The dangers of YEC'ism

Vance · Sep 3, 2004

Bonhoffer, thank you for your posts. I think your first in this thread raises a very interesting point. If you had gone to that Student Union and asked that question and they had told you that evolution was incompatible with Christianity, what would you have done? Your story seems to imply that you may never have stepped further toward Christianity.

If that is true, then we have to ask ourselves how many people in shoes like yours first approached Christianity and were presented with the opposite answer and, for this reason, never entered the Kingdom.

Very, very scary to conemplate how many souls have been lost, NOT to YEC beliefs, but by the presentation by YEC's that evolution and an old earth are inconsistent with Christianity.

Iosias · Sep 4, 2004

Vance said:
If you had gone to that Student Union and asked that question and they had told you that evolution was incompatible with Christianity, what would you have done? Your story seems to imply that you may never have stepped further toward Christianity.

So you are advocating that Christians lie inorder to win converts?

Karl - Liberal Backslider · Sep 4, 2004

That's only a lie if evolution is incompatible with Christianity.

It isn't.

gluadys · Sep 4, 2004

Bonhoffer said:
It is however YOUR opinion that YEC is as credible as a flat earth/four elephants on a giant turtle. I admit YEC isnt currently scientifically credible, but it is certainly better supported than the flat earth/giant turtle models.

Note: emphasis added

I wish we more often saw such honesty from YECs. I have no problem with people who espouse YEC for what seems to them sound theological reasons (though I personally disagree with their theology). It is the claim that YEC is consistent with science that is the problem, especially when pressure is put on schools to present it as an alternate "scientific" theory.

He left evidence which 'can' be intrepreted as evidence for evolution, but this evidence must also genuinely point to something else otherwise God is deceiving us by planting false evidence.

Note: emphasis added[/

Again, a sound theological point. All too often YEC supporters seem too willing to accept a God who deceives. Thank you for not aiding and abetting that perspective.

Creationism as we understand science I would say is false. But I put my faith in the knowledge that human beings still dont understand everything about science yet. Maybe there is hard evidence for creationism somewhere we have not found yet. Maybe we are misunderstanding how carbon dating or other scientific principles works. We have never been able to measure the effects of a flood on the scale of Noahs flood. Maybe water in such quantity as a worldwide flood has different properties than water in local floods. Maybe the water of Noahs time was different back then. The water of Noahs flood could have had a chemical that has an eroding effect on rock and soil. This may be enough to carve out the grand canyon within weeks. And the reason we dont see this chemical in water today is because that chemical disapeared either naturally or because God disabled it in order to prevent the chemical from eroding the entire earth.
In this case God hiding the evidence for this chemical is not deception, but done for a good reason. (to stop the world from being completely eroded) It so happens to also serve the purpose of giving man the freedom to reject God. But this would not be the only reason. So therefore God is not lying.

Maybe, maybe, maybe. But this is all ad hoc reasoning and begs the question of how do we do science now when none of these possibilities have been realized.

I have so much sympathy for those who struggle with YEC. I was once as avid beleiver in evolution as Back-slider or any of the other TE's are.

And I think this is the basic problem---that you were a believer in and not a student of evolution.

YEC through current scientific understanding is not possible.
YEC + scientific process X is possible.

I dont know what that process is and probably never will know. But I trust that God has used it.

And theologically, this is something you can do. But scientifically one cannot. The only way to discover whether "scientific process X" even exists is to treat current scientific understanding as fact and see where it leads. If "scientific process X" exists, it will eventually show up in falsifications of current scientific understanding.

I had to reject evolution because it makes such a mess of theology and the Bible. I have also found evolutionary thinking to be dangerous in so many ways. I remember when I beleived in evolution I heard the claim that black people are less intelligent than whites and I remember thinking 'under evolutionary theory this could be a possibility'.

This again shows that you were an "evolutionist" only in the sense that you were not a "creationist". Your position in regard to evolution was the same as that of a cultural Christian in regard to the Christian faith. A cultural Christian has not ever made a commitment to Christ or Christianity. S/he identifies with Christianity only because it is the traditional faith of the culture. It is the default answer to "what is your religion?" just as "Hinduism" would be in India, "Buddhist" in Thailand or "Muslim" in Indonesia.

For many people who have never concerned themselves with this question "evolution" is the default answer when the question is asked, because that is where we are at culturally. (The reverse will be true when one is immersed in a YECist culture.)

Had you been a student of, rather than merely a casual believer in evolution, you could not have been thrown by the question of racism, because you would have understood how evolution refutes racism.

People could also attempt justify rape and pologamy from evolutionary thinking.

Again, actually knowing how evolution works, instead of merely believing the theory is true because that's what you've been told, would give you the basis for rejecting such misuses of the theory.

I am not saying that TEs or even atheistic evolutionists think any of the above are morally good. But evolutionary theory would imply that such acts are okay.

No, that's the point. It would do no such thing.

One final point is that if theistic evolution is true then God set up the Laws of Evolutiuon and the Law of the Survival of the fittest. And yet the teachings of Christ teach us to be humble and go against the law of the jungle. Jesus taught us that it is better to give than to receive. This isnt the case according to the laws of nature that His Father set up. To be a giver will result in extinction. Why would God set up a natural law in order to set up a spiritual law that contradicts it?

Again, if this was your concept of "survival of the fittest" when you were an evolutionist, it shows that despite your professed belief in evolution, you had no accurate concept of evolution. The contradiction you speak of does not exist.

So basically your conversion to YEC was based not only on a theology you found compatible, but also on a great deal of ignorance about evolution and about a theology consistent with evolution. The weaknesses you see in the theology of TE are largely grounded in misinformation about the theory of evolution.

Karl - Liberal Backslider · Sep 5, 2004

Bonhoffer said:
It is however YOUR opinion that YEC is as credible as a flat earth/four elephants on a giant turtle. I admit YEC isnt currently scientifically credible, but it is certainly better supported than the flat earth/giant turtle models.

No. Both are in the column headed "falsified models"

TheScottsMen · Sep 5, 2004

AV1611 said:
The dispensationalist has a consistently literal method of Biblical interpretation. We give to every word the same meaning it would have in normal usage. Sometimes called the grammatical-historical interpretation since the meaning of each word is determined by grammatical and historical considerations. Symbols and figurative language are interpreted plainly and they are in no way contrary to literal interpretation. After all, the very existence of any meaning for a figure of speech depends on the reality of the literal meaning of the terms involved. Figures often make the meaning plainer, but it is the literal, normal or plain meaning that they convey to the reader.

Many Christians I have talked to do not hold to Genesis 1 and 2 being literal however they are then unable to defend their own faith. :crosself:

Also summed up,
We take the Bible literal where ever possible, and where we can not take the bible literal, such as God having wings, or being God of only 7 hills, we get the literal truth that is being conveyed in scripture.

Also, IMHO, we must understand the culture, words, phrases, and chapters of the Bible to correctly handle it has Paul tells Timothy in II Tim 2:25. IMHO, IMHO, one should take the Bible literal, as I believe that our Lord Jesus Christ took the Word of God literal. EVERY TIME that Jesus quoted from the OT, it was always clear he was taking it literal, not spiritual. When Christ was tempted by Satan, Jesus answered with a quote from the OT, from the context of Luke 4, he most assuredly took the scripture literal. The disciples took the Words of Christ literal. Christ commanded them to go and make disciples in Matt 28:19-20, and in Acts 2 we find the disciples taking the call literally and went through all of Jerusalem and to the gentiles preaching the Gospel.

As for creation, not only do I believe it was literal, but Isiah writes: Is 45:18 "God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it; he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited" " - The creation of earth will have been in vain if God destroys it; but, by contrast, it is God's purpose to inhabit it with immortal people.

Moses also states, ""For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it."" -

Considering I believe that Moses really did exist, I also believe he took what he wrote to be literal.

As for Doctrine, going back to Christ, I find it being a doctrine of Christianity.

Matthew 19:4 - Jesus taught that God made male and female at the beginning. Note that creation is part of Jesus' doctrine [1 Cor. 11:9,12; 15:45,45; 1 Tim. 2:13; Heb. 1:2; Rev. 3:4]

John 1:1-3,10 - In fact Jesus Himself was the one through whom all things were made. [Eph. 3:9; Col. 1:16,17; Heb. 1:2]

Acts 4:24 - Early disciples worshipped saying God made heaven and earth and the sea, and all that is in them. [1 Tim. 6:13; Heb. 1:10; 3:4; Rev. 4:11; 10:6; 14:7]

Romans 1:20,25 - Creation proves the power and Deity of God, so men should worship Him.

Hebrews 11:3 - Creation is part of New Testament faith.

Hebrews 4:4 - God rested from His works on the seventh day. Here the New Testament confirms the Old Testament teaching that the work was accomplished in the first six days.

