The Full Spectrum of Christian Belief on Origins - where are you?

[FireDragon76]

I accept the abiogenesis of life, as in the thought of Jesuit priest and paleontologist, Teilhard de Chardin. It's the explanation that seems to reconcile the most with science and questions of teleology, purpose, and Christian revelation/experience.

 

[Bob Crowley]

I'm a firm believer in "Intelligent Design", but less clear about the actual method ie. Special Creation versus Evolution, or a mixture of the two.

I'm not interested in the literal Seven Day scenario, but I sometimes have a suspicion that there's some sort of fundamental issue with overall dating and we haven't found it yet.

When I first became a Christian, "Creation Science" was just really getting a go on in Brisbane (Queensland, Australia) and I became a bit of a fanatic for a while. Ken Ham of Noah's Ark fame was a local back then.

But with the passage of time, I've become more of a fence sitter I'm afraid, although as I said there is no doubt in my mind this universe was designed.

I haven't got much time for the "multiverse" argument. If virtual quantum particles are posited to pop in and out of existence in this universe, so what? That doesn't intimate a need for multiverses. In any case they are very short lived.

One writer on Quora submitted his opinion on virtual articles as follows -

Victor Toth - IT pro, part-time physicistAuthor has 8.9K answers and 127.2M answer views5y

Virtual particles don’t “exist”. That’s why they are virtual.

What they actually are: nice, convenient labels, intuitive visualizations of the distinct terms in an integral that represents how two fields interact.

There is no point talking about the duration of their existence.....

I sometimes wonder if "Dark Matter" and "Dark Energy" are also "nice convenient lablels", or if there is a factor missing in our calculations of the age of the universe.

In any case I think it would have cost God enough reconciling Himself just to this one.

If I get to Glory, I'll be asking God for a Power Point display explaining just how He did it.

 

[BobRyan]

I'm a firm believer in "Intelligent Design", but less clear about the actual method ie. Special Creation versus Evolution, or a mixture of the two.

I'm not interested in the literal Seven Day scenario

out of curiosity - is this an example of "the seven day scenario" you are not interested in??

Ex 20:8 “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy... 10 the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD (YHWH) your God; on it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male slave or your female slave, or your cattle, or your resident who stays with you. 11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and everything that is in them, and He rested on the seventh day; for that reason the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

Gen 2:1 so the heavens and the earth were completed, and all their heavenly lights. 2 By the seventh day God completed His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. 3 Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because on it He rested from all His work which God had created and made.

or is it "and so evening and morning were the nth day" statements in Gen 1?

Which do you find least interesting ? the legal code? the historic account?

 

[BobRyan]

If I get to Glory, I'll be asking God for a Power Point display explaining just how He did it.

Ps 33:
For He spoke, and it was ;
He commanded, and it stood fast.

Gen 1 --
evening and morning were the first day
evening and morning were the second day
evening and morning were the third day
evening and morning were the fourth day
evening and morning were the fifth day
evening and morning were the sixth day

Did God insert some sort of vaguery according to your POV? Or does it appear He was giving us a timeline and pointing to his own infinite power as doing it in the timeline HE himself specified?

 

[Bob Crowley]

I'm not interested in the seven day creation story because it can't be proven. It's one thing to be able to prove the universe is old or young.

If it's young, then obviously the Creation story can fit - if it is very old as current dating appears to indicate, then there's room for evolution.

Either way a seven day creation story can't be proven.

Secondly I also take into account Jewish perspectives on the Creation story. The Old Testament is basically the Jewish Scripture, not ours. It's their written tradition, so I think we ought to take some notice of what they have to say about it.

Judaism and Evolution

Encyclopedia of Jewish and Israeli history, politics and culture, with biographies, statistics, articles and documents on topics from anti-Semitism to Zionism.

www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org

The New Testament is the Christian Scripture.

I'll say it again - I believe in intelligent design in that I think there's a designer at work, but I don't know His methods and neither do you.

 

[BobRyan]

I'm not interested in the seven day creation story because it can't be proven.

can the bodily ascension of Christ be proven - scientifically?
Can the resurrection of Lazarus be proven scientifically?

According to science - what can God not do in 7 days that He claims to do in 7 days?

It's one thing to be able to prove the universe is old or young.

For the sake of argument you can say the universe is as old as you wish. I am just talking about all life on Earth, the forming of Earth to support life as per the Bible.

If it's young, then obviously the Creation story can fit

If Earth is young the creation story does fit - but even if rocks are old - young life still fits.

Either way a seven day creation story can't be proven.

So also the ascension of Christ
So also all the resurrection stories in the Bible - including Christ's
none of that is "scientifically proven"

Your argument then becomes "I can't be a Christian because the God of the Bible did not do anything He claims to have done if science did not observe it or cannot duplicate it".

Secondly I also take into account Jewish perspectives on the Creation story. The Old Testament is basically the Jewish Scripture, not ours.

Christ is the Jewish Messiah.

The New Covenant is the Jewish New Covenant - Jer 31:31-34, Heb 8:6-12 "for the house of Israel and the house of Judah" alone.

It's their written tradition, so I think we ought to take some notice of what they have to say about it.

They say that the word for "day" in Ex 20:8-11 is a 24 hour day at Sinai and no justification exists in the text to change it to eons when Sinai had a 7 day week.

They also say that Jesus was a false Messiah

 

[coffee4u]

I'm not interested in the seven day creation story because it can't be proven.

No position can be proven. If people have persuaded you that any position has been, its due to a clever tongue.

7 days or 6 billion years is not about proof (even if its dressed up to look like it), its about faith.

Scientific Proof Is A Myth

Scientific Proof Is A Myth

We can demonstrate, suggest, and convince ourselves that a scientific truth is valid. But proof? That's an impossibility for science.

www.forbes.com

​

 

[Bob Crowley]

I lifted this quote from your post.

This doesn't mean it's impossible to know anything at all. To the contrary, in many ways, scientific knowledge is the most "real" knowledge that we can possibly gain about the world.

With all due respect if the same scientists who lay the ground work for the theories we have indicate the universe is generally a lot older than a 6000 year creation story, I'll take their version.

As I said in my original post I believe in an intelligent (highly intelligent) designer, but I'm not going to be brow beaten by those who insist I have to believe in a literal seven day creation story. I'll make up my own mind.

 

[Hvizsgyak]

There is currently a spectrum of belief regarding origins, and this is tied loosely to how literal one reads Scripture and/or the degree to which one is willing to allow the evidence of Gods Creation inform their beliefs *about* that Creation. We must keep in mind that every position except the one on top, the Flat-earthers, involves a certain degree of allowance of scientific knowledge to influence Scriptural interpretation.

1. Flat-earthers - believe that a plain reading of Scripture indicates that the earth is flat. Very few still hold on to this belief.

2. Geocentrists - believe that the sun and all the stars literally revolve around the earth. Still a surprising number of these around, although the movement suffered a major setback after the late 60's. They have lots of Scripture and theological bases to argue from, however, and insist that a literal reading of Scriptures requires geocentrism. Ironically, they hold young earth creationists (below) in the same light as theistic evolutionists: those who have let secular science alter their view away from a plain, literal reading of Scripture. A recent shake up over at ICR (or possibly it was AiG) occured when the group finally denounced geocentrism and a number of their contributing members quit because they were geocentrist.

3. Young Earth Creationists - believe that the earth and universe are both young (less than 10,000 years old) and that all the diversity of species is the result of special creation, based on a literal reading of Scripture (even if not AS literal as those above).

4. Gap Theorists (a form of Old Earth Creationism) - Believe that the earth and universe were created at the time science says, but that God created Man and all the animals at the "young earth" time frame. Some believe this is a "recreation", God having scrapped an earlier version (dinosaurs, etc).

5. Progressive Creationists (aka "Day-Age Creationists", another form of OEC)- Believe that the earth and universe were created at the time science says, but that each "day" in Genesis referred to an indefinite period of time. Genesis is a historically and scientifically accurate account, just that it happened over a VERY long time period.

