Six Views on the Creation/Evolution Debate

Could it be that after 950+ comments, it might be a minor miracle all of it’s own if we can keep straight what everyone has said on this thread? I know I have gotten people’s positions confused. It takes a lot of reading and review or a better memory than mine not to be prone to forget after all that has been discussed.

Hi, everyone great blog and its greatly appreciated!

To: TU&D, hopefully this helps. I arrived at a point long ago realizing that I didn’t care how God did it, I just know that He did do it. If science was continued to prove the big-bang and evolution than so be it. I don’t argue with them about their other discoveries so why would I argue about those. If God spoke and the big-bang happened and it was followed by evolution than i would glory in His wonderful work. God established the Heavens and the Earth, how He chose to do it isn’t my concern. What is my concern is two-fold, the loss of young people raised in the Church forsaking tossing their faith in the Gospel because they don’t believe the Bible is true because of the YEC position. The other is if the big-bang and evolution are true than how we as the Body of Christ have let atheists use the truth against us.

Jesus said, “If any of you should cause one of these little ones to
stumble, it would be better for you if a millstone were tied around
your neck and that you be cast into the uttermost depths of the sea.”

I ask which teaching is causing young people to stumble?

John, i have a question in my mind that maybe you can help me with. Is it possible that Noah’s flood happened while all the continents were connected (Pangea)? After the flood animals drifted to the areas we find them now and God caused the continents to seperate right after the Tower of Babel? I know they are moving very slowly now but could God have slid things to where they are located now at a very qucik pace?

Is it possible to tie a worldwide flood (Noah’s) with the ice age?

thanks!

TU&D and anyone else if you get a chance:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-god.html

TUaD,

Welcome back, I had a question for you in post #730. I’m interested in how you deal with what has been said here.

Btw, I don’t believe or accept philosophical naturalism either, so we are in agreement. Science doesn’t require that though, and neither does any inquiry into biological origins or cosmological evolution.

That only requires methodological naturalism, something even you use on a daily basis. If you’d like to learn more, would you mind watching Lesson 2: Science, Naturalism and Materialism from the blog Beyond The Firmament?

Steve B,

Re: #947

Now, from my perspective, if the words of Scripture are understood in their plain, natural sense, the Genesis Flood was indeed…

You cannot read scripture from your perspective; scripture doesn’t revolve around your understanding.

After 952 posts, I don’t think you are going to get it. I honestly, seriously, don’t. Not because you can’t, but because you just don’t want to have to think about something that makes you uncomfortable. It seems you have difficulty comprehending that ancient people thought about things differently than you do. Your mind is completely closed in a way that I simply cannot understand.

I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again, and I know it won’t matter anyway, but in as much as you ignore the context of scripture, you ignore scripture.

The YEC tradition will survive, but only because of the zealousness of people like you; not because scripture or anything else supports it.

Gil,

I actually have different concerns than yours. I see folks apostasizing because of the lie of evolution. Atheists use evolution to discredit and dismiss Christianity.

And atheists see theistic evolutionists as “useful idiots”.

Greg, #730,

I mentioned it earlier, but I’ll repeat myself again for your sake: I’m undecided between OEC and YEC.

But I am firm that neo-Darwinian evolution does not comport with Scripture.

And I do agree with the atheist evolutionists who believe that theistic evolutionists are “useful idiots” for atheism.

TUaD,

Thanks, for my sake.

I’m sorry that you find yourself in agreement with atheists. But, as with evolution, what you believe and what truly is isn’t necessarily always the same.

But I am firm that neo-Darwinian evolution does not comport with Scripture.

I’m just going to leave these here…

The firmament represents an impassable boundary between heaven and earth.

-Augustine

Just as man is made for the sake of God–that is, that he may serve Him,–so the universe is made for the sake of man–that is, that it may serve HIM; therefore is man placed at the middle point of the universe, that he may both serve and be served.

-Peter Lombard

The work of the second day is to provide an empty space around the circumference of the earth, that heaven and earth may not be mixed together. For since the proverb, ‘to mingle heaven and earth,’ denotes the extreme of disorder, this distinction ought to be regarded as of great importance.

Those who assert that ‘the earth moves and turns’…[are] motivated by ‘a spirit of bitterness, contradiction, and faultfinding;’ possessed by the devil, they aimed ‘to pervert the order of nature.

-John Calvin

People gave ear to an upstart astrologer who strove to show that the earth revolves, not the heavens or the firmament, the sun and the moon. Whoever wishes to appear clever must devise some new system, which of all systems is of course the very best. This fool [or ‘man’] wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but sacred Scripture tells us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth.

-Martin Luther

To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus Christ was not born of a virgin.

-Catholic Church

Greg: “I’m sorry that you find yourself in agreement with atheists.”

I am too. It’s sad to see professing Christians bent over and laughingly abused as “useful idiots” by atheists from which to advance the agenda of the Enemy.

Glad to see the conversation continued apace while I was gone.

cheryl, I hope you are well. I’ve been praying for you over the last day or so. Odd to pray for someone you know only from a few blog comments, but you were on my heart nonetheless (in part because your story resonates with my own, I think). I too have had experience with charismatic churches. I don’t think my experience was as hypercharismatic as you described, but it had the same themes present: very powerful, almost worshipped leaders, and very odd takes on some portions of scripture based on the opinions of those same all-powerful men at the front. It’s a recipe for disaster waiting to happen…

You might find it interesting to know that I highly value charismatic giftings of the Holy Spirit. God gives these gifts to build up His church. I would encourage you to “hang on to the baby” and not throw the Spirit out with the hyper-abuse bathwater. Things like tongues build you up personally, prophecy and words of knowledge do too (in the context of the body, when they are properly weighed and discerned with humility). One thing you will notice in Paul’s writings about the gifts of the Spirit is that the correction for incorrect use of the gifts is NOT to stop using them – but to start using them for what they were intended for – to build up the body corporately – and to use them in the proper manner – with order and discernment.

(Yes, folks, the resident TE is also an evangelical/charismatic. Wonders never cease).

TU&D: before you label TEs as “useful idiots” perhaps you’d like to make an attempt at understanding (and then addressing) the evidence that TEs find so convincing? It’s easy to throw in epithets from the sidelines – care to actually engage the evidence with this “useful idiot”?

gabe

While looking up quotes for my last post, I found the book “The Warfare Of Science With Theology” by Andrew White online. The 3rd chapter’s section called “The War On Galileo” was interesting, and I’d encourage any here to
give it a read. I’ll spend the next few posts providing extracts from it.

I cant help but notice certain parallels between Galileo’s ancient detractors and the posts, positions, and arguments of certain posters in this blog. I think they will find themselves among like-minded individuals.

The supporters of what was called “sound learning” declared his discoveries deceptions and his announcements blasphemy. Semi-scientific professors, endeavouring to curry favour with the Church, attacked him with sham science; earnest preachers attacked him with perverted Scripture; theologians, inquisitors, congregations of cardinals, and at last two popes dealt with him, and, as was supposed, silenced his impious doctrine forever.

The first important attack on Galileo began in 1610, when he announced that his telescope had revealed the moons of the planet Jupiter. The enemy saw that this took the Copernican theory out of the realm of hypothesis, and they gave battle immediately. They denounced both his method and its results as absurd and impious. As to his method, professors bred in the “safe science” favoured by the Church argued that the divinely appointed way of arriving at the truth in astronomy was by theological reasoning on texts of Scripture; and, as to his results, they insisted, first, that Aristotle knew nothing of these new revelations; and, next, that the Bible showed by all applicable types that there could be only seven planets; that this was proved by the seven golden candlesticks of the Apocalypse, by the seven-branched candlestick of the tabernacle, and by the seven churches of Asia; that from Galileo’s doctrine consequences must logically result destructive to Christian truth. Bishops and priests therefore warned their flocks, and multitudes of the faithful besought the Inquisition to deal speedily and sharply with the heretic.

In vain did Galileo try to prove the existence of satellites by showing them to the doubters through his telescope: they either declared it impious to look, or, if they did look, denounced the satellites as illusions from the devil. Good Father Clavius declared that “to see satellites of Jupiter, men had to make an instrument which would create them.” In vain did Galileo try to save the great truths he had discovered by his letters to the Benedictine Castelli and the Grand-Duchess Christine, in which he argued that literal biblical interpretation should not be applied to science; it was answered that such an argument only made his heresy more detestable; that he was “worse than Luther or…

(Continued)

The war on the Copernican theory, which up to that time had been carried on quietly, now flamed forth. It was declared that the doctrine was proved false by the standing still of the sun for Joshua, by the declarations that “the foundations of the earth are fixed so firm that they can not be moved,” and that the sun “runneth about from one end of the heavens to the other.

But the little telescope of Galileo still swept the heavens, and another revelation was announced – the mountains and valleys in the moon. This brought on another attack. It was declared that this, and the statement that the moon shines by light reflected from the sun, directly contradict the statement in Genesis that the moon is “a great light.”

Such are the consequences of placing the instruction of men’s minds in the hands of those mainly absorbed in saving men’s souls. Nothing could be more in accordance with the idea recently put forth by sundry ecclesiastics, Catholic and Protestant, that the Church alone is empowered to promulgate scientific truth or direct university instruction. But science gained a victory here also.

The war became more and more bitter. The Dominican Father Caccini preached a sermon from the text, “Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven?” and this wretched pun upon the great astronomer’s name ushered in sharper weapons; for, before Caccini ended, he insisted that “geometry is of the devil,” and that “mathematicians should be banished as the authors of all heresies.” The Church authorities gave Caccini promotion.

Father Lorini proved that Galileo’s doctrine was not only heretical but “atheistic,” and besought the Inquisition to intervene.

(Continued)

But by far the most terrible champion who now appeared was Cardinal Bellarmin, one of the greatest theologians the world has known. He was earnest, sincere, and learned, but insisted on making science conform to Scripture. The weapons which men of Bellarmin’s stamp used were purely theological. They held up before the world the dreadful consequences which must result to Christian theology were the heavenly bodies proved to revolve about the sun and not about the earth. Their most tremendous dogmatic engine was the statement that “his pretended discovery vitiates the whole Christian plan of salvation.” Father Lecazre declared “it casts suspicion on the doctrine of the incarnation.” Others declared, “It upsets the whole basis of theology. If the earth is a planet, and only one among several planets, it can not be that any such great things have been done specially for it as the Christian doctrine teaches. If there are other planets, since God makes nothing in vain, they must be inhabited; but how can their inhabitants be descended from Adam? How can they trace back their origin to Noah’s ark? How can they have been redeemed by the Saviour?”

But the war grew still more bitter, and some weapons used in it are worth examining. They are very easily examined, for they are to be found on all the battlefields of science; but on that field they were used with more effect than on almost any other. These weapons are the epithets “infidel” and “atheist.” They have been used against almost every man who has ever done anything new for his fellow-men. The list of those who have been denounced as “infidel” and “atheist” includes almost all great men of science, general scholars, inventors, and philanthropists. The purest Christian life, the noblest Christian character, have not availed to shield combatants. Christians like Isaac Newton, Pascal, Locke, Milton, and even Fenelon and Howard, have had this weapon hurled against them. Of all proofs of the existence of a God, those of Descartes have been wrought most thoroughly into the minds of modern men; yet the Protestant theologians of Holland sought to bring him to torture and to death by the charge of atheism, and the Roman Catholic theologians of France thwarted him during his life and prevented any due honours to him after his death.

(Continued)

But the opposing powers were too strong. In 1615 Galileo was summoned before the Inquisition at Rome, and the mine which had been so long preparing was sprung. Sundry theologians of the Inquisition having been ordered to examine two propositions which had been extracted from Galileo’s letters on the solar spots, solemnly considered these points during about a month and rendered their unanimous decision as follows: “The first proposition, that the sun is the centre and does not revolve about the earth, is foolish, absurd, false in theology, and heretical, because expressly contrary to Holy Scripture”; and “the second proposition, that the earth is not the centre but revolves about the sun, is absurd, false in philosophy, and, from a theological point of view at least, opposed to the true faith.”

This was on the 26th of February, 1616. About a fortnight later the Congregation of the Index, moved thereto, as the letters and documents now brought to light show, by Pope Paul, V solemnly rendered a decree that “the doctrine of the double motion of the earth about its axis and about the sun is false, and entirely contrary to Holy Scripture”; and that this opinion must neither be taught nor advocated. The same decree condemned all writings of Copernicus and all writings which affirm the motion of the earth.” The great work of Copernicus was interdicted until corrected in accordance with the views of the Inquisition; and the works of Galileo and Kepler, though not mentioned by name at that time, were included among those implicitly condemned as “affirming the motion of the earth.”

(Continued)

For the final assault upon him a park of heavy artillery was at last wheeled into place. It may be seen on all the scientific battlefields. It consists of general denunciation; and in 1631 Father Melchior Inchofer, of the Jesuits, brought his artillery to bear upon Galileo with this declaration: “The opinion of the earth’s motion is of all heresies the most abominable, the most pernicious, the most scandalous; the immovability of the earth is thrice sacred; argument against the immortality of the soul, the existence of God, and the incarnation, should be tolerated sooner than an argument to prove that the earth moves.”

From the shadow of the Cathedral of Antwerp, the noted theologian Fromundus gave forth his famous treatise, the Ant-Aristarchius. Its very title-page was a contemptuous insult to the memory of Copernicus, since it paraded the assumption that the new truth was only an exploded theory of a pagan astronomer. Fromundus declares that “sacred Scripture fights against the Copernicans.” To prove that the sun revolves about the earth, he cites the passage in the Psalms which speaks of the sun “which cometh forth as a bridegroom out of his chamber.” To prove that the earth stands still, he quotes a passage from Ecclesiastes, “The earth standeth fast forever.” To show the utter futility of the Copernican theory, he declares that, if it were true, “the wind would constantly blow from the east”; and that “buildings and the earth itself would fly off with such a rapid motion that men would have to be provided with claws like cats to enable them to hold fast to the earth’s surface.” Greatest weapon of all, he works up, by the use of Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas, a demonstration from theology and science combined, that the earth must stand in the centre, and that the sun must revolve about it. Nor was it merely fanatics who opposed the truth revealed by Copernicus; such strong men as Jean Bodin, in France, and Sir Thomas Browne, in England, declared against it as evidently contrary to Holy Scripture.

(Conclusion)

As laughable as this controversy over the placement of the earth seems to us today, it was a very big deal to the people involved in the middle of it, gauging from their reactions.

And as laughable as their pseudo-science was (claws like cats? Seriously???), and their readings of scripture, young-earth creationists pull the exact same stunts, only of a different flavor. I think it would do many of them well to learn from history.

TUaD, your claim that the theory of evolution is irreconcilable with scripture can be added to the long list of quotes theologians throughout history have made on similar scientific issues. It was once said that to assert that the earth moves is the same as questioning the very existence of God, among other things. As you can see, TUaD, your belief in a moving earth does not affect your belief in God, the virgin birth, the immortality of the soul, or the incarnation. The only thing in common with Theological Doomsayers is that they’ve all been wrong.

You can call people like me friends of atheism all you wish, but the fact is you would side with Galileo, Newton, and Pascal over any Christian theologian of their day on these matters. Yet the beautiful irony of this is today you use the same tactics these scientist’s detractors used on them! This goes for any other Young-earth creationist too.

Richard, the article you posted declares that young-earth creationism has been the consistent position of the church from its inception up until the last century or so, but conveniently ignores that a geocentric solar system was also the consistent teaching of the church for the first 1500 years of its existence (and wasn’t formally done away with until the 19th!). As with geocentrism, your theological tradition has hit the hard Wall of Reality. Its only a matter of time before the splatter hits the road and decays away.

And Richard, I’m STILL waiting for you to justify why you can use science to interpret scripture and no one else can.

Steve B, you are in good company with your plain, literal, “MY perspective” readings of scripture devoid of all historical and cultural context. Many great theologians throughout history made the same blunders you’re making today. Given their ignorance over the world of the Bible, their mistakes can be excused due to insufficient evidence. You do not have that same luxury.

Greg,

Thanks for these posts. Ah, those were the days. Simply replace the dreaded “Copernican” with “Darwinian” and the arguments can be recycled with ease.

At least at this time in history those branded “heretics” are not typically tried or physically assaulted in any way, although I do know of one individual formally tried as a heretic in his church in the 1990s over evolution (!).

Goodnight, all ye apostate Copernicans. Rest ye well and may ye come to repent of your Galilean heresies!

Yawn. Interesting mixture of fallacies presented here.

False analogy fallacy used as a red herring by which to create a strawman caricature.

Greg … #956

“You cannot read scripture from your perspective; scripture doesn’t revolve around your understanding … After 952 posts, I don’t think you are going to get it. I honestly, seriously, don’t.”

I’m afraid that you are the one that “doesn’t get it'” Greg. EVERYONE approaches Scripture from a certain perspective – including you. Your perspective happens to be different than mine. You don’t agree with mine, and I don’t agree with yours. You think believe that Scripture must always be filtered through an ANE perspective. I don’t.

gabriel,

Thanks.

I just thought I would let you know that I haven’t “thrown the baby out with the bath water” as far as the gifts of the Spirit go. I still very much believe they are for today and are very much needed. At least around here, however, it seems to be hard to find a place that believes that is the case that doesn’t get carried away in some of the hypercharismatic stuff that I have turned away from.

Greg

I should have said that I realize that your correction re: John’s view of the Genesis Flood (that he is an agnostic re: the scope of this event) was correct. I apologize for my error. As cheryl noted, however, I can’t remember all of the content of almost 1,000 comments!

However, “catastrophic flood geology” (the phrase John used) certainly doesn’t appear to be referring to a local flood!

TU&D

Gil,

I actually have different concerns than yours. I see folks apostasizing because of the lie of evolution. Atheists use evolution to discredit and dismiss Christianity.

And atheists see theistic evolutionists as “useful idiots”.

what is your evidence of people apostasizing because of the lie of evolution. there is tons of evidence that i am correct but i haven’t found any for your concern.

you totally hit the nail on the head when you state atheists uses evolution to discredit and dismiss Christianity, i said the same in my post. my question is why? what other scientific discovery are they presently using against us? electricity? gravity? nuclear fusion? they use the yec heresy against us because some have drawn a fictitious line that is easily breached.

people are on their way to Hell because the Truth of the Bible has been called into question a false teaching. would you believe the Bible if the Bible taught that Earth rotates west to east? or that the chemical make up of water was HO2? or that the moon was made of cheese? of course not, you would toss it aside as not being worthy of your time to read, the same is happening in astronomical numbers now!

evolution is not atheism!

its sad but true but atheists know more about God’s Handiwork than YECs!

Re 969. Several of us have posted on the ways in which YECism is parallel to the Galilean controversy. We noted several strong and applicable parallels between the two controversies, yet you simply deny that it is an appropriate analogy. What is your reasoning?

Re 970. On what grounds do you justify your approach to th interpretation of Scripture? or dismiss other interpretations? The standard method of interpretation among conservative evangelical scholars who believe the Bible to be inerrant is to understand the Bible in the same way and with the same meanings as would have been understood by the original authors and audience.

Regards,
#John

Your perspective happens to be different than mine. You don’t agree with mine, and I don’t agree with yours. You think believe that Scripture must always be filtered through an ANE perspective. I don’t.

No: John, Greg and I (among others on this blog) think that a portion of Scripture originally addressed to an ANE audience is best understood taking ANE culture into consideration.

Are you seriously arguing that an “I think this, you think that” approach to Scripture is a valid one? By that measure you could read whatever you want into it, with no means to challenge the opinions of others. You’re effectively arguing that everyone should have their own private interpretation of Scripture.

No. There needs to be, as far as is possible, an understanding of the original intent for the original audience. If you don’t have the expertise to understand it, then rely on the consensus of scholars who maintain orthodox faith.

Re 940: Steve B., your interpretation of 2 Peter 3:3-7 does not appear to be correct.

As can be seen in the ESV or most translations, Peter quotes the scoffers as saying, “Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things are continuing as they were from the beginning of creation.” So, they are scoffers because they doubt the promise of Christ’s coming. Their justification for their scoffing and doubt is their belief that nothing has changed, that everything is the same as it was at the beginning.

Peter attacks their justification by arguing that things have not continued as they were at the beginning, but in fact the world (“as it then was”) was destroyed by a flood. Peter notes that they ignore and deliberately overlook the fact that the world has not continued the same. Peter then states that, moreover, the world will not continue as it is but will be destroyed, and he links that destruction to the destruction of the ungodly (thereby warning them).

The foregoing is the interpretation of that passage in every commentary I’ve ever read. So, the scoffing is linked only to the doubting of Christ’s return. It is the scoffer’s justification for their doubt that is linked to their ignoring of the flood.

Regards,
#John

Re 947 by Steve B.

There is a difference between a world wide flood, and a YECist catastrophic flood that lays down sedimentary rocks and cause rapid movements of the earth’s tectonic plates, etc., which is why I try always to refer to the “YEC catastrophic flood” when I deny their version of the flood. The YEC description of the flood is a very recent 20th century phenomenom.

However, the flood could be global and even cover the mountains without being like the YEC catastrophic flood, and in fact a calmer flood than what YECs believe in was what was thought of in prior times (by those who believed in a global one).

Consequently, I only deny the YEC version, which lacks any semblance of scientific validity whatsoever, has no supporting evidence, and no model of any kind that can be tested (and by model, I mean one that makes real world predictions that can be confirmed or disconfirmed by field observations or by laboratory experiments, NOT some vague text description or some pretty video).

As to whether the flood was global (in a non-YEC, historical-church-belief sense) or was local (as described in modern beliefs or older beliefs), I am agnostic, though I have stated that if I had to choose I would choose local. Furthermore, the more I’ve been reading as part of my research for my comments on this blog, the more I’ve become convinced that a local flood is probably what is being described.

Regards,
#John

John,

You’ve again shown you like to burn down strawmen.

Please tell us *exactly* what you think “the YEC catastrophic flood” entails, so that we can judge your various assertions about this flood.

Thoughts about Galileo:

John wrote:

Re 969. Several of us have posted on the ways in which YECism is parallel to the Galilean controversy. We noted several strong and applicable parallels between the two controversies, yet you simply deny that it is an appropriate analogy. What is your reasoning?

Let’s be clear. In John’s (and other’s) parallel, Galileo is promoting scientific truth which is resisted by the church. Galileo’s “truth” is parallel to today’s consensus science of the old earth (and Gabriel and other TE’s would add biological evolution) — ie today’s “scientific truth”.

Here are a few pertinent details often ignored (or unknown):

1. By ignoring Kepler’s work, Galileo pushed for an already out of date and *erroneous* model of the solar system.

2. The church was initally open to Galileo. Cardinal Bellarmine requested that Galileo provide proof for his model. He said it was “excellent good sense” to claim that Galileo’s model was mathematically simpler, and:

“… If there were a real proof that the Sun is in the centre of the universe, that the Earth is in the third sphere, and that the Sun does not go round the Earth but the Earth round the Sun, then we should have to proceed with great circumspection in explaining passages of Scripture which appear to teach the contrary, and we should rather have to say that we did not understand them than declare an opinion false which has been proved to be true. But I do not think there is any such proof since none has been shown to me.”

3. Galileo did not provide the requested proof, first claiming that no one could understand them, and later providing an incorrect “proof” involving tides. — Important point here: Galileo could provide no proof because he was *wrong* in some important details.

4. By promoting the heliocentric solar system, Galileo was opposing Aristotelian thought.

“The first serious attack against Copernicus on religious grounds came also not from clerical quarters, but from a layman — none other than delle Colombe, the leader of the [ardent Aristotelian] league.”

[continued]

(Galileo continued)

There is also the common misnomer that the church’s resistance to Galileo (re: heliocentrism) was because it removed the earth from the most important spot…the center of the solar system. However consider the following:

Many antitheists praise Galileo for removing man from the centre of the universe, supposedly curing man’s arrogance. Typical is physicist Lawrence Krauss, “Galileo removed us from the centre of the universe: how much greater a fall could we have?”

However, this shows complete ignorance of the historical context. The old geocentric view, i.e. with Earth at the centre, was not at all edifying. For much of church history, the centre was regarded as the lowest place to be. At the lowest was Hades at Earth’s centre, and the abode of man on Earth’s surface was the next worse, quite corrupted compared to heavenly perfections. The further away from the centre, the closer to heaven you were thought to be.

The moon, as fairly close to Earth, was regarded as a transitional place. The sun was in a higher plane, planets were pretty good, in their spheres made of the imperishable fifth element (quintessence), but not as exalted as the distant fixed stars, while the firmament was depicted as beyond even the stars, and God’s realm was further beyond that.

So moving the earth away from the centre was, in the context of the middle ages, actually exalting it. Rather, what really upset the establishment was Galileo’s discovery of blemishes on the sun (sunspots), precisely because it undermined the idea of perfect heavenly bodies.

documentation and other info here:
http://creation.com/galileo-quadricentennial
http://creation.com/the-galileo-affair-history-or-heroic-hagiography

re 978 by Richard

By ““the YEC catastrophic flood” I mean the flood as described by the CMI, ICR, AIG websites, which is a late 20th century novelty, as far as explanations of the flood go. If you have a different view from them, by all means present it. You yourself have referred to “major concepts as catastrophic plate techtonics pioneered by Dr. John Baumgartner”, which led me to believe that you supported those YEC catastrophic flood theories, in which “catastrophic” entails more than just the death of all life, but also substantial rearrangement of the earth’s surface: movement of continents, deposits of sedimentary rock, formations of metamorphic rock, formations of extensive cave systems, formations of mountains, formations of canyon and falls systems (such as the Grand Canyon or Niagara Falls), etc. In reviewing this thread, I find that you haven’t explained much of your view about the flood, except that it is recent.

Re Galileo

Richard, it is true that the response to Galileo by the church was not uniform, and the Pope really only started to oppose Galileo after he insulted the Pope. However, it is also true that significant portions of the church and significant personages within the church did oppose Galileo for the very reasons and quotes provided by Greg. It is also true the accepted interpretation of the Bible was geocentric, based on an allegedly “literal” hermeneutic.

Several lines of comparison can be drawn between geocentrism and YECism:

1. Both allegedly based on a “literal” hermeneutic

2. Both supported by a church (geocentrism far more widely than YECism)

3. Both were argued for on the basis that we should derive our astronomy, age, geology from Scripture rather than investigation of nature

4. Both denounced the scientific theories (heliocentrism, Old Earth) as casting all of the Bible and all of faith into doubt if accepted and geocentrism / YECism were given up.

5. Both faced science that was moving in only one direction and for which evidence was mounting yearly.

In the case of geocentrism even the YECs have accepted the science of heliocentrism as incontrovertibly and definitely true. Oddly, however, YECs claim that we cannot know anything scientific as ultimately true, yet they continue to reject the literal interpretation of the Bible that leads to only geocentrism.

If the YECs believe science over the Bible (literally interpreted, and the historic interpretation of most of the church throughout history) in the case of geocentrism, why should any of believe the YECs that we should reject the science of an old earth and believe in a literal interpretation of a young earth? Seems to hurt the YEC credibility and set them up as hypocrites as far as their comments about science go.

Regards,
#John

Further to my post 977

The reason I continue to be agnostic, is that I can see both interpretations (global, local) as reasonable interpretations of the Bible that can be held by an evangelical inerrantist. I haven’t yet seen any evidence for a world wide flood deposit dated to about 6,000 years ago or so. However, it was only relatively recently that the world wide deposit of iridium from a huge meteorite impact was confirmed. So perhaps there is a world wide flood deposit and we either haven’t recognized it or haven’t found it. Either way, it won’t affect my faith or my understanding of the rest of the Bible.

Regards,
#John

John

I hope you had a pleasant visit with your parents!

In #977, you wrote: “However, the flood could be global and even cover the mountains without being like the YEC catastrophic flood, and in fact a calmer flood than what YECs believe in was what was thought of in prior times (by those who believed in a global one).”

The idea that you are referring to here is the “Tranquil Flood theory.”

Here is an illuminating article about this theory by Henry Morris, founder of Institute for Creation Research: http://www.icr.org/article/54/
I hope you find the time to read it.

Naturally, I suspect that you will be skeptical of the article, due to its author. However, please keep in mind that H M Morris is impeccably qualified to write about the Flood. He had a Ph.D. in hydraulic engineering from the University of Minnesota, and at VA Polytechnic Institute was professor of Hydraulic Engineering and Chairman of the Dept. of Civil Engineering.

Regards
Steve

If the YECs believe science over the Bible (literally interpreted, and the historic interpretation of most of the church throughout history) in the case of geocentrism, why should any of believe the YECs that we should reject the science of an old earth and believe in a literal interpretation of a young earth? Seems to hurt the YEC credibility and set them up as hypocrites as far as their comments about science go.

Actually not…it’s a comment on the actual state of the science itself. You’re quite happy to ignore the problems with radiometric dating, for example. As I stated long ago, I apparently have a higher standard of scientific “proof”. Techniques that fail with known subjects are not accepted as reliable for unknown subjects.

Re 983. Thanks for your good wishes, Steve. My father has been helping me rebuild my rotten front porch (They haven’t been able to come out to visit for 17 years and the first time they show up I put him to work . . . . : ) . They will be leaving Sunday, so I catch up on my legal work late at night. I’ve read about 1/2 the article and will finish it later.

Re 984. Your point about radiometric dating, even if true, does not address the point that I was making: YECs accept science to defeat a literal and previously accepted interpretation of the Bible, namely geocentrism, but YECs will not accept that science has defeated the young age interpretation.

Among many other dating methods, YECs cannot account for alternating layers of pollen in sedimentary deposits.

Regards,
#John

John wrote

By ““the YEC catastrophic flood” I mean the flood as described by the CMI, ICR, AIG websites, which is a late 20th century novelty, as far as explanations of the flood go. If you have a different view from them, by all means present it.

There are multiple competing global flood models, and nobody claims any of them are proven (at least none of the major “YEC” scientists, as far as I’m aware). Thus your continued references to the “YEC catastrophic flood” simply shows that you are not familiar with the YEC literature. And yet, this lack of familiarity has not stopped you from repeatedly stating that virtually all geological structures are “impossible for the YEC flood”.

Long ago, my posts 384 and 390-392 for example, discussed commonly held misconceptions about deposition from water that are being overturned by new research. These new understandings have potentially profound impact upon what any flood, global or local, is capable of doing. This info has been ignored

Have you actually read Baumgartner’s papers, for instance? Or only talkorigins lampooning of them?

Richard,

We’d really, really like you to answer why you can use science to reject literal interpretations in the Bible and other people can’t.

The fact that you’ve directly avoided the question for several weeks suggests you don’t have an answer to it.

I think we both know the problem. Either accept the literal interpretation of the verses and adopt geocentrism, or accept the science against a literal interpretation and set a standard for others to do the same against YEC.

If you’ve got a third position that allows you to remain consistent, we’d love to hear it.

But if not, please simply admit your inconsistency and drop the argument. If you don’t reply to this I’ll just assume that’s your position.

(confidence in science)

Greg wrote:

We’d really, really like you to answer why you can use science to reject literal interpretations in the Bible and other people can’t.

The fact that you’ve directly avoided the question for several weeks suggests you don’t have an answer to it.

How can you say I’ve not answered this when I just wrote this:

Actually not…it’s a comment on the actual state of the science itself. You’re quite happy to ignore the problems with radiometric dating, for example. As I stated long ago, I apparently have a higher standard of scientific “proof”. Techniques that fail with known subjects are not accepted as reliable for unknown subjects.

Also, perhaps my post 244 from last month was missed. In it I stated:

Furthermore, there are numerous documented cases of discrepant dates calculated, including those of rocks of known age. Of course, there have been attempts to explain away most of these, but often even these explanations tend to illustrate the problem.

So we differ in our approach of what we accept as compelling evidence. I recognize the inherent limitations of radiometric dating. You keep mentioning the “thousands” of datings which are not disputed. The fact that they are not disputed does not mean that they are correct. Dalrymple’s K-Ar date for Devils Postpile were wrong even BEFORE it was disputed.

[continued]

(confidence in science – continued)
Since apparently these comments were too subtle, let me expand a bit. The science that shows heliocentrism is based upon gravity and the Kepler’s realization of elliptical orbits. This science is repeatable, observable, and (other than the pioneer anomaly) has no counter examples. It does not have published results “seriously in error” as do dating techniques. It does not generate answers that differ by many orders of magnitude. It does not require extrapolating a short term observation back over billions of unobserved years. Thus there is a qualitative difference between these two types of “science”. I recognize and acknowledge this difference and therefore treat the age calculations as unproven. John and other OEs ignore these differences and treat them as “confident beyond doubt”. My scientific confidence is based upon techniques that do not show by repeated errors that they are faulty. I am not convinced by current scientific consensus to ignore the problems. The history of science shows the consensus has often been completely wrong.

I’ve addressed these problems with age calculation many times in this blog. A few examples can be found in the posts mentioned here:

posts 626 – the age of the earth tied to failed nebular hypothesis and assumed origin of meteorites. I asked John weeks ago to provide his claimed “good reasons” for believing that meteors and the earth formed at the same time…he has not done so.

post 237 – Devils Postpile changed from 0.94 ± 0.16 million years to 0.63±0.35 million years, then allowing for anywhere between .25 to 1 million years. Then the age was changed to “less than 100,000 years” and USGS now says that the previous age was “seriously in error”

post 629 – billions of years to a few thousand years; researcher wrote: “Quite a few people, including me, have been burnt by this.”

post 357 – rocks of known age generate calculated ages vastly wrong

post 165 – showed two different decay “constants” in use for same dating technique.

hope this helps clarify my thinking

Greg: “Either accept the literal interpretation of the verses and adopt geocentrism, or accept the science against a literal interpretation and set a standard for others to do the same against YEC.”

False dilemma fallacy.

Easily resolved if one did not have a badly caricatured understanding of what “literal interpretation” means.

Please look at the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. Critics have called CSBI inerrantists “fundamentalists” and “literalists” and you’ll see that these are false accusations.

Gil: “what is your evidence of people apostasizing because of the lie of evolution. there is tons of evidence that i am correct but i haven’t found any for your concern.”

Ignoramus. See this:

“Amid the muddle of charges against Christendom, we find that almost all of their stories mention that once evolutionism was explained to them as a fact that they began to find fault with the Bible.

Huston Smith comments on this trend:

“One reason education undoes religious belief is its teaching of evolution; Darwin’s own drift from orthodoxy to agnosticism was symptomatic. Martin Lings is probably right in saying that ‘more cases of loss of religious faith are to be traced to the theory of evolution… than anything else.’ (Studies in Comparative Religion, Winter 1970.) – quoted from Christian Century, July 7-14, 1982, p. 755.

Once they lost faith in the Beginning, they began to echo the Serpent’s question “Did God really say?” and then they began to doubt the rest, until it all seemed pointless.

They recognized the truth of atheist Frank Zinlder’s assessment:

“The most devastating thing though that biology did to Christianity was the discovery of biological evolution. Now that we know that Adam and Eve never were real people the central myth of Christianity is destroyed. If there never was an Adam and Eve th ere never was an original sin. If there never was an original sin there is no need of salvation. If there is no need of salvation there is no need of a Saviour. And I submit that puts Jesus, historical or otherwise, into the ranks of the unemployed. I think that evolution is absolutely the death knell of Christianity.”

–[Frank Zindler, debate with William Craig, Atheism vs Christianity video, Zondervan, 1996.]

Or G. Richard Bozarth:

“Christianity has fought, still fights, and will fight science to the desperate end over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus’ earthly life wassupposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the son of God. If Jesus was not the redeemer who died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing.” — quoted from The American Atheist, September 1978, p. 30.

Those who embraced evolutionism as fact rejected Christianity wholesale, recognizing that what was being presented as scientific truth completely contradicted what they’d been taught as religious truth.”

From Ex-Christians: The Evolution Factor.

Ergo, theistic evolutionists are “useful idiots” for the Enemy.

you call me “ignoramus” what a loving and kind thing to say. i guess if you don’t really have anything to say just call someone a name.

all of your evidence is just opinion no facts.

the last paragraph of post #991 is exactly what i’m trying to convey. “Those who embraced evolutionism as fact rejected Christianity wholesale, recognizing that what was being presented as scientific truth completely contradicted what they’d been taught as religious truth.”

please understand the point i am making, if they weren’t “taught as religious truth” then there would be no reason for them rejecting thier faith!

no one rejects their faith because of gravity and other scientific discoveries. they lose their faith when someone makes a young earth a tenant of their doctrine and faith.

evolution is not atheism, please quit trying to make it inot atheism

you have drawn the line in the sand, not God.

Gil: “you call me “ignoramus” what a loving and kind thing to say.”

#1. I meant it.

#2. You’re welcome. (assuming, that is, that you’re not being sarcastic).

“evolution is not atheism, please quit trying to make it into atheism.”

Tell that to the atheists.

To all …

May all of you have a very blessed and pleasant 4th of July in rememberance of the honorable and courageous individuals who have sacrificed so much to ensure our freedom.

God bless all of you

Steve

TUaD,

I’m very familiar with the CSBI and have no issue with it. You may want to bring Article XVIII to Richard and Steve B’s attention though.

Can you explain to me how the literalism of the geocentrists is different from that of YECs? Like, how YECs are justified in their interpretation but a geocentrist isn’t?

And I think you should discuss things with Gabriel, as he said he’d like to back in post #961.

This “useful idiot” would like to see that.

Tell that to the atheists.

::sigh:: Ignoring how science works again, eh? I think you and Steve B have a lot in common…or just the same blinders.

Richard,

Thanks for the reply, sort of. So you think that its ok to use science to interpret the Bible as long as you agree with that science based on your own standards of judgment?

Awesome.

Oh wow, look who showed up to the party!

http://www.fixedearth.com/
http://www.geocentricity.com/

Did you ever get a chance to read John’s posts regarding coral reefs and all, or the other non-radiometric ways of dating the earth? I may have missed that discussion when I was away.

But thanks for finally qualifying your statements from the past few weeks. Seeing as how you were previously very confident that it was wrong to use science to interpret the Bible, even holding that plain fact against me and others, I began to think you weren’t too sure what was going on in your own backyard.

But now I know better 🙂

And I may have missed it, but did any YEC ever bring a secular scientist into the discussion that supports their ideas? I’d like to hear their justification for going against the flow. I’m sure they exist, right?

TU&D, you have exposed yourself with your name calling. my dialouge with you has ended but i will ask a rhetorical question or two.

#994 “evolution is not atheism, please quit trying to make it into atheism.”

Tell that to the atheists

my only comment is that i can tell an atheist that the Bible does not teach a literal 24hr/7 day creation and that the earth is 6,000 years old. that to be a Christian he doesn’t need to turn off his brain. hopefully, i might even have an opportunity to share God’s love and the Gospel with the atheist.

TU &D, what would you tell the atheist? would you first debate him about your YEC position versus evolution. then when you convinced him you were correct, then share the Gospel?

gil,

I couldn’t help but not that you took advantage of the fact that someone called you an ignoramus to completely dodge his point.

If I may point out, Jesus called people snakes, whitewashed tombs full of dead mens bones and play actors [hypocrites] and dubbed Herod “that fox.” So I suppose Jesus exposed himself with His namecalling. Seriously, will you utterly ignore the man’s objection or is his accusation justified?

And why do you tell the atheist that he need not trust the Bible when it speaks of Creation, but he should trust it for the Gospel?

Comprehend something here: The foundational basis of the Gospel is Genesis. The very reason we need to be saved is found in a literal Fall requiring the literal substitutionary sacrifice of a literal Savior. There is something wrong with the world, but it was not always so. The Bible claims that death came by sin. Death is the deserved earnings of sin. All have sinned in Adam, but whosoever will believe on the Second Adam can have eternal life. And one day it will be restored and death will be no more.

In any case, this same Genesis, part of the revealed Word of an infallible, infinite God who was there, also states that the world was created in 6 literal days and that there was a worldwide Flood in the time of Noah.

Yet you ask along with that Serpent, Did God really say? Yet expect the atheist to fully trust God’s Word for salvation. Thus your hypocrisy is complete. And our children reject Christianity wholesale for the sake of this lie of evolution.

I wonder which goodly arguments you will present before the Throne of Him before whom we must all give an account when He asks you why you did not consider the fruit of evolution?

-Sirius Knott

Deep thanks Sirius Knott.

Gil: “what is your evidence of people apostasizing because of the lie of evolution. there is tons of evidence that i am correct but i haven’t found any for your concern.”

Here’s another one for you:

“For much of my evangelical Christian life, I held a Theistic Evolutionary view of creation. … Let me state up front that I can only describe what my view was; I cannot and do not claim to speak in any way for other theistic evolutionists. My view of theistic evolution was pretty simple and consisted of these points:

•The first section of Genesis (say, the first eleven chapters) should not be read as literal accounts; they were literary constructions intended to recognize and respectfully memorialize through poetic imagery God’s activity in the universe. As for the rest of Genesis, I’ll shamefacedly admit that I took much of it literally.
•Evolution was the process that God designed to create and sustain life on earth.
•The Original Sin of Adam and Eve was pride; maybe Eve sinned first, maybe she didn’t – what mattered was that Adam and Eve ruptured, in some indefinite way, their relationship with God. The consequences of that rupture were death, evil, suffering, etc., that catastrophically affected all of creation, as well as humankind. Before their Fall, the universe was perfect.

If suffering, death and extinction are inevitable components of the evolutionary process, then it follows that the doctrine of Original Sin makes no sense. Firstly, as I’ve already noted, there is no way that humankind can be held responsible for bringing suffering and “evil” into the world. The world is not imperfect because people did something really bad and messed up what had been a perfect place and a perfect way of life. Humans evolved into a world that was already filled with suffering and other forms of imperfection, such as hurricanes, floods and Ice Ages. Secondly, death is not a punishment for sin; death has always been part of the cycle of life and evolution on earth. If humans are not responsible for suffering and evil, and death is simply a natural process rather than a punishment, then what need is there for atonement and redemption? Once I reached the right conclusion to that question, that there is no such need, I only needed a short, quick mental step to advance from discarding theistic evolution to discarding theism in its entirety.”

From From Theistic Evolution to Apostasy.

#999 continued.

The Enemy cheers. Apostasy as a result of theistic evolution.

Ergo, theistic evolutionists are “useful idiots” indeed for the Dark Lord.