Old Earth Creationism

[Buzzard3]

Surely you're aware that theistic evolution includes the understanding that the theory of evolution is accurate science.

Er, no ... I'm not aware of that.

the theory of evolution is accurate science

A rather curious claim. It's impossible to prove that ToE is responsible for producing the fossil record, so how do you know it's "accurate science"?

 

[Buzzard3]

Deleted

 

[Job 33:6]

Er, no ... I'm not aware of that.

What a curious claim. No one can prove that ToE is responsible for producing the fossil record, so how can you possibly know it's "accurate science"?

Perhaps you missed the deduction of my post?

As someone published in paleontology, I'd be happy to talk about fossils, though the purpose of my post was to point out that theistic evolutionists can, and in fact many do, use the theory of evolution to bring glory to God. Such as those of the biologos foundation.

And of course, by that logic, the theory of evolution could be a component of apologetics that actually bring people to God rather than erasing God as some atheists claim.

 

[Buzzard3]

As someone published in paleontology, I'd be happy to talk about fossils

Fossils? How do fossils support your claim that ToE is "accurate science"?

Fossils don't prove that ToE is the process responsible for producing the history of life on earth ... not even close.

So please explain how ToE is "accurate science".

 

[Job 33:6]

Fossils? How do fossils support your claim that ToE is "accurate science"?

Fossils don't prove that ToE is the process responsible for producing the history of life on earth ... not even close.

So please explain how ToE is "accurate science".

Seems like you don't want to respond to the purpose of my post. The question is, why?

 

[Buzzard3]

There is a HUGE difference between disagreeing with a point of view and having an unhealthy obsession regarding it.

Speaking of an "unhealthy obsession"... you're so besotted and obsessed with the theory of evolution that you think anyone who rejects it is deceived by Satan or is mentally ill.

There is nothing more important to me than the truth, and I am not going flush down the toilet what God has chosen to make known to us through the biological and other natural science just because some atheists believe in the same truths.

God has not made "known" to us the "truths" that you and atheists believe - ie, that the theory of evolution describes the process responsible for the fossil record and the appearance of humans beings.

It is not "known" that ToE is the truth, because it's impossible to prove that it is the truth. So what are you talking about?

You sound like a typical Darwinist, claiming to know things that you don't and attempting to pass off a theory as a fact.

 

[Buzzard3]

And with that, there's actually potential to bring glory to God, with regards to the theory of evolution. In contrast to the idea that this theory might erase God.

ToE is a double-edge sword ... it can bring glory to God and can be used to argue against God (as atheists do).

 

[Buzzard3]

Seems like you don't want to respond to the purpose of my post. The question is, why?

You can't justify your disingenuous claim that ToE is "accurate science", so now you're trying to disown it.

Not your best work, is it?

 

[Job 33:6]

ToE is a double-edge sword ... it can bring glory to God and can be used to argue against God (as atheists do).

Absolutely.

The reason this is important, is that because it can be used to bring glory to God, we cannot write it off as something that is a concern with respect to erasing God. It isn't the science that is the concern. It isn't the theory of evolution, quite simply.

And that said, from a theological stance, or perhaps from a philosophical stance, it shouldn't be rejected on the basis that some atheists try to use it against the church.

The same goes with any other theory in science. I'm sure hundreds of years ago there were atheists who would use heliocentrism against Christianity, back when geocentrism was a view commonly held in the church. But at the end of the day, the science was never really the issue.

And I'm just trying to stay on topic here, because everyone's already talked about the science a million times over, but really what is at the heart of the issue is the more deep-seated philosophical concerns that young earthers have with the theory.

 

[Job 33:6]

Absolutely.

The reason this is important, is that because it can be used to bring glory to God, we cannot write it off as something that is a concern with respect to erasing God. It isn't the science that is the concern. It isn't the theory of evolution, quite simply.

And that said, from a theological stance, or perhaps from a philosophical stance, it shouldn't be rejected on the basis that some atheists try to use it against the church.

The same goes with any other theory in science. I'm sure hundreds of years ago there were atheists who would use heliocentrism against Christianity, back when geocentrism was a view commonly held in the church. But at the end of the day, the science was never really the issue.

And I'm just trying to stay on topic here, because everyone's already talked about the science a million times over, but really what is at the heart of the issue is the more deep-seated philosophical concerns that young earthers have with the theory.

And just a follow up on this, there are many theories in science, countless. Plate tectonics, germ theory, geodynamo, theories associated with weather patterns and how lightning strikes occur, the theory of the Earth, theories about gravity and how the earth orbits the Sun, theories about how babies are born etc.

There are countless theories In science, but much like the theory of evolution, none of them are inherently materialistic or naturalistic, or are in opposition to God.

There are multiple steps that are necessary to free your mind from a young earth creation worldview. Obviously understanding concepts in science one major component.

But one other component of course is the concern over materialism. But once we separate science from that philosophical naturalism, we see that there really are no good reasons to necessarily be bothered by the theory of evolution, no more than we might be bothered by any other theory.

And of course another component is being able to put scripture in the right context. Understanding that it's not a scientific text.

And once philosophy and the theology and the science align, there really arent any good reasons for rejection of science.

When you realize that heliocentrism isn't inherently materialistic, and you realize that scripture, though some passages might imply geocentrism, doesn't necessarily teach geocentrism once put into context, And when when you recognize that concepts in science do actually support heliocentrism, then when you put the three together, there's no real reason to reject the science.

And the same goes for the theory of evolution.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

Speaking of an "unhealthy obsession"... you're so besotted and obsessed with the theory of evolution that you think anyone who rejects it is deceived by Satan or is mentally ill.

The theory of evolution was important to me as a scientist, but I was not at all obsessed with it. Since my rebirth in Christ, the theory of evolution is not at all important to me. Young earth creationism, however, is of great concern to me because of the extreme and typically irreversible harm that it is causing in the lives of individuals who are taught it, the extreme and typically irreversible harm that it is causing in the churches where it is taught, and the extreme and irreversible harm that it is causing in the body of Christ as a whole.

God has not made "known" to us the "truths" that you and atheists believe - ie, that the theory of evolution describes the process responsible for the fossil record and the appearance of humans beings.


It is not "known" that ToE is the truth, because it's impossible to prove that it is the truth. So what are you talking about?

I neither said nor implied that is!

You sound like a typical Darwinist, claiming to know things that you don't and attempting to pass off a theory as a fact.

Your “typical Darwinist” is an irresponsible fool! Most certainly, no competent scientist would ever claim that the theory of evolution is a proven fact.

 

[FaithT]

And just a follow up on this, there are many theories in science, countless. Plate tectonics, germ theory, geodynamo, theories associated with weather patterns and how lightning strikes occur, the theory of the Earth, theories about gravity and how the earth orbits the Sun, theories about how babies are born etc.

There are countless theories In science, but much like the theory of evolution, none of them are inherently materialistic or naturalistic, or are in opposition to God.

There are multiple steps that are necessary to free your mind from a young earth creation worldview. Obviously understanding concepts in science one major component.

But one other component of course is the concern over materialism. But once we separate science from that philosophical naturalism, we see that there really are no good reasons to necessarily be bothered by the theory of evolution, no more than we might be bothered by any other theory.

And of course another component is being able to put scripture in the right context. Understanding that it's not a scientific text.

And once philosophy and the theology and the science align, there really arent any good reasons for rejection of science.

When you realize that heliocentrism isn't inherently materialistic, and you realize that scripture, though some passages might imply geocentrism, doesn't necessarily teach geocentrism once put into context, And when when you recognize that concepts in science do actually support heliocentrism, then when you put the three together, there's no real reason to reject the science.

And the same goes for the theory of evolution.

I think the LCMSs stance on YEC bothers me more than their position on Evolution.

 

[Buzzard3]

I am not going flush down the toilet what God has chosen to make known to us through the biological and other natural science just because some atheists believe in the same truths.