6. Theistic Evolutionists (with a literal Adam and Eve) - believe in an old earth and universe, but accept that God used evolution as part of His creation, basically as science describes it. But they feel that there was a literal Adam and Eve in a literal Garden. Some attribute this Adam and Eve to an instance of special creation, others to election as "representatives", etc. Also believe in biogenesis, not abiogenesis.

7. Theistic Evolutionists (no literal Adam and Eve, but biogenesis) - believe that Man evolved along with the other species (pursuant to Gods plan), but that the initial spark of life was immediately God induced. Some even push this forward to some mass special creation of a variety of "kinds" around the Cambrian period, with all the species evolving from there.

8. Theistic Evolutionists (abiogenesis) - God created everything and established the full system of natural laws upon with the universe and the earth would work. And it did. With life arising at the time and place He had known it would, etc.

A bit of a side category is the Intelligent Design movement of recent years. This asserts that *whatever* you accept about creation, there is firm evidence that the universe and the earth in particular were designed with specific intelligence, by a designer, and not happening randomly. Those holding this opinion come in each of the flavors mentioned above, although the most recent and influential of these have been Theistic Evolutionists (ie, they accept that species evolved over billions of years, including man, but that God directed the process all the way, it was not random or wholly naturalistic).

So, where do you fit in? I dont necessarily want everyone to post their "number", but it is interesting to see it all laid out like this. If any have suggestions or tweaks to make to the this list, go ahead and say so.

Are you going to make us read all 34 pages of posts to get a feel for where the most Christians lie in your spectrum of creation? Where's the poll? I'm not getting any younger, you know!

 

[BobRyan]

I don't believe the Bible is, or was intended to be, a scientific treatise.

And yet it accurately states the facts regarding the virgin birth. Not a birth that takes 9 million years but a birth where the mother is pregnant for the real-life time frame of 9 months. Yet gives birth to the Christ - the incarnate Son of God.

And it accurately states the facts of the bodily resurrection of Christ. Not a resurrection that takes 1 million years but one that happens quickly on Sunday morning - where the real Son of God - Jesus Christ comes forth bodily from the tomb.

And it accurately states the facts of the bodily ascension of Christ into heaven 40 days after the resurrection in Acts 1.

We don't question the time frame for supernatural acts of God - but rather let the Bible state them as they are without having to gripe about the Bible not being a "science text" on how to do what God did so humans can duplicate it.

If the question is how literally I read the Bible in terms of the age of the earth and that sort of thing, my answer would be "Pretty much not at all."

There are a lot of ways to "read the Bible - not at all" as it turns out.
Or one can do that with just bits of the Bible that go against their preferences.

I respect the enthusiasm of Young Earthers like Ken Ham, but my personal belief is that no rational Christian actually believes the universe and the earth are anything like 10,000 years old.

The Genesis account is pretty emphatic about the Earth, Sun and Moon being less than 10,000 years old but the idea that "all of the Universe" is being included in what Genesis 1 calls "two great lights" made on day four -- is a bit of a stretch.

So limiting the scope of this to just our Earth, our Sun and our moon .... and all life on Earth - is more generally accepted across all points of view.

Young Earthers somehow compartmentalize their theology and the obvious scientific truth for reasons I don't fully understand.

Well in Ex 20:11 we have legal code informing us that the seven days of Gen 2:1-3 are exactly the same as the 7 day week at Sinai in Ex 20:8-11.

Not exactly taking a "rocket scientist" to "understand that text" at that point. Even the non-Christian scholars in Hebrew and OT studies "at all world class universities" admit to this "detail in the text" according to one of their own --

for example
================================
Professor James Barr, Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford, has written:



"Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that:

(a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience

(b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story

(c) Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark.

Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.’

 

[The Barbarian]

I don't believe the Bible is, or was intended to be, a scientific treatise. If the question is how literally I read the Bible in terms of the age of the earth and that sort of thing, my answer would be "Pretty much not at all." I respect the enthusiasm of Young Earthers like Ken Ham, but my personal belief is that no rational Christian actually believes the universe and the earth are anything like 10,000 years old. Young Earthers somehow compartmentalize their theology and the obvious scientific truth for reasons I don't fully understand.

