scientific explanation of HOW God is doing all these things, yet somehow you can't do the same thing for God's creation of animals. It's a matter of being consistent.

The point about time is that there has to be a reasonable biological sample on which to conduct scientific tests. This degrades over time.

You are not a taphonomist, and have no basis to say that the degradation is too much to measure and take into account. The experts, who understand the process of decay, fossilization, and so on, know that it is straightforward to get direct data from these samples.

Do you understand the fact that dozens of different dating methods all agree on the ages of thousands of samples? Do you think that happened just by chance? Oh, and what premises do you not agree with?

Papias

We covered this one quite extensively in an OP on fossils some years back.

Yes, we did, and it showed that the consistency of dating methods shows that the earth is 4.6 billion years old.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7426528/#post53775303


From that thread:
"why do the various dating methods (including C14, K-Ar, varves, dendrochronology, ice cores, obsidian, protein racecimization, speleotherms, superposition, geologic event dating, geomagnetic polarity, Pb/U, association, Rb/St, and others), agree with each other when more than one can be used on the same sample?"


If methods are wrong, they'll give wrong answers. It seems odd to suggest that they'll happen to all give the same "wrong" answer, again and again over hundreds of samples and thousands of tests.

All these methods share similar premises and the conclusions reflect the consistent cross discipline acceptance of these.Uniformitarian naturalism and no allowance for miraculous and catastrophic interventions like the Creation or the Flood.

The only assumption is that the physical laws we observed now operate at other times too. If you think there are other assumptions, then please list them. You share the assumption that the physical laws we observed now operate at other times too, and use it every day in your daily life. If you are going to deny that, then your position collapses into Last Thursdayism

Papias
​

 

[mindlight]

A literal interpretation of scripture repeatedly gives the cause of diseases as demons (examples include Lk 4:40, Mt 17, Mk 9, Lk 9:~40, same in the old testament). Scripture never once says that diseases are ever caused by germs.

That is a very selective use of scripture to set up a straw man to refute rather than a real engagement with scripture.

How do you handle this verse?

As he went along, he saw a man blind from birth. 2 His disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” 3 “Neither this man nor his parents sinned,” said Jesus, “but this happened so that the works of God might be displayed in him.

 

[mindlight]

Gen 1:17 says that the position of the sun and moon are due to God setting them there, "gravity" is never mentioned.

God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth

The verse says 2 things - God created the sun and moon and that their purpose was to light the earth. Gravity is a feature of Gods design but has nothing to do with the broad strategy of why the things were designed and miraculously produced in the first place. There is no contradiction here with what we really know about gravity. What we really know about gravity does not give us an answer as to why the sun and the moon are there. It only describes how the arrangement works.



Going out now - will have to look at the rest of your list some other time.

 

[mindlight]

Others are like that too, such as the fact that a literal interpretation of Job 9:6 says that earthquakes are due to God shaking the pillars of the earth - plate tectonics is never mentioned.

9:5 He who removes mountains suddenly,
who overturns them in his anger;

9:6 he who shakes the earth out of its place
so that its pillars tremble;

9:7 he who commands the sun and it does not shine
and seals up the stars;
9:8 he alone spreads out the heavens,
and treads on the waves of the sea;
9:9 he makes the Bear, Orion, and the Pleiades,
and the constellations of the southern sky;
9:10 he does great and unsearchable things,
and wonderful things without number.

Again you are confusing means with ends. Plate tectonics may be a better description of means (or at very least the best model we have right now) but the point is that the very earth is being shaken to its very foundations , even moved out of its orbit as a result of what God does. It is the capability of God that is being spoken of here not a description of the naturalistic mechanisms of how earth quakes occur.

The word pillar in modern English means tall cyclindrical support shaped like a tower but in the Bible it seems to be used in more general way in terms of support or bulwark

if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

 

[mindlight]

Mindlight, did you form from a blastula? You must reject that idea, since the Bible says otherwise, in Psalm 139.

139:15 my bones were not hidden from you,
when I was made in secret
and sewed together in the depths of the earth.
139:16 Your eyes saw me when I was inside the womb.
All the days ordained for me
were recorded in your scroll
before one of them came into existence.

Man was formed from the clay of the earth but there is a sense in which God envisaged each one of us before we ever came to be and saw our patterns in the material he used to form us from.

The point is that in all these cases, you accept the scientific explanation of HOW God is doing all these things, yet somehow you can't do the same thing for God's creation of animals. It's a matter of being consistent.

1:20 God said, “Let the water swarm with swarms of living creatures and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky.” 1:21 God created the great sea creatures and every living and moving thing with which the water swarmed, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. God saw that it was good. 1:22 God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds multiply on the earth.” 1:23 There was evening, and there was morning, a fifth day.
1:24 God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: cattle, creeping things, and wild animals, each according to its kind.” It was so. 1:25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the cattle according to their kinds, and all the creatures that creep along the ground according to their kinds. God saw that it was good.

It appears it is also a matter of understanding the passages in question correctly. My acceptance of the ways in which science explains the "how" is conditional on a better theory not being available and no clear contradiction of scripture being present. It is clear God created the animals in water, on land and in the skies according to their type and did so on the fifth and sixth days. There is a time reference here, a claim of creation according to type and no scope or reason to allow for the billions of years required for macro-evolutionary development of different species.

 

[Calminian]

Hello, I am a creationist and only looking for answers from fellow creationists. I understand that there are some apparent problems with the idea that light was created 'in transit' by G-d back in Genesis one.

What if the light created, coming from stars reflected currently reality, instead of past reality (which would take into consideration the speed of light.) It would mean that the events that we see unfold (stars exploding and such were present events and not past events.) This would require though that the light in transit was already transmitting information about events in the future, rather than solely in the past or present. Does this pose any scientific or scriptural objections? I suppose it could be argued that this would be breaking the barrier of the natural laws, which would require a belief in continuous revelation, but surely the ''doctrine' of continuous revelation refers to something revealed and as we will never receive revelation before is arrives, we wouldn't necessarily have that problem.

Just brainstorming and would love for some correction, input and suggestion?

I hadn't heard such an explanation up to this point, and it is creative in avoiding the philosophical and theological problems of the LIT theory. Props for that alone. Problem is, I can't fully grasp it from what you've posted. The light we see now is indeed light in the present that has been traveling for a period of time. But we are viewing it in the present, as it is in the present. We are then using reason to discern events in the past using present clues of present light. (clear as mud?)

You'd have to go into some more depth to reach my limited mind. But I can't discount your theory, nor validated at this point.

 

[Papias]

Mindlight wrote:

That is a very selective use of scripture to set up a straw man to refute rather than a real engagement with scripture.

Hmm, a bit testy? I'm simply pointing out that you are being inconsistent, objecting to my approach to Genesis when you yourself approach many other parts of scripture the same way I (and millions of other Christians) approach Genesis.

How do you handle this verse?


Originally Posted by John9:1-3

As he went along, he saw a man blind from birth. 2 His disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” 3 “Neither this man nor his parents sinned,” said Jesus, “but this happened so that the works of God might be displayed in him.
​

Thanks for another example of how disease is seen in scripture. This shows that whenever a cause is given or discussed for disease, that cause is never "germs", but rather is supernatural intervention. I had said "demons", but as you point out here, "God" is also sometimes given. So I'll broaden "demons" to "supernatural".

So why are you not railing against that evil atheistic anti-biblical "germ" theory?

In all your responses, you explain why a strictly literal interpretation need not be followed - often when a strictly literal interpreation fits better than it does with Genesis. You can especially see this in your attempt to defend that atheistic, anti-biblical plate tectonic "theory". All your responses work together to make it clear that you are being inconsistent, and refuse to treat Genesis the same why you treat Job, the Gospels, and so on. Of course, I myself think you are treating Job, the Gospels, the Psalms, and so on, correctly - but are strangely refusing to follow your own method in Genesis.

It appears it is also a matter of understanding the passages in question correctly. My acceptance of the ways in which science explains the "how" is conditional on a better theory not being available and no clear contradiction of scripture being present.

But in each of the examples I gave, there is a clear contradiction between the scientific description and the literal text, every time. The text never says "germs", it gives some supernatural cause for disease. The text never says "plate tectonics", it literally says that God is shaking the earth. The text never says "gravity", "nuclear fusion", or even "reflected light", it says that God is the cause. The text never says "blastula", or "cell division", or any such atheistic description of pregnancy, instead it literally says God is knitting the baby together. Mindlight, you are looking at the atheistic, anti-biblical scientific description, and believing it in every case, even though it contradicts a literal reading of scripture.

It is clear God created the animals in water, on land and in the skies according to their type and did so on the fifth and sixth days. There is a time reference here, a claim of creation according to type

Sure, if you go with the human interpretation of interpreting it literally. Similarly,for the germs there is a clear description that names the supernatural cause of the diseases, and with pregnancy, description of the process (knitting), which contradicts what science says, and so on for all of them. I'm just trying to figure out why you only accept the human idea to interpret the text literally with Genesis, while having no problem using other interpretations to support atheistic theories elsewhere.

and no scope or reason to allow for the billions of years required for macro-evolutionary development of different species.

Again, you are stating the literal interpretation, an interpretive approach that you clearly reject, because you reject it in other places where it doesn't fit the scientific evidence. Heck, the scientific evidence for an old earth and for evolution is better and much more extensive than the evidence for some of the atheistic scientific theories you are accepting in contradiction to a literal interpreation of scripture elsewhere, such as plate tectonics.

So since you are being inconsistent, it would probably better fit the evidence to accept evolution and an old earth, while rejecting gravity, or plate tectonics, or such. After all, if you are going to cling to a literal interpretation due to a lack of evidence for the scientific view, then evolution and an old earth would be the first ones to accept - they have more evidence than many other accepted scientific descriptions, as mentioned above.

Papias

 

[mindlight]

Mindlight wrote:

Hmm, a bit testy? I'm simply pointing out that you are being inconsistent, objecting to my approach to Genesis when you yourself approach many other parts of scripture the same way I (and millions of other Christians) approach Genesis.

Thanks for another example of how disease is seen in scripture. This shows that whenever a cause is given or discussed for disease, that cause is never "germs", but rather is supernatural intervention. I had said "demons", but as you point out here, "God" is also sometimes given. So I'll broaden "demons" to "supernatural".

So why are you not railing against that evil atheistic anti-biblical "germ" theory?

In all your responses, you explain why a strictly literal interpretation need not be followed - often when a strictly literal interpreation fits better than it does with Genesis. You can especially see this in your attempt to defend that atheistic, anti-biblical plate tectonic "theory". All your responses work together to make it clear that you are being inconsistent, and refuse to treat Genesis the same why you treat Job, the Gospels, and so on. Of course, I myself think you are treating Job, the Gospels, the Psalms, and so on, correctly - but are strangely refusing to follow your own method in Genesis.

But in each of the examples I gave, there is a clear contradiction between the scientific description and the literal text, every time. The text never says "germs", it gives some supernatural cause for disease. The text never says "plate tectonics", it literally says that God is shaking the earth. The text never says "gravity", "nuclear fusion", or even "reflected light", it says that God is the cause. The text never says "blastula", or "cell division", or any such atheistic description of pregnancy, instead it literally says God is knitting the baby together. Mindlight, you are looking at the atheistic, anti-biblical scientific description, and believing it in every case, even though it contradicts a literal reading of scripture.

Sure, if you go with the human interpretation of interpreting it literally. Similarly,for the germs there is a clear description that names the supernatural cause of the diseases, and with pregnancy, description of the process (knitting), which contradicts what science says, and so on for all of them. I'm just trying to figure out why you only accept the human idea to interpret the text literally with Genesis, while having no problem using other interpretations to support atheistic theories elsewhere.

Again, you are stating the literal interpretation, an interpretive approach that you clearly reject, because you reject it in other places where it doesn't fit the scientific evidence. Heck, the scientific evidence for an old earth and for evolution is better and much more extensive than the evidence for some of the atheistic scientific theories you are accepting in contradiction to a literal interpreation of scripture elsewhere, such as plate tectonics.

So since you are being inconsistent, it would probably better fit the evidence to accept evolution and an old earth, while rejecting gravity, or plate tectonics, or such. After all, if you are going to cling to a literal interpretation due to a lack of evidence for the scientific view, then evolution and an old earth would be the first ones to accept - they have more evidence than many other accepted scientific descriptions, as mentioned above.

Papias

There is no contradiction between the examples you quoted and the scriptures properly interpreted as I tried to explain.

God is the first cause of all things and science describes a how of natural causes that are mostly not relevant to the key points being made in the text. If I accept a scientific viewpoint of the how of things , this acceptance is conditional on a better theory not being available.

Gravity has nothing to do with the fact that God created sun and stars.

If God shakes the earth - why not through plate tectonics (or whatever more closely corresponds to the reality)

A God who created us healthy and without disease and repeatedly demonstrated the capacity to heal in Christ IS responsible for a person being ill or not ill. Germs are the secondary cause - not that knowing about them is not helpful for staying well.

There would be no human life without Gods creative design , presence and sustaining of life - it is a dishonest approach to separate the physical processes of pregnancy from the Creator and to consider them in a merely godless manner. There is a very real sense in which God is knitting together a child. In the case of miscarriage there is case for saying that this was a child that God did not intend to be born.

In the case of the creation text a clear time reference and a statement about the creation of types of creatures is being used indicating a statement is being made on the how of things.