Which theory points to God?

[shernren]

TEs, in general, want the Creationary Theory that does point to God as the Creator, thrown out. They want it permantly replaced with the Evolutionary Theory. So, I have asked, how will the Evolutionary Theory point to God as the Creator. Still waiting for an answer from someone.

from http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=19853720&postcount=70

Here's a question for creationists:

How does the theory of Young Earth Creationism point specifically to the Christian God?

Note my specification of the Christian God. I want an answer that leaves no room for Muslim fundamentalists. No room for any other sort of God at all. No room for any God but the One who would eventually incarnate Himself a human to die for our sins. Also, note my specification of the theory of Young Earth Creationism i.e. that God did it 6,000 years ago in 6 days. If it is a matter of "God started the whole universe business", well even TEs believe that. It is a matter of specific chronology.

See, one of the objections that I have seen around here, as shown in the typical quote up there, is that evolutionary theory points away from God and therefore it should be disqualified from Christian thought. Firstly, of course, there is the matter of defining "points away from God". To a normal, coherent person, any theory they believe points down the road they are walking and any theory they disbelieve points away from it. Of course a theory I disagree with must point away from God; otherwise why would I have so much against it! (I am not saying this tendency is wrong. This guards the central dogma of the Christian faith. We must be careful, however, that this attitude ends up guarding ideas that have no business being the central dogma of the Christian faith. A dogmatic person is not someone who believes in dogma but someone who makes dogma out of what should not be dogma.)

To the Christian evolutionist, evolutionary theory points to the rational, dependable God. A God of a rational world is Himself rational. He does not do things without cause; the corollary is that whatever He asks us to do must have a cause. He will not ask us to do something and then, when He meets us face to face, say "Oh, I had no reason to do this. It was just fun to see you suffer." Heaven forbid! Faith is after all not the absence of reason but reason gone courageous. Abraham, when asked to sacrifice his son Isaac, reasoned that God would raise him from the dead: faith is a logical conclusion of trust in God, not an illogical assumption that God is to be trusted. (God gives us enough reason to trust Him, and enough again to erroneously reject Him if we so choose.) And an evolutionary world is a trustable world, by the standards of modern science, as opposed to the world of YECism where nothing you see is actually what it appears to be. That is how evolutionary theory points to God for those who believe.

What about the question: What would a non-Christian see of God in evolutionary theory? Admittedly, nothing at all. That is how real science works. It is not science if you have to invoke God to fill in the gaps. (Note my words. I have not said "it is not real", but "it is not science". The resurrection is real, but it is not scientific.) Science is not designed to point directly to God. However, the significance is that for science itself to exist, the world must be rational; and since there are so many possible ways for the world to be irrational, then the fact that the world is rational may point to its being started by a rational deity. Of course, that is as far as science goes in glorifying God.

Admittedly TEs have to be in the defensive about this, at least for me.

But let me turn this around: What would a non-Christian see of God in creationist theory? What would he perceive of God? Ignoring all that "God is a liar" stuff running around in the air (from both sides, mind you) he would see that God created. Fullstop. What kind of God, and what kind of creation? Young Earth Creationism can only tell him: a God who wanted the universe to look old, and a creation that isn't actually old but is only 6,000 years old. Apart from the confusion inherent in that, how is he supposed to know that this is the God of Christianity? How is he supposed to know from just this that this is the God who came down to die on the cross, and not the God who sent the angel Gabriel to give the Quran to the Prophet Muhammad? How is he supposed to know that this God is still sticking around His creation? After all, it looks like he abandoned it, some claim. How is he supposed to know that this God wants to have a personal relationship with Him?

You ask how a person who doesn't know God, has not read the Bible, would know God is the Creator of all we see by just hearing the Evolutionary Theory. Well: how a person who doesn't know God, has not read the Bible, would know that the Christian God is the Creator of all we see by just hearing the Creationist theory? What good is creationism if it is being used by Muslims to draw people to Allah?

When man meets God, God defines the terms on which man knows Him. God decides what to reveal and what to keep hidden. God defines who He is to man. And He has chosen to reveal Himself fully through His redemptive act on the cross. The crucifixion alone is enough for the core of Christian faith. The cross literally is the crux of Christianity. The cross is the unique, authoritative self-description of God to the people He created. This means that nothing else in the universe, by itself, can point to the true nature of God, if it is separated from the cross. The evolutionist theory, separate from the cross, is used to promote atheism. So? After all the creationist theory, separate from the cross, is used to promote Islam. Origins is a single page in the book which God gives humanity to describe Himself; Jesus is that whole book. If you tear a page out of a book and read it all by itself, you won't know what the rest of the book says. It is the same with any theory of the origins. It is never enough without the message of the cross.

So: how does creationism point to Jesus?

 

[Jig]

from http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=19853720&postcount=70

Here's a question for creationists:

How does the theory of Young Earth Creationism point specifically to the Christian God?

Note my specification of the Christian God. I want an answer that leaves no room for Muslim fundamentalists. No room for any other sort of God at all. No room for any God but the One who would eventually incarnate Himself a human to die for our sins. Also, note my specification of the theory of Young Earth Creationism i.e. that God did it 6,000 years ago in 6 days. If it is a matter of "God started the whole universe business", well even TEs believe that. It is a matter of specific chronology.

See, one of the objections that I have seen around here, as shown in the typical quote up there, is that evolutionary theory points away from God and therefore it should be disqualified from Christian thought. Firstly, of course, there is the matter of defining "points away from God". To a normal, coherent person, any theory they believe points down the road they are walking and any theory they disbelieve points away from it. Of course a theory I disagree with must point away from God; otherwise why would I have so much against it! (I am not saying this tendency is wrong. This guards the central dogma of the Christian faith. We must be careful, however, that this attitude ends up guarding ideas that have no business being the central dogma of the Christian faith. A dogmatic person is not someone who believes in dogma but someone who makes dogma out of what should not be dogma.)

To the Christian evolutionist, evolutionary theory points to the rational, dependable God. A God of a rational world is Himself rational. He does not do things without cause; the corollary is that whatever He asks us to do must have a cause. He will not ask us to do something and then, when He meets us face to face, say "Oh, I had no reason to do this. It was just fun to see you suffer." Heaven forbid! Faith is after all not the absence of reason but reason gone courageous. Abraham, when asked to sacrifice his son Isaac, reasoned that God would raise him from the dead: faith is a logical conclusion of trust in God, not an illogical assumption that God is to be trusted. (God gives us enough reason to trust Him, and enough again to erroneously reject Him if we so choose.) And an evolutionary world is a trustable world, by the standards of modern science, as opposed to the world of YECism where nothing you see is actually what it appears to be. That is how evolutionary theory points to God for those who believe.

What about the question: What would a non-Christian see of God in evolutionary theory? Admittedly, nothing at all. That is how real science works. It is not science if you have to invoke God to fill in the gaps. (Note my words. I have not said "it is not real", but "it is not science". The resurrection is real, but it is not scientific.) Science is not designed to point directly to God. However, the significance is that for science itself to exist, the world must be rational; and since there are so many possible ways for the world to be irrational, then the fact that the world is rational may point to its being started by a rational deity. Of course, that is as far as science goes in glorifying God.

Admittedly TEs have to be in the defensive about this, at least for me.

But let me turn this around: What would a non-Christian see of God in creationist theory? What would he perceive of God? Ignoring all that "God is a liar" stuff running around in the air (from both sides, mind you) he would see that God created. Fullstop. What kind of God, and what kind of creation? Young Earth Creationism can only tell him: a God who wanted the universe to look old, and a creation that isn't actually old but is only 6,000 years old. Apart from the confusion inherent in that, how is he supposed to know that this is the God of Christianity? How is he supposed to know from just this that this is the God who came down to die on the cross, and not the God who sent the angel Gabriel to give the Quran to the Prophet Muhammad? How is he supposed to know that this God is still sticking around His creation? After all, it looks like he abandoned it, some claim. How is he supposed to know that this God wants to have a personal relationship with Him?

You ask how a person who doesn't know God, has not read the Bible, would know God is the Creator of all we see by just hearing the Evolutionary Theory. Well: how a person who doesn't know God, has not read the Bible, would know that the Christian God is the Creator of all we see by just hearing the Creationist theory? What good is creationism if it is being used by Muslims to draw people to Allah?

When man meets God, God defines the terms on which man knows Him. God decides what to reveal and what to keep hidden. God defines who He is to man. And He has chosen to reveal Himself fully through His redemptive act on the cross. The crucifixion alone is enough for the core of Christian faith. The cross literally is the crux of Christianity. The cross is the unique, authoritative self-description of God to the people He created. This means that nothing else in the universe, by itself, can point to the true nature of God, if it is separated from the cross. The evolutionist theory, separate from the cross, is used to promote atheism. So? After all the creationist theory, separate from the cross, is used to promote Islam. Origins is a single page in the book which God gives humanity to describe Himself; Jesus is that whole book. If you tear a page out of a book and read it all by itself, you won't know what the rest of the book says. It is the same with any theory of the origins. It is never enough without the message of the cross.

So: how does creationism point to Jesus?

Well, I completely understand your point of view. I, too, was at once a TE. The evidence just seemed to point towards an old Earth. I must admit it wasn't a smooth transition to becoming a YEC from a TE. They was alot of doubt and I also held a very bias prefabricated idea that the Earth was millions of years old. I have read what both origins and AiG had to offer and was convinced to do more research.

You see...you said our God (the Christian God) was rational. You based this rationality purely on the fact he create a rational world, and therefore must Himself be rational. Now we are stuck with your definition of "rationality". I true rational God would put consistent reason into His creation. Is it not possible that this would mean He would instantly create the whole universe in a very short amount of time, and not have billions of years just pointlessly pass by. God made the universe already capable for sustaining life. It wouldn't be rational for an all-powerful God to wait to create life. Where's the logic and reason behind that? Remember He made all this JUST for us. God with His unlimited power could create something "with" age built in. He proved this with Adam and Eve. They had the appearance of age but were created in a mere second each.

Then you pointed out that for a non-Christian looking at YEC, would scare him off because he'll believe God is trying to decieve us.

First off....I dont think the Earth looks old. I highly doubt that 2000 years ago anyone thought the Earth looked old. In fact the Earth looks very new since it is always recycling itself. This old age idea has been inplanted into our heads at a young age (through school, movies, and media), and therefore hard to undermine.

You may say ALL the evidence points to an old Earth with modern dating, fossils, and such. But please, realize these are theories that can't be proven, due to the mere fact no one has been alive long enough to have seen it all. These theories have mostly came from athesitic scientist, who are willing to compromise scriptural authority for the sake of their own understanding (read Proverbs 3:5). I know this because they also believe in life from nothing.

I understand that you feel AiG and ICR have weak evidence or just plain wrongly use science, but you are just like how I was, weak minded. Trying to make sense of God and His unfathmable ways, through what seemed apparent. God was not trying to decieve us, He merely used His powers to create a universe we could immediately make use of. If He can destory it in under a minute, surely He can create it in 6 days.

Therefore, YEC points to a rational God, who is truely all-powerful, while TE points to a illogical systematic God, who limits His powers.

 

[Critias]

It is nice to see that you 1) you never answered my question, and 2) instead of answering my question you decided to pose your own question.

Let me make this clearer for you. We are not talking about how TEs understand the Evolutionary Theory, we are talking about the Theory in and of itself. You and many, if not all, TEs want the Creationary Theory gone. Instead, you want the Evolutionary Theory to be the only Theory on the block. You don't want people questioning it, as seen by Gluady's statements in the thread you cited, and you don't want God to be spoken about in public forums.

If you have not noticed, the Creationary Theory first builds on the premise that God, the God of the Bible, is the Creator. It also brings science and faith together, what TEs believe should be separated in public forums. Go to AIG and ICR and tell me if you cannot learn of the Christian God. Do you need me to pull from their site to show you that they do speak of the Christian God?

It amazes me that TEs support the removal of God from science, from schools, from any public place that man says God shouldn't be apart from. Tell me shernren, how does this glorify God? How does this acknowledge God when you, as a TE, support the removal of Him when speaking in public arena's about origins?

Did Jesus say tell all the nations or did He say only tell certain ones that man says it is ok to tell? Do you tell Jesus He isn't suppose to be part of the discussion in the science arena's when it is concerning His work that He has done?

It is the TEs who want the teaching of God creating in six days removed and the Evolutionary Theory to take its place. The Creationary Theory points to God as the Creator and speaks boldly about what God has done. The Evolutionary Theory refuses to acknowledge God and to point to God.

That is the answer Shernren that you refuse to answer and have continued to dodge, by starting this thread to divert the issue from what I originally asked. Tell me, why do you support a theory that refuses to acknowledge God as the Creator and vehemently opposing any other theory that does acknowledge God? Are you not to acknowledge God in everything you do as the Bible tells us all to do?

 

[The Lady Kate]

You see...you said our God (the Christian God) was rational. You based this rationality purely on the fact he create a rational world, and therefore must Himself be rational. Now we are stuck with your definition of "rationality". I true rational God would put consistent reason into His creation. Is it not possible that this would mean He would instantly create the whole universe in a very short amount of time, and not have billions of years just pointlessly pass by.

Why not? What's a few billion years to God? Is He on some kind of tight schedule?

God made the universe already capable for sustaining life. It wouldn't be rational for an all-powerful God to wait to create life. Where's the logic and reason behind that?

An infinite God is one of infinite patience.

Remember He made all this JUST for us.

Says who? Says us. Jesus tried to teach us humility.

God with His unlimited power could create something "with" age built in. He proved this with Adam and Eve. They had the appearance of age but were created in a mere second each.

But they had no past, and nothing except the appearance of age to suggest that they ever had one. The universe has the appearance of age and the appearance of events which appear to have happened in that past... none of which could've happened in a young universe.

Ask Adam about his childhood... would he have been able to give an answer?

Then you pointed out that for a non-Christian looking at YEC, would scare him off because he'll believe God is trying to decieve us.

A pretty rational belief, given the facts as the YECs present them.

First off....I dont think the Earth looks old. I highly doubt that 2000 years ago anyone thought the Earth looked old.

I doubt the science of geology was in full swing 2000 years ago. What would expect people who had not yet mastered the concept of indoor plumbing to believe about the age of the Earth?

In fact the Earth looks very new since it is always recycling itself. This old age idea has been inplanted into our heads at a young age (through school, movies, and media), and therefore hard to undermine.

So it's a conspiracy?

You may say ALL the evidence points to an old Earth with modern dating, fossils, and such. But please, realize these are theories that can't be proven, due to the mere fact no one has been alive long enough to have seen it all.

But they CAN be disproven... except nobody's been able to do it yet.

These theories have mostly came from athesitic scientist, who are willing to compromise scriptural authority for the sake of their own understanding (read Proverbs 3:5). I know this because they also believe in life from nothing.

Actually, YEC was disproven 200 years ago by Christian scientists who were originally trying to prove it true. Funny world, isn't it?

Sorry... no conspiracy here.

I understand that you feel AiG and ICR have weak evidence or just plain wrongly use science, but you are just like how I was, weak minded.

Arrogant much?

Trying to make sense of God and His unfathmable ways, through what seemed apparent. God was not trying to decieve us, He merely used His powers to create a universe we could immediately make use of. If He can destory it in under a minute, surely He can create it in 6 days.

Because God is as rushed and impatient as you are?

Therefore, YEC points to a rational God, who is truely all-powerful, while TE points to a illogical systematic God, who limits His powers.

A God who could do anything, but chooses to limit His powers. This is the God we see around us every day... the God of TE.

 

[Critias]

A God who could do anything, but chooses to limit His powers. This is the God we see around us every day... the God of TE.

Interesting statement here you made. Do you believe YECs worship a different God than the TEs?

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Whichever theory is true points to God. Other theories may make God's hand more obvious, but if God didn't do it that way, they point to a God that doesn't exist.

 

[shernren]

Jig:

I understand that you feel AiG and ICR have weak evidence or just plain wrongly use science, but you are just like how I was, weak minded. Trying to make sense of God and His unfathmable ways, through what seemed apparent. God was not trying to decieve us, He merely used His powers to create a universe we could immediately make use of. If He can destory it in under a minute, surely He can create it in 6 days.

Finally, somebody is honest about what they really think of TEs.

You see...you said our God (the Christian God) was rational. You based this rationality purely on the fact he create a rational world, and therefore must Himself be rational. Now we are stuck with your definition of "rationality". I true rational God would put consistent reason into His creation. Is it not possible that this would mean He would instantly create the whole universe in a very short amount of time, and not have billions of years just pointlessly pass by. God made the universe already capable for sustaining life. It wouldn't be rational for an all-powerful God to wait to create life. Where's the logic and reason behind that? Remember He made all this JUST for us. God with His unlimited power could create something "with" age built in. He proved this with Adam and Eve. They had the appearance of age but were created in a mere second each.

How is it irrational for God to have waited a few billion years for us? By your same argument, for example, it was irrational for God to have waited for thousands of years and let millions of people die in sin before sending Jesus. Once Adam had sinned Jesus should have incarnated right there and then and died and atoned his sin and everyone would live happily ever after without all these millenia in between of sin frolicking in the world.

Also, the argument of age is not watertight. So far there hasn't been a successful challenge to what I was doing on the other thread I originally referenced.

First off....I dont think the Earth looks old. I highly doubt that 2000 years ago anyone thought the Earth looked old. In fact the Earth looks very new since it is always recycling itself. This old age idea has been inplanted into our heads at a young age (through school, movies, and media), and therefore hard to undermine.

You may say ALL the evidence points to an old Earth with modern dating, fossils, and such. But please, realize these are theories that can't be proven, due to the mere fact no one has been alive long enough to have seen it all. These theories have mostly came from athesitic scientist, who are willing to compromise scriptural authority for the sake of their own understanding (read Proverbs 3:5). I know this because they also believe in life from nothing.

There we go. It's all an atheistic conspiracy. Remember that the first old-earth geologists were Christians who tried to find evidence for the flood but found none. And about evolution being unseen and therefore unproven, well, almost all Christians (me included) have never seen spacetime bend, and yet believe in General Relativity.

Let me make this clearer for you. We are not talking about how TEs understand the Evolutionary Theory, we are talking about the Theory in and of itself. You and many, if not all, TEs want the Creationary Theory gone. Instead, you want the Evolutionary Theory to be the only Theory on the block. You don't want people questioning it, as seen by Gluady's statements in the thread you cited, and you don't want God to be spoken about in public forums.

I did answer, Critias, but I think you were too busy finding a reason to oppose me to read what I actually said.

From original post:

What about the question: What would a non-Christian see of God in evolutionary theory? Admittedly, nothing at all. That is how real science works. It is not science if you have to invoke God to fill in the gaps. (Note my words. I have not said "it is not real", but "it is not science". The resurrection is real, but it is not scientific.) Science is not designed to point directly to God. However, the significance is that for science itself to exist, the world must be rational; and since there are so many possible ways for the world to be irrational, then the fact that the world is rational may point to its being started by a rational deity. Of course, that is as far as science goes in glorifying God.

Admittedly TEs have to be in the defensive about this, at least for me.

We do not want the creationist theory gone because it talks about God. Stop talking as if we are all atheists in disguise. We want creation science discussed in public, revealed for the sham it is, and then thrown away. Most Christians don't even live as if it was true. If they did, they would gladly support nuclear energy research, since it is possible to find natural conditions under which nuclear isotopes decay with rapid acceleration and thus the issue of storing nuclear isotopes is not an issue. They read science fiction about traveling to the stars and exotic technologies about moving faster than light without realizing that if the universe is really 6,000 years old then there must be something fundamentally wrong with Newton, Einstein and Hawking's theories. They should go against the use of genetic algorithms to compute solutions, since after all genetic algorithms add no information and are therefore inferior to direct human design and a waste of public money. I don't see any harm in removing a theory most people don't even live by.

Note my use of the term "creation science", not "YECism". There is a difference. Creation science is what organizations like AiG and ICR support, saying that God created the universe young and most its appearance of age is explainable through hitherto unknown natural processes or through evil atheist conspiracy. They specifically disavow the "appearance of age" problem with regards to the vastness of the universe (which is a move of integrity, since without it they have no answers at all to that particular mess at present) and to most other problems. If creation science was really viable I would be behind it 100%. Indeed, I used to be because I thought it was.

YECism is the more general belief that the world was created 6,000 years ago in 6 days. Whether naturalistic or not, whether scientific or not, that is simply what is. If there is no scientific way to explain its appearance of age (note the distinction: creation science explicitly believes that there are scientific explanations) then it must simply have been a vast, unfathomable act of God. With regards to that:

If you have not noticed, the Creationary Theory first builds on the premise that God, the God of the Bible, is the Creator. It also brings science and faith together, what TEs believe should be separated in public forums. Go to AIG and ICR and tell me if you cannot learn of the Christian God. Do you need me to pull from their site to show you that they do speak of the Christian God?

Isn't this a little unfair? First you argue that the evolutionary theory, divorced from Christianity, says nothing of God. Then you say that YECism, as taught by explicitly Christian organisations, talks of God. That's like saying Rambo unarmed can be killed by a 5-year-old kid holding a bazooka standing on high ground, and therefore Rambo is weaker than a 5-year-old kid. To make an objective comparison, we must either compare:

a) evolutionism within a Christian framework to creationism within a Christian framework.

You yourself have said before that TEs have a better apologetic to scientifically-inclined people than YECs, as I recall.

b) evolutionism without the Christian framework to creationism without the Christian framework.

I have shown that creationism is still very much feasible without the Christian framework. Muslims have creationist factions. Deists can comfortably believe that God created a young earth. The Semitic mythical religions that so troubled Israel, if they were still strong today, would have no problem with the magical creation of an old-looking 6,000-year-old universe. So outside a Christian framework, creationism doesn't point to God either.

AiG and ICR are not completely fair comparisons to atheistic evolutionism. After all, if a Christian talks about God creating the world it's inevitable for him to point to the Christian God. And if a Christian talks about God evolving all life from the first cell, like me, I too would point to the Christian God. Imagine the immense wisdom of God, able to take a first puny cell, take it through a deceptively simple process of mutations and natural selections, and produce the vast myriad of biodiversity we see today. It's enough to make even the most hardened atheist feel a sense of the numinous.