Creation affirms that all life comes from God - Genesis 1:11,12,20,21,24-27; 2:7,21-23; Job 33:4; Isaiah 42:5; 1 Timothy 6:13.

Creation demonstrates that God's wisdom is unlimited - Psalm 136:5-9; Jeremiah 51:15; Proverbs 3:19; 8:22-31.

Creation demonstrates God's great power -- Psalms 65:6; 86:8-10; 89:11-13; Jeremiah 10:12; Jeremiah 27:5; 32:17; Romans 1:20.

Because God created the universe, it belongs to Him so He rules as Lord over it - Psalm 24:1,2; 89:11,12; 95:5 Deuteronomy 32:5,6; Isaiah 29:16; Acts 17:24; Romans 11:36; Colossians 1:15-17; 1 Peter 4:19; Romans 1:25.

Anyways, just my opinion!

TSM

seebs · Sep 5, 2004

The question of when it is or isn't "possible" to take the Bible literally, of course, is somewhat circular.

herev · Sep 5, 2004

Hello Scottsmen!!! thanks for sharing some interesting insight!

TheScottsMen said:
Also summed up,
We take the Bible literal where ever possible, and where we can not take the bible literal, such as God having wings, or being God of only 7 hills, we get the literal truth that is being conveyed in scripture.

As do we TE's--for us, however, we feel we cannot look to God's creation and the evidence therein--and read Genesis 1 and 2 literally. It doesn't fit with the apparent genre of the time and it doesn't agree with God's other Book--His creation itself

TheScottsMen said:
Also, IMHO, we must understand the culture, words, phrases, and chapters of the Bible to correctly handle it has Paul tells Timothy in II Tim 2:25.

II Tim 2:25:
"25Those who oppose him he must gently instruct, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth,

So I'm a bit confused as to what you are referring to, but on both sides of the issue we have forgotten that we are to "gently instruct."

and we definitely seem to have forgotten the previous verse:

24And the Lord's servant must not quarrel; instead, he must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful." (bold mine)

TheScottsMen said:
IMHO, IMHO, one should take the Bible literal

And yet, as you said above , we all know that there are times when this is not the correct way to handle scirpture.

TheScottsMen said:
as I believe that our Lord Jesus Christ took the Word of God literal. EVERY TIME that Jesus quoted from the OT, it was always clear he was taking it literal, not spiritual.

I believe this is debatable and open to interpetation. for example, in Matthew 19, Jesus says:

3Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?"
4"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'[1] 5and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'[2] ? 6So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

Had Jesus known it was literal, or had He known it was not (and surely He would have known either way ), it does not change the meaning, since even taken non-literally, the truth of Jesus' words are found in the Genesis passage.

TheScottsMen said:
When Christ was tempted by Satan, Jesus answered with a quote from the OT, from the context of Luke 4, he most assuredly took the scripture literal.

Agreed

TheScottsMen said:
The disciples took the Words of Christ literal. Christ commanded them to go and make disciples in Matt 28:19-20, and in Acts 2 we find the disciples taking the call literally and went through all of Jerusalem and to the gentiles preaching the Gospel.

For the example listed, yes they did. However, surely when he was speaking in parables, they understood that it was a parable, containing truth, but not necessarily fact, didn't they? So they didn't take every word of Christ literally as I see it.

TheScottsMen said:
As for creation, not only do I believe it was literal,

Which I support you in doing...

TheScottsMen said:
but Isiah writes: Is 45:18 "God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it; he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited" " -

And yet, we TE's beleive that God himself formed the earth and made it, too!

TheScottsMen said:
The creation of earth will have been in vain if God destroys it; but, by contrast, it is God's purpose to inhabit it with immortal people.

I'm not sure to what you are referring here.

TheScottsMen said:
Moses also states, ""For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it."" -

Yes, but must this be literal to contain truth about respecting the sabboth as the will of God?

TheScottsMen said:
Considering I believe that Moses really did exist, I also believe he took what he wrote to be literal.

And yet, Jesus really did exist, but as shown above, not everything he said was literal. David and Solomon really did exist, but not everything written in Psalms or Proverbs is literal...

TheScottsMen said:
As for Doctrine, going back to Christ, I find it being a doctrine of Christianity.

