Theological Problems of Creationism

[Mallon]

I have no idea what point you're trying to make, AV. Maybe that speaks to the original thread subject, too.

 

[Assyrian]

Could anyone be dense enough to think the Christ and Paul did not think Adam was the first man?

Given that Jesus did not mention Adam, and only used the creation account to teach about marriage, any views you have of what he thought about a literal Adam are going to be pretty much your own personal opinion. You need to be very careful about taking your interpretation of Genesis, and thinking it is so obviously correct that must be what Jesus thought too.

It doesn't make any sense, alternative interpretations did not exist until 150 years ago:

Actually, alternative interpretations date back to first century Judaism, both the Hellenistic Philo of Alexandria and the Jerusalem priest Josephus thought Moses' description of Adam was allegorical.

The first man was of the earth, made of dust; the second Man is the Lord from heaven. As was the man of dust, so also are those who are made of dust; aand as is the heavenly Man, so also are those who are heavenly. (1Cor 15:47,48)

Obviously Paul saw Adam as the first man. He says so in the verse. The question is, did Paul mean the same thing by 'the first man', as your literal interpretation does? If Paul was simple discussing Adam as the literal and historical first man who ever existed, how is Christ 'the second Man'? According to a plain literal and historical interpretation the second man was Cain. And there have been millions of men born between Cain and Christ. Clearly Paul was not talking in the same literal or historical sense you assume here.

 

[Assyrian]

My favorite mantra for this is as follows:

• Genesis 1 pwns Evolution
• Genesis 1:1 pwns Atheism

And Genesis 2 pwns your interpretation of Genesis 1.

Let's forget the time-spans then, explain the order of the creation events.

I understand there are something like 20 differences between Genesis 1 and Evolution.

So how many differences are there between Genesis 1 and 2?

• Genesis 1 talks of six days, Genesis 2:4 says one day.
• In Gen 1 the earth starts off wet, in Gen 2 it is so dry nothing could grow.
• In Gen 1 plants flourish and bear fruit before man is created, in Gen 2 the plants could not grow because there was no gardener to till the land.
• In Gen 1 plants come before man, in Gen 2 after
• In Gen 1 birds of the air are before man, in Gen 2 after
• In Gen 1 birds are created the day before beasts, in Gen 2 it is at the same time.
• In Gen 1 the beasts are created before man in Gen 2 they are created after.
• In Gen 1 God commanded the earth to produce living creatures, in Gen 2 God formed them out of the ground

There are probably more but it does not matter.

You talk about being amused --- what amuses me is those who whine about the order of events in Genesis 2 being asynchronous w/Genesis 1 (which it's not), but don't say a word about the order in Genesis 1 itself

Well, if the bible gives two contradictory chronologies of creation it is clear they can't both be meant literal. How do you know which one to take literally? If at least one has to be figurative, how do you know they aren't both figurative? The only one that can't be figurative is the way God actually made the earth. That tells us neither Gen 1 nor Gen 2 are to be taken literally.

 

[AV1611VET]

Obviously Paul saw Adam as the first man. He says so in the verse. The question is, did Paul mean the same thing by 'the first man', as your literal interpretation does? If Paul was simple discussing Adam as the literal and historical first man who ever existed, how is Christ 'the second Man'? According to a plain literal and historical interpretation the second man was Cain. And there have been millions of men born between Cain and Christ. Clearly Paul was not talking in the same literal or historical sense you assume here.

He didn't say the "second man" ---

And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

 

[AV1611VET]

And Genesis 2 pwns your interpretation of Genesis 1.

So how many differences are there between Genesis 1 and 2?

• Genesis 1 talks of six days, Genesis 2:4 says one day.
• In Gen 1 the earth starts off wet, in Gen 2 it is so dry nothing could grow.
• In Gen 1 plants flourish and bear fruit before man is created, in Gen 2 the plants could not grow because there was no gardener to till the land.
• In Gen 1 plants come before man, in Gen 2 after
• In Gen 1 birds of the air are before man, in Gen 2 after
• In Gen 1 birds are created the day before beasts, in Gen 2 it is at the same time.
• In Gen 1 the beasts are created before man in Gen 2 they are created after.
• In Gen 1 God commanded the earth to produce living creatures, in Gen 2 God formed them out of the ground

There are probably more but it does not matter.
Well, if the bible gives two contradictory chronologies of creation it is clear they can't both be meant literal. How do you know which one to take literally? If at least one has to be figurative, how do you know they aren't both figurative? The only one that can't be figurative is the way God actually made the earth. That tells us neither Gen 1 nor Gen 2 are to be taken literally.