My biblical position is that the heavens proclaim the glory of God. God created a universe that operates according to laws and principles. He created humans with minds and senses capable of investigating and to a large extent understanding that universe. As the proponents of Intelligent Design have shown, scientific investigation and analysis demonstrate the glory the Bible talks about. Science is the enemy of faith only when it operates on the basis of philosophical materialism that flatly rules out any creator or spiritual realm.

I fully accept the findings of science in terms of the age of the universe and the earth. There is no doubt the universe and earth are billions of years old. I would fully accept evolution if I were convinced the science was sound, which I definitely am not. For the reasons highlighted by the Intelligent Design proponents, I believe anything resembling neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory is badly flawed and implausible. Ditto for chemical evolution to explain the origin of life - badly flawed and implausible. I certainly believe God is the creator of all and the author of life, but I have no dogmatic position as to the process.

Two possibilities that intrigue me are (1) idealism, whereby everything that exists is a manifestation of God's consciousness (which meshes nicely with the Christian doctrine of creation ex nihilo and God speaking creation into existence), and (2) Adam and Eve as special creations in God's image from long-existing human stock some 10,000 or so years ago - which, believe it or not, is supported by sound science. On the latter point, the recent book The Genealogical Adam and Eve: The Surprising Science of Universal Ancestry by Joshua Swamidass is fascinating. Concerning idealism, the many books by Bernardo Kastrup, such as The Idea of the World, are equally fascinating even if Kastrup isn't a Christian.

Are you familiar with the "Virtual History" ideas of creationist Gerald Aardsma? It's a kind of updating of the Omphalos ideas of Phillip Henry Gosse.

 

[The Barbarian]

I would fully accept evolution if I were convinced the science was sound, which I definitely am not. For the reasons highlighted by the Intelligent Design proponents, I believe anything resembling neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory is badly flawed and implausible. Ditto for chemical evolution to explain the origin of life - badly flawed and implausible.

Evolution is an observed process. I'm thinking that instead of evolution, you're skeptical of a consequence of evolution, i.e. common descent.

Since all the basic chemicals required for life are now confirmed to form abiotically, I don't see any problem with life being brought forth by the Earth, as God says.

 

[BobRyan]

The Virgin Birth, Resurrection and Ascension are, we Christians believe, miraculous one-time historical events.

Just as we Christians say about the Gen 1-2 seven day creation week - affirmed in the legal code of Ex 20:11.

There is simply no analogy to Young Earth Creationism.

Until you read Gen 1 and 2 and see that it is stated as a one time event.
And the legal code of Ex 20:11 confirms it.

Literally every relevant scientific discipline shows the Young Earth position is wildly incorrect.

OR is it just guesswork on their part? How long before once again - they change their guesses??

In Young Earth Creationism, the heavens don't proclaim the glory of God;

Until you look up and see what God has done in creating systems , galaxies, the universe etc.
Even WEBB is coming up with "new surprises" every month - not at all what the cosmologists expected.

the heavens are a deception perpetrated by God

not true.

upon humanity. The only possible rationale is that God is saying "Who ya gonna believe - your lying eyes and scientists or a literalistic reading of Genesis?" Is that the kind of faith God wants?

God loves it when we choose to believe His word. That is pretty well established by now.

I have no quibble with what Professor Barr said about Genesis 1-11.

His claim is that the text is not proclaiming evolutionism or Darwinism... it is declaring a literal 7 day creation week.

THat means a lot to certain Christians.

In your quotation, he was simply stating what the original authors intended to convey.

We call that "exegesis".

Think about it.

It wouldn't matter to me if Genesis unequivocally said "God created the heavens and the earth in seven 24-hour days

And even Barr admits that this is exactly what the text says. One does not have to be a Christian to see that the text says that and as Barr notes - the author intended it.

I would still say the Bible is not a scientific treatise

And yet it accurately states the facts regarding the virgin birth. Not a birth that takes 9 million years but a birth where the mother is pregnant for the real-life time frame of 9 months. Yet gives birth to the Christ - the incarnate Son of God.


And it accurately states the facts of the bodily resurrection of Christ. Not a resurrection that takes 1 million years but one that happens quickly on Sunday morning - where the real Son of God - Jesus Christ comes forth bodily from the tomb.


And it accurately states the facts of the bodily ascension of Christ into heaven 40 days after the resurrection in Acts 1.


We don't question the time frame for supernatural acts of God - but rather let the Bible state them as they are without having to gripe about the Bible not being a "science text" on how to do what God did so humans can duplicate it.

 

[BobRyan]

Evolution is an observed process.

until it directly observes about 80,000 generations of non-evolution in the long running evolution experiment

 

[The Barbarian]

Evolution is an observed process.

until it directly observes about 80,000 generations of non-evolution in the long running evolution experiment

Remember when I asked you what biological evolution is, and you couldn't tell us? This is why you are confused about the evolution observed in that experiment.

I'll ask again. What do you think the scientific definition for biological evolution is?

 

[The Barbarian]

Where humans were basically inserted into a preexisting universe, as happens when we begin reading a novel and encounter the characters as mature adults and their surroundings as fully developed buildings and cities and whatnot, without knowing anything about what happened before?

Sort of. It's like most of what science has found about the world before about 6,000 B. C. is kind of a backstory, which didn't really happen but fills in everything so that there are no gaps or inconsistencies in the world.

It is a clever idea, and in fact, God could have done that if He had chosen to do it. Sometimes scientists disparagingly refer to it as "Last Tuesdayism", since God could just as well have created everything last Tuesday with "virtual history." I regard Aardsma as intelligent and honest, but I can't see this fitting with God as truth.

 

[BobRyan]

Well, OK, then presumably you also believe the cosmology as set forth in Genesis

The idea that someone would actually "believe the Bible" is often held in ridicule by "some".

I am not one of those.

The "Cosmology" of Genesis has the Sun and moon come into being (day 4) around the same time as plants on Earth appear (day 3) -- in the span of a single "evening and morning" which in Ex 20:11 is stated to be the same time as a single day at Sinai -- the time for each of the 7 days in Genesis..

In geometry, a spherical cap or spherical dome is a portion of a sphere or of a ball. Our atmosphere is indeed a dome above our heads from the point of reference of an observer on the ground.

I don't struggle accepting that concept and it does not surprise me that the atmosphere of Earth appears as dome above the head to the observer writing the book of Genesis.

Is it your claim that a doubt-the-bible first agenda should take over at this point?

 

[BobRyan]

It is a clever idea, and in fact, God could have done that if He had chosen to do it.

God could choose to do anything he wanted. So people making stuff up , can't do it... but God could.

Thankfully God tells us what He chose to do - as we see it in Gen 1-2 , in Ex 20:11 in legal code and in the summary of Gen 2:1-3

 

[BobRyan]

Evolution is an observed process.

Remember when I asked you what biological evolution is, and you couldn't tell us?

Never happened in the "you couldn't tell us" world you apparently speculated about.

The mythology of biological evolutionism takes different forms at different times in the past 170+ years. Which form of the myth were you looking for?

Modern synthesis (20th century) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Belief in blind-faith evolutionism with its endless stories and shifting sand is not a solid foundation.

Still even in the diversion you propose -- Do you have a "couldn't tell us" statement from me or did you just make that up as well??

 

[The Barbarian]

Never happened in the "you couldn't tell us" world you apparently speculated about.

The mythology of biological evolutionism takes different forms at different times in the past 170+ years. Which form of the myth were you looking for?

I see you've dodged again. We'll just not that you don't know what it is, and go on. Suffice to say that either Darwin's definition or the definition after the discovery of genetics would be correct. Either one. You're on.

Belief in blind-faith evolutionism with its endless stories and shifting sand is not a solid foundation.

Remember, "evolutionism" is a strawman created by creationists. Use the definition of evolution that is used by scientists. If you still can't tell us, why not just go look it up, so you can function here?

Do you have a "couldn't tell us" statement from me

You have repeatedly declined to define it for us; did you think we wouldn't realize why?