Matthew 19:4 - Jesus taught that God made male and female at the beginning. Note that creation is part of Jesus' doctrine [1 Cor. 11:9,12; 15:45,45; 1 Tim. 2:13; Heb. 1:2; Rev. 3:4]

Ah, I see you quoted the same place in Matthew, but in each of the others, taking Genesis 1 and 2 is not required for truth to be found in them. We do not know for certain one way or the other--whether they saw the truth in a non-literal understanding and used the quote or saw it as literaly and used the understanding of it that way. Either is perfectly valid, neither is proof or evidence of a literal understanding--especially of Jesus himself. (and I'm not sure I understand the Rev. 3:4 text in relation to this discussion.)

TheScottsMen said:
John 1:1-3,10 - In fact Jesus Himself was the one through whom all things were made. [Eph. 3:9; Col. 1:16,17; Heb. 1:2]

Acts 4:24 - Early disciples worshipped saying God made heaven and earth and the sea, and all that is in them. [1 Tim. 6:13; Heb. 1:10; 3:4; Rev. 4:11; 10:6; 14:7]

Romans 1:20,25 - Creation proves the power and Deity of God, so men should worship Him.

Hebrews 11:3 - Creation is part of New Testament faith.

And yet again, a TE understanding has no conflict at all with these passages--we, too actually do believe that God created all that is--and that the Second Person of the Trinity was the agent of that creation.

TheScottsMen said:
Hebrews 4:4 - God rested from His works on the seventh day. Here the New Testament confirms the Old Testament teaching that the work was accomplished in the first six days.

to us, it confirms the truth of God's command to rest on the seventh day, to keep the sabboth holy, there is truth in the quote from Genesis, whether it is literal or not.

TheScottsMen said:
Creation affirms that all life comes from God - Genesis 1:11,12,20,21,24-27; 2:7,21-23; Job 33:4; Isaiah 42:5; 1 Timothy 6:13.

Agreed, and when we look to that creation, we see evidence of a very old earth (which as a gap theorists, you support) and also of evolutionary processes--this is why we believe in theistic evolution, we let the creation give testamony.

TheScottsMen said:
Creation demonstrates that God's wisdom is unlimited - Psalm 136:5-9; Jeremiah 51:15; Proverbs 3:19; 8:22-31.

And does so regardless of the method of God's creation. Do you suggest that if He used evolution, that it would demonstrate God's wisdom was somehow limited?

TheScottsMen said:
Creation demonstrates God's great power -- Psalms 65:6; 86:8-10; 89:11-13; Jeremiah 10:12; Jeremiah 27:5; 32:17; Romans 1:20.

Yes, and again, it does so regardless of the method of creation. Would you then suggest that if He used evolution, he is not omnipotent?

TheScottsMen said:
Because God created the universe, it belongs to Him so He rules as Lord over it - Psalm 24:1,2; 89:11,12; 95:5 Deuteronomy 32:5,6; Isaiah 29:16; Acts 17:24; Romans 11:36; Colossians 1:15-17; 1 Peter 4:19; Romans 1:25.

Agreed here, too--We also beleive God's authority is comfirmed or affirmed by His being the author of creation, we simply disagree on the method

TheScottsMen said:
Anyways, just my opinion!

TSM

And I enjoyed your sharing it. I hope we can all share in peach and acceptance.

God Bless you!
Tommy

ahab · Sep 6, 2004

Hi Karl liberal backslider,

Could you be more specific?

Well its too big a subject but for example. If the vacuum of space is changing uniformly across the universe, just as the universe is expanding uniformly, it could affect the speed of light. It could, but has light really slowed down, I dont think so, so are you saying it couldnt?

IMO there are simply no where near enough convincing transitional fossils, gaps or no gaps. For me this is a major and fundemental stumbling block to the theory.

I don't know that that's true. There are lots of transationals between major groups - what gaps do you think are damning?

I dont know that thats true either, but IMO I dont see transitional fossils. Actually I find Talk.origins even less convincing on this. As to gaps, well there are sort of gaps where we dont see much in the way of fossils, and the point is? As to talk.origins view on transitional fossils "that even when they are found, they're not popularized.

Even when says it all. We should have trouble seeing transitional fossils as they evolve so I dont see the idea of a missing link transitional fossil, but I do expect to see one species into another without having to scratch around for a few examples that do the trick.

Abiogenesis is a far less well fleshed out field than evolution. I tend to believe that it will be explainable in terms of natural causes because that appears to be the way God works, given everything else.

I tend to believe that creation is indicated as being rather more a specific event by God than natural causes and I believe that science is unable to come up with a convincing natural causes argument. Remember, I am not convinced that the majority scientific position is wrong, just that it isnt as clear cut as many make out.