It amazes me that TEs support the removal of God from science, from schools, from any public place that man says God shouldn't be apart from. Tell me shernren, how does this glorify God? How does this acknowledge God when you, as a TE, support the removal of Him when speaking in public arena's about origins?

Let me ask you something, Critias.

Do you thank God for solid-state quantum physics every time you turn on your computer?
Do you thank God for the creation of English every time you read an icon subtitle or type in the next reply to blast TEs away?
Do you thank God for information theory every time you connect to the Internet?
Do you thank God for delocalised copper electrons and Volta's primitive galvanic cell whenever a power failure reminds you just how much they have given us?
Do you thank God that you have transparent corneas and not opaque-ing ones, retinas that aren't detached from the back of the eye, rods and cones that have hundreds of megapixels' resolution, perfectly functioning and unbroken optic nerves, an optic region in the brain which God taught how to process in 3D, and a functional cerebrum, every time you read what I have to say to you?
Do you thank God for total internal reflection that allows my messages to cross trans-atlantic light fiber cables to reach you?

To be honest, I don't. As I write this up I am convicted that I should. But I don't. And I bet you don't.

You ask me how science glorifies God? The answer is simple.

The man of God is able to glorify God with everything he sees and experiences and knows. The typical person wouldn't know how computers glorify God, but the man of God will know. The typical person wouldn't know how sunlight glorifies God, but the man of God will know. Just because science works without God's constant supernatural intervention doesn't mean it can't be used to glorify God. A man of God who believes in evolution will know how to use evolution to glorify God. A man of God who believes in young-earth creation will know how to use that theory to glorify God.

On the other hand, an atheist who believes in evolution will glorify man and a Muslim who believes in young-earth creation will glorify Allah. Is this at all surprising?

Did Jesus say tell all the nations or did He say only tell certain ones that man says it is ok to tell? Do you tell Jesus He isn't suppose to be part of the discussion in the science arena's when it is concerning His work that He has done?

Non sequitur: Jesus wants us to tell everybody without exception of His work,

therefore

Jesus wants all science to glorify Him.

If science that does not explicitly glorify God offends Him, then your computer and mine offend Him.

That is the answer Shernren that you refuse to answer and have continued to dodge, by starting this thread to divert the issue from what I originally asked. Tell me, why do you support a theory that refuses to acknowledge God as the Creator and vehemently opposing any other theory that does acknowledge God? Are you not to acknowledge God in everything you do as the Bible tells us all to do?

Theistic evolutionists acknowledge God in believing evolution.

 

[gluadys]

Good post. It has always been understood in Christian theology that
general revelation (nature) is not sufficient to point to the God
of Christianity. It can and does reveal the Creator (undefined as to
which god this is) and his majesty and glory. That is all. On matters
pertaining specifically to salvation, the special revelation in Christ
is needed. And it is this revelation that is the primary concern of
scripture.

The fact that nature operates in ways that are rationally
understandable and reliable points to a God who can be trusted to be
similarly rational and reliable. On the other hand, nature does not
tell us that God is good or that God loves us. In fact, it is not
difficult to find in nature examples that would seem to say that the
creator is evil and malicious. So it is pointless to ask any scientific
theory to reveal more of God than nature itself is able to.

 

[gluadys]

Is it not possible that this would mean He would instantly create the whole universe in a very short amount of time, and not have billions of years just pointlessly pass by. God made the universe already capable for sustaining life. It wouldn't be rational for an all-powerful God to wait to create life. Where's the logic and reason behind that? Remember He made all this JUST for us. God with His unlimited power could create something "with" age built in. He proved this with Adam and Eve. They had the appearance of age but were created in a mere second each.

Are you not imposing your own idea of rationality on God? Is it not
your assumption that billions of years passing by are pointless? Do you
know that it takes billions of years (barring a miracle) for the
elements necessary for life to be formed in the heart of stars? What is
pointless about taking the time to produce what is necessary to life?
Is it any more pointless than taking nine months to prepare a foetus for
life outside the womb? Or for taking a year or more to produce good
wine?

The rationality is seen not in the time it takes, but in creating
natural processes that operate in an orderly, comprehensible manner,
whatever time it takes.

First off....I dont think the Earth looks old. I highly doubt that 2000 years ago anyone thought the Earth looked old. In fact the Earth looks very new since it is always recycling itself. This old age idea has been inplanted into our heads at a young age (through school, movies, and media), and therefore hard to undermine.

I agree with you. 2000 years ago---even 500 years ago, no one thought the earth looked millions, much less billions of years old. Yet today, that idea is
taught to us from a young age.

Have you ever asked yourself why this change came about?

Study the history of how we came to see the age of the earth in the
century between 1750 and 1850. This was the time when the science of
geology was born. This was the time people stopped taking the age of the earth for granted, and began to really, really look at the earth and ask questions about how mountains and cliffs and valleys and other earth formations came to be. And as they studied --- not just looked at---the earth, they discovered qualities of the earth that (barring a miracle) would take a long, long time to form.

You may say ALL the evidence points to an old Earth with modern dating, fossils, and such. But please, realize these are theories that can't be proven, due to the mere fact no one has been alive long enough to have seen it all.

It is a good thing then that science does not try to prove things. It
relies on evidence, not proof. If you can explain what geologists have
observed by any other natural method (not by a miracle) then you have a
case.

These theories have mostly came from athesitic scientist, who are willing to compromise scriptural authority for the sake of their own understanding (read Proverbs 3:5).

That is simply not true. Not only were most of the geologists who
established the antiquity of the earth not atheists; most were devout
Christians (a few were Deists) and a significant number were ordained
clergy. Many of their biographies are included in a book called
"Darwin's Forgotten Defenders" by David L. Livingstone.

I know this because they also believe in life from nothing.

You can't know this because no scientist would hold to such a ridiculous statement.

God was not trying to decieve us, He merely used His powers to create a universe we could immediately make use of. If He can destory it in under a minute, surely He can create it in 6 days.

No one is disputing the power of God. This is a red herring.

Therefore, YEC points to a rational God, who is truely all-powerful, while TE points to a illogical systematic God, who limits His powers.

What do you mean "limits his powers"? What makes God's work in and through nature any less powerful than his work in setting aside nature when necessary?

After all, theistic evolution does not deny that miracles can occur and have occurred. But it also sees it as more rational to use the powers of nature for the purpose they were created rather than indulge in miracles that are not necessary since the created order was made to produce the same results.

A God who creates a universe which can unfold in a dynamic way and produce and sustain life through myriads of environmental changes and eventually produce a species which can fellowship with its Creator is a wise and powerful God. To me, a God who cannot manage and direct the very forces of nature he created is the incompetent God who has to resort to miracles to get done what the powers of nature were intended to do.

 

[gluadys]

If you have not noticed, the Creationary Theory first builds on the premise that God, the God of the Bible, is the Creator.

And that statement is not and cannot be part of a scientific theory. It is something we hold to by faith, whereas a theory is built on evidence. The statement of faith in creation can be used as an interpretive tool to help understand the theory---and it can be used as well with evolution as with creationism. But it cannot be part of the theory itself.

It also brings science and faith together, what TEs believe should be separated in public forums.

It depends on the nature of the public forum. As a TE I have no
objection whatsoever to bringing science and Christian faith together on
a TV program, in an university symposium, in a children's book on the
shelves of the public library, etc.

The only type of public forum in which one cannot be explicit about
Christian faith in respect of science is a forum in which it would be
seen as a government endorsement of Christian belief.

And even that is not necessarily a choice of TEs as TEs. It is quite
simply the law of the land.

Go to AIG and ICR and tell me if you cannot learn of the Christian God. Do you need me to pull from their site to show you that they do speak of the Christian God?

What do they say about God that qualifies as science (i.e. is testable and potentially falsifiable).

It is the TEs who want the teaching of God creating in six days removed and the Evolutionary Theory to take its place.

You have to separate the key ideas here. Teaching that God created is not a problem (except when done in the name of the government). It is the six days that is a problem. It is simply not true that creation happened in only six ordinary days, and it is not right to teach falsehood as fact. Evolution (which btw does not really refer to creation, but to the diversification of life into many species) is a fact, an observed fact, whose workings are explained in a well-substantiated theory.

Tell me, why do you support a theory that refuses to acknowledge God as the Creator and vehemently opposing any other theory that does acknowledge God?

It is not the task of a theory to acknowledge God. It is the task of people to acknowledge God as creator and they can and do so no matter whether they are evolutionists or creationists.

No theoy, as theory, can acknowledge God, not even creationism, because theory as such is based on testable, and potentially falsifiable hypotheses. Do you think God is potentially falsifiable? What would falsify God?

Are you not to acknowledge God in everything you do as the Bible tells us all to do?

Now you put the duty where it truly rests: on the human who is promoting a theory, not on the theory itself. It is no problem to acknowledge God while working on the study of evolution or explaining it to others.

 

[Jig]

LOL!


You guys are funny. I knew my post would get picked apart and many TE's would try to twist my words around.

It's okay though. Yes, I do think TE's are weak in mind (not is spirit, their heart is right), because it is easy to be a TE. All the media and schools protray this idea as true. If you ask me or any other YEC, we would say this is some kind of big athesitic cover to mask the existence of God. How, you may ask? It points to an earth that "could" have all its life forms evolve from single cell organisms. It allows enough time, to make God opsolete. You are correct, whatis a few billion years to an infinite God, but the question of why He would wait is still up in the air. An all powerful God would not create something that was not complete. He would have made everything ready for immediate use. How do I know that? I already said. ALL THIS (the universe) is for us. Not trees. Not animals. Not planets or stars.....just us. There is no need for an All-powerful God to wait on evolution to take place.

 

[gluadys]

LOL!
An all powerful God would not create something that was not complete.

Why not?

Just because one can do something doesn't mean one will do it.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

An all powerful God would not create something that was not complete. He would have made everything ready for immediate use. How do I know that? I already said. ALL THIS (the universe) is for us. Not trees. Not animals. Not planets or stars.....just us. There is no need for an All-powerful God to wait on evolution to take place.

I think Genesis 2:7 reveals something about God's approach to creation. He could create man by a simple act of will, but He takes the time to form Adam from the dust. God is like an artist who takes pleasure in the process of creation in addition to the end product.

 

[stumpjumper]

An all powerful God would not create something that was not complete. He would have made everything ready for immediate use. How do I know that? I already said. ALL THIS (the universe) is for us. Not trees. Not animals. Not planets or stars.....just us. There is no need for an All-powerful God to wait on evolution to take place.

Is the universe for us or is the universe provided to produce us so that we can love God and love each other?

If you really think that God produced the entire universe for us then I think you need to rethink your theology

Our current physical existence is for a reason and serves a purpose but the universe does not exist for us. How egotistical can you get? The universe exists at the will of God and we should accept that we exist because we were chosen to exist by God. The universe does not exist for us but because of God's will.

 

[shernren]

You guys are funny. I knew my post would get picked apart and many TE's would try to twist my words around.

What twisting? Is it possible for a person to respect people he calls "weak-minded"?

It's okay though. Yes, I do think TE's are weak in mind (not is spirit, their heart is right), because it is easy to be a TE. All the media and schools protray this idea as true. If you ask me or any other YEC, we would say this is some kind of big athesitic cover to mask the existence of God. How, you may ask? It points to an earth that "could" have all its life forms evolve from single cell organisms. It allows enough time, to make God opsolete. You are correct, whatis a few billion years to an infinite God, but the question of why He would wait is still up in the air. An all powerful God would not create something that was not complete. He would have made everything ready for immediate use. How do I know that? I already said. ALL THIS (the universe) is for us. Not trees. Not animals. Not planets or stars.....just us. There is no need for an All-powerful God to wait on evolution to take place.

Firstly, there is a difference between agreeing with established opinion and being weak-minded. By a similar argument, for example: since it is easier to be a Christian than a Muslim (in the context of today's geo-sociopolitical atmosphere), therefore Christians are more weak-minded than Muslims. Since it is easy for Christians to defend and cover the supposed errors in the Bible, but hard for Mormons to defend and cover the very apparent weaknesses in Joseph Smith's account of his discovery of the "Book of Mormon", therefore Christians must be more weak-minded than Mormons for believing what is easier to defend.

Throughout the ages Christianity has been known for its logical apologetics - appeal to reason to defend a reasonable faith. Paul's only (as I recall) recorded evangelistic sermon to Gentiles, in Athens, was a powerful piece of logic that converted some though not all. So why is logic sound in defending the Christian faith but faulty in pointing to TEism? Are we really weak-minded for believing something that makes sense to us?

Secondly: all science makes God obsolete, not just evolution. As I like to point out, meteorology says that weather is not caused by God's whims and fancies but by the orderly (well, almost always) and predictable interactions of atmospheric systems. It renders God obsolete. An atheist can look at a thunderstorm and now believe, with the help of his meteorology, that it didn't require a God to summon up the awesome power released in it. Does that mean that Christians should not read weather reports?

Thirdly, it is simply not easy to be a TE, even if it makes sense. Have you ever put yourself in our shoes? On the one hand YECs mock us as being weak-minded for being Christians who believe in evolution. On the other hand I'm sure Richard Dawkins, say, would mock us for being Christians at all. We try to reconcile real science and real faith in a popular atmosphere that discourages both (religion as seen in The Exorcism of Emily Rose is about casting out demons from disturbed girls, and science as seen in A Sound of Thunder is about exploiting nature in completely wasteful and illogical ways). And for me adjusting from YECism to TEism was a complete paradigm shift which was, in fact, difficult. Aligning with conventional science was completely uncomfortable for me until I was absolutely sure I was not misaligning away from the Bible. It is not easy to be a TE who has really thought through its implications.

 

[The Lady Kate]

Interesting statement here you made. Do you believe YECs worship a different God than the TEs?

Not at all... except for YECs who worship the Bible as God...

I simply think the YEC concept of God is different from the TEs.

 

[The Lady Kate]

LOL!


You guys are funny. I knew my post would get picked apart and many TE's would try to twist my words around.

So we're in on the conspiracy now too, right?

It's okay though. Yes, I do think TE's are weak in mind (not is spirit, their heart is right), because it is easy to be a TE.

So you find us weak...and not strong like, say... yourself?

All the media and schools protray this idea as true. If you ask me or any other YEC, we would say this is some kind of big athesitic cover to mask the existence of God. How, you may ask?

Actually, I wouldn't ask...Tinfoil-Hat theology is pretty self-explanatory. "we're right, and there's a massive conspiracy to prove us wrong."

It points to an earth that "could" have all its life forms evolve from single cell organisms. It allows enough time, to make God opsolete. You are correct, whatis a few billion years to an infinite God, but the question of why He would wait is still up in the air.

And the answer is: For whatever reason He wants. What's His hurry?

An all powerful God would not create something that was not complete. He would have made everything ready for immediate use. How do I know that?

Because God only does things the way YOU want Him to.

I already said. ALL THIS (the universe) is for us. Not trees. Not animals. Not planets or stars.....just us. There is no need for an All-powerful God to wait on evolution to take place.

There's no NEED for God to do a lot of the things He has done...yet He has done them anyway.

 

[Jig]

So we're in on the conspiracy now too, right?

Okay, as a TE yourself, do you consider YECism an attempt to undermine your already established beliefs of an old Earth? Do you think YECism is a consiracy then? I think of TEism the same way you view YECism. Please stop with this non-sense.

So you find us weak...and not strong like, say... yourself?

Ah...would you call yourself weak? Of course not. I think of myself as strong minded, just as you do. I understand you have a problem with my opinions, but that doesn't change them. Yes, I believe those who believe in an old Earth are being decieved. I also believe they are conforming to this world and using their own understanding of the world to construct something un-biblical and atheistic in nature.

Actually, I wouldn't ask...Tinfoil-Hat theology is pretty self-explanatory. "we're right, and there's a massive conspiracy to prove us wrong."

IS this not what you believe also? You think YEC is wrong and that it is a big conspiracy to destory what you call truth. Me and you have the same view point, funny.

And the answer is: For whatever reason He wants. What's His hurry?

God is never in a hurry. Creating something in 6 days is not fast for God. It is actually very slow. He did take his time.

Because God only does things the way YOU want Him to.

This is not just MY belief and you know this.

There's no NEED for God to do a lot of the things He has done...yet He has done them anyway.

This comment can be held true for both of our sides. There was no need for God to create at all, He could have been content just by Himself. I just believe that when He does something He doesn't lag. It just happens. Complete and ready for use.

 

[MC80a]

Hi shernren,



Your thread confused me a little. All the "creationary" theories are not the same. They do not state the same or even similar things - even Islam and Christianity are radically different. I'll assume that I am telling someone about Christian creationary theory in this reply (a 6000 year old universe created in six literal days as recorded in Genesis).

To be honest, I don’t know much about Islam and what it proposes about our origins. I have a layman’s kind of knowledge.


The Christian view of creation definitely points to the Christian God. I guess, before we begin, the very nature of the creationary model (i.e. a universe about 6,000 years old created in six literal days) points only to the Christian God – Yahweh – as the Bible is the only holy book to speculate on how old the Earth is! The Islamic holy book makes no mention of the creation of the universe in terms of time or when. A Muslim that argues for a young Earth is quite stupid. I think it’s just that they argue against evolution without debating the age questions – interestingly enough they steal work done by Christian creationary scientists and just remove the Bible references!!!

Secondly, God made the entire universe for mankind and created mankind to live on Earth – not in heaven as Islam proposes. This original creation was perfect without death or negative decaying effects (e.g. old age) and mankind had perfect fellowship with God (once again, different than Islam as according to it, death has always been on Earth). It was the wanting of mankind to become independent of God that brought an enemy into the world through their sin – death. The Bible is the only holy book to describe death as an enemy or an intruder into this creation. God cursed this creation and decay started to set in as God lessened His sustaining power (Isaiah in Isaiah 51:6 talks about this second law of thermodynamics). No curse placed on Earth in Islam religion.


Also, the Bible is the only book that outlines what was created and when it happened (if the information that I've gotten from Muslims is true)! It is once again the only holy book that describes that mankind was created in the image of God (I believe, but would appreciate correction if I’m wrong). The Genesis account with God walking and the Spirit of God hovering over the deep and many other references implies the Trinity (one God yet three distinct persons). No other religion could use this very obvious and important point.



I don’t know this for sure, so please correct me if I’m wrong, but the Islamic book doesn’t talk about how the woman was formed [out of Adam’s side] and the basis for marriage like the Bible does (Genesis 2:23-24). Not quite sure on this. I just get what little information I have from Muslims who occasionally bring it up. The Genesis account also describes our role here on this planet as caretakers of God’s creation and to reproduce and fill the Earth – not as a punishment as Muslims believe because they sinned and got kicked out of heaven to Earth – don’t ask me how this is possible (contrast this with what the Bible says about the entire creation, i.e. it was “very good”).



Genesis 3:15 is a direct reference, IMHO, to our LORD Jesus Christ when He defeated Satan on the cross. It’s interesting that the word “their” in that verse has the footnote “his”. I’d have to look up some commentaries on this verse before I dive straight in.



As you can see, the creationary theory as we propose it does not point to any other religion, but the Christian faith.



You also mentioned Jesus being some book or something (symbolical I guess), but going along with this analogy, you generally can’t understand what a book is about if you start half way through it or even at the end! You can’t really understand the issues and why things unfold the way that they do. You don't have the big picture. To understand this, you need to start reading at the beginning – this is Genesis to Christians. It gives you the background information as to why Jesus’ sacrifice was made necessary, what sin is, what the penalty of sin is, why we are all sinners, why we have the law, and so on. I agree that the message of the cross is the main issue, but you need to read the start of this book to understand the middle to end of it. J

Turning the tables, could you please tell me how you can come to a God of love from evolution?

 

[stumpjumper]

Your thread confused me a little. All the "creationary" theories are not the same. They do not state the same or even similar things - even Islam and Christianity are radically different. I'll assume that I am telling someone about Christian creationary theory in this reply (a 6000 year old universe created in six literal days as recorded in Genesis).

Islam and Christianity are not radically different.

http://etext.virginia.edu/toc/modeng/public/HolKora.html I have a copy of the Koran but you can go to Sura 2 and from the beginning of it you will read a slightly different version of the creation account of Genesis. Mohammed had a rough knopwledge of Jewish scriptures and based his writings off of them.

Of course, there is absolutely no external corroborating evidence from our natural investigation of the world that either them are literally accurate.

The Christian view of creation definitely points to the Christian God.

Of course it does. It comes from the Christian Bible but again there is not evidence separate from the Bible that the creation account in Genesis is historical and that is Shernren's point.

Genesis 3:15 is a direct reference, IMHO, to our LORD Jesus Christ when He defeated Satan on the cross. It’s interesting that the word “their” in that verse has the footnote “his”.

You are correct that many Christians do believe that Gen 3:15 is an *allegorical* reference to Jesus and the Cross.

As you can see, the creationary theory as we propose it does not point to any other religion, but the Christian faith.

Only in the same manner that reading the Sumerian creation accounts lead you to their religion. There is a big difference in saying that the historicity of the NT points to Jesus and that the creation account in Genesis leads one to Christianity. One has corroborationg historical evidence (The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History is a good book about the historicity of Christinaity) while the creation account is presumed to be true while there is not evidence that it is literal or even written to be taken literally.

But now lets start with the message of the Cross and work from there and what to do you get?

In the words of John Haught: “The God of self-giving compassion is in fact the only God that normative Christian faith can legitimately claim ever to have encountered. And, yet this founding intuition about the nature of ultimate reality all too seldom enters into our thoughts about whether and how the evolution of life can be reconciled with religious faith and hope.”

God has shown that he loves the world. God loves his creation enough to suffer as a crucified man and that love also respects the freedom and spontaneity of His creation. Through the Cross we see that God has respected creation as an “other” with which God can express and share love. There have been and still are many design arguments as a “proof” for God’s existence. But these design arguments miss the point of the Christian God as seen in our history and His relation to the world. Design arguments focus too much on God as an Alpha or the prime mover of creation. But that is not the God that Christians can claim that was revealed to them. The God that was revealed is a God who is defined as a humble God of self-giving love.

If you look at Creation through the Cross then you will see a much different perspective of God and his action in the world. It is a perspective that should make you realize that a method of creation that has allowed mankind to have the authenticity of becoming something other than God is much more in line with Christian revelation than any other method.

We have free will for our moral choices. Why should our method of biological emergence be any different?