The Golden Rule of the Creationist

mark kennedy · May 6, 2004

I have spent some time on the Creation/evolution threads in the open forums and I finally made it here to find one of the moderators was frustrated with the apparent rudeness of the posts he was now responsible for moderating. He suggested some pretty simple guidlines for how this could be resolved and it really came down to common courtesy. If Christians are called to be anything, we are called to be gracious.

1) Respect for other participants, even if there are differences of views.

I would say be especially respectfull of participants who have very different views. I am not sure but respect might not be the right term. You don't respect what you find wrong but go the extra mile to try to at least understand where people are coming from. God knows your every fault and yet he is patient with you, that's the buisness side of grace, now you have to be gracious. Yes, even with Darwinians.

2) Squash the notion that a participant with a different view is somehow the 'enemy'.

There is a big difference between being critical and being combative. When you turn one of these debates into a grudge match it makes a mess of what otherwise might have been an interesting discussion. I debated a very well mannered opponent in the formal debate forum on the myth of evolution. We had a heated exchange but overall we discussed the topic critically without exchanging insults. Neither of us cared for the views of the other but the discussion was a lot of fun for both of us. Christians should not become militant in these debates, critical yes, but combative tactics just break the whole thing down into a grudge match.

3) Address the topic at hand, not the participants of the discussion.

Its tempting to tell the opposing viewpoint that they are arguing from ignorance. Obviously if you did not consider the other side to be ignorant you would not feel the need to argue. I just think it is counter productive to be too easily provoked. When Jesus said to turn the other cheek he was talking about telling the truth irregardless of who calls you a liar. In Jewish courts if you said you didn't do something you were accused of then the wittness against you could slap you in the face. The catch is that then they had to testify and if they were found to bear false wittness then they recieved the penalty you would have. Turning the other cheek is about telling the truth, not slapping someone back...end of sermon.

No doubt the modern evolutionist is hostile to the Christian faith especially with regards to the Genesis account to creation. Science is not the enemy here, its being held hostage by some very determined people who are trying to drive creationism out of natural science. Now while I will defend my convictions that God created every living creature on earth in an instant as an act of His soverign will, I remember how dark it is in the unbelief I used to walk in. There is only one solution to this darkness, let you light shine before men.

Grace and peace,
Mark

boughtwithaprice · May 6, 2004

Nice post. I agree with you that God created everything, but we don't know how He did it. Science can only deal with observable phenomena. We can see changes in populations over time based on environmental pressures. As for what happened at the beginning of the world, that is pure speculation. The Bible does not go into detail. It just says that God did it, and no one today was around then or has a time machine.

I think that we need to keep in mind God's words to Job:

Job 38:2-6
"Who is this that darkens counsel
By words without knowledge?
Now gird up your loins like a man,
And I will ask you, and you instruct Me!
"Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?
Tell Me, if you have understanding,
Who set its measurements? Since you know.
Or who stretched the line on it?
"On what were its bases sunk?
Or who laid its cornerstone,

Since not one of us was there when the world was formed, we need to apprach this subject with more humility. I like what you posted about respect; we need to respect eachother as brothers in Christ.

notto · May 6, 2004

mark kennedy said:
No doubt the modern evolutionist is hostile to the Christian faith especially with regards to the Genesis account to creation. Science is not the enemy here, its being held hostage by some very determined people who are trying to drive creationism out of natural science.

This is simply false. It is statements like this (false witness) that you were just railing against, wasn't it? Show my evolutionists who are hostile to the Christian faith as opposed to simply being opposed to religious beliefs posing as scientific answers in light of evidence.

Many, if not most 'evolutionists' in the US are Christian. You are equating evolution with atheism and this is a dishonest approach and simply not a valid conclusion. I am a Christian who accepts evolution along with the rest of mainstream science. I am not hostile toward Christianity. I have never met a scientists who was hostile toward Christianity. It is simply the actions of some Christians who wish to supress scientific thought, process, and education because it disagrees with their particular interpretation of scripture that may be addressed as hostile, as it should be. There are a thousand religious beliefs out there. Science should be hostile if any of them are used in light of scientific evidence and passed of as 'truth' related to the physical world. In this fashion, science is agnostic and does not care or comment on the existence or lack of existence or validity of one particular notion of God or creation myths and beliefs. This is a good thing.

Claim of science being held hostage is simply not supportable. Mainstream science works the way it has always worked. Evidence, Hypothesis, Publication, Review, Falsification.

Evolution is a tested, unfalsified, supported, and reviewed science just like any other.

ThePhoenix · May 10, 2004

notto said:
This is simply false. It is statements like this (false witness) that you were just railing against, wasn't it? Show my evolutionists who are hostile to the Christian faith as opposed to simply being opposed to religious beliefs posing as scientific answers in light of evidence.

I'm sure there are some. What he has to show for that statement to be correct is that there is a systematic bias against christianity that runs through the entire science. And you can't find something that doesn't exist.

gluadys · May 10, 2004

mark kennedy said:
No doubt the modern evolutionist is hostile to the Christian faith especially with regards to the Genesis account to creation.

Good post up to this sentence.

So another suggestion.

Remember when you are posting in the Christians Only forum, that the presumption is that all participants are Christian. So no one is "hostile to the Christian faith".

I have certainly seen, in other environments, those who are hostile to the Christian faith and use whatever knowledge they have of history or science or logic as a weapon against it. But in this forum we debate different Christian understandings of the faith.

I would also add that the Christian theistic evolutionist is not hostile to the Genesis account of creation. Rather, she is open to a variety of non-literal interpretations of that account.

mark kennedy · May 10, 2004

gluadys said:
Good post up to this sentence.

So another suggestion.

Remember when you are posting in the Christians Only forum, that the presumption is that all participants are Christian. So no one is "hostile to the Christian faith".

The view I said was hostile to the Christian faith is directing its attacks at specific tenants that are inextricable linked to Christian conviction.

" 'Creation-science' means the scientific evidences for creation and inferences from those scientific evidences. Creation-science includes the scientific evidences and related inferences that indicate:

1. Sudden creation of the universe, energy, and life from nothing;
2. The insufficiency of mutation and natural selection in bringing about development of all living kinds from a single organism;
3.Changes only within fixed limits of originally created kinds of plants and animals;
4. Separate ancestry for man and apes;
5. Explanation of the earth's geology by catastrophism, including the occurrence of a worldwide flood; and
6. A relatively recent inception of the earth and living kinds."

religious tolerance

The account of God creating the universe and all life ex nillo

I have certainly seen, in other environments, those who are hostile to the Christian faith and use whatever knowledge they have of history or science or logic as a weapon against it. But in this forum we debate different Christian understandings of the faith.

I certainly hope that is the case, I do realize that that its the intended purpose.

I would also add that the Christian theistic evolutionist is not hostile to the Genesis account of creation. Rather, she is open to a variety of non-literal interpretations of that account.

I would just qualify my original statement by saying that the ex nihilo element of the special creation model is non-negotiable at least from my own convictions.

notto said:
This is simply false. It is statements like this (false witness) that you were just railing against, wasn't it? Show my evolutionists who are hostile to the Christian faith as opposed to simply being opposed to religious beliefs posing as scientific answers in light of evidence.

It's statements like what exactly because it sounds like you are calling me a liar. I don't know who your evolutionists are but there are a bunch who are overtly hostile to Christianity in general and creationism in particular.

"Skeptic: You also took a bit of flak for likening religion (I think specifically Catholicism) to a virus? Is that still your position?
Dawkins: Yes. I come to it through the analogy to computer viruses. We have two kinds of viruses that have a lot in common--namely real biological viruses and computer viruses. In both cases they are parasitic self-replicating codes which exploit the existence of machinery that was set up to copy and obey that kind of code. So I then ask the question, "What if there were a third kind of milieu in which a different kind of self-replicating code could become an effective parasite?" Human brains with their powerful communication systems seem to be a likely candidate. Then I ask, "What would it feel like if you were the victim of a mind virus?" Well, you would feel within yourself this deep conviction that seems to come from nowhere. It doesn't result from any evidence, but you have a total conviction that you know what's true about the world and the cosmos and life. You just know it and you're even prepared to kill people who disagree with you. You go around proselytizing and persuading other people to accept your view. The more you write down the features that such a mind virus would have, the more it starts to look like religion. I do think that the Roman Catholic religion is a disease of the mind which has a particular epidemiology similar to that of a virus.
Skeptic: But couldn't the Pope (or Evangelical Protestants for that matter), reply, "Look, we just have a terrific meme. It's winning what you would describe as a Darwinian battle and you're angry because you just don't like it."
Dawkins: Religion is a terrific meme. That's right. But that doesn't make it true and I care about what's true. Smallpox virus is a terrific virus. It does its job magnificently well. That doesn't mean that it's a good thing. It doesn't mean that I don't want to see it stamped out. "

Darwin's Dangerous Disciple

notto · May 11, 2004

I'm sure that you can find many atheists who are hostile towards Christianity. Why don't you use the term atheist instead of evolutionist? The two are non synonymous, as has been pointed out.

Evolution is accepted by Christian, atheists, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, etc. To suggest that evolutionist are hostile toward Christianity is false. Atheists who accept evolution may be, but there is only a small subset of those who accept evolution.

Your argument does not hold up under scrutiny. Your sampling only includes evolutionists who are atheists.

