I would put scare quotes around ‘secular’ – there might just be a few Christians who are scientists that would agree. ; - )
1 Like
Hey, just saying, if you have a theory that impacts the Bible, you should have biblical proof to back your theory up, that’s only reasonable. Also, no one has answered my original questions.You can’t just say, science says we should murder kids and then go murder thousands of kids. That goes against something that is taught in the Bible, and in much the same way, Theistic Evolution goes against the God of the Bible.
Your theory makes claims that contradict the clear word of God and you have to deal with those claims somehow.
All science is, is a paradigm for understanding general revelation, there are accurate ways to view general revelation from a Biblical perspective. Theistic Evolution is not one of them. Anyway, I’m signing off as you have yet to provide any salient evidence. Farewell and enjoy the echo chamber!
I know, but I was using aigspeak
1 Like
If you take the Bible literally, you’ll see that God thought it was a good idea to drown thousands of kids.
1 Like
OK here’s another one for you.
¹³Do not have two differing weights in your bag — one heavy, one light. ¹⁴Do not have two differing measures in your house — one large, one small. ¹⁵You must have accurate and honest weights and measures, so that you may live long in the land the Lᴏʀᴅ your God is giving you. ¹⁶For the Lᴏʀᴅ your God detests anyone who does these things, anyone who deals dishonestly. — Deuteronomy 25:13-16
Any creation model, any interpretation of Genesis 1, any challenge to the scientific consensus on the age of the earth or evolution, MUST obey that Scripture. It must have accurate and honest weights and measures; it must get its facts straight; and it must apply the same standards of rigour and quality control that we see in “secular” science at the very minimum. For the simple reason that failure to do so is lying.
And don’t you dare try to tell me that I’m taking that passage out of context. Its very subject matter renders the context irrelevant, for the simple reason that not having accurate and honest weights and measures is lying in every context. To insist that there are contexts to which those verses do not apply is to demand the right to tell lies about those contexts.
It’s as simple as this. When attempting to address matters of science, you must tell the truth. If anything is a heresy, it is attempting to support your doctrine by lying about facts.
Science does not say that we should murder kids. That is a straw man.
The accurate ways to view general revelation from a Biblical perspective are, as I said, Deuteronomy 25:13-16. And I’m sorry, but theistic evolution does obey those verses. Young earth, on the other hand, does not.
6 Likes
Would we need to give Biblical counter-evidence to people who claim the Earth is flat?
You seem to have things entirely backwards. An old Earth and evolution are facts. Just because they lead to conclusions you don’t like does not make these facts go away. Christians are accepting evolution for the same reason you, presumably, accept a round Earth.
6 Likes
Why wouldn’t scientific evidence do the job?
The facts contradict your interpretation of the Bible.
6 Likes
Regulars here are well familiar with the truth of this, YECs not so much:
Truth comes from reality – the truth that comes from the reality of the data that God has revealed in the Bible and the truth that comes from the reality of data that God has revealed in creation. They do not and cannot conflict. If they appear to, then our interpretation of one or the other or both is flawed.
2 Likes
Sam, I thought I would respond just in case you decide to check back. It is easy to feel a little piled up on, but that is what happens when you go into an Alabama sports bar and yell, “Go “Dawgs”.
In any case, you seem to be genuine in your statements and struggles, and deserve answers. I think you have gotten some good ones, though perhaps with a measure of snark at times. In any case, it may help to read through some of the comments.
Ultimately, I think the difference in the YEC and EC is the way we interpret the Bible, not in the science, so you have to go there to find resolution. Science is just another bit of knowledge that can help us understand the Bible. And in early Genesis, it helps us understand that God is speaking of theologic, not scientific truths. Ironically, in the pre-science era, people understood that, but with the rise of scientific knowledge, that understanding seems to have gotten lost in the modern YEC movement.
8 Likes
You are quite wrong. People have responded numerous times. I even posed a series of questions that ties into your convo that you never answered.
So I’ll go at it again from a different angle.
This is what you said , “First, Theistic Evolution makes God a terrible, heartless thing, second, it strips from His Son the purpose of the cross, and third, it removes from us His people our dignity as image bearers. “
First of all there is nothing evil about evolution. There is nothing about evolution that makes god evil. Especially if you believe that God flooded the whole world killing everyone but a few, and god sent a angel to murder all the first born and god orchestrated wars to murder little ones and women who were all clearly innocent. The entire gospel as mentