The Open Season Thread

J_B_

I have answers to questions no one ever asks.
May 15, 2020
1,258
365
Midwest
✟109,655.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Over the course of my various threads, it was obvious people were unware of or had forgotten my position on evolution, even though I have stated it. Restating it in every thread usually caused the conversation to spin out of control, and honestly I found it tedious, so I tried to stay on point.

If anyone cares to ask questions about my views, I'll answer them here. If you ask a question, please state the length of the answer you would prefer (one sentence, one paragraph, etc.) I'll do my best, but I'm not adroit at pithy answers.

Just a few quick notes to get things started:
1) I am a Christian of the Confessional Lutheran variety who attends a Missouri Synod (LCMS) church.
2) I believe God created everything, including all life on earth. And by created, I mean he was directly involved and is still involved today - no blind watchmaker.
3) I've long been agnostic on how he did it. I've not found a wholly convincing argument either from creationists or from evolutionary science. I do think I have a propensity to try to make sense of the creation/evolution debate - to spin a narrative that makes sense to me. So I ask questions, and over time I've accepted bits and pieces here and there.

Proceed.
 

eleos1954

God is Love
Site Supporter
Nov 14, 2017
9,810
5,656
Utah
✟722,019.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Over the course of my various threads, it was obvious people were unware of or had forgotten my position on evolution, even though I have stated it. Restating it in every thread usually caused the conversation to spin out of control, and honestly I found it tedious, so I tried to stay on point.

If anyone cares to ask questions about my views, I'll answer them here. If you ask a question, please state the length of the answer you would prefer (one sentence, one paragraph, etc.) I'll do my best, but I'm not adroit at pithy answers.

Just a few quick notes to get things started:
1) I am a Christian of the Confessional Lutheran variety who attends a Missouri Synod (LCMS) church.
2) I believe God created everything, including all life on earth. And by created, I mean he was directly involved and is still involved today - no blind watchmaker.
3) I've long been agnostic on how he did it. I've not found a wholly convincing argument either from creationists or from evolutionary science. I do think I have a propensity to try to make sense of the creation/evolution debate - to spin a narrative that makes sense to me. So I ask questions, and over time I've accepted bits and pieces here and there.

Proceed.

We have genealogy in His Word from Adam & Eve forward. Through Adam & Eve we are told sin entered the world (wages of sin is death). From that genealogy the basic time frame of about 6 thousand years are calculated.

If one considers evolution to be a possibility any time before Adam & Eve, then that means death (the penalty for sin) happened before Adam & Eve and that does not line up scripturally with the genealogy given.

God originally created everything good .... very good. Death is certainly not good ... not in our eyes ... nor the Lord's.

How?

Psalms 33
6By the word of the LORD the heavens were made,
and all the stars by the breath of His mouth.

Hebrews 11:3
By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,851,138
51,515
Guam
✟4,910,135.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican

I like to see Q & A threads from posters.

It shows they're willing to take the bull by the horns and defend their position.

If you're up to it, I made a creationism test some time ago.

Here are some highlights from it:

1. Explain the difference between creatio ex nihilo and creatio ex materia; and give two examples of each.
2. Eden in the Bible is known as __________ on a secular map.
3. What literary device reconciles Genesis 1 and Genesis 2?
4. Put the following in order that they appeared in the universe: whales, stars, trees, sun, land, sea, outer space.
5. What day was Adam created on?
6. Was the universe created a closed system and, if not, what kind of energy did it run off of? if it was created open, what closed it?
7. Photosynthesis required light from the sun prior to the Fall. true or false?
8. Explain how a 24-hour day could transpire before the sun was created.
9. Explain the difference between "miracles" and "magic."
10. When discussing Creationism, why should one never let himself stray from Genesis 1 or 2?
11. Why is "heaven" singular in Genesis 1, but plural in Genesis 2?
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,628
12,068
✟230,461.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
I like to see Q & A threads from posters.

It shows they're willing to take the bull by the horns and defend their position.

If you're up to it, I made a creationism test some time ago.

Here are some highlights from it:

1. Explain the difference between creatio ex nihilo and creatio ex materia; and give two examples of each.
2. Eden in the Bible is known as __________ on a secular map.
3. What literary device reconciles Genesis 1 and Genesis 2?
4. Put the following in order that they appeared in the universe: whales, stars, trees, sun, land, sea, outer space.
5. What day was Adam created on?
6. Was the universe created a closed system and, if not, what kind of energy did it run off of? if it was created open, what closed it?
7. Photosynthesis required light from the sun prior to the Fall. true or false?
8. Explain how a 24-hour day could transpire before the sun was created.
9. Explain the difference between "miracles" and "magic."
10. When discussing Creationism, why should one never let himself stray from Genesis 1 or 2?
11. Why is "heaven" singular in Genesis 1, but plural in Genesis 2?
How is that a "creationism test"? And since creationists are going to get all of the answers wrong what good is it?
 
Upvote 0

J_B_

I have answers to questions no one ever asks.
May 15, 2020
1,258
365
Midwest
✟109,655.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I like to see Q & A threads from posters.

It shows they're willing to take the bull by the horns and defend their position.

If you're up to it, I made a creationism test some time ago.

Here are some highlights from it:

1. Explain the difference between creatio ex nihilo and creatio ex materia; and give two examples of each.
2. Eden in the Bible is known as __________ on a secular map.
3. What literary device reconciles Genesis 1 and Genesis 2?
4. Put the following in order that they appeared in the universe: whales, stars, trees, sun, land, sea, outer space.
5. What day was Adam created on?
6. Was the universe created a closed system and, if not, what kind of energy did it run off of? if it was created open, what closed it?
7. Photosynthesis required light from the sun prior to the Fall. true or false?
8. Explain how a 24-hour day could transpire before the sun was created.
9. Explain the difference between "miracles" and "magic."
10. When discussing Creationism, why should one never let himself stray from Genesis 1 or 2?
11. Why is "heaven" singular in Genesis 1, but plural in Genesis 2?

I don't adhere to any specific flavor of creationism, but sure, I'll answer your questions.

1. Explain the difference between creatio ex nihilo and creatio ex materia; and give two examples of each.

The first is creation from nothing and the second is creation from something, i.e. something God didn't create. I adhere to the first with respect to God's creative act in the first few verses of Genesis, though I may not adhere to it as strictly as some. That's one example. I don't know of a second.

Examples of the second kind would involve people, not God. I, as an engineer, create new machines. Jackson Pollock created new works of art.

2. Eden in the Bible is known as __________ on a secular map.

I have no idea, and though people speculate, I don't believe anyone knows.

3. What literary device reconciles Genesis 1 and Genesis 2?

I've never seen them as in conflict, and I don't get why people think they conflict. Nonlinear storytelling is a common thing. If people get Quentin Tarantino, I don't understand why they don't get Genesis.

4. Put the following in order that they appeared in the universe: whales, stars, trees, sun, land, sea, outer space.

I'm not going to speculate on that. It's fine that other people do as long as they realize it's speculation. I've done it, and have fun with it, but that's amongst people I know well and trust. In this forum it's not productive. People who think their speculations are fact produce nutty theology.

5. What day was Adam created on?

Per my answer to question #4, I will answer you this way: Genesis 1:26-31

6. Was the universe created a closed system and, if not, what kind of energy did it run off of? if it was created open, what closed it?

Is this the thermodynamic argument? The order can't come from chaos argument? I'm not sure what you mean by "open" and "closed" systems. God created everything that exists, and everything that exists is, by definition, a closed system.

[edit] I'd better amend this. God didn't create himself, so he's not part of the created universe. In that sense, I suppose when God interacts with the universe, it is technically an open system.

7. Photosynthesis required light from the sun prior to the Fall. true or false?

True.

8. Explain how a 24-hour day could transpire before the sun was created.

I don't view time as an independent existential thing. Time is always relative to a reference. The current SI reference is cesium. Therefore, the proper number of cesium cycles can mark the passage of 24 SI hours without reference to the sun.

During the actual creation event, the reference was God's actions.

Neither of those references was available to Moses when he compiled Genesis. I believe the reference to days in Genesis is a reference to what was familiar to Moses' Hebrew audience, and a 'day' to them was not exactly the same as our modern standard of 24 hours. However, there is a rough equivalent. Moses recorded the story using references the Hebrews were familiar with.

9. Explain the difference between "miracles" and "magic."

[edit] Oops. Forgot to answer this one first time around.

'Miracle' has many meanings. I'm going to assume you mean God's miracles/Biblical miracles. In that sense, God's miracles are things that can only be done by God's power. I don't agree with the use of terms like "supernatural" that often come up in other definitions, nor do I agree miracles are a suspension of physical law.

Likewise, 'magic' has many definitions. However, in this context magic refers to the cause of an event when we don't understand the mechanism of the cause-effect relationship. Further, it usually means we believe God was not the cause.

10. When discussing Creationism, why should one never let himself stray from Genesis 1 or 2?

As I said, I don't adhere to a specific flavor of creationism, which means I probably wouldn't agree with your interpretation of Genesis 1,2. With that said, I believe in Biblical inerrancy, the final authority of the Word, and the tradition of the Lutheran Confessions as the proper normative expression of the Christian faith. Therefore, I never intend to stray from it in any discussion, creationism or otherwise.

11. Why is "heaven" singular in Genesis 1, but plural in Genesis 2?

Poetic license.

I'm sure the words Moses used were inspired by God and chosen for a reason. I just doubt I would agree with whatever theological point you're trying to hang off such a weak foundation. A key principle of Lutheran exegesis is that if your theology depends on one word in one verse, it's not revealed theology.

As a final comment on your questions, they are very leading. I tend to get snarky when people ask me leading questions, so my apologies for that.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: AV1611VET
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,851,138
51,515
Guam
✟4,910,135.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I don't adhere to any specific flavor of creationism, but sure, I'll answer your questions.

Thank you, J_B, for taking the time to answer them.

I find that admirable.

As I said, I enjoy people who start their own Q & A threads to express their beliefs; and I didn't mean to butt-in with mine.

I just thought you'd enjoy some thought-provoking ideas from a fellow Christian.

Getting back to your OP, what exactly are your views on evolution?

(Short answer, please.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: J_B_
Upvote 0

J_B_

I have answers to questions no one ever asks.
May 15, 2020
1,258
365
Midwest
✟109,655.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Thank you, J_B, for taking the time to answer them.

I find that admirable.

As I said, I enjoy people who start their own Q & A threads to express their beliefs; and I didn't mean to butt-in with mine.

I just thought you'd enjoy some thought-provoking ideas from a fellow Christian.

Getting back to your OP, what exactly are your views on evolution?

(Short answer, please.)

As briefly as I can, and as I said in the OP, I'm mostly agnostic on evolution. I'm not a biologist and biology has never interested me. I had to be forced to take biology in high school.

Accepting evolution does not immediately make one an apostate.

At this point, I have only one objection to evolutionary science stemming from my theology: LUCA.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AV1611VET
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,851,138
51,515
Guam
✟4,910,135.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
At this point, I have only one objection to evolutionary science stemming from my theology: LUCA.

We believe Adam had a common designer, not a common ancestor.

And for the record, I define "kind" in Genesis 1 as "genus".

From the Online Etymology Dictionary:

genus (n.)

(Latin plural genera), 1550s as a term of logic, "kind or class of things" (biological sense dates from c. 1600), from Latin genus (genitive generis) "race, stock, kind; family, birth, descent, origin" (from suffixed form of PIE root *gene- "give birth, beget," with derivatives referring to procreation and familial and tribal groups).

Happy New Year to you and yours!
 
Upvote 0

J_B_

I have answers to questions no one ever asks.
May 15, 2020
1,258
365
Midwest
✟109,655.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
We believe Adam had a common designer, not a common ancestor.

And for the record, I define "kind" in Genesis 1 as "genus".

From the Online Etymology Dictionary:

genus (n.)

(Latin plural genera), 1550s as a term of logic, "kind or class of things" (biological sense dates from c. 1600), from Latin genus (genitive generis) "race, stock, kind; family, birth, descent, origin" (from suffixed form of PIE root *gene- "give birth, beget," with derivatives referring to procreation and familial and tribal groups).

Happy New Year to you and yours!

Sober gets into this in his Philosophy of Biology. I find Sober refreshingly honest about the challenges biology faces. Anyway, he discusses the problem both with the idea of 'kind' in creationism and the idea of 'species' in biology. The difference is that biology seems to have largely relegated the word 'species' to the role of a useful fiction - my paraphrase of Sober.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: AV1611VET
Upvote 0

Frank Robert

Well-Known Member
Feb 18, 2021
2,276
1,121
KW
✟127,503.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
3) I've long been agnostic on how he did it. I've not found a wholly convincing argument either from creationists or from evolutionary science. I do think I have a propensity to try to make sense of the creation/evolution debate - to spin a narrative that makes sense to me. So I ask questions, and over time I've accepted bits and pieces here and there.
I doubt that you will find a satisfactory answer. Most people who believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis rely on their belief. Most scientists rely on the evidence that is available to them for evolution. And some Physicists like Sean Carroll argue that creation is a brute fact:

Why Is There Something, Rather Than Nothing? | Sean M. Carroll

It seems natural to ask why the universe exists at all. Modern physics suggests that the universe can exist all by itself as a self-contained system, without anything external to create or sustain it. But there might not be an absolute answer to why it exists. I argue that any attempt to account for the existence of something rather than nothing must ultimately bottom out in a set of brute facts; the universe simply is, without ultimate cause or explanation.​
 
Upvote 0

J_B_

I have answers to questions no one ever asks.
May 15, 2020
1,258
365
Midwest
✟109,655.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I doubt that you will find a satisfactory answer.

True in a sense, but I seem to be an exception in that I don't feel a need for an answer. What has caused me to investigate the most is pressure from others to have an answer.

Most people who believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis rely on their belief.

Yeah. I've read some interesting histories on what has driven confessional churches (mine included) to the place they now find themselves.

Most scientists rely on the evidence that is available to them for evolution.

Mmm. I don't completely agree with that. One quote I like about history is that history is not 'just the facts'. 'Just the facts' is just a list of facts. History is the narrative that connects those facts, which requires interpretation. I see science in a similar way. 'Just evidence' is just a collection of data. Science is the theory (and method) that connects the evidence, and that requires interpretation. It is why I think philosophy of science is critical, as that is a study of what rhetoric we use and how we justify our theories.
 
Upvote 0

J_B_

I have answers to questions no one ever asks.
May 15, 2020
1,258
365
Midwest
✟109,655.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I would not use "hopelessly mired in the past" as a definition of "traditional".

@Subduction Zone

I wouldn't either, because it would be a strawman. Whatever definitions people might use, I know "traditional" doesn't mean a recent view that replaces a prior view. For my part, when these definition wars begin, I always suggest we turn to a dispassionate source such as dictionary.com:

Definition of tradition | Dictionary.com

What bothered me when I was a Christian, and in a Lutheran church, I cannot remember if it was ALC or LCA, we had both where I grew up, was that the Genesis story paints God as the "bad guy" if one fully understands it. If God is omniscient and omnipotent he was the one that controlled all of the events of the Genesis story and then punished his creation for his acts. I thought that was rather bad theology. It still works as a morality tale since one can ignore such things as the problems of omniscience and omnipotence.

"If one fully understands it". That's precious. Given you're no longer Lutheran, I'll not accept you as the arbiter of Lutheran theology. If you want to cite me a "traditional" Lutheran theologian (per the dictionary.com definition) who calls God the bad guy, we'll talk.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,628
12,068
✟230,461.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
@Subduction Zone

I wouldn't either, because it would be a strawman. Whatever definitions people might use, I know "traditional" doesn't mean a recent view that replaces a prior view. For my part, when these definition wars begin, I always suggest we turn to a dispassionate source such as dictionary.com:

Definition of tradition | Dictionary.com



"If one fully understands it". That's precious. Given you're no longer Lutheran, I'll not accept you as the arbiter of Lutheran theology. If you want to cite me a "traditional" Lutheran theologian (per the dictionary.com definition) who calls God the bad guy, we'll talk.
You do not have to "accept it", if you disagree you would only need to show that I was wrong. But I have yet to see anyone do that. By the way, this is typical poor reasoning that we see far too often in believers. They do not understand that they have a burden of proof that is just as large as that of their opponents, and sometimes it is even larger.
 
Upvote 0

J_B_

I have answers to questions no one ever asks.
May 15, 2020
1,258
365
Midwest
✟109,655.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
You do not have to "accept it", if you disagree you would only need to show that I was wrong. But I have yet to see anyone do that. By the way, this is typical poor reasoning that we see far too often in believers. They do not understand that they have a burden of proof that is just as large as that of their opponents, and sometimes it is even larger.

Nice try. You brought it up. I couldn't care less about your opinion on this topic. If you want to spike the ball in the end zone, be my guest.

If you want to continue, a good first step would be to either accept or reject the definition I cited.
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,628
12,068
✟230,461.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Nice try. You brought it up. I couldn't care less about your opinion on this topic. If you want to spike the ball in the end zone, be my guest.

If you want to continue, a good first step would be to either accept or reject the definition I cited.
I could accept it, but the point remains, why give any special credence to "traditional"? Slavery is "traditional". The Bible is more pro-slavery than anti-slavery. It was used by those that supported slavery for hundreds of years. Yes, it was largely Christians that opposed slavery in the western world, but then the west was almost all Christian at that time. "Traditional" definitely does not mean "right" or even "better".
 
Upvote 0

Frank Robert

Well-Known Member
Feb 18, 2021
2,276
1,121
KW
✟127,503.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Mmm. I don't completely agree with that. One quote I like about history is that history is not 'just the facts'. 'Just the facts' is just a list of facts.
Similarly, the ToE is the consilence of evidence from multiple unrelated scientific fields.[/QUOTE]

History is the narrative that connects those facts, which requires interpretation. I see science in a similar way. 'Just evidence' is just a collection of data.
Scientific theories are testable and make falsifiable predictions.

Science is the theory (and method) that connects the evidence, and that requires interpretation. It is why I think philosophy of science is critical, as that is a study of what rhetoric we use and how we justify our theories.
I don't think there is any disagreement that Philosophy of science can help advance science, from theory to experiment.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

J_B_

I have answers to questions no one ever asks.
May 15, 2020
1,258
365
Midwest
✟109,655.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I could accept it, but the point remains, why give any special credence to "traditional"? Slavery is "traditional". The Bible is more pro-slavery than anti-slavery. It was used by those that supported slavery for hundreds of years. Yes, it was largely Christians that opposed slavery in the western world, but then the west was almost all Christian at that time. "Traditional" definitely does not mean "right" or even "better".

Of course. My seminar paper for my MA in history was about the involvement of Illinois Christian colleges in 19th century antislavery movements. That meant I also had to read the proslavery literature of the times (talk about awkward), and they indeed cited the Bible in their defense. Odder yet, not all antislavery voices were egalitarian. One of the most racist essays I read during my research came from an antislavery professor from Illinois College.

But in the context of theology, tradition has a special use. It is meant to distinguish confessional churches (Lutherans, Anglicans, Catholics) from Reformed (Calvinist) churches and extreme sola scriptura views. Though Lutherans use that term, our theology is actually closer to prima scriptura.
 
Upvote 0