Newbie asking a question...

[lucaspa]

I am fairly new to the Christian faith. To clarify, I was raised a Catholic, but only this past August 1st did I truly surrender to the Lord, and only since then have I been relying soley on Scripture for guidance in the faith (with abject apologies to my Catholic brethren).

A question that gnaws my mind is this: I believe that God created the universe and everything in it. Not an atom moves without His knowledge. However, I am also an engineer by trade, and as such rely on science to describe the universe and its function.

How does a scientist reconcile the Biblical account of Creation with the scientific data that is collected?

Let me give you a different response from what you have gotten. Creationists tell you that what you have learned about science is wrong. That the "real" science supports creationism. What they mean by that is a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-3.

Instead, let me take you back 150-300 years and show you how scientists reconciled the issue then. That method is still valid today.

Look at the first quote in my signature. It tells you that science helps you decide what interpretations of the Bible are valid. Why is that so? Because God really did create! That means, to a Christian, that what science studies is God' Creation. Science studies evidence put in the universe by God. So science also studies a book of God -- Creation. The two books must reconcile. Since science gets it's data on how God created directly from God and the Biblical account is 1) told to humans and 2) interpreted by humans, this means that the data found by science comes more directly from God.

Also, 150-300 years ago there was no god-of-the-gaps. That is, they didn't look for God where science couldn't explain. Instead, science was how God worked. Let me give you some examples:

"A Law of Nature then is the rule and Law, according to which God resolved that certain Motions should always, that is, in all Cases be performed. Every Law does immediately depend upon the Will of God." Gravesande, Mathematical Elements of Natural Philosophy, I, 2-3, 1726, quoted in CC Gillespie, Genesis and Geology, 1959.

Drop an apple and it falls. Does it happen by gravity? Yes. But gravity depends on God. Without God, gravity doesn't work.

"But with regard to the material world, we can at least go so far as this -- we can perceive that events are brought about not by insulated interpositions of Divine power, exerted in each particular case, but by the establishment of general laws" Whewell: Bridgewater Treatise.

Same idea.

"The only distinct meaning of the word 'natural' is stated, fixed, or settled; since what is natural as much requires and presupposes an intelligent agent to render it so, i.e., to effect it continually or at stated times, as what is supernatural or miraculous does to effect it for once." Butler: Analogy of Revealed Religion.

Again, same idea only more generalized.

So, the reconciliation is that the Bible tells you the who and why of Creation. Creation itself tells you how God created. And everything you know thru science is simply how God works. Second quote in my signature.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Then you'd have to disregard the rest of the bible as a story also, no?
Science does agree with the bible and constantly proves it. Light from stars... its just reaching us now... has nothing to do with the age of the earth. Rocks X amount of years old... age is relational.

I’m not a scientist nor will I play one on the internet, however I have to say the more I research this kind of stuff(from a non biblical standpoint) the stronger my faith gets.

[/font]

Light that had to travel billions of years is just reaching us now. This requires that the Universe was created billions of years ago. Otherwise, it would not be here yet.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

In order for you to belive in the rest of the Bible then you'd have to belive in Genisis considering it's not a parable.

As for the light. The light is comming from a seperate star, so it has no bearing on the age of the earth. Just because the light emmited from a star is X years old does not mean that where it ends up needs to be the same age. Am I following you?

Anyone familiar with ancient literature can see that Genesis 1-3 is clearly two creation myths.

Now, a myth can be true. It can convey ideas that are true in a story that is not literally or historically true. It only becomes a problem when someone demands a literal reading of something that was never intended to be read literally.

Regarding light, if you believe God created the "heavens and the earth" in six literal days, the stars cannot be older than the earth.

 

[lucaspa]

Light that had to travel billions of years is just reaching us now. This requires that the Universe was created billions of years ago. Otherwise, it would not be here yet.

Right. rwl, let me reinforce this a bit. The earth and universe could easily look as though God created by the mechanism of a literal reading of Genesis. If it had, we would have concluded that a literal reading of Genesis was correct. Instead, the universe does not look that way.

One way the universe could look like it was created 6,000 years ago is to see no star beyond 6,000 light years away. That means it takes the light of the star 6,000 years to get here. Also, new stars would have become visible from earth as their light reached here. For instance, we would have seen new stars appear in the night sky 100 years ago as the light from stars 5,900 light years away just then reached earth. This isn't what we have observed. Since true statements can't have false consequences, this means that the statement that the earth is 6,000 years old is not true.

 

[Sinai]

Right. rwl, let me reinforce this a bit. The earth and universe could easily look as though God created by the mechanism of a literal reading of Genesis. If it had, we would have concluded that a literal reading of Genesis was correct. Instead, the universe does not look that way.

Lucaspa, when you (and others posting in this thread) refer to "a literal reading of Genesis," you probably are referring to the young earth creationists' interpretation of a literal reading of Genesis. Since Genesis was written in Hebrew, an actual literal reading of it would be in Hebrew and would include the full range of meanings and nuances of the Hebrew--which would include the interpretation that the world is billions of years old.

Young earth creationists generally prefer to use their own interpretation of what the Bible means in the English translation, and will generally attempt to limit the range of meanings present in the original Hebrew to just those that agree with their own interpretation.

You pointed out in an earlier post on this thread that "science also studies a book of God -- Creation. The two books must reconcile." I suggest to you that they do reconcile much better than you may believe. But look at the original Hebrew scriptures rather than to what a particular group of persons may want you to think it says and means.....

 

[lucaspa]

Lucaspa, when you (and others posting in this thread) refer to "a literal reading of Genesis," you probably are referring to the young earth creationists' interpretation of a literal reading of Genesis. Since Genesis was written in Hebrew, an actual literal reading of it would be in Hebrew and would include the full range of meanings and nuances of the Hebrew--which would include the interpretation that the world is billions of years old.

This would be "yom" as an indefinite period of time, I presume. This brings about its own problems.
1. The authors tied yom deliberately to "morning and evening" prior to the creation of the sun. I think they meant a 24 hour day. They did this because the 6 day creation was their justification for the Sabbath. That justification gets very thin if yom is anything other than a conventional day.

2. Getting a very old universe isn't the end of the problems. You create new inconsistencies with science that way. First, you end up with plants millions or billions of years before there is a sun. Now you have to invent ad hoc miraculous light to keep the plants alive. Second, the order of creatures still doesn't work. You have whales before mammals in Genesis 1. And, of course, in Genesis 2 you have a man before mammals, amphibians, and reptiles!

Trying to be literal in Hebrew doesn't help you any more than being literal in English. Genesis 1 is set in the best science of its day -- Babylonian science -- but that science is wrong and therefore a literal Hebrew is wrong.

You pointed out in an earlier post on this thread that "science also studies a book of God -- Creation. The two books must reconcile." I suggest to you that they do reconcile much better than you may believe. But look at the original Hebrew scriptures rather than to what a particular group of persons may want you to think it says and means.....

Again, I've looked at both. I am aware of the various types of OEC, have looked at them seriously, have tested them, and have decided they are false. In this case, as in so many others, you can't have your cake and eat it too. The creation stories in Genesis were never meant to be literal and any attempt to do so, IMO, does violence to the text. Now, you are welcome to try to bring up points I may not have thought of to change my mind, but this is my position based on the knowledge I have now. And yes, I have read Schroeder.

 

[a_ndrew]

i have a question, do YEC's believe that dinausours were around at the same time as humens?
if so, isn't that a bit risky?
and how come all these different types died out in "6000" years?

 

[Bushido216]

It depends.

Some will say that they never existed.

Some will say that they existed but died in the Flood.

Some will say that they were taken on the Ark and still exist.

Some will say that they were taken on the Ark but couldn't adapt fast enough.


A key thing to remember is that most YEC's will accept adaptation in the same sense that Lamarck and others put adaptation, a subservient force capable of producing lateral change, and nothing else.

 

[Sinai]

This would be "yom" as an indefinite period of time, I presume. This brings about its own problems.
1. The authors tied yom deliberately to "morning and evening" prior to the creation of the sun. I think they meant a 24 hour day. They did this because the 6 day creation was their justification for the Sabbath. That justification gets very thin if yom is anything other than a conventional day.

You could be right, but there are other meanings for the useage of evening and morning that should also be considered. For example, I find the root meanings for the terms to be quite interesting.

The Hebrew for “evening” is erev. The root of erev means “mixed-up, stirred together, disorderly”—which tends to be our visual sensation of being in the dark.


The Hebrew for “morning” is voqer or boker. Its root means “discernible, able to be distinguished, orderly”—which tends to be our visual sensation at the coming of day.



The root meanings help the phrase take on cosmic significance—and perhaps important enough to be repeated at the close of each of God’s creative days: Throughout the time of God’s creative activity, there was a systematic flow from chaos and disorder (“evening”) to order (“morning”). God brought order from chaos in the creation of both the universe and of our own world. The Bible also informs us that God desires to bring order from chaos in our own personal lives….

2. Getting a very old universe isn't the end of the problems. You create new inconsistencies with science that way. First, you end up with plants millions or billions of years before there is a sun. Now you have to invent ad hoc miraculous light to keep the plants alive.

Not necessarily. If God revealed his creation to the writer in some form of a vision, what would have been the vantage point for yoms 3 and 4? Since both the sun and the moon appear as "great lights"--and since one must be fairly near our moon (such as on the surface of our planet) in order for the moon to appear as a great light, it is likely that this portion of creation was viewed from the surface of this planet. If the earth's atmosphere became transparent during this period of time, the sun, moon and stars would then become visible from Earth.

Second, the order of creatures still doesn't work. You have whales before mammals in Genesis 1.

What verse(s) are you referring to?

And, of course, in Genesis 2 you have a man before mammals, amphibians, and reptiles!

Most theologians and biblical scholars I have studied tend to view Genesis 1:1-2:4 as being the chronological account of creation, while the remainder of the second chapter focuses on Adam, Eve and the garden.

Trying to be literal in Hebrew doesn't help you any more than being literal in English. Genesis 1 is set in the best science of its day -- Babylonian science -- but that science is wrong and therefore a literal Hebrew is wrong.

There are some biblical scholars who agree with your Babylonian theory, while others disagree with it. As I have not made a serious study into it, I have not taken a position either way regarding when Genesis 1 was written. Which portions of the Hebrew are wrong in your opinion?

Again, I've looked at both. I am aware of the various types of OEC, have looked at them seriously, have tested them, and have decided they are false. In this case, as in so many others, you can't have your cake and eat it too. The creation stories in Genesis were never meant to be literal and any attempt to do so, IMO, does violence to the text. Now, you are welcome to try to bring up points I may not have thought of to change my mind, but this is my position based on the knowledge I have now. And yes, I have read Schroeder.

I respect your opinion very much, since you tend to research verious positions rather thoroughly before deciding which path appears most likely to be true. Nevertheless, at this point I believe both of God's books are true and reliable, and have not found a significant conflict between them. Since, however, I do respect your opinion as much as I do, I plan to look into some of your assertions more fully when I get a chance to do so....

 

[lucaspa]

You could be right, but there are other meanings for the useage of evening and morning that should also be considered. For example, I find the root meanings for the terms to be quite interesting.

The Hebrew for “evening” is erev. The root of erev means “mixed-up, stirred together, disorderly”—which tends to be our visual sensation of being in the dark.

The Hebrew for “morning” is voqer or boker. Its root means “discernible, able to be distinguished, orderly”—which tends to be our visual sensation at the coming of day.

The root meanings help the phrase take on cosmic significance—and perhaps important enough to be repeated at the close of each of God’s creative days: Throughout the time of God’s creative activity, there was a systematic flow from chaos and disorder (“evening”) to order (“morning”). God brought order from chaos in the creation of both the universe and of our own world. The Bible also informs us that God desires to bring order from chaos in our own personal lives….

Right out of Schroeder. I have a problem with this because it invents meanings for words that the authors did not intend. Meanings are not determined by roots; meaning is determined in how the word is used. I have seen a similar argument from atheists arguing that the definition of atheism is not "do not believe God exists" to " without belief in gods" based on the roots of atheism. A friend of mine has taken this argument apart on linguistic grounds: http://www.revneal.org/Writings/atheism.html

The same type of argument applies against Schroeder's interpretation. Also, Schroeder is violating a cardinal rule of science: theories must conform to data, not data to theories. In this case, what we are trying to discover is what the writers of Genesis meant. Those writers were ignorant of modern science, but Schroeder is using modern science as the basis of his theory on what they meant. So he is changing the data -- the words -- to conform to his theory. He is forcing the text to conform to modern science whether it does or not.

Not necessarily. If God revealed his creation to the writer in some form of a vision, what would have been the vantage point for yoms 3 and 4?

Any vantage point God chose. There is no a priori reason to suppose that vantage point would have been earth's surface. It could have been from orbit and worked just as well.

Since both the sun and the moon appear as "great lights"--and since one must be fairly near our moon (such as on the surface of our planet) in order for the moon to appear as a great light, it is likely that this portion of creation was viewed from the surface of this planet. If the earth's atmosphere became transparent during this period of time, the sun, moon and stars would then become visible from Earth.

Several problems here, and they show the problem of making ad hoc hypotheses. If there was that much cloud cover to obscure the sun, moon, and stars from earth's surface for tens of millions of years, two things happen:
1. Plants that need direct sunlight still die. And many plants do need direct sunlight; they cannot survive on indirect light or light from cloudy days.
2. That much water vapor in the atmosphere sets up a runaway greenhouse effect (trapping the IR emitted from the ground) and raises the temp of the planet to that of Venus. Everything cooks.

Ad hoc hypotheses are made to cover specific problems. However, the problem with them is that very often they contradict other data or other well-supported hypotheses/theories. You can't ever view ad hoc hypotheses in isolation but test them for consequences outside the narrow area for which you made them.

What verse(s) are you referring to?

Genesis 1:20 for birds and "all kinds of creatures that live in the water" and Genesis 1:24 for the land producing animal life. Since both birds and whales are descended from animal life, you have the descendents alive millions of years before the ancestors.

Most theologians and biblical scholars I have studied tend to view Genesis 1:1-2:4 as being the chronological account of creation, while the remainder of the second chapter focuses on Adam, Eve and the garden.

Who are they? All the Biblical scholars I have seen regard Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 as separate stories. Genesis 2:19 says "So He took some soil from the ground and formed all the animals and all the birds. Then he brought them to the man to see what he would name them." Genesis 1 has all the animals and birds created before people, not after.

There are some biblical scholars who agree with your Babylonian theory, while others disagree with it. As I have not made a serious study into it, I have not taken a position either way regarding when Genesis 1 was written. Which portions of the Hebrew are wrong in your opinion?

Babylonian science/cosmology is embedded thruout the OT. We have a flat earth with a firmament above, with water above that and caverns, some of them water filled, beneath the earth. Those are the "fountains of the deep" released in Genesis 6-8.

Genesis 1:6-7 has a "dome" or "firmament" or "crystal firmament" above the earth with the waters above it.

Nevertheless, at this point I believe both of God's books are true and reliable, and have not found a significant conflict between them.

So do I. But I have found any attempt to make a literal reading of the Bible conform to the Book of Creation to do serious damage to either the Book of Creation or the Bible. Schroeder, IMO, has the worst of both worlds. He mangles Genesis 1 and the science. He loses the theological messages of Genesis 1 intended by the authors but still doesn't get accurate science.

 

[mark1970]

Why not do some research and make up your own mind. You've already been given numerous young-earth links. Study their material and see if it is consistent with established science. A second view worth considering is day-age creationism. Go to 3w's dot reasons dot org and study their material. For anti-creationist material, go to 3w's dot talkorigins dot org and see what they have to say.

Just for the record, I lean towards day-age creationism as being most likely correct.

 

[Bushido216]

Day-Age?