So in summary, we actually tend to agree that science and Genesis are neither in scientific or spiritual competition, however there are some aspects of evolution and origins of life that are too wobbly for me, so I say the dangers of YEC'ism and Evolution.

.

Iosias · Sep 6, 2004

herev said:
Agreed, and when we look to that creation, we see evidence of a very old earth (which as a gap theorists, you support) and also of evolutionary processes--this is why we believe in theistic evolution, we let the creation give testamony.

What you do is fit the Bible into what you believe. YECs on the other hand believe what the Holy Bible says. You let Man interpret scripture whereas YECs let scripture speak for itself.

Karl - Liberal Backslider · Sep 6, 2004

AV1611 said:
What you do is fit the Bible into what you believe. YECs on the other hand believe what the Holy Bible says. You let Man interpret scripture whereas YECs let scripture speak for itself.

Stop telling us what we do. It's impolite.

Iosias · Sep 6, 2004

Karl - Liberal Backslider said:
Stop telling us what we do. It's impolite.

Well at least you agree with what I said you do...fitting the Bible into what you believe and letting Man interpret scripture.

TheScottsMen · Sep 6, 2004

I have know problem believing that the world is millions if not billions of years old and I can I still take Genesis literal, the difference between YEC and Gappers is that we do not see Genesis 1:3 as being the original creation of the Earth or the universe, but a restoration of a world that was before that had fallen into a ruin state.

Karl - Liberal Backslider · Sep 6, 2004

AV1611 said:
Well at least you agree with what I said you do...fitting the Bible into what you believe and letting Man interpret scripture.

First I thought I'd let it go because you know exactly what I mean.

Then I thought I'd be buggered if I'll let it go.

You know exactly what I mean. Shall I rephrase it?

Stop telling us what your incorrect and offensive (to some, I don't really care) version of what we do. Ask, you might learn something. Act like an arrogant knowall, and you will remain simply a pain in the neck).

herev · Sep 6, 2004

AV1611 said:
What you do is fit the Bible into what you believe.

What we do is interpret the Bible differently than you, based on the truth of we see around us in creation. It is no different than when you interpret some part of the Psalms to be non-literal. It is interpretation.

AV1611 said:
YECs on the other hand believe what the Holy Bible says.

It is NOT on the other hand. We, too believe the Bible. To continue to say this demonstrates your unwillingness to have honest dialogue or your inability to read what WE have plainly said . But no matter how many times you say it and how often you say it or how many different ways you say it, it's still a lie.

AV1611 said:
You let Man interpret scripture

No, I interpret scriptures according to Weselyan theology. I base my understanding of God's word on Scripture, and that through Tradition, Experience, and Reason. I let knowledge of the earth and the fossil record inform that interpretation. Then I (as a man) interpret all the parts that go into the whole.

AV1611 said:
whereas YECs let scripture speak for itself.

No, you interpret it, too. You may not want to admit that, but no one reads the scriptures without interpretation. For you to believe it is literal in Genesis one and two, IS an interpretation--I am assuming you are not saying you are not a man. Please correct me on that point if you feel the need.

herev · Sep 6, 2004

deleted at the request of moderators--and for good logical cause

herev · Sep 6, 2004

Karl - Liberal Backslider · Sep 6, 2004

The author of that page was quite correct (heh heh).

But there's nothing unchristian, in my view, in telling people who are a pain in the backside that they are a pain in the backside, especially when you've tried to do it subtly for ages.

herev · Sep 6, 2004

Karl - Liberal Backslider said:
The author of that page was quite correct (heh heh).

But there's nothing unchristian, in my view, in telling people who are a pain in the backside that they are a pain in the backside, especially when you've tried to do it subtly for ages.

agreed 100%, but there is a way to say it----and then there's a way to say it
My grandfather used to simply say there were more horse's petuties in the world than there were horses--nough said.
God bless

Karl - Liberal Backslider · Sep 7, 2004

Forgive my paucity of modes of expression, but I'd run out of other ways to say it.

The dangers of YEC'ism

Contributor

Senior Contributor

Senior Veteran

Legend

Senior Veteran

Veteran

God Made Me A Skeptic

CL--you are missed!

ahab

Guest

Senior Contributor

Senior Veteran

Senior Contributor

Veteran

Senior Veteran

CL--you are missed!

CL--you are missed!

CL--you are missed!

Senior Veteran

CL--you are missed!

Senior Veteran

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency