Plate tectonics and Pangaea

[theFijian]

"If human being is the product of evolution, then God is not worth worshipping"

I have no problem with this modified statement.

No, every Christian should have a problem with this statement. The problem with this statement is that you are defining what is good or not good, God is the one who defines what is good, not us. God is worthy of worship no matter how he created. This mindset of yours where we decide how God should or shouldn't act has led to countless people abandoning their faith, including one Charles Darwin. As such this kind of thinking is man-centred and not God-centred.

 

[Mallon]

I think both TE and YEC are subject to scientism.

With scientism defined as the philosophy that the only authentic knowledge is scientific knowledge (= positivism), I would disagree. Evolutionary creationists accept science for what it is: a natural, objective methodology used to reveal the workings of the natural world. We accept its limitations and do not stretch it in order to validate our faith in the supernatural.
YECs, on the other hand, hold science as the Ultimate Arbiter, so that the very reliability of the Scriptures hinges not on the timelessness of the gospel message, but on the scientific accuracy of the Genesis cosmogony. They equate truth/reality with what is verifiable by science (a very post-Enlightenment mindset, I might add). Just read juvenissun's posts. Just look at 'creation science' organizations like AiG, CMI, CRS, or ICR. THAT'S scientism. It's an abuse of the scientific methodology in order to validate faith-based claims that are in no way related to science. (Incidentally, I've just started reading Gordon Glover's book Beyond the Firmament, and he does an excellent job of exploring YEC scientism in the first couple of chapters.)

 

[Tinker Grey]

With scientism defined as the philosophy that the only authentic knowledge is scientific knowledge (= positivism), I would disagree. Evolutionary creationists accept science for what it is: a natural, objective methodology used to reveal the workings of the natural world. We accept its limitations and do not stretch it in order to validate our faith in the supernatural.
YECs, on the other hand, hold science as the Ultimate Arbiter, so that the very reliability of the Scriptures hinges not on the timelessness of the gospel message, but on the scientific accuracy of the Genesis cosmogony. They equate truth/reality with what is verifiable by science (a very post-Enlightenment mindset, I might add). Just read juvenissun's posts. Just look at 'creation science' organizations like AiG, CMI, CRS, or ICR. THAT'S scientism. It's an abuse of the scientific methodology in order to validate faith-based claims that are in no way related to science. (Incidentally, I've just started reading Gordon Glover's book Beyond the Firmament, and he does an excellent job of exploring YEC scientism in the first couple of chapters.)

OK. I agree.

I was thinking of Scientism as a sort of emotional devotion. I don't think, however, that YECs would admit to the definition provided. but ...

As you've stated it, I'd say that moving from a YEC to TE/EC position requires the toppling one's idol to scientism.

 

[USincognito]

To be fair, I would modify the statement to suggest what are they really saying:

"If human being is the product of evolution, then God is not worth worshipping"

I have no problem with this modified statement. If you want to accuse me that I boxed God up on this one, I will take it. I think this is also what AiG or ICR are really emphasized. Regards to the evolution of other life forms, I don't think it is that a critical matter.

I'm sorry, but as an atheist, I find that statement rediculous and as an entirely neutral observer, I find it oddly incongruous with God's omnipotence and - from a theological standpoint - having any effect on man's sinful nature, need for redemption or the accounts of the Gospels.

Lucy and Turkana Boy were found in Africa, the empty tomb was found in Jerusalem...

 

[Mallon]

We've had a few YECs vote in the positive so far, and judging by the number of times I've seen other YECs here quote the likes of Jim Baumgardner et al., I am pretty confident that a majority of YECs accept the evidence for continental drift and the former existence of the last supercontinent Pangaea (regardless of their voting reservations).
So my question for those YECs who accept continental drift and Pangaea is this: Do the following arguments invalidate plate tectonism in any way?

- "Continental drift is just a theory."

- "We can observe tectonic plates moving incrementally today ('microtectonism'), but there is no evidence for the common descent of today's continents from a former supercontinent called Pangaea ('macrotectonism')."

- "Neither you nor I was there at the creation of the earth. Therefore, there is no way we can be confident that Pangaea ever existed."