YECs, TEs, AEs and stuff

[Dust and Ashes]

I'm still trying to figure out why you're a TE. Sounds like something you really haven't thought through.

To be honest, it's not something I do give a lot of thought to. The only time it becomes an issue is when I resist my better judgement and come into these forums. I inevitably feel compelled to clarify a point someone made and suddenly I've slipped and fallen into the middle of a TE/YEC squabble.

What I believe about origins when I think about it is probably very different from what most TEs believe and if pressed I would probably turn out as more of an OEC than TE. Basically, the whole thing boils down to "believe this in spite of that" so I just don't give it a lot of thought. I do believe in a literal Adam, though I don't speculate whether God took an advanced hominid and breathed a soul into it or whether He took a dirt statue and breathed a soul into it.

Now whether He did it in 6 literal 24 hour days or whether the earth obeyed Him and "brought forth" life over millions or billions of years is of no consequence to me. Adam fell, Christ rose. That's what matters to me.

I guess it's time for me to take my leave of these forums again since I can't seem to post here without getting caught up in a debate. The lack of charity is really starting to wear on me so I'll go back to my congregational forum and leave you guys do duke it out.

 

[Critias]

Critias

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of ANY theistic evolutionists position. In fact I could easily turn it around on you and say that you deny God's rightful fruit in gravity, relativity, or human reproduction. I support God's glory in everything I witness in our world.

Show me how someone who supports creation through evolution and long ages of the earth is any less Christian and shows God's fruits any less than a YEC!

It is certainly your implication that TE's would like to dismiss God's action in the world while reality shows different.

Do you support that ToE should include God, whether in the classroom or in science? Not the study of God, but giving God the credit for creating evolution?

Many don't here. They don't want God in science or any public venue discussing science.

It is not your support of evolution that I am talking about. I am talking about people here who admit that they don't want God included in science where He gets the credit.

 

[vossler]

This issue isn't about God's ability but God's revelation. Creating a universe through evolution would be just a difficult as creating it in 6 days. The problem is the Bible says it was in six days, and few thousand years ago. Why not believe it? If we pick and choose which sections to believe we give license to those who want to do the same. Many so-called christians believe the resurrection to be a meaningful myth. How is your method of interpretation any better than theirs? How would you go about telling them their interpretation is wrong?

The creation account is the logical foundation of the gospel. Without the fall, redemption doesn't make sense. How do you explain to someone their need for redemption if you believe the story of the fall is a myth?

Yes! That's it exactly!

You've hit the nail on the proverbial head. Thanks!

 

[Dust and Ashes]

Well, this thread had gotten thoroughly derailed. I had to go reread the OP to see just how far off track it was and I'm the one who started the thread. I guess it's been answered as well as can be expected under the circumstances so I ask that it be closed.

The constant back and forth is going to perpetuate regardless but I'd like the comfort of knowing that it won't be in a thread I created. Would a mod please close this thread? Thank you.

 

[Calminian]

I guess it's time for me to take my leave of these forums again since I can't seem to post here without getting caught up in a debate. The lack of charity is really starting to wear on me so I'll go back to my congregational forum and leave you guys do duke it out.

I'll let you off the hook then. I must say though the charges you've just made are rather, well, uncharitable, not to mention unfair. You've been politely challenged about your views in a debate forum. I’ve been quite charitable as far as I know. You asked why atheists were making charges about God not being a necessity in evolution. I suggested that christians who accept their naturalistic assumptions and are willing to force the Bible to bend and be compatible are contributing to their case. This was a sincere answer and not meant as an attack, but rather as a challenge.

 

[Calminian]

Yes! That's it exactly!

You've hit the nail on the proverbial head. Thanks!

Thanks voss! I mean I always think I make sense, but it's nice to hear when someone else thinks so. They always seem to be fellow baptists though.

 

[shernren]

Basically, you want science that excludes any talk of God. Even when speaking that God used evolution. TEs support the atheistic view of evolution more than they realize for they want God out of science period. No mention of Him using evolution or anything else that He is the Creator within science. That is why the phrase 'theistic evolution' makes no sense, you want God out of science, but yet will say informally that God used evolution....yet don't want God to be talked about within science or the classroom when talking about science.

If I come down with cancer, do I go to my pastor without going to the doctor?
If my car breaks down, do I go to my pastor without going to the mechanic?
If somebody sues me, do I go to my pastor without going to a lawyer?

To be frank, I don't think the scientific creationist movement deserves any credibility until they can come up with proper alternative physical models to describe the universe. (White hole doesn't count. Discredited. ICR themselves acknowledge it.)

[Note that I say the scientific creationist movement. This is a very vocal subset of YECism but probably not the whole of it. I have only a few qualms with a YEC honest enough to admit that God didn't leave a lot of evidence for a young earth/universe.]

In fact, scientific creationism supports the atheistic view of evolution candidly and openly. AiG doesn't just oppose evolution because it "goes against the record of the Bible" (are they reading the same Bible as me? Since my Bible works fine with evolution), they oppose it because it supposedly embodies atheistic philosophy. You can see this in objections like evolution teaches death before the Fall, evolution is cruel, evolution is racist, and Critias' favourite evolution doesn't give credit to God. (As if gravity does.) AiG shows off the gaps in evolution. "Can you explain this?" they proudly say, and then conclude: "You can't! Therefore God did it!"

This is effectively not theist, it is deist. The "doctrine" of God's supernatural, occasional intervention can only rest on a foundational idea of God's natural, normal apathy. When AiG emphasise how only God could have done something science can't explain, they effectively forget how God did do everything science can explain. Their idea of a universe is one in which God did such a lousy job creating that He keeps having to re-tweak it, miraculously causing insanely excessive decay, conjuring water from nowhere and shunting it back nowhere, making light speed up and slow down and arm-wrestling the structure of space-time. Heh. Even for a TE like me it is hard to remember how God is in every action - every leaf falling, every thunderstorm, every hurricane - working all things for His ultimate purpose. How much worse it must be for people who insist that when science takes credit for something God can't.

To loop back to the analogy I started with. Atheistic evolution presents science without God. Theistic evolution presents science with God. But what scientific creationism has had to offer so far is God without science. (And scientific creationism falls outside the great Christian science tradition. Christian science recognizes that quantifiable laws link cause to effect, and God is the source of those laws. Scientific creationism instead says that there is no cause-effect link ascertainable when studying the past and that God is the source of this non-causativeness.) And for me to accept the teaching of God-without-science in a science class, is like me having God-without-medicine for my cancer, God-without-mechanic for my broken-down car or God-without-law for my lawsuit. God works as well through our frail human implements and tools as despite or against them.

(In fact, without scientific creationism it's doubtful whether the idea of God-without-science or God-against-science could ever be imagined. though I'd need historical research to back that up.)

And hi Cal! Haven't seen you around for a while! 'sup?

 

[artybloke]

The defense of scripture is a pretty nobel agenda.

Is there a Nobel Prize in scripture defence? Sorry, I found this mispelling rather amusing.

 

[artybloke]

In fact most evolutionists go out of their way to explain that evolution is compatible with theism. They just want us to reject the Bible or at least a literal reading of it.

Why would scientists give a moment's thought to how a minority of Christians who read the Bible as if it was written in English yesterday using Modernist assumptions (ie fundamentalists) interpret the Bible?

 

[artybloke]

It would be nice to see an Ancieant Hebrew linguistical study to prove your assertion that Genesis 1-2 is a myth that God didn't work within history to create a real world.

You need to do a heck of a lot more than linguistical study. You need to have a thorough understanding of the literary, social and religious milieux that the whole Penteteuch and its various authors was created in. Neither the Bible nor the ancient Hebrews lived in a bubble, and none of the "historical" books were written anywhere near the time that the events they are supposed to relate actually happened. There are some people who think that the whole story of Isreal's history up to the exile is at heart, mythical and legendary not historical. You need a thorough grounding in how "history" was written in the ancient near East to even begin to make a claim that any of it is history as we know it from the enlightenment period in Europe to now.

The biggest obstacle to calling the Bible history as we know is that ancient peoples did not have the technology, or the techniques, to preserve documents and chronicles and that all ancient history is history by the winners, and often highly coloured by the triumphalism and propaganda of empire-builders and priests. The Bible is totally silent on several important historical events that shaped the area of Palestine, including the famines and several major battles.

That, and the culture of legends, myths and stories that was near-universal if not universal in ancient cultures, means that anyone who wants the Bible to talk about science or even history in any modern sense of the term has an uphill battle on their hands. Why would the Bible be unique in being the only ancient literature that doesn't include myth and legend among its pages? Other ancient cultures have "histories" of a sort; but they also have legends, epics, myths, and a great deal of poetry. In fact, the earliest known poetry includes hymns of praise to the goddess Ishtar in Ur in 2500 BC. Why would the Bible anticipate an understanding of the world (the modernist, scientific understanding of history, for instance) by 3000 years? Well, maybe it's a miracle; but it seems a very strange and fruitless miracle to me.

 

[Dust and Ashes]

I'll let you off the hook then. I must say though the charges you've just made are rather, well, uncharitable, not to mention unfair. You've been politely challenged about your views in a debate forum. I’ve been quite charitable as far as I know. You asked why atheists were making charges about God not being a necessity in evolution. I suggested that christians who accept their naturalistic assumptions and are willing to force the Bible to bend and be compatible are contributing to their case. This was a sincere answer and not meant as an attack, but rather as a challenge.

This is a debate forum. I've spent so much time avoiding the theology debate forums because of all the heresy and hatred there that I never thought about the fact that this forum is here just for this reason. Please forgive me for jumping on people for doing what people do in debate forums.

I will stand by what I said about this not being a priority issue for me, however. When it comes to this issue, I like to discuss but not debate because it doesn't interest me enough to pick apart every point and read pages of data to refute posts, etc, etc.

 

[stumpjumper]

Do you support that ToE should include God, whether in the classroom or in science? Not the study of God, but giving God the credit for creating evolution?

Many don't here. They don't want God in science or any public venue discussing science.

It is not your support of evolution that I am talking about. I am talking about people here who admit that they don't want God included in science where He gets the credit.

I'm realistic when it comes to public policy. Atheists are suing to get God taken out of the Pledge of Allegiance. Good luck getting God into the science curriculum because it is not going to happen. Science describes our natural understanding of ourselves and the world. Although I believe that God used natural methods to create humanity, we have a seperation of Church and State in our country and you're just not going to have theistic evolution, Biblical creation, or the Navajo creation method taught in science classes.

 

[notto]

Whether in the middle/high school level, TEs support the removal of God denying Him His credit, His Glory for what He has done. So that man instead can be elevated.

Nope. Mainstream science can't comment on God because it is beyond the scope of the study. It doesn't elevate man. It works within a framework that by definition can't do the things you are claiming it should. If we did what you request, it wouldn't be science. Giving God the credit in a science class wouldn't help answer any more questions or provide any useful information to the topic.

Do you think that God should be included when we discuss gravity? How about relativity? Chemical reactions? Why is it always biology where creationists want God discussed. Why not the other sciences as well?

In other settings that are not dictated by a formal method (like Sunday school class) I've already mentioned that we discuss God and creation. I'm sure I'm not alone. Your comments ignore this. You are misrepresenting what TE's believe (and why they accept mainstream science the way it is) even after being told that your view is wrong. I'm guessing you will continue to do so. You are not listening.

Science by definition can only provide natural causes for observed phenomena. That is all science can do.

 

[immortalavefenix]

Why is it always biology where creationists want God discussed

Because, no surprise, they have been soundedly beaten in the other sciences.

 

[Calminian]

I've spent so much time avoiding the theology debate forums because of all the heresy and hatred there...

More uncharitable remarks.

When it comes to this issue, I like to discuss but not debate...

Yet you continue to debate your case. The irony's getting thick.

 

[Critias]

I'm realistic when it comes to public policy. Atheists are suing to get God taken out of the Pledge of Allegiance. Good luck getting God into the science curriculum because it is not going to happen. Science describes our natural understanding of ourselves and the world. Although I believe that God used natural methods to create humanity, we have a seperation of Church and State in our country and you're just not going to have theistic evolution, Biblical creation, or the Navajo creation method taught in science classes.

I am not looking for God to be taught in classrooms. I am asking, are you supporting being ashamed of God that you will not mention Him as the Creator in venues such as classrooms and science? That you support them being silent about Him being Creator and instead shift the focus and glory to men?

 

[Critias]

Nope. Mainstream science can't comment on God because it is beyond the scope of the study. It doesn't elevate man. It works within a framework that by definition can't do the things you are claiming it should. If we did what you request, it wouldn't be science. Giving God the credit in a science class wouldn't help answer any more questions or provide any useful information to the topic.

Do you think that God should be included when we discuss gravity? How about relativity? Chemical reactions? Why is it always biology where creationists want God discussed. Why not the other sciences as well?

In other settings that are not dictated by a formal method (like Sunday school class) I've already mentioned that we discuss God and creation. I'm sure I'm not alone. Your comments ignore this. You are misrepresenting what TE's believe (and why they accept mainstream science the way it is) even after being told that your view is wrong. I'm guessing you will continue to do so. You are not listening.

Science by definition can only provide natural causes for observed phenomena. That is all science can do.

Then, do you support that we ought to act ashamed of God when we are in school therefore being quiet and not speaking of Him there?

I am glad that you feel you need to share God in Sunday School.

If all science can do is provide natural causes for observed phenomena, then common descent isn't science because it has not been observed but rather asserted.

And why can't science give credit to God? It gives credit to man. Are they that ashamed of God that they must be silent about Him in certain places?

It is sad that we have Christians who feel they need to be quiet about God in public and only have a private relationship with God. Only expressing their beliefs in Him in appropriate places: Sunday School, Christian forums, etc. It is sad that Christians feel science shouldn't give God glory, shouldn't give God credit and instead focus on man and give man the credit and the glory.

Science has no problem saying look at what man has achieved, look at what man has done. TEs here support this, yet they do not support God being included since it is He who created all this and it is for His Glory, not mans.

 

[Critias]

Because, no surprise, they have been soundedly beaten in the other sciences.

Wrong. I am not ashamed of Jesus Christ or of God the Father that I will only speak about Him in certain places or venues. I am not ashamed of the Gospel that has told me about Jesus Christ. I am not ashamed to tell everyone about Jesus Christ, whether in science, the classroom or elsewhere.

I do not agree with peoples belief that Jesus should only be wispered not shouted everywhere. That is the problem with Western Christianity, we think God doesn't belong in certain places.

You really think man can decide where God does or doesn't belong?

 

[artybloke]

Then, do you support that we ought to act ashamed of God when we are in school therefore being quiet and not speaking of Him there?

When science class starts answering the question, how does gravity work with the answer, God did it, it might be time to leave the country frankly.

If all science can do is provide natural causes for observed phenomena, then common descent isn't science because it has not been observed but rather asserted.

And that, frankly, is a lie.

 

[stumpjumper]

I am not looking for God to be taught in classrooms. I am asking, are you supporting being ashamed of God that you will not mention Him as the Creator in venues such as classrooms and science? That you support them being silent about Him being Creator and instead shift the focus and glory to men?

Why do I sense an unwarranted persecution complex? "Science tells us how the heavens go not how to go to heaven." Are you a dominionist?

In my kids' public school they celebrate all religions in the elementary classrooms. During Yom Kippur they will talk about Judaism, in December they talk about Christmas and Chanukah, at some point they talk about Islam, etc. Its a public school and I have no problem with my kids being exposed to various religions. In science though the topic is explaining what we witness in the natural world not the ontological origin of the natural world. That part is theology. Nobody shifts the glory to men when talking about science unless they teach that man is responsible for gravity and all other aspects of our natural world. If that is part of your local science curriculum I would suggest moving to another district.