Assyrian, I don't stray from Genesis 1 in discussing the Creation Week --- I believe you know that.

Those that do get what they deserve --- confusion.

Genesis 2 is not --- I repeat, not --- a chronology of the Creation Event --- there's way too much data missing.

Genesis 2 is Adam's written account of how he got married.

Your attempts to avoid explaining Genesis 1 by bringing up Genesis 2, which is just a shell of Genesis 1 (if that much), is a very poor way of debating the Creation.

Like I say, if you can't get past Genesis 1, you're in for a doosey of a ride, as it only gets worse from there.

 

[mindlight]

The ineffectiveness of science at large scales of time and space seems to be an argument you like to cite a lot, but I wonder if you could please elaborate on what you mean by it, mindlight. Speaking only to fossils, since that's what I work on, I admit that the evidence becomes more sparse the further we look back into the fossil record. But I don't think that means we can't say anything about the history of life on earth with some certainty. For example, we can be quite certain that the first fossils were not vertebrates, and that only the theory of evolutionary common descent describes this order in the fossil record.
Make no doubt about it: The further back we progress in the fossil record, the harder it becomes to say anything with certainty. But palaeontology, as with any science, is in the business of working with what we know to rule out alternative hypotheses, and young earth creationism, as an hypothesis, has definitely been ruled out by the evidence.

I am not a paleontologist but it seems to me there are assumptions made at many points in the analysis of fossils which may have worked out reasons but still be erroneous ones.

1) That the geological layers follow a broad order and that the simplest organisms always appear at the bottom ones and the more complex higher up. But sometimes the orders get reversed or layers are missed out completely or the format is different.

2) That geological layers were established over millions of years rather than suddenly all at once or over a shorter time period of thousands of years.

3) That the signatures of life contained in each piece of evidence are of sufficient quality to still be read. That other factors have not distorted these signatures since the fossils were laid down.

4) That we have understood what the simplest organisms are and how they came to burrow to the lowest levels where that is true. In a young earth I would not expect to find big creatures deep below ground cause they would have to have dug themselves down there but simpler smaller organisms would have less trouble getting down there by themselves for instance whether the ground was land or seabed in its original form.

Can I ask whether you deem the pursuit of creation science as valid?

Yes it is valid to seek physical proofs and coherent explanatory models for our origins. Yes its valid, but I simply do not believe it can ever be entirely convincing for the same reasons that I would never find paleontology completely convincing. We are too removed from the time period when the original evidence was laid down. The bible account gives broad parameters but sparse details. Too many things about which we know little and whose impacts are now hard for us to assess have happened in the meantime. I am sure you will have answers to my 4 points and ones backed by a scientific consensus but your answers could still be wrong nonetheless.

The best methods can yield errors in these circumstances and the results cannot be checked in the same way that we could check the view that the earth goes round the sun for instance.

 

[shernren]

My favorite mantra for this is as follows:

• Genesis 1 pwns Evolution
• Genesis 1:1 pwns Atheism

Yeah it's a mantra alright, it has about as much truth and relevance as mindless Buddhist chanting ... ^^

Also to argue Creationism was heresy on a par with Gnosticism or Marcionism is stretching it a bit far. The historical churches and Orthodox Jews also all believed the universe was young, in special creation, original sin and a literal Adam and Eve and dated their calendars from a time in the last 6-10,000 years.

But they believed that in the absence of any scientific evidence either way. Creationism is not just a set of beliefs about the age of the earth and the origins of life, it is also a set of beliefs about how our extant scientific evidence relates to those ideas (and how they should be taught in schools).

Perhaps not gnosticism or Marcionism, but I daresay comparing creationism to deism would be fair. It is historically warranted: the craze in natural theology that was started by Paley eventually led to widespread deism in the context of the Enlightenment.

Also, it has been well documented that creationism, over the years, has jettisoned more and more of its biblical baggage to insinuate itself into the academy: first creation science, then intelligent design. To trade (what they believe is) biblical truth for political expedience cannot be a sign of a healthy Christian movement quite apart from whatever is being taught.

I know that a professional scientist like your self may be shocked to hear it but not all of us creationists regard the scientific evidence to be the crucial determining factor with things that we regard to be outside the realm of meaningful science e.g. Discussions of origins and the remote places of the universe. In these cases the biblical witness cannot be overruled by the scientific method since science is ineffective at this distance in time or space.

What I object to here is the shared conviction of TEs or atheists that science can speak effectively when the evidence itself is degraded by time or distance or ignorance of the variables to the point of irrelevance or at very least has become the discussion of the probability values of one model of understanding over another.

I'm curious as to why, in your cosmogony, this degradation of evidence by time or distance should exist. According to YECism, the universe is 6,000 years old. What time? What distance? A few thousand years is a blink of the eye in geological contexts. It's enough time for Mount Everest to move about, say, a few centimeters. How remote can any part of the universe possibly get within six thousand years?

That degradation by time or distance would exist in the evolutionary model is quite true, and it would be a good cautionary for all who would accept evolutionary conclusions (though, like most of conventional science, I think that our techniques are powerful enough today to understand and put limits on the extent of this degradation, if not remove it altogether). But that is no explanation for why such degradation should exist within your model of the universe, and it is in fact an argument against your model as much as it is against ours. The enemy of your enemy is not always your friend ...

 

[mindlight]

ANGELS ARE NOT NATURAL CREATURES! The bible says humans are above angels anyway.

The bible says we were made lower than the angels, that when we die we will become like them and that one day we shall judge angels. Superiority to angels is not discussed. The angels bow to Christ in Hebrews 1 but then Jesus is also God and not just man. Our humanity is taken to the centre of the throne in Christ but does that make us in ourselves superior to the creatures that surround the throne.

The bible also says that fallen examples of these non natural beings were able to become natural enough to be able to reproduce with women.

So a corporeal natural creature (e.g a man) will one day be like an incorporeal one an angel.

 

[Mallon]

1) That the geological layers follow a broad order and that the simplest organisms always appear at the bottom ones and the more complex higher up. But sometimes the orders get reversed or layers are missed out completely or the format is different.

What logical reasons do you have for saying this is NOT the case? Steno's laws of superposition and continuity are accepted even by most YECs. What reasons do you have for rejecting them?

2) That geological layers were established over millions of years rather than suddenly all at once or over a shorter time period of thousands of years.

This isn't an assumption. We can now date strata using a variety of means. Besides, given the diversity of palaeoenvironments that are represented in the sedimentary record (forests upon deserts upon inland seas), it makes no sense whatsoever that these strata could be deposited in a matter of just a few years. Not unless you want to infer miracle upon miracle upon miracle.

3) That the signatures of life contained in each piece of evidence are of sufficient quality to still be read. That other factors have not distorted these signatures since the fossils were laid down.

Please elaborate. Do you have any doubt that, say, this isn't a fossil insect?

4) That we have understood what the simplest organisms are and how they came to burrow to the lowest levels where that is true. In a young earth I would not expect to find big creatures deep below ground cause they would have to have dug themselves down there but simpler smaller organisms would have less trouble getting down there by themselves for instance whether the ground was land or seabed in its original form.

There are no hydrological, ecological, or functional mechanisms by which to explain the order of the fossil record, mindlight. Some of the earliest fossils in the fossil record had no means by which to burrow. And some of the best burrowers (moles and snakes and whatnot) are found only in the uppermost strata. That explanation makes no sense. It's just an ad hoc assumption designed solely to prop up broken framework.
Try to explain the distribution of pollen or turtles or whales.

I am sure you will have answers to my 4 points and ones backed by a scientific consensus but your answers could still be wrong nonetheless.

That's really what it all comes down to for you, eh? We can't be 100% certain about anything, therefore all explanations of the data are equally likely? Young earth, global flood scenarios are just as likely as old earth, evolutionary scenarios even though the former cannot explain any of the data? Sorry, but I respectfully disagree. Regardless, I'll feign from debating the subject any further because we've gone waaay off topic.

 

[champuru]

The bible says we were made lower than the angels, that when we die we will become like them and that one day we shall judge angels. Superiority to angels is not discussed. The angels bow to Christ in Hebrews 1 but then Jesus is also God and not just man. Our humanity is taken to the centre of the throne in Christ but does that make us in ourselves superior to the creatures that surround the throne.

My mistake. What does this have to do with evolution?

The bible also says that fallen examples of these non natural beings were able to become natural enough to be able to reproduce with women.

Not necessarily. It is possible that the "Sons of God" weren't angels. Matthew 22:30 says "For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven."

So a corporeal natural creature (e.g a man) will one day be like an incorporeal one an angel.

Do you mean like an angel? Anyways, again how does this deal with evolution?

 

[champuru]

And the earth was billions and billions of years before the sun?

No, as I said the sun is about 4.57 billion and the Earth is 4.54 about billion.

And whales billions of years before man?

No I think whales are about 53 million years older

How amused are you at explaining these?

umm... not much

My favorite mantra for this is as follows:

• Genesis 1 pwns Evolution
• Genesis 1:1 pwns Atheism

Sure if taken to be literal. And Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, Psalm 104:5, and I Chronicles 16:30 pwns Heliocentrism. And Job 37:18 pwns the idea that the sky is made of gases and not cast bronze.

Let's forget the time-spans then, explain the order of the creation events.

I understand there are something like 20 differences between Genesis 1 and Evolution.

You talk about being amused --- what amuses me is those who whine about the order of events in Genesis 2 being asynchronous w/Genesis 1 (which it's not), but don't say a word about the order in Genesis 1 itself.

Well if everything has to be taken literally then the two chapters must comply with each other. But lets talk about Genesis 1. There is day and night without a sun. The sky is really an ocean above our heads. And there are plants without the sun... these things make perfect sense

 

[Assyrian]

Assyrian, I don't stray from Genesis 1 in discussing the Creation Week --- I believe you know that.

yeah I know. It's great.

You keep claiming

• Genesis 1 pwns Evolution

Yet your interpretation of Genesis 1 falls apart if we look at Genesis 2 and you have to steer clear of the passage. Two great accounts of Creation in the beginning of Genesis and your interpretation only works if you avoid one of them. As I said, Genesis 2 pwns your interpretation of Genesis 1. If you want to talk about scripture interpretation in terms of pwning that is.

Those that do get what they deserve --- confusion.

Sounds like you avoid confusion by ignoring scripture that disagrees with you interpretation. That is one way to keep things simple and clear. But also wrong.

Genesis 2 is not --- I repeat, not --- a chronology of the Creation Event --- there's way too much data missing.

Just because it isn't a complete account does not mean it isn't a chronology. Genesis 1 does not mention mushrooms, seaweed or bacteria, ostriches or penguins. There are entire kingdoms of created life missing, yet you consider it a chronology. Genesis 2 is a narrative, the narrative sequence gives us a chronology of the creation, as long as the narrative is literal of course. But that is the point.

Genesis 2 is Adam's written account of how he got married.

There is no mention of Adam writing the account, or even being able to write. Even if he did write it, it is still a narrative where he gives us the sequence of events in the creation.

Your attempts to avoid explaining Genesis 1 by bringing up Genesis 2, which is just a shell of Genesis 1 (if that much), is a very poor way of debating the Creation.

Works for me. I also explain Genesis 1 by looking at other passages in the bible where we are shown how to interpret it, Psalm 90:4 or Hebrews 3&4 for example. But Genesis 2 is handy, and if your interpretation of Genesis 1 can't stand up to Genesis 2, then it really has problems.

Like I say, if you can't get past Genesis 1, you're in for a doosey of a ride, as it only gets worse from there.

You mean Genesis 2?

 

[AV1611VET]

Yet your interpretation of Genesis 1 falls apart if we look at Genesis 2 and you have to steer clear of the passage. Two great accounts of Creation in the beginning of Genesis and your interpretation only works if you avoid one of them. As I said, Genesis 2 pwns your interpretation of Genesis 1. If you want to talk about scripture interpretation in terms of pwning that is.

Interpreting the Bible that way is certainly your prerogative.

 

[lucaspa]

Here's my take on the Creation:

Creation and creationism are two different things. Creation is the theological statement "God created the universe and everything in it". Basically, Genesis 1:1 is creation.

Creationism is a very specific how God created the universe. It is creationism that has theological problems.

Genesis 1 pwns evolution

There are 2 major problems:
1. Read literally, Genesis 2 contradicts Genesis 1.
2. Creation itself contradicts this. Creation itself -- created by God -- says that God created by evolution.

There are no "scientific problems" associated with the Creation as, according to Genesis 1:1, which came first: science or heaven?

There are scientific problems associated with creationism. This inability to separate creation from creationism is one of the major theological problems of creationism.

In addition, what science produced the angels?

I have a thread covering this very topic here: 1 .

The thread doesn't cover anything. It simply poses the question. Interestingly, none of the creation stories cover the creation of angels. There are no Biblical verses saying that angels were created by God. So, what produced the angels? Or, like God, were the angels always present?

 

[lucaspa]

Darwinian Evolution is a logic which is applicable to all life forms and all biosystems that may exist in the universe, even the ones we have not discovered. (7.012: Introduction to Biology, Fall 2004)
​

Creationism has rejected the false assumption of universal common descent not evolution as it's properly defined scientifically.

Which means that creationism has accepted evolution? That seems to be what you are saying.

If Liberal Theistic Evolution dovetails so nicely with an Evangelical and Fundamentalist understanding of the Gospel then why are Creationists constantly hounded by them? It's because the Pauline doctrine of original sin is directly tied to justification by faith. That is what is missing, a figurative Adam gives us no reason for sin which in turn gives us no need for justification.

You have this backwards. It was creationists hounding evolutionists. And this is one of the reasons. It's another theological flaw of creationism. The Creation Scientist oath included:
("4) Finally, we are an organization of Christian men of science, who accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior. The account of the special creation of Adam and Eve as one man and one woman, and their subsequent Fall into sin, is the basis for our belief in the necessity of a Savior for all mankind. Therefore, salvation can come only thru accepting Jesus Christ as our Savior."

Then after they dismiss original sin and the Fall of Adam and Eve as mythology they want to be embraced as Christian.

A literal Adam and Eve are not necessary for the Fall. Genesis 2-3 is allegorical and Adam and Eve stand for all of us. Whose sins did Jesus die for? Yours and mine. Not Adam and Eve's. We sin and we need salvation. Paul was talking about spiritual death, not literal death. He was also trying to find a connection between the OT and Jesus for his gentile audience. Paul wanted the gentile converts to keep the Torah, but 1) the Torah says nothing about Jesus and 2) Paul was telling them that the bulk of the Torah -- the Laws -- didn't apply to them anyway. So why should they read and pay attention to the Torah? This was one (of the several) reasons Paul made up.

The fact of the matter is that evolution as natural history, particularly with regards to human origins, is a myth.

The data says otherwise.

The mythographers of the modern world follow the tradition of Darwin who traced lineage as far as genus and then projected it all the way to our primordial past.

But in regards to human origins, we are talking genera: the origin of the genus Homo from a previous genus -- Australopithecus. So you contradict yourself.

TE is devoid of traditional Christian theism and instead embraced naturalistic assumptions

This is ironic since this is, IMO, the worst theological flaw of creationism: accepting the basic statement of faith of atheism. That is, if something is "natural" then God is absent. Creationism relies on god-of-the-gaps theology. And God-of-the-gaps relies, in turn, on the idea that something has to be non-natural to be of God. If you have a natural explanation, then God is absent.

This is why creationism is so bad at arguing against atheism: it accepts the basic faith of atheism as true.

 

[lucaspa]

Interpreting the Bible that way is certainly your prerogative.

Nice duck. It's everyone's preogative because the textual evidence is plain for everyone to see. There are two (well, really 3) separate creation stories that contradict. One is Genesis 1:1 to 2:4a. The second is Genesis 2:4b - Genesis 5. The third is Genesis 5:1 thru Genesis 8. The contradictions are a clear indication that they are not met to be read literally, because to do so conflicts with Rules 5 and 7 of how to interpret. Call the stories A, B, and C.

Contradictions:
1. The name of God is different between A and B. "Elohim" for A and "Yahweh" for B.
2. In A creation takes 6 days, in B (Genesis 2:4b) it happens in a single day (beyom).
3. In A the order of creation is: plants, water creatures and birds, land creatures, and then plural humans both male and female. In B the order of creation is: no plants but apparently seeds and no rain, a human male, plants, animals and birds (no water creatures), woman. In C males and females plural together are created together.
4. The mechanism of creation is different. In A all entities including creatures are spoken into existence -- "let there be" -- but in B all the animals and birds and the human male are formed from dust or soil. The human female is formed from the rib of the male.
5. Entrance of death for humans. A doesn't mention it. B is internally contradictory. Genesis 2:17 implies that eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil will cause death (within the day) but Genesis 3:22 says Adam and Eve are kicked out of the Garden so that they will not eat the fruit of the Tree of Eternal Life and "live forever", saying that they would have died anyway without eating the fruit. C is different. Genesis 6:1-3 says that "heavenly beings" (not mentioned in A and B) are mating with human females. In Genesis 6:3 God decides to make people mortal and limits their lifespan to 120 years. No mention of any fruit of any tree.
6. C says there were "giants" who were the offspring of human females and "heavenly beings". A and B do not mention giants or such offspring.

The text is a neon sign saying "Do not read the stories literally". But some people do not have eyes to see.

 

[lucaspa]

What difference does that make, Shernren?

Okay, so He mentioned the Creation as a secondary point --- what about it?

You missed the main point: Moses (a man) wrote the only scripture known in Jesus' time. And this man got part of it wrong.

What it does is totally blow away your claims that the Bible is God's "Diary" (as you put it). Jesus tells us scripture was written by men and that occasionally they got it wrong.

 

[AV1611VET]

The text is a neon sign saying "Do not read the stories literally". But some people do not have eyes to see.

I'm sorry, but this is one of the worst exegeses I've ever seen.

This is what you get, folks, when context is completely ignored.

Are you telling me, Lucaspa, that no one can properly reconcile these accounts?

 

[AV1611VET]

Creation and creationism are two different things.

That's why I keep the two separate.

Creation is the theological statement "God created the universe and everything in it".

Okay.

Basically, Genesis 1:1 is creation.

Okay.

Creationism is a very specific how God created the universe.

I don't agree, but for the sake of the discussion...

It is creationism that has theological problems.

If you want the how, it is called creatio ex nihilo --- where exactly is the problem?

Just as "weight" occurs when gravity is resisted, "problems" occur when creatio ex nihilo is resisted.

There are 2 major problems:
1. Read literally, Genesis 2 contradicts Genesis 1.

No, it doesn't. Before one cries "contradiction", one should make every attempt to reconcile the opposing passages. That's the proper way to do it.

Imagine if scientists took that attitude towards the Light Paradox and went no further, claiming it's a contradiction.

2. Creation itself contradicts this. Creation itself -- created by God -- says that God created by evolution.

No, it doesn't. You're assuming that creation is an on-going process --- that God is still creating today --- and He is not. The Creation was a one-time, one-week act, done in the absence of the Laws of Thermodynamics.

There are scientific problems associated with creationism.

Only, as I said, if you assume it was done (or still in progress) under the Laws of Thermodynamics.

This inability to separate creation from creationism is one of the major theological problems of creationism.

Well, as I have said before, I really don't use the term creationism --- it is a much misused, misunderstood term --- and frankly, it is the choice term of Atheists and Scientists, so the chances of it being misunderstood are very high.

Interestingly, none of the creation stories cover the creation of angels.

Well now ain't that a shame?

There are no Biblical verses saying that angels were created by God. So, what produced the angels? Or, like God, were the angels always present?

Here's your "creation story" pertaining to angels:

Who maketh his angels spirits; his ministers a flaming fire:

 

[AV1611VET]

You missed the main point: Moses (a man) wrote the only scripture known in Jesus' time.

Are you kidding me?

Jesus, Himself quoted from Isaiah, and Matthew even quotes from Lamentations.

And this man got part of it wrong.

Moses edited the book of Genesis, he did not author it.

What it does is totally blow away your claims that the Bible is God's "Diary" (as you put it).

Not hardly.

Jesus tells us scripture was written by men and that occasionally they got it wrong.

Try "holy men of God".