Your original post said 'the modern evolutionist', not 'some' or 'a few' or 'a bunch'. To me this implied 'all' which of course is not the case.

gluadys · May 11, 2004

mark kennedy said:
The view I said was hostile to the Christian faith is directing its attacks at specific tenants that are inextricable linked to Christian conviction.

" 'Creation-science' means the scientific evidences for creation and inferences from those scientific evidences. Creation-science includes the scientific evidences and related inferences that indicate:

1. Sudden creation of the universe, energy, and life from nothing;
2. The insufficiency of mutation and natural selection in bringing about development of all living kinds from a single organism;
3.Changes only within fixed limits of originally created kinds of plants and animals;
4. Separate ancestry for man and apes;
5. Explanation of the earth's geology by catastrophism, including the occurrence of a worldwide flood; and
6. A relatively recent inception of the earth and living kinds."

religious tolerance

These are the tenets of creationism not of Christianity. I realize that from your perspective as a creationist they seem to be inextricably linked to Christian conviction, but they are not, as the majority of Christians, who are not creationists, will testify.

Furthermore, several of them are inconsistent with the witness of creation itself. I have difficulty with the idea that God provides us with inconsistent testimony. For me that difficulty is resolved by not trying to make the biblical witness do the work of the created witness or vice versa.

I see sufficient evidence in nature to accept the scientific description of its origins, so far as that description goes. (It necessarily excludes the spiritual impetus that gives rise to material events.) I also see sufficient evidence from the study of the origins of scripture to accept that it is not intended to be a scientifically accurate account of creation, but rather a theological account conveyed in symbolic language.

I would just qualify my original statement by saying that the ex nihilo element of the special creation model is non-negotiable at least from my own convictions.

Yes, I agree with that, though I don't see that it needs to be linked to a special creation model. It is an essential element of any creation model acceptable to Christians. But I would also point out that it has always been, and remains, a statement of faith. It cannot be either supported or denied by science.

Bizzlebin Imperatoris · May 11, 2004

notto said:
Evolution is accepted by Christian, atheists, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, etc

Indeed, many people may believe in evolution, but how do Jews and Christians especially get evolution from scripture?

Genesis 1

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning-the first day.
6 And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." 7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning-the second day.
9 And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas." And God saw that it was good.
11 Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning-the third day.
14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. 16 God made two great lights-the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning-the fourth day.
20 And God said....

As can be seen, it clearly says that all of these events happened in a day, defined by v 3-5. Of course, if someone wants to debate the "lets make our a day a few million years" idea, how can all of these creations be kept alive facing the sun for millions of years (half of their "day") at a time? It sounds foolish. In light of that (laugh at my puns!) no reasonable Christian could believe that evolution could happen in the course of a couple thousand years, at least in the degree we have seen it. The Bible clearly states that "God said...And it was so." The Bible does NOT say "God said for it to happen, and gradually the beings came into existence." There is no gradual anything implied. There is only room for one interpretation: the way the Bible gives it. Also note in some languages, there is a difference between action that happened at one point in time, and another that continued for a time in the past. In the Vulgate, the verbs used are fecit, creavit, etc. The i/vi sub-endings are in the perfect tense (from the perfect stem, 3rd principle part of the verb), meaning it happened at a point in time. When an action took a while or was repeated, you will se a ba sub-ending, as in faciebat. (My homeland speaks Latin) In others texts, similar patterns appear. It was purely intentional that the Bible says it happened at a point in time. How are we getting a debate about evolution from "Christians"!?

Curt · May 11, 2004

Quote:
Nice post. I agree with you that God created everything, but we don't know how He did it. Science can only deal with observable phenomena. We can see changes in populations over time based on environmental pressures. As for what happened at the beginning of the world, that is pure speculation. The Bible does not go into detail. It just says that God did it, and no one today was around then or has a time machine

Exod 31:15-17
15 Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.
16 Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant.
17 It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.
(KJV)

This spells it out so clear that it should be obmous to anyone.

Bizzlebin Imperatoris · May 11, 2004

Well, what do you mean, how he did it? He did it at his command, instantly if thats what you mean. As God existed before time, matter, energy, etc, he just "pulled them out of a hat" if you will.

Captain_Jack_Sparrow · May 11, 2004

If God existed before time/matter & energy then almost by definition you are saying God does not exist.

Bizzlebin Imperatoris · May 11, 2004

You do not understand. Matter, energy, time, all of them are creations. You are thinking of the creator in terms of the creation. Not the way to go about it

Karl - Liberal Backslider · May 12, 2004

Bizzlebin Imperatoris said:
Indeed, many people may believe in evolution, but how do Jews and Christians especially get evolution from scripture?

Simple. It's between the verses on quantum mechanics and the ones on meiosis.

As can be seen, it clearly says that all of these events happened in a day, defined by v 3-5. Of course, if someone wants to debate the "lets make our a day a few million years" idea, how can all of these creations be kept alive facing the sun for millions of years (half of their "day") at a time? It sounds foolish. In light of that (laugh at my puns!) no reasonable Christian could believe that evolution could happen in the course of a couple thousand years, at least in the degree we have seen it.

Indeed not. It took millions.

The Bible clearly states that "God said...And it was so." The Bible does NOT say "God said for it to happen, and gradually the beings came into existence." There is no gradual anything implied.

Is that so? Do you notice the repeated formula "God said 'Let the earth/sea bring forth...' and it was so...."? This is then equated with God creating. So God creating and the earth bringing forth are the same thing. This does not teach evolution, but it most certainly puts forward a theological framework that can accommodate it.

There is only room for one interpretation: the way the Bible gives it. Also note in some languages, there is a difference between action that happened at one point in time, and another that continued for a time in the past. In the Vulgate, the verbs used are fecit, creavit, etc. The i/vi sub-endings are in the perfect tense (from the perfect stem, 3rd principle part of the verb), meaning it happened at a point in time.

I did Latin as well. It would be perfectly acceptable to use the Perfect tense in a sentence like "over a period of ten years, the rail service declined" and use the perfect tense for "declined".

When an action took a while or was repeated, you will se a ba sub-ending, as in faciebat. (My homeland speaks Latin)

In the above sentence, using the imperfect tense would translate as "over a period of ten years, the rail service was declining". Slightly different shade of meaning, in Latin as in English. I agree that the imperfect implies process in a way the perfect does not, but an event that did not happen instantaneously can be rendered into the perfect or imperfect in Latin, just as it can be rendered into the past simple or imperfect in English, depending on the shade of meaning.

In others texts, similar patterns appear. It was purely intentional that the Bible says it happened at a point in time. How are we getting a debate about evolution from "Christians"!?

Because some of us have a good understanding of science. And the quotes round "Christians" in that paragraph carries an implication that contravenes rule 1 of these boards. Knock it off.

Bushido216 · May 12, 2004

I'd like to note that in 14 posts three different topics have been discussed.

Bizzlebin Imperatoris · May 12, 2004

I think the problem here Karl is that people are looking the other way on the obvious scripture just so they can come up with their own beliefs. One of the my specialties IS actually particle physics, I deal a lot with leptons and such. However, put all together it doesnt make sense. The best way to interpret creation is the way the Bible said it happened, in 6 days of work and one of rest. If we dont, we are no better than the people who write false books, spread false teachings, etc. If we cannot take our beliefs about this directly from the sciptures in Genesis, then are we really a Christian at all, or do we just go to church on Sundays?

Karl - Liberal Backslider · May 12, 2004

Let's get this clear - are you, or are you not, saying that people who don't take it literally are not really Christians?

Bizzlebin Imperatoris · May 12, 2004

How about this. If you believe that when the Bible says it took 6 days, defined clearly as one period of light, one of darkness, later given to the sun and moon, then how long was it until Jesus was raised from the dead? If you estimate a couple million years for 6 days, im guessing maybe 2 million years is a good estimate for how long Jesus was dead for? So, umm, what was left of him to raise? Think about the follish stuff you are saying. Some things are to be taken spiritually, etc. However, when the Bible makes it a point to define what day and night was this clearly, being 6 days as we know them, there is NO room for question.

Bizzlebin Imperatoris · May 12, 2004

Also, some more about literal interpretations. Everything the Bible says is true, but a lot of it depends upon us realizing how, when, why, and to whom the scriptures were written. Genesis, the first book of the Bible, you'll notice, has almost no prophecy compared with a lot of the other books; it was the first. Only after time did God allow his people, who now knew the truth, to recieve harder-to-understand words. He did NOT write the Bible to confuse, but to instruct. Anyone in that day would have interpreted it 6 days, literal days. Why are we making a big deal of it?

Also, about Latin. If the Vulgate was written in the same form my people speak, then indeed, there should have been some imperfects used, not a lot of perfect tense verbs. The reason why there are so many tenses in Latin is so that all actions are specifially put into the right time. If it was intented to be millions of years, a) It would have said it b) It would be in the imperfect, FOR SURE. If something happens over a period of time, perfect tense can work, but for millions of years? Anyone of us would use imperfect

Karl - Liberal Backslider · May 12, 2004

Answer my last question. I need to know whether to report you for breaking Rule 1 and put you on my ignore list, or whether we can actually have a respectful debate.

The Golden Rule of the Creationist

Natura non facit saltum

Legend

Legend

Well-Known Member

Legend

Natura non facit saltum

Legend

Legend

A Sinner

Curt

A Sinner

Well-Known Member

A Sinner

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

A Sinner

Senior Veteran

A Sinner

A Sinner

Senior Veteran

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency