The Progression of Literalist thought about our world

[Vance]

This is the progression of thought by those who insist that their literal, "plain reading" interpretation of Scripture is correct. This torch is now being carried by the YEC's (Young Earth Creationists).

The progression:

The sun and stars revolve around the earth because to say otherwise is to contradict the Bible.

Well, OK, so the Earth revolves around the Sun, but evolution is a lie, it simply doesn't happen, because to say otherwise is to contradict the Bible.

Well, OK, evolution happens, but only micro evoution, not macro, because to say otherwise is to contradict the Bible.

Well, OK, we don't want to argue about "macro" v. "micro" because every time we define "macro" evolution, someone eventually proves that it does happen (and no, we won't define "kind" either for the same reason), But the bottom-line is that speciation does *not* occur, because to say otherwise is to contradict the Bible.

Well, OK, speciation does occur, but this evolution never creates any "new information", because to say otherwise is to contradict the Bible.

Well, OK, so evolution does create "new information", but that new information must always results in a net loss of total information, never a net gain, because to say otherwise is to contradict the Bible.

And we *mean* it this time . . .


Raising two important points:

1. Taking dogmatic stances on such matters causes problems
2. Attempting to develop scientific conclusions based on a literal reading of Scripture is problematic at best.

 

[California Tim]

Here we go again. The Bible never taught geocentrism. It does, on the other hand, teach YEC'ism. So the comparison fails. Just as mankind attempted to define God's word by the understanding of the time in favor of geocentrism, it now attempts to do with evolution. In both cases the "plainly" written Word must be ignored or reinterpreted to satisfy mankind's understanding of how things should be.

 

[Vance]

Here we go again. The Bible never taught geocentrism. It does, on the other hand, teach YEC'ism. So the comparison fails. Just as mankind attempted to define God's word by the understanding of the time in favor of geocentrism, it now attempts to do with evolution. In both cases the "plainly" written Word must be ignored or reinterpreted to satisfy mankind's understanding of how things should be.

But that is just not right. A particular reading of the Bible teaches geocentrism. You and I happen to think it is the wrong reading. A particular reading of the the Bible teaches YEC'ism. I think this is also a wrong reading, you think it is the right reading.

And, yes, it was mankind who attempted to define God's Word at the time of geocentrism, and at every other time throughout its existence since it is mankind who is reading it. Every Scripture you read is YOU defining it.

But the geocentrists are as sure as you about what the "plain" reading is. To this day, those who hang on to geocentrism do so IN SPITE of the scientific evidence, and base their position on the "plain" reading of Scripture. Go to their websites which I have linked all over the place and see what they say.

You wish to sweep geocentrism under the rug by twisting it around to be a secular influence, but this is not what happened, but it does make for a better story for YEC'ism. Look at the position of Calvin, Luther, the Church and modern geocentrists today. They believed in geocentrism because that is what the Bible points directly to in their mind.

BTW, I noticed you said nothing at all about the rest of the YEC progression.

 

[MLML]

Do you have a source for your progression theory that follows the yec, or is this your own thoughts? Personally I cannot say I have followed your theory. I assume science is correct about the solar system rotations, since the Bible doesn't speak about it. I know you have made the claims the others think the Bible does, but I don't. Evolution as a word is not an evil word. We see changes in the environment, plant life, and animal life in our world. It is a fact that animals adapt to different conditions, just like humans do. But I don't really see how that supports a primordial soup producing amino acids that then moved into life as it is now. Besides I believe the Bible states God created all things by speaking them into existense and after He spoke He saw it was good, meaning it was already done. The Bible also suggests man is a special creation that was created for fellowship with God. Science views man as a random, unguided chance happening that soon evolved into an intelligent being. There is a better chance of winning the lottery than man evolving.

I tend to think that the evolution versus creationism is more about intelligence versus faith. Neither missing the other perhaps, but the arguments tend to be that the faith side is dumb, and the intelligent side is faithless. Science being for the intelligent man and religion being for the dumb man.

The argument is never meant to be as such, but it is what's basically said.

 

[Vance]

Sounds like you need to read through some of the threads on this forum and you will get a better idea where the various positions are coming from. Check out the "what is theistic evolution" thread, for example.

As for this progression, I have been following this debate for a VERY long time, and have personally seen Creationists take each of these positions in turn over the last 20 years or so. This is, indeed, how it has progressed.

Edit: and don't forget that the theory of evolution says nothing at all about abiogenesis (how life got started).

 

[Dark_Lite]

A literal reading of the Bible teaches at least flat earthism.

Verse in Isaiah mentions the earth as a circle. Circle != Sphere.

Then there's the four corners verse, although that's more than likely a figure of speech used at the time.

 

[California Tim]

A literal reading of the Bible teaches at least flat earthism.

Verse in Isaiah mentions the earth as a circle. Circle != Sphere.

Then there's the four corners verse, although that's more than likely a figure of speech used at the time.

What is the Hebrew word for "sphere"? (hint: you'll be looking a long long time....)

 

[TwinCrier]

Then there's the four corners verse, although that's more than likely a figure of speech used at the time.

And apparently a figure od speech still used today since I hear it quite a bit. We also still refer to the 'sunrise' and sunset' as well. You would think scientists would try to stop that nonsense. The OP is a MEJOR strawman.

 

[Vance]

The point is that the authors of the Scripture would definitely have believed the earth was flat, so why would we not expect them to convey this belief when the presentation of God's message also involved discussion of the earth?

 

[MLML]

So is your point that the authors of the Bible included their own lessons(apart from God) to teach within the Bible?

 

[TwinCrier]

The point is that the authors of the Scripture would definitely have believed the earth was flat, so why would we not expect them to convey this belief when the presentation of God's message also involved discussion of the earth?

Where is your evidence of this?

 

[Vance]

Not so much their own lessons, but their own words to present the inspired message. God inspired and watched over the writing, I believe, but did not dictate the words with which the writer presented that message. Paul is a perfect example of this. God would never let anything come into the text which impacted the message, but the numerous and various styles of writing make it clear that He let the author's style and language come in. If the words were reflected a contemporary cosmology but did not effect the intended message, why would this be a problem?

And it would explain a great deal. This is why the vast majority of Christians accept this concept, and only the Fundamentalists insist on something different (and not really even all of them).

 

[Vance]

Where is your evidence of this?

The fact that everyone believed it at the time. Unless you want to ascribe to them knowledge about their world that no one else knew at the time, and did not know for a few hundred more years (and even then only among educated circles), you have to accept that they only knew what their contemporaries knew.