What are these "truths" that God has made "known" to us, that atheists also believe?

 

[Job 33:6]

I think the LCMSs stance on YEC bothers me more than their position on Evolution.

Why is that? I'm not familiar with LCMS.

 

[FaithT]

Why is that? I'm not familiar with LCMS.

Because it’s known that the universe is old, as least I firmly believe it to be whereas there are more questions regarding evolution.
The LCMS is Lutheran Church Missouri Synod.

 

[FaithT]

The theory of evolution was important to me as a scientist, but I was not at all obsessed with it. Since my rebirth in Christ, the theory of evolution is not at all important to me. Young earth creationism, however, is of great concern to me because of the extreme and typically irreversible harm that it is causing in the lives of individuals who are taught it, the extreme and typically irreversible harm that it is causing in the churches where it is taught, and the extreme and irreversible harm that it is causing in the body of Christ as a whole.


I neither said nor implied that is!

Your “typical Darwinist” is an irresponsible fool! Most certainly, no competent scientist would ever claim that the theory of evolution is a proven fact.

YEC bothers me more than evolution, too, but maybe for different reasons. I love my LCMS church but this whole thing about their belief in a young earth is something I can’t shake. It’s causing a big problem as to where I belong as far as a church home goes.

 

[Job 33:6]

Fossils? How do fossils support your claim that ToE is "accurate science"?

Fossils don't prove that ToE is the process responsible for producing the history of life on earth ... not even close.

So please explain how ToE is "accurate science".

I guess out of boredom I'll entertain this now.

I think the most simple response to this would be that there really is no rational explanation for why phylogenies of the fossil succession would match those of genetics or paleogeography or comparative anatomy or morphology, aside from of course evolution.

The fact that you can predict where a fossil is, it's geographic position, it's depth in the earth, the period or relative age of rock that it's within, being able to make such a prediction purely with genetics of modern-day living species, suggest that the fossil record is a product of genetics, ie descent with modification. Much like what we see happening today as a product of mutations and natural selection.

 

[Job 33:6]

Because it’s known that the universe is old, as least I firmly believe it to be whereas there are more questions regarding evolution.
The LCMS is Lutheran Church Missouri Synod.

Well you know, God reveals all with time. People will come around eventually. It may take time but they'll get there.

 

[Buzzard3]

Fossils don't prove that ToE is the process responsible for producing the history of life on earth ...
So please explain how ToE is "accurate science".

I think the most simple response to this would be that there really is no rational explanation for why phylogenies of the fossil succession would match those of genetics or paleogeography or comparative anatomy or morphology, aside from of course evolution.

I accept that evolution is the most rational and scientific explanation for the fossil record. But fossils don't prove that ToE accurately describes the process responsible for that evolution.

The fact that you can predict where a fossil is, it's geographic position, it's depth in the earth, the period or relative age of rock that it's within, being able to make such a prediction purely with genetics of modern-day living species, suggest that the fossil record is a product of genetics, ie descent with modification. Much like what we see happening today as a product of mutations and natural selection.

"suggest"? How did you get from "suggest" to "accurate science"?

The only way you can claim ToE is "accurate science" is by PROVING that it was responsible for producing the history of life on earth ... which is impossible.

 

[Buzzard3]

Most certainly, no competent scientist would ever claim that the theory of evolution is a proven fact.

I wouldn't be so sure. An evolutionary biologist (and Distingiuished Professor, no less) said this:
" Evolution, in this context, is both a fact and a theory. It is an incontrovertible fact that organisms have changed, or evolved, during the history of life on Earth. And biologists have identified and investigated mechanisms that can explain the major patterns of change."
Evolution: Fact and Theory | National Center for Science Education:

The good Professor is of course referring to ToE, which he claims "can explain" the evolutionary history of life on earth. So it seems to me that he is, in effect, claiming that ToE is a proven fact.

Incidentally, the good Professor's claim that ToE "can explain" the evolutionary history of life on earth is patent nonsense - no one can possibly prove that that is so!