Six Views on the Creation/Evolution Debate

re 499

There may be links, but is there anything that counters the defeaters to YEC theory that I have raised? While you’re at it, note the impossibility of a YEC type flood creating the phenomena of the Green River Formation

The Green River Formation: another nail in the YEC coffin

The Green River Formation is found in several ancient lake basins located in southwestern Wyoming, northwestern Colorado and extreme northeastern Utah: Lake Gosiute and the Green River Basin, the Washakie Basin, the Sand Wash Basin, ancient Fossil Lake in the Fossil Basin, and Lake Uinta in the Uinta and Piceance Basins . These lakes used to be connected.

The varves in these basins vary in thickness, with the thickest parts from 200-2600 feet. Underneath the layers of varves is a further 28,000 feet of sedimentary rock that was deposited before the varves. The varves themselves are sediments deposited in very fine layers, a dark layer during the growing season (dark because it contains pollen grains and other organic material) and a light-hue inorganic layer in winter. Each pair of layers is called a varve, has an average thickness of 0.018 millimetres, and represents one year of sediment deposition. There are about 6 million of these varves stacked up, representing about 6 million years.

Given the nature of the sediments, they can be traced to erosion in the Uinta highland and the Rocky Mountains to the east and north.

YEC flood geology cannot explain the following phenomena (but nonYEC geology can):

1. The alternating layers of sediment with pollen and organic and sediment without. The pollen grains are fossilized and can be studied. See plates 342, 343 and 344 at the following link: http://libraryphoto.cr.usgs.gov/cgi-bin/search.cgi?free_form=shale;search_mode=noPunct;start=325. It is not even rationally possible to believe that the global flood sorted millions of layers like that.

2. YEC flood geology posits a flood so catastrophic and destructive that magma was exposed and trees and vegetation ripped and stripped from the land and allegedly created jumbles of fossils in the sedimentary rocks, but the Green River fossils include rare soft parts of complete insects and fallen leaves in spectacular detail. A YEC flood could not have deposited the insects and leaves in a manner that preserved their fine detail.

3. Variation in the varve layers (variations in laminae thickness) consistent with known longterm (longer than the flood year) cycles: weather patterns, sunspot cycles, and Earth orbital cycles. These variations affect the weather patterns which affect rainfall and temperature. As the rainfall and temperature varies, sediment influx to the lake varies and thus the varve thicknesses vary. The varve layers exhibit periodic variations in thickness.

4. The agreement between astrochronological dates for the layering and the radiometric dates of the layers.

[cont.]

5. The deposition of the varves on top of many layers of sedimentary rock. What possible explanation is there for this? that the flood cleverly deposited thousands of feet of sedimentary rock, then changed tactics and deposited varve layers–not possible.

6. The fossilized footprints and nibbling marks of wading birds. No, wait, I forgot, the wading birds floated on the floodwaters (they don’t swim) until some varve layers had been deposited, then dived down a mile and walked around on the bottom of the flood ocean dipping their beaks in the mud, then left while the flood deposited more varve layers–not possible.

7. Indications of nesting sites (egg shells).

8. Geochemical evidence that the edges of Fossil Lake were less saline than the center. There would be no such gradations if the deposits were from a global flood.

9. Burrows of mud dwelling organisms. The mud has to be deposited, then the organism burrows into it, then further layers are deposited in subsequent years. A flood does not deposit a mud layer, then wait for organisms to bury into it, then deposit more layers, and then stop again until organisms bury into it.

10. Storm layer deposits interspersed with the annual layers, and found only nearer the edges of the lakes and not near the centers.

11. Even if we ignore the alternation of the layers (layer with pollen, layer without, layer with) it is not physically possible to deposit the entire 30,000 foot thick (varve layers and the non-varve layers below them) sedimentary deposit in the year of the flood. Deposition of that amount of sediment in a year requires a rate of 82 feet per day. At 82 feet per day the final 2,600 feet (the varve layers) would be deposited in 32 days. Given that there are over 6 million varves (and two layers per varve), we have over 23 million varves being deposited in 32 days—-a rate of over 4 per second! If you’re thinking impossible, you’re right. Further more Stokes Law (a mathematical equation that expresses the settling velocities of small spherical particles
in a fluid medium) determines how rapidly the sedimentary particles can fall through the water column and they can’t fall fast enough to make 4.7 layers per second. The size of the particles in the sediments is measured in microns (one millionth of a metre (a metre is just over a yard/ 3 feet). The 5 micron particles would only settle 1.9 meters (6 feet) in a day (24 hour day).

12. Occasional dry periods in the Fossil Basin are indicated by fossils of a plant called Ephedra. This plant had leaves with a thick, waxy cuticle to prevent desiccation during drought. If you’re thinking that lakes don’t have dry periods duing a flood, you’d be right.

13. The orderly arrangement of fossilized caddis fly cases.

Regards,
#John

The rainbow was/is a sign of that promise for us today, just as it was for the ANE people.

Does YEC hold that there were no rainbows prior to the drying up of the flood?

Some have argued that God’s use of the rainbow as the sign of His
covenant with Noah (Gen. 9:12–17) suggests that there were no rainbows, and therefore no clouds or rain, before the Flood. However, if rainbows (and clouds) existed before the Flood, this would not be the only time God used an existing thing as a special ‘new’ sign of a covenant (e.g., bread and wine in the Lord’s Supper).

(from the Creation Answers Book http://www.creation.com)

Eric, I’m no spokesperson for YEC, but I would certainly assume that God had not caused rainbows to appear until that time. Remember, God is all powerful. The creator has total control over His universe, He can command the wind and storms to come and go instantly (Jonah’s storm, Jesus’ command of the seas….).

Richard:

The straightforward language of Genesis 9 suggests to me that this is to be regarded as the first instance of a rainbow. God is now setting (natan, the same verb as in Genesis 1:17, ISTM) his bow in the cloud(s).

Richard and John CT, a YEC and an OEC, will be sitting next to each other at a banquet table in Heaven and praising God together.

And no longer squabbling and quarreling over whether it’s an old earth or a young earth.

EricW,

You could be right, on the other hand, the NIV uses a past tense for the setting of the rainbow.

Gen 9:12-13 NIV:

And God said, “This is the sign of the covenant I am making between me and you and every living creature with you, a covenant for all generations to come: I have set my rainbow in the clouds, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and the earth.

The rainbow is itself a completed event in the past, but “it will be the sign of the covenant” is a future tense. Thus from that point forward the rainbow would function as a sign of God’s covenant.

Richard:

Hebrew doesn’t have a “past tense,” from what I recall. Also, the LXX of this verse uses a present tense verb to translate the Hebrew natatti (from natan).

Also, I don’t think an English past participle (which is what I think “I have placed” is) is probably not best described as a “past tense.”

I meant to write (before distractions kept me from rewriting it before the clock ran out):

Richard:

Hebrew doesn’t have a “past tense” (as we understand/use the term), from what I recall, though that is how the qal perfect (natatti is the 1st-person singular qal perfect of natan, IIRC) is often translated. E.g., the LXX of this verse uses a present tense verb – tithêmi – to translate the Hebrew natatti (from natan).

Re: the NIV: I don’t think an English past participle (which is what “I have placed” is) is best described as a “past tense,” but I could be wrong about that. Does the NIV consistently translate qal perfects as past participles?”

Re post 500 and why I assert that YEC is not only wrong, but untenable

Even if Steve is only writing for others, and not me, the others would benefit from knowing if there is any response at all to my OE points on the Joggins Cliffs.

Remember that I believe that Genesis 1 & 2 provide no information about the age of the earth, and therefore I am free to believe whatever we scientifically learn about the earth and its age, with no effect on my faith. I believe that we should use our powers and faculties of observation and rational thought in the area of geology just as we do in other areas of science (like oxygen combustion, or agriculture).

YEC beliefs raise an important issue for Christian apologists and evangelists (that is, all christians): how is one to describe spiritual reality to someone who has no personal experience of such a reality? If the Church demonstrates itself to be unreliable, untrustworthy and perverse in the interpretation of scientific matters that are subject to verification by unbelievers, it undermines our claims that unbelievers need to pay attention to the Bible’s statements about spiritual matters that cannot be empirically verifiable by unbelievers.

If our claims about earthly, empirically testable physcial things such as natural history are demonstrably untrue and cannot be trusted , how can we expect unbelievers to accept our testimony on subjects which are not empirically testable and which call for a faith response? The answer is clear: we cannot. If the science one uses and holds to is incredible, perverse or manifestly false, then, rather than pointing unbelievers to God, it gives them grounds to reject faith and drives them further away. This problem was recognized by St. Augustine 1,600 years ago, and has been raised by others in the years since (as indicated in my posts 134, 136, 147, 281, 282, 335 (Davis Young), and 389 (Keppler), and I could provide futher examples).

The issue of interpretation has been raised several times in this thread, but not dealt with as extensively as the science. As indicated in the lists of dating methods set out by me in post # and by Richard in post # , we could go on discussing the science for a long time, and I could continue to expose and debunk the YEC writings. But I suggest we turn to intrepretive issuse for a while. I have presented John Sailhammer’s interpretation in my post # .249 (or 349, I can’t see the leftmost numbers on the browers I’m currently using. Waltke’s position was introduced by Dr. Mike in post 16 and and Gre in post 222. Walton’s position was introduced by Greg in posts 3, 222, and 225 and by j in post 20. I’m not committed to Sailhammer’s view by any means. Do any bloggers want to explain their fave’s?

BTW my index is edging up to post 200.

Regards
#John

Off topic – does anyone know why this page looks different on different computers?

On my laptop (XP SP3), the first digit of the post number is missing, but on my desktop (Vista), I can see all three digits. Evidently John has the same issue. I’m running IE8 on both computers.

John,

You continue to dodge the theological implications to an Old Earth. They are very significant regardless of whether you personally believe Genesis says anything about the age of the earth. Until you can give a theological explanation for the existence of disease, violence, etc (i.e. a cursed world) PRIOR to the fall of Adam (which is what an OE view requires), then the “scientific evidence” does not matter.

BTW, Augustine did not in any way shape or form hold to an Old Earth view. He simply didn’t believe that God created in six literal days but rather created everything instantaneously.

Marvin:

Why is disease and violence considered to be indicative of “a cursed world”? Where does Genesis 1 say that God, in creating plants and plant-eating animals and humans, and ocean creatures that were not restricted to eating plants, say that killing was not part of the process? How can plant-eating animals, including humans, eat plants without the plants dying? How can ocean creatures live and reproduce and eat without killing their food? Is that not violence? Or were all sea creatures originally scavengers?

(Perhaps I’m also reading the existence of “death” into your indicators of a cursed world; you didn’t explicitly say death, though, so I may be wrong.)

There is a good discussion of death and the fall here:
http://creation.com/the-fall-a-cosmic-catastrophe

Part is below:

What do creationists mean by ‘no death before the Fall’?

Many anti-creationists knock down a straw man by simplistically attacking a ‘no death before sin’ statement out of context. That is, they argue that plants and individual cells died before the Fall, e.g. when animals ate plants.However, creationists have often pointed out that ‘no death before sin’ applies to what the Bible calls death, which is not always the way modern biologists use it. The Bible doesn’t talk about plants dying, even though modern biologists do. Rather, the Bible talks about plants withering, for example.

What is the difference? Answer: the creatures affected by death were those the Bible calls ?????? ?????? (nephesh chayyah). When it refers to man, it is often translated ‘living soul’, but, of other creatures, including fish, it is often translated ‘living creature’. However, it is never applied to plants or invertebrates. Therefore, there is a qualitative difference between the deaths of the (vertebrate) animals called nephesh chayyah and plant death. This is further supported by the account of the Flood and Ark. The living creatures (nephesh chayyah) rescued on the Ark did not include plants (or invertebrates)

(cont.)

[continued] (death and fall)
Do plants ‘die’ in the biblical sense?

Ross’s book The Genesis Question further tries to justify applying ‘death’ to plants in the biblical sense. Somehow he thinks that if he can prove that plants die in the same sense as animals, then he will have undermined the creationist case against animal death before the Fall.

and by the way, botanists did not originate the claim that plants experience life and death. The Bible said so first, (p. 100)

He tried to back this up with note 24, p. 125, with the passages Exodus 10:12–17, Job 14:8–10, Psalm 37:2, Matthew 6:28, 30 and John 15:6. So let’s analyze these in turn:

* Ex 10:17 (Pharoah after locusts destroyed crops) ‘Now therefore, forgive my sin, please, only this once, and plead with the LORD your God only to remove this death from me.’

Note first that this is an uninspired request from the pagan Pharaoh after locusts destroyed the crops. Note that the Bible does not endorse everyone it quotes or every action it records. Biblical inerrancy requires only that people are reported accurately, not that the people are correct. E.g. Psalm 14:1 accurately reports a fool saying something false: ‘The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.”’ Job 2:9 accurately reports Job’s wife saying, ‘Curse God and die,’ but clearly doesn’t endorse such a thing!

Even more importantly, the results undermine Ross’s claim anyway. Note that Pharaoh says ‘remove this death from me’, and the result was not restoration of the crops (which is the only thing that would support Ross’s claim), but removal of the locusts.

*Ex. 10:19 ‘And the LORD turned the wind into a very strong west wind, which lifted the locusts and drove them into the Red Sea. Not a single locust was left in all the country of Egypt.’ So the locusts were the ones described as ‘death’, i.e. the agent of death , since human and livestock death is a sure result of the destruction of the crops.

* Job 14:8–10 ‘Though its root grow old in the earth, and its stump die in the soil, yet at the scent of water it will bud and put out branches like a young plant. But a man dies and is laid low; man breathes his last, and where is he?’

This is an absurd passage to try to justify plant death, because clearly this plant is not even dead in the modern biological sense! After all, it can sprout branches again if only there is water available. This passage actually contrasts this ‘death’ with man’s physical death, which is permanent (until the final Resurrection).

* Psalm 37:2 ‘For they will soon fade like the grass and wither like the green herb.’

This is the sort of thing we point out—plants are described as fading and withering, not dying.

(cont.)

[continued] (death and fall)
(note: CMI is Creation Ministries International creation.com)

*Matthew 6:28, 30 (Jesus) ‘And why do you worry about clothes? See how the lilies of the field grow. They do not labor or spin. … If that is how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here today and tomorrow is thrown into the fire, will he not much more clothe you, O you of little faith?’

There is nothing about living or dying here. The NASB has ‘which is alive today ’, but ‘alive’ is in italics to indicate that it has been added by the translators to make sense (in their opinion) and wasn’t in the original language. It is folly to derive biblical doctrine from the opinions of translators.

* John 15:6 ‘If anyone does not abide in me he is thrown away like a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire, and burned.’

Once again, plants are said to wither, just as CMI says. So none of these cases support Ross’s claim, and rather support what CMI has always said.

EricW

What exactly do you believe is the result of God cursing the world? The bible is clear that it isn’t just spiritual death. The bible is clear that all of creation was made subject to the curse because of Sin (Romans 8). One day the “the wolf will live with the lamb”, certianly implying that it wasn’t the original intent to have the lamb be a meal for the wolf (Isaiah 11).

If in your mind violence, disease, etc. were a part of God’s plan from the beginning, why don’t Old and New Testament authors think that way?

Dave Z, post 513: Misery loves company, so I’m glad to hear that I’m not the only one with that problem. On one computer I use Vista and Firefox and see all the numbers; on my other I use XP SP2 and IE6 and don’t see the leftmost number and only part of the middle one.

Richard, great series of posts on death and very interesting. For those interested, this topic was also addressed in posts 118, 120, 122, 124 (my index is already coming in handy). Any particular books or journal articles that you’ve found helpful? Any other offsite web pages than the main one you listed?

re post 514: I’m not citing Augustine for his particular views (that would be the fallacy of authority), but only for his identification of the problem of poor science. As to the issue of evil and death, there are a number of possible explanations, some of which can be held by biblical inerrantists, so I don’t see it as a major problem. Theology is an interpretive thing, and a subject where our ability to investigate and analyze is limited by what God has revealed in His Word. Consequently, one only has to identify possibilities. Science, on the other hand, is hard edged and physically observable and testable, and is as wide as God’s universe. We seem to have moved on from science to theology and interpretation, so I’ll do some thinking on those issues. Initially, I would think that part of the answer is that God can create incomplete or even “not good” and then bring it to perfection: staged creation, Adam without Eve, etc.).

Regards,
#John

Marvin:

I don’t think you answered my questions.

Here’s a more detailed article titled:

Cosmic and universal death from Adam’s fall: an exegesis of Romans 8:19–23a

http://creation.com/cosmic-and-universal-death-from-adam-s-fall-an-exegesis-of-romans-819-23a

Same article as pdf file (11 pages):
http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j21_1/j21_1_75-85.pdf

I believe this is a very important subject theologically, and deserves serious attention.

EricW

“Why is disease and violence considered to be indicative of “a cursed world”?

I already said why. Because the authors of both the Old and New Testaments understood it to be that way. The rest of your questions basically arise from the first premise that disease & violence & death were in fact part of God’s original purpose for the very good creation. I reject that premise. Richards posts deals with some of your questions (i.e. plant “death”).

BTW, you shouldn’t ask six rapid fire questions and expect every single one of them to be answered.

Back to my question to you which is perfectly valid, and which you don’t even attempt to address. If death, disease, violence, etc were all a part of the original purpose of God’s creation, then what exactly is the nature of the “Curse” which all of creation is made subject to because of Adam’s rebellion?

futility, slavery of corruption

Being part of the nature of God’s creation isn’t necessarily the same as being part of the purpose of God’s creation. E.g., His purpose was that animals be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. A by-product or result of creatures doing that is consumption of plant and sea life for food and energy. Result does not equal purpose necessarily.

EricW

What was made futile? What was corrupted?

Some of the issues related to pre-fall animals eating each other, etc., is covered in Paul Copan’s post on this blogsite at: http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2009/01/nt-wright-on-god-and-evil/

Paul provides a link to his review of N.T. Wrights book on evil, which review is also helpful. Here is a stimulating quote from his review:

“Perhaps Wright’s reflections on salvation history elsewhere furnish
some insight for us: “the Torah is given for a specific period of time, and is then set aside—not because it was a bad thing now happily abolished, but because it was a good thing whose purpose had now been accomplished.” Could it be that as with the Torah, the levitical priesthood, and the sacrificial system, we have something similar going on with creation? To rephrase, mutatis mutandis: “the first creation—which includes the food chain—is given for a specific period of time, and is then set aside in the new heavens and earth—not because it is a bad thing that will be happily abolished (or rather transformed) but because it is a good thing whose purpose will then have been accomplished.” Scripture does assume a certain planned obsolescence built into the first creation, whose purposes will be accomplished as it gives way to the new heavens and new earth. Though “very good,” it is not perfect, as can be said (again) regarding our being “fearfully and wonderfully made”—even though we do not yet have resurrection bodies. Would this “very good”—though not perfect—creation include a food chain, a nature red in tooth and claw? Is human death—or is all death—the “ultimate blasphemy” and “the great intruder”? Is animal suffering a real problem of evil, or can it be categorized under a “very good,” but not fully restored, creation?”
[end of quote]

It seems that much of the issue boils down to two small words: “very good.” What did the Creator mean when He pronounced His creation very good? Different understandings or interpretations of this lead to substantially different views of the creation world before Adam. Whereas the YEC view sees the original creation as a pristine, perfect paradise with no possibility for suffering or anything unseemly, the ancient creation perspective sees the creation of this world as perfectly suited to the Creator’s plans and purposes.

Regards,
#John

NT Wright:

Is animal suffering a real problem of evil, or can it be categorized under a “very good,” but not fully restored, creation?”

This requires that the original creation did not have “animal suffering”, or what does “fully restored” mean?

Secondly, where in the Bible does it teach that at the end of the creation week (implied by Wright’s use of “very good”), a restoration is already needed?

Putting these two ideas together requires some sort of fall requiring restoration occurred after creation, but prior to God declaring it “very good”. What is he talking about?

This sounds suspiciously like the gap theory.

I’m intrigued by CMP’s use of the term ‘snake talking’. It seems more plausible that satan must have still been in his original form as the most beautiful of fallen angels in order to converse with Eve, and to have her listen.

I cannot conceive of a literal snake convincing someone to do anything but run. Therefore, it would seem to me that satan was condemned along with Adam and Eve to become as the lowest of creatures, when Adam and Eve were cursed to earn their living from the ground, and were ejected from the garden.

Are there any gap folks reading here? If so, I’d like to hear a good discussion of that position. I have often wondered about what seems from Genesis 1 and 2 to have been two different narratives concerning the creation account.

mbaker:

The word/name/person “satan” doesn’t appear in the Hebrew account of Genesis 3. The text clearly calls him (or her or it) a serpent, not an angel (whether fallen or otherwise). If an angel was changed into a snake, the text would have said so, I would think. At best, it seems to be saying that the serpent didn’t slither on the ground before God cursed him. Even before being cursed, the serpent is described in 3:1 as a beast of the field, not as an angel. One could say that “more crafty than any beast of the field which YHWH God had made” simply means that he was craftier than beasts, but was not necessarily one himself. However, the context of what follows makes no sense if the serpent is not a beast of the field. I.e., why not say that the serpent was craftier than anything (including humans) that God had made, since it was a human that the serpent was attempting to deceive; why simply compare him to field beasts? Also, in the curse the serpent is said to be cursed more than all cattle and every beast of the field – again, the serpent is compared with beasts of the field. The serpent before the curse may not have been one of the things that creeps on the ground (Genesis 1:25) – i.e., he’s compared to or described as a beast of the field (and later compared to the cattle), and Genesis 1:25 mentions the creation of cattle and beasts of the “earth” (not field) and things that creep on the ground as different “kinds” of creatures.

Genesis 2:19-20 mentions YHWH God forming every beast of the field (this time it’s “field,” not “earth/land”). Thus it makes sense to see the serpent being one of the beasts of the field that was formed by God in the Genesis 2:19-20 creation/forming. It’s the same context (i.e., the Garden); Genesis 2 and 3 refer to God as YHWH Elohim, not just Elohim as in Genesis 1; etc.

I’m just kind of winging this. Feel free to point out any errors in my assumptions/conclusions.

Eric said:

“Feel free to point out any errors in my assumptions/conclusions.”

I don’t, just because I am just wondering from the accounts in Genesis 1 and 2 when and how (if God’s garden was ‘very good, as #John1453 and the Bible point out) how did the snake/ satan/ beautiful fallen angel ever get in there in the first place? Were there two separate creations, one of God’s doing and one of satan’s doing that managed to somehow co-mingle?

Any further thoughts, anyone? Or am I the only one that ever wonders this?

In thinking about the world prior to Adam’s fall, we have to keep in mind both the nature of physicality and one of the purposes for a physical world.

In relation to the former, think of a world without humans, with only plants. Would there be such a thing as natural evil? Vocanoes eject necessary soil particles and atmospheric gases (such as carbon dioxide). Tides and storms and lightning are all just part of what is, what happens. Such things only become evil when, from our perspective, they cause us inconvenience or harm. Too much rain in one area has no meaning apart from us; it’s only too much if it floods our homes or crops. Really, we are the problem. We are not building and farming in the right locations and we are not exercising proper dominion over the earth.

In relation to the latter, a physical world that operates with regularity and constancy (so much so that we describe these regularities as “laws”). Moreover, the world was not finished on Day One, nor even on Day Six or Seven. Yes, God rested (and eventually we will be invited into that rest), but when He placed Adam into the garden, and before the fall he told him to “till it and keep it” (Genesis 2:15 NRSV). What do think would have happened if Adam didn’t till and keep? Would the plants have grown just as well? Of course not. And which seeds and plants would have been more dominant? The ones Adam planted and tilled and kept, of course. Adam was given choices and the choices had consequences. Ultimately those choices even included sin and the consequences of sin. There would be no moral evil if the world did not have the possibility of consequences, and if there is the possibility of consequences, then it must be possible for them to be negative as well as positive. Some consequences will be removed in the new earth and heaven, but it is important to keep in mind that there was a built in obsolescence to the pre fall world—at some point, sin or no sin, Adam would have been confirmed in his salvation and eternal life. Prior to that, the world had to be the kind of place that would test him.

It’s speculative, of course, to think of when the satan (“the adversary”) fell. How long before Adam did? Why is Adam’s sin presented as having such far reaching effects? Wouldn’t the satan’s sin also have had such effects? Is the satan’s sin related to him partaking in the limitations of a physical form and the physicality of the world?

Regards,
#John

Reflecting more on Adam’s job and what God did.

Do we have any evidence that the world outside the garden of Eden was fully developed? No, indeed the contrary, because Adam was told to go out and subdue it. Furthermore, God, knowing the world was big and that Adam couldn’t do it on his own, told Adam to “be fruitful and multiply”. This is not merely about having children, but about extending his influence and about taking the image of God to every part of the globe. This latter point fits in well with the ancient near east concept of “image” and the placement of physical images of the kings in various parts of their realm.

And look at the nature of the universe in which Adam gets to exercise his freedom of choice. Rather than directing each particle Personally, God sets it up to operate within regularities we call laws. That is, God constrains the physical universe; it cannot just higglely pigglely do whatever without God’s steering it. No, God has constrained the universe within laws. Turning to a particular example, God did not guide each molecule of air and water and so send Hurricane Ike to destroy the gulf coast. Instead, God wanted/ wants each hurricane to behave as hurricanes do—as they are designed to do.

Our natural physical world also has to have entropy if it is going to have useable energy. Entropy is a description of energy going from useful to cold and useless. But without that directionality we could not have photosynthesis in plants, or biological energy in our mitochondria, or oxygen combustion and fires. So a winding down of our universe is built in.

Think of the plants in a farmer’s field. They are covered in bugs and aphids. When a cow eats the grass, she eats the bugs and they die. Did that not happen before the fall? Think of the cow or elephant walking around. Did it not step on bugs? Think of amoebas—do they not survive by absorbing and so killing other one celled organisms? Think of your own gut: you could not live without the bacteria in there, the bacteria that die.

Think about God’s command to the animals: multiply. Do you not think that he built into the world limits to repruduction? Do you recall your high school or university texts that calculated the number of mice or lemmings or rats or cockroaches that would exist if they didn’t die? Within a few years they would cover the earth a mile deep or weigh the same amount as the earth (I can’t recall the exact amounts).
Our problem is that we look on morality and evil from our western, comfortable, therapeutic view of evil. What is bad is what makes me uncomfortable, or sad. But is that God’s view? I’ll end with a quote from John Piper”: [cont.]

[cont. from my post # 532]

I’ll end with a quote from John Piper:

“Let me underline one of the statements I’ve already made: Suffering is an essential part of your Christian existence. I choose the word essential very carefully. Paul said to new believers in Acts 14:22, “Through many tribulations we will enter the kingdom of heaven.” This is Christianity 101. Paul says in 1 Thessalonians 3:2-3 that we Christians are destined for suffering. This is your destiny—suffering. Think it not strange when the fiery ordeal comes upon you. And 2 Timothy 3:12: All who desire to live a godly life will be persecuted. And Romans 8:16: We are fellow heirs if we suffer with him. There is one God-appointed path to glorification—suffering. If you are making it your life ambition to avoid suffering, you will perish and suffer forever. And all this Pauline talk is based on Jesus’ talk.”
[end of quote]

God designed the world to permit suffering. It is not where things will end, but it is where things started.

Regards,
#John

“Why is Adam’s sin presented as having such far reaching effects? Wouldn’t the satan’s sin also have had such effects? Is the satan’s sin related to him partaking in the limitations of a physical form and the physicality of the world?”

These are my questions too. It would certainly stand to reason that there was a choice beyond the physicality aspect as well, (i.e. simply choosing between the two trees). There had to be a spiritual curiosity that made Eve want to go beyond what God had expressly forbidden, and for Adam’s curiosity to get the best of him as well, causing the fall.

Interesting the scripture in James 1:13-15 which speaks of how sin is conceived:

“Let no one when he is tempted say, ‘I am being tempted by God’, for God cannot be tempted with evil and he himself tempts no one. But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. Then desire, when it is conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death.”

Scripture also talks about sin coming into the world through one man, Adam, not Eve who actually committed the first act of disobedience, and not satan, who tempted her. Yet it seems somewhat of a paradox until you think about the fact that the devil had already received his punishment – being thrown down from heaven, and condemned for eternity to go into the lake of fire.

It’s something I still wonder though: Where did the desire to disobey God come from before the sin was actually committed, either on the part of man, or in heaven with satan?

God designed the world to permit suffering. It is not where things will end, but it is where things started.

I believe this is utterly false. Suffering is the result of sin corrupting the original creation.

OEs struggle mightily with understanding what happened at the fall as their preconceptions of physical earth history insist that death, suffering, disease, and disasters must have occurred before man even existed — thus prior to sin — thus not the result of sin. There is nothing in scripture to even hint at this, and it does violence to many passages and concepts.

Look at what Piper said: “…And Romans 8:16: We are fellow heirs if we suffer with him.” If suffering was part of the original creation, and thus NOT the result of sin, then Jesus’ suffering is pointless, had NOTHING TO DO WITH OUR SIN AND IS OF NO VALUE TO US.

Does anybody really think that this statement is talking about the original creation: “Through many tribulations we will enter the kingdom of heaven.” Think about the original relationship that Adam had with God in the garden…

Piper’s quote addresses our current situation, which is living in a fallen world under the corruption of sin. It has nothing to do with the original pre-sin state of the creation.

John,

Regarding your last comment, I think it is certainly logical that Adam and Eve had to have some prior knowledge of death, because why would God have told them that if they ate of the tree of the knowledge on that day they would die? Their spiritual death came immediately, but their physical death came later, after they had reproduced themselves.

So one could certainly make a good case that the rest of creation itself already had a natural order of birth and death, in plants and animals, yet Adam and Eve, who were given dominion over it, were immune as long as they remained under God’s protection, and obeyed his laws.

re post 335

Richard states: “‘God designed the world to permit suffering. It is not where things will end, but it is where things started.’ I believe this is utterly false.”

How can that statement be “utterly false”?

1. God designed the world.

2. Suffering has occurred.

3. Therefore, God designed the world to permit suffering.

Or do you have some non-standard use of logic? Even your own words admit the truth of what I wrote. You write, “Suffering is the result of sin corrupting the original creation.” How could sin corrupt the original creation unless God permitted it to? Would you make God the creator of evil?

Beginning a post with a logical error starts it off on the wrong foot, and leads into further errors. For example, the next error is to assume that there were disasters before Adam or that I said so in my previous post. No, I did not indicate there were disasters pre Adam. What I wrote was that without humans there were just earthquakes and volcanoes and storms and lightning and waves. Those things just are, they are part of how the earth works. They are not disasters unless and until we bring humans into the picture.

My overall point was that our view of evil is not God’s view of evil. God did not find it evil to let bacteria, microorganisms, plants or bugs die prior to the fall. Indeed, the capacity for death is inherent in what God created, else Adam would not have need for the Tree of Life. If Adam was immortal prior to eating of the Tree of Life, he would not have need of it. No, Adam was mortal prior to eating the tree. If Adam was mortal, then so was the rest of the world. If God created things with mortality, then mortality cannot be inherently evil. This is partly why I introduced the issue of animal reproduction.

I might also add that the death of animals cannot be inherently evil. God kills animals to provide skins for clothes for Adam. God is pleased with Abel’s killing of an animal in sacrifice to God. God tell’s Noah that it’s OK to kill animals for food. God demands that the Israelites kill animals in sacrifice. God does not command, glorify, or do things that are evil.

It seems to me that our consciences are warped because we do not find evil the things that God calls evil, and we find evil things that God does not.

Regards,
#John

John,

How about this concept,

1. God created Man in His image, including free will.
2. Man choose to exercise that free will and sin.
3. The consequences of sin are suffering and death.

You entire post seems to clearly convey that you think things operate now just as they did in the original creation, prior to man, thus I interpreted you use of “permit suffering” as meaning that it was a deliberate part of the original creation, not just a possibility that might actualize through sin.

Also, I thought you were implying that the Piper quote reflected the original state of man since it seems connected to the concept of “it is where things started”. Do you think Piper’s description relates to man as originally created, or only after sin is in the world?

If you do not believe that suffering occurred prior to sin, then I apologize for misunderstanding your use of “permit suffering”. Please clarify: Do you believe suffering was part of the original pre-sin creation?

re 538

I quoted Piper because of his somewhat provocative view of suffering, which is not one widely held in the western church. I think it should cause us to reflect on the concept of suffering and analyse whether our concept of suffering and the nature of suffering is the same as God’s.

Since physical pain is a useful aspect of living in the physical world (e.g., stubbing a toe, burning a hand, friction burns), it seems both logical and necessary that Adam would feel physical pain to some degree prior to the fall. In order to feel pressure as good, we also have to have the capacity to feel excess pressure (pain), and the same goes for cold (ice cream, winter) and heat (sun warmth, burning).

“Permit” does not entail that something has occurred or must occur.

I suggest that how we view suffering and evil is not how God views it.

I suggest that it is particularly problematic when we anthropomorphize the non-human world when we discuss “suffering”. At a basic level, I would say that bacteria, microorganisms, plants and insects do not suffer, no matter what happens to them.

Regards,
#John

John,
Thanks for the clarification.

I suggest that it is particularly problematic when we anthropomorphize the non-human world when we discuss “suffering”. At a basic level, I would say that bacteria, microorganisms, plants and insects do not suffer, no matter what happens to them.

I agree and would even say that those organisms are not “alive” in the Hebrew sense (nephesh).

Since you did not address this, I want to ask: Do you believe that animals (reptiles, mammals, etc) suffered from diseases such as cancer, and were being killed and eaten prior to man’s sin?

re 540: I note that some scientists have claimed to have found evidence of bone tumours in dinosaurs.

I’m still thinking about the suffering and evil issue, but while I’m thinking about that, something else occurred to me.

I was just reflecting on the discussion between Richard and Dave Z on the YEC inconsistency in its use of “literal” interpretation (see posts 173, 174, 176, 177). Greg point out that the Bible in Genesis describes the moon as a source of light, when it in fact is not, and that that would be the literal straightforward interpretation (Greg also took up this issue with the nature of the word “all”, and I did with respect to the word “day”). Richard disagreed with Dave Z.

However, Dave Z was not just blowing smoke. Eileen Reeves, in her book “Painting the Heavens”, describes three theories of the moons light that were held in the 16th century: (1) the moon reflects the suns light, (2) solar rays penetrate a semidiaphanous moon at certain points in its orbit, AND (3) the moon itself was a source of light! (see page 53; Reeves cites as a source Erasmus Reinhold’s edition of Georg Peurbach’s “Theoricae novae planetarum”). So, people did indeed believe that the moon was a separate source of light, and that would be the straightforward and plain meaning of the Genesis text. Galileo was one of those who fought for the reflected light view.

Contrast the straightforward read of Genesis with the straightforward read of the Qur’an. The Moslems are quite proud that their Qur’an makes a distinction between sourced (as in origin and as in creating) light and reflected light (from the original source). Many Islamic websites feature a question and answer along the lines of the following:

Does the Qur’an reveal that the moon has reflected light while the sun is a source of light? Sura 71:15-16, states:
See ye not how Allah has created the seven heavens one above another,
and made the moon a light (noor) in their midst,
and made the sun as a lamp (siraaj)?
The moon is called a light (Arabic: noor) and the sun a lamp (siraaj).

Some Muslims claim that since the Qur’an uses different words speaking about the light of the sun and the light of the moon, it reveals that the sun is a source of light, while the moon only reflects light.
[end of quote]

Furthermore, the view that the moon is a separate source of light is apparently still held today in scientifically illiterate America. Posted at the website of the Australian “The Inquisitr” (http://www.inquisitr.com/22800/christians-boo-speaker-for-saying-the-moon-reflects-the-sun/):

“A children’s entertainer known as “The Science Guy” was booed and abused when giving a speech in Waco, Texas recently for daring to suggest that the moon reflects the sun. Bill Nye was in Waco participating in the local college’s “distinguished lecture series,” where he gave two lectures on topics including global warming, Mars exploration and…

[cont. from my post 541}

Bill Nye was in Waco participating in the local college’s “distinguished lecture series,” where he gave two lectures on topics including global warming, Mars exploration and energy consumption. All was going well for Nye until he mentioned Genesis 1:16, which reads: “God made two great lights — the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars.” Nye correctly noted that the “lesser light” (the moon), is not a light at all, a fact that is elementary science 101. According to Think Atheist, several people in the audience stormed out in fury, with one woman screaming “We believe in God!” as she left with her three children. The one thing that always amazes me with these literal bible believing Christians is how they decide to take some parts literally, and ignore others. Take for example 1 Timothy 2:9 – 15:12 “But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.” So here we have a woman screaming abuse at a man because she takes Genesis literally, but seemingly ignores Timothy at the same time. I wonder what the bible says about hypocrisy?” [end quote]

Regards,
#John

I wrote:

Do you believe that animals (reptiles, mammals, etc) suffered from diseases such as cancer, and were being killed and eaten prior to man’s sin?

John answered:

I’m still thinking about the suffering and evil issue

Does this mean you entertain the possibility that the answer to my question is “no” ?

OK, here’s a thought. Nothing new but still worth pondering.

If we accept the ontological argument for God, as put forth by Anselm and others (God is the being of which no greater can be conceived), we are almost forced into at least the possibility that God had/has worlds other than our own. I can easily conceive of God creating/governing realities other than our own. MOF, it’s a given in much of science fiction. If we are all that is or was, then that fact is a limitation on God’s greatness – he is not great enough to have more.

So, if we go that far, what is the problem with the thought that there may have been a prior creation, a prior economy of life on this planet? We take Genesis 1:2 to read “the world ‘became’ formless and empty…”

The Bible tells us our story, not the previous story or stories that may be taking place elsewhere.

re 543

For the reasons outlined above (God killed animals, God demands animal sacrifice, animals have to die or there would shortly be extreme overpopulation) I believe that plant and animal death is not an evil, and can be and was part of the design of the world that was good. God’s view of these things is diferent from ours, and he does not anthropomorphize what happens to animals (i.e., He does not view what happens to them in the same way as He would view what happens to us, such as death or being eaten). Furthermore, given that so much of the world’s organisms are eaters of others (and specially designed too, such as angler fish), it seems entirely reasonable to suppose that animals consuming animals was part of the original design.

Do YEC’s believe that God redesigned, or added, millions and millions of organisms as carnivores? Apparently, the answer is yes, an unwarranted speculation that flows from and relies solely on a particular interpretation of Genesis. Not only is that viewpoint without warrant (outside of it being implied by a particular interpretation of other aspects of Genesis there is no evidence for it, and indeed contrary evidence), it seems highly implausible and not within the range of how God usually interacts with His physical universe. In addition, God does not indicate in His word that he undertook such a massive redesign of nature.

Of the various YEC responses for the existence of organisms that consume other organisms, where do you fall, Richard?

BTW, Quantcast.com also shows an increase in traffic for this site since the start of this creation thread, especially in passersby; must be a popular topic.

regards,
#John

John, I still can’t tell what you answer to my yes or no question is. Can you please clarify:

Do you believe that animals (reptiles, mammals, etc) suffered from diseases such as cancer, and were being killed and eaten prior to man’s sin?

THE ANALOGICAL DAY VIEW

This view was set out as early as 1895 by the prominent Dutchman Herman Bavinck.

Excerpts from the “Report of the Creation Study Committee”, © 2000, Presbyterian Church in America (see http://www.reasons.org/interpreting-genesis/creation-days/report-creation-study-committee#appel44)

1. The “days” are God’s work-days, which are analogous, and not necessarily identical, to our work days, structured for the purpose of setting a pattern for our own rhythm of rest and work.

2. The six “days” represent periods of God’s historical supernatural activity in preparing and populating the earth as a place for humans to live, love, work, and worship.

3. These days are “broadly consecutive”: that is, they are taken as successive periods of unspecified length, but one allows for the possibility that parts of the days may overlap, or that there might be logical rather than chronological criteria for grouping some events in a particular “day.”

4. Genesis 1:1-2 are background, representing an unknown length of time prior to the beginning of the first “day”: verse 1 is the creatio ex nihilo event, while verse 2 describes the conditions of the earth as the first day commenced.

5. Length of time, either for the creation week, or before it or since it, is irrelevant to the communicative purpose of the account.

[compared to other positions]

1. Conservative adherents of the Calendar Day view, the Day-Age view, and the Framework view, share a number of points in common with the Analogical Days view. These include the propriety of attributing “historicity” to Genesis 1-3 (see discussion of that word in the Definitions section of this report); the rejection of source-critical theories of these chapters as originally disparate, and ultimately incompatible; and adherence to the authority of the New Testament as interpreter of these chapters.

2. The Calendar Day, Day-Age, and Analogical Day views all see the days as sequential, while the Framework view sees sequentiality as optional at best. The Calendar Day and Day-Age views take the strongest position on sequence, while the Analogical Days view is more reserved about strict sequentiality (and hence cautious about harmonization with geology).

3. With the Day-Age view, the Analogical Days view sees the days as potentially long periods; unlike that view, it does not arrive at that position by appeal to “day” in its sense “period of undefined length.” Instead it finds an analogical application of the ordinary sense of the word “day.”

4. Finally, the Day-Age, Analogical Days, and Framework interpretations do not involve rejection of conventional cosmology and geology. (The stance taken toward evolutionary biology, a different science, is different; see the discussion of “evolution” in the Definitions section.) Although some adherents of the Calendar Days view do not insist on young-earth cosmology and geology, most do.

re 546

Richard, I’ve answered your question twice.

I take a similar approach as A. Plantinga takes in regard to matters that are not explicitly clear in the Bible: it is not necessary to over-answer a question, but only to provide a plausible answer. Belief that an answer is plausible does not entail a belief that it must be true and a faith commitment to that answer. Plantinga’s approach has been spectacularly successful in the area of philosophy and as an response to the question of evil. So spectacular, in fact, that existence of evil is no longer seen by secular philosophers as a rebutting defeater to the possible existence of God. Moreover, Plantinga’s approach has led to a huge resurgence in the credibility of christian philosoply and the presence of christians in philosophy departments.

Plantinga observed that Augustine went too far in his attempt to explain the presence of evil, and thereby got into trouble (that is, he ended up holding to inconsistent or contradictory positions, or positions that were incompatible with other parts of the scriptures). Rather than constructing a freewill theodicy for evil, Plantinga constructed a free will defence.

And so you have my answer as I’m prepared to give it in regard to the consumption of one organism by another.

In regard to the presence of disease, I do think that there are also plausible explanations that are comptabile with what God has set out in His Word (which does not address the issue of animal and plant disease pre the fall of Adam).

And which potential YEC explanations for organism consumption do you believe are plausible?

Regards,
#John

John, so your answer is something like “it’s plausable for the answer to by yes, but I don’t want to commit to that” ?? If I’ve understood you correctly, does this then also imply that it’s “plausable for the answer to be no as well” ?

Here are comments from Paul Copan’s P&P blog entitled: Comments and Questions on Evil & the Justice of God a friendly response to N.T. Wright

3. Transformed Animality?
While Wright’s book does not directly address the matter of animal suf-
fering, he refers to death—“the corruption and decay of the good creation,
and of humans who bear God’s image”—as the “ultimate blasphemy” and
“the great intruder” (116) that will one day be defeated. Presumably, he is
referring to human death (which is what Romans 5:12 suggests), but I would
be pleased to see in his writings what perspective he takes on the relationship
of animal death and suffering to the Fall. Animal death and the extinction of
species before the appearance of humans are well-attested and thus taken for
granted within the scientific community, and plenty of theologians and bibli-
cal scholars take this view as well.
What is more, Scripture takes a prelapsarian carnivorosity for granted.
Though Genesis 1 (perhaps for aesthetic and stylistic reasons)19 excludes
mention of a food chain, the Scriptures elsewhere certainly suggest it. The
latter chapters of Job and Psalm 104, a creation psalm, suggest that nature’s
redness in tooth and claw is built into God’s good creation: “young lions roar
after their prey” and “seek their food from God,” and all animals “expire”
and “return to their dust” (Ps. 10:21, 29); in this good creation, mountain
goats give birth to their young with labor pains (Job 39:3), ostriches aban-
don their eggs (39:14), hawks gather blood-covered, meaty morsels for their
nestlings (39:29-30), and Leviathan is a fierce, unsubduable creature (Job
41). All of this is part of a wise, powerful God’s wild and wonderful creation.
John Goldingay comments:
Genesis’s readers know that the animal world does not live in har-
mony but lives on the basis of dog eat dog. Genesis 1 implies that this
is not God’s intention, but neither is it simply the result of a human
“Fall.” Animal inclination to kill and eat other animals is built into

Did you know that Paul Copan is the President of the Evangelical Philosophical Society?