Why Young Earth Creationism is dangerous to Christianity

[dctalkexp]

The Bible leaves no room for Evolution or TE or any compromise.

That's exactly right. If you can't trust God's Word, and prefer the fallacious thoughts of anti-Bible scientists, then you weren't really ever a true, Bible-believing Christian; because you have basically called God a liar, and sinful men more right than God. The Bible informs us though, that God is true, and every man who goes against His word is a liar.

"Let God be true, and every man a liar" - Romans 3:1

You can mock, insult and ridicule Christians who trust God's Word as it is written all you like, but really you are mocking God, not us.

Take it easy,
God bless.

 

[Deamiter]

So... what if I believe the supported words of pro-Bible scientists when they say that evolution happened? What if I also trust God's word implicitly?

Nobody takes the Bible 100% literally! It's only recently that people have been complaining about science, and as far as I can tell, they don't even have a problem with science, but with secular humanism and are unable to tell the two apart.

Ignoring the world around you will neither make it go away, nor will it help fight against people who work every day to advance the knowledge of humanity. If all the Christians in the world stopped looking at physical evidence and started trusting only what they were taught by their pastors (who might otherwise be very nice, Godly men and women) you can be sure that truth about this earth and its history will soon lie in the hands of the secular humanists and not those who proclaim the truth of Jesus' resurrection!

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

Furthermore, anyone who is interested in what science itself actually says, and does not approach science with the presupposition that God does not exist; or who does not purport to somehow disprove God through science; anyone who looks at the mountains of evidence supporting YEC without dismissing them as simply Christian myths and religious superstitions; would also accept YEC on a purely scientific level, let alone a Biblical one.

Young earth creationism is not rejected because of atheism.

You are using the standard creationist tactic of polarizing the issue into atheism vs. theism when the issue is young earth creationism vs. science.

Christian creationists were the ones who originally disproved young earth creationism in the first place. Clearly young earth creationism is vacuous on the scientific level, and we've known this for nearly two centuries now.

YEC is no threat to Christianity.

YEC is a threat to Christianity, particularly in the way you presented it.

YEC, especially as you defined YEC as "true" Christianity, makes Christianity look absurd, plain and simple.

 

[dctalkexp]

So... what if I believe the supported words of pro-Bible scientists when they say that evolution happened? What if I also trust God's word implicitly?

To say that Genesis is mythology, to me, is anti-Bible. It is taking the obvious meaning of Scripture, which is that Adam literally sinned, and that Jesus literally redeemed that sin. If we are afraid that anti-literal Genesis scientists (is that better?) are going to prove something that's not in God's word, then are we really, fullt trusting Him? I don't find that they have done this, but many are afraid of this because of the academic prowess they are said to have.

Nobody takes the Bible 100% literally!

True, but where it's clear that it's literal, it should be taken that way. God's word isn't a malleable book to be shaped by the modern dogmas of our day. It is absolute, and unchanging.

It's only recently that people have been complaining about science, and as far as I can tell, they don't even have a problem with science, but with secular humanism and are unable to tell the two apart.

Science is a good thing. No way would I ever fight against science. If I were, I wouldn't be using this computer, talking on the phone, or watching television. What I disagree with are dogmatic assumptions about our past based on interpretable, circumstantial evidence.

Ignoring the world around you will neither make it go away, nor will it help fight against people who work every day to advance the knowledge of humanity.

I'm not ignoring the world around me, I am quite conscious of it, as a matter of fact. I disagree with you that evolutionary dogma, as well as other Godless theories, are advancing our world into a state of of scientific knowledge. I think they are advancing our world into a state of massive scientific deceit.

If all the Christians in the world stopped looking at physical evidence and started trusting only what they were taught by their pastors (who might otherwise be very nice, Godly men and women) you can be sure that truth about this earth and its history will soon lie in the hands of the secular humanists and not those who proclaim the truth of Jesus' resurrection!

I am quite concerned with this statement. We know the origin of our universe because of God's Word. To put fallible, secular theories about our origin in the hands of secularists is a very dangerous thing indeed. As Christians, we should be concerned with putting God's Word as the supreme authority, rather than putting its authority in the hands of people who are trying to speculate about things which they calim happened millions and billions of years ago. God will never lie, and if you truly believe this, then there should be absolutely no fear in taking God at His Word in Genesis. He knows a billion times more than every human mind that has ever existed put together has known. Therefore, I decide to side with His Word, not sinful men and their dogmas contrary to God.

Thanks for the post,
God bless.

 

[HRE]

To say that Genesis is mythology, to me, is anti-Bible. It is taking the obvious meaning of Scripture, which is that Adam literally sinned, and that Jesus literally redeemed that sin.

As indicated by the poetic structure and direct comparisons to contemporary local tribes' mythology at the time the Hebrews are estimated to have come about and begun the oral tradition, right?

 

[DanielJamesSimon]

Young earth creationism is not rejected because of atheism.

You are using the standard creationist tactic of polarizing the issue into atheism vs. theism when the issue is young earth creationism vs. science.

Lots of theists believe in Evolution. Do not say "young earth creationism vs. science" - that would be just the same as me saying "Evolution vs. science".

Christian creationists were the ones who originally disproved young earth creationism in the first place. Clearly young earth creationism is vacuous on the scientific level, and we've known this for nearly two centuries now.

Right. Christian creationists "disproved" YEC?

1) Which Christian creationists did this?
2) How exactly did they "disprove" YEC?

YEC is a threat to Christianity, particularly in the way you presented it.

What way was that that is so threatening to Christianity?

YEC, especially as you defined YEC as "true" Christianity, makes Christianity look absurd, plain and simple.

I did not define YEC as "true" Christianity. Young Earth Creationism =\= Christianity. YEC is a logical result of Christianity, for most people. It is quite clear in Genesis that God created the world ex nihilo by divine fiat, and almost as clear that He did so a few thousand years ago only.

But on top of this, I never even said, or tried to say, that true Christians believe in YEC. I said this:

"If people are going to reject their faith in Christ because they won't believe what the Bible says (i.e. YEC), then they're obviously not true Christians to begin with."

I could have stated it this way: "If people are going to reject their faith in Christ for any reason at all, they're obviously not true Christians to begin with." All I was saying was that true Christians do not reject their faith for any reason. Otherwise they are not true Christians to begin with.

If a "Christian" rejects his faith because it's too hard, or because his girlfriend didn't like it, or because he decided he couldn't believe in someone being raised from the dead, or because he discovered Buddhism, or because he just decided he didn't want to be a Christian, then he was obviously not a true Christian to start with. In the same way, if a person rejects his faith in Christ as a result of his rejection of YEC, then he can't have been a true Christian to start with. (Notice, if you will, that I did not say that his rejection of YEC was his rejection of Christianity - I said that if he rejects Christianity because he rejects YEC [or, as I've said, for any other reason], then... etc.)

 

[caravelair]

Lots of theists believe in Evolution. Do not say "young earth creationism vs. science" - that would be just the same as me saying "Evolution vs. science".

the difference is that YEC opposes many scientific fields. evolution does not. YEC vs. science seems quite appropriate to me.

Right. Christian creationists "disproved" YEC?

1) Which Christian creationists did this?
2) How exactly did they "disprove" YEC?

i don't know all the details, but i know that early 19th century geologists were trying to determine which layers of sediment were layed down by the flood, and realized that a global flood was not consistent with the evidence. they also discovered geological formations that would have taken much longer than a few thousand years to form.

What way was that that is so threatening to Christianity?

because there are a lot of people out there who know that YEC is bunk, and is falsified by science. so if you convince one of these people that YEC and christianity are tied together, then you are convincing this person that christianity is also false. st. augustine said it better than i have...

"Often a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other parts of the world, about the motions and orbits of the stars and even their sizes and distances,... and this knowledge he holds with certainty from reason and experience. It is thus offensive and disgraceful for an unbeliever to hear a Christian talk nonsense about such things, claiming that what he is saying is based in Scripture. We should do all that we can to avoid such an embarrassing situation, lest the unbeliever see only ignorance in the Christian and laugh to scorn.

-- St. Augustine, "De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim"
(The Literal Meaning of Genesis)

 

[Vance]

dctalkexp,

You throw around words like "clear" and "obvious" pretty loosely. At least once you were wise enough to include a "to me", which is correct. What is obvious to you is definitely not so clear to others. When I read Genesis 1 and 2, I don't get a sense AT ALL that it was meant to be read as literal narrative history. Not in the least. It does NOT read like Acts, or Chronicles, or other books written to tell history. Instead, the "clear" and "obvious" meaning is that God is telling us about the important events of His creation in a figurative, typological, and poetic format. So, if I followed your format of reading it all literal unless it is clear that it should be read NOT literally, then I am still reading it non-literally.

And this was obvious and clear to me before I knew any of the scientific evidence or accepted that evolution or an old earth were most likely true.

So, your earlier statements have a LOT of problems, since they are judging a person's Christianity by relying on YOUR own interpretation of Scripture. Very dangerous.

I trust Scripture as much as you do.
I read it in the clear and obvious way, as I see it.
I arrive at this conclusion while seeking the Spirit's guidance in all I do.

To say that because I don't think Scripture says what YOU say it says means I am calling God a liar is a bit much, don't you think?

 

[LittleNipper]

dctalkexp,

You throw around words like "clear" and "obvious" pretty loosely. At least once you were wise enough to include a "to me", which is correct. What is obvious to you is definitely not so clear to others. When I read Genesis 1 and 2, I don't get a sense AT ALL that it was meant to be read as literal narrative history. Not in the least. It does NOT read like Acts, or Chronicles, or other books written to tell history. Instead, the "clear" and "obvious" meaning is that God is telling us about the important events of His creation in a figurative, typological, and poetic format. So, if I followed your format of reading it all literal unless it is clear that it should be read NOT literally, then I am still reading it non-literally.

And this was obvious and clear to me before I knew any of the scientific evidence or accepted that evolution or an old earth were most likely true.

So, your earlier statements have a LOT of problems, since they are judging a person's Christianity by relying on YOUR own interpretation of Scripture. Very dangerous.

I trust Scripture as much as you do.
I read it in the clear and obvious way, as I see it.
I arrive at this conclusion while seeking the Spirit's guidance in all I do.

To say that because I don't think Scripture says what YOU say it says means I am calling God a liar is a bit much, don't you think?

So just were does Genesis start to become LITERAL?

Matthew 8:10-12

When Jesus heard this, he was astonished and said to those following him, "I tell you THE TRUTH, I have not found anyone in Israel with such faith. I say to you that many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast WITH Abraham, Issac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. But the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."

Matthew 24:37-39

As it WAS in the days of Noah, so it WILL BE at the coming of the Son of Man. For in the days BEFORE the FLOOD, people WERE eating and drinking, marrying and given in marriage, UP TO THE DAY NOAH entered the ARK; and they KNEW NOTHING about what WOULD HAPPEN until the FLOOD CAME and took them ALL AWAY. That IS how it WILL BE at the coming of the Son of Man.

You either believe the Word or you do not. Christian's who shoot themselves in the foot for the sake of the theories of men (no matter how "scientific" they are perceived to be) are lame indeed...

 

[Valkhorn]

You either believe the Word or you do not. Christian's who shoot themselves in the foot for the sake of the theories of men (no matter how "scientific" they are perceived to be) are lame indeed...

What about people that shoot themselves in the foot over a man-made book?

 

[Vance]

Little Nipper, it is not a matter of where Genesis "starts" to become literal, we must take each text on its own. Generally, I believe the literal historical narrative begins with Abraham, but even then "literal historical narrative" is not the right way of looking at it. That, based on the llterary style alone (absent any scientific bases), is where we have concrete historical characters. Now, that does not mean that every detail of the stories are historically accurate, since that is not how stories about the past were written back then. It is all still TRUE, even if not historically accurate in every detail.

 

[Patiently waiting]

It's not just a "Man made book"

It was inspired by God.

 

[caravelair]

It's not just a "Man made book"

It was inspired by God.

says you!

 

[kahri]

says you!

And Jesus.

 

[Valkhorn]

It's not just a "Man made book"

It was inspired by God.

And our evidence?

Note: Saying that the bible says so is circular reasoning and is not evidence.

 

[Patiently waiting]

Note: Saying that the bible says so is circular reasoning and is not evidence.

Says you...

 

[Vance]

OK, OK, enough already! :0)

As Christians, we must realize that an appeal to Scripture itself will not work against someone who does not accept Scripture as authoritative. And the fact that it IS authoritative is a matter of faith.

The point is that I, as one who find it completely, and utterly authoritative, have no problem with evolution or an old earth whatsoever.

 

[LittleNipper]

What about people that shoot themselves in the foot over a man-made book?

Which text is that THE ORIGIN of SPECIES or THE DESCENT of MAN?

 

[kahri]

Which text is that THE ORIGIN of SPECIES or THE DESCENT of MAN?

Both, obviously.

 

[LittleNipper]

And our evidence?

Note: Saying that the bible says so is circular reasoning and is not evidence.

Jesus says so. Jesus is my Savior --- Do you want HIM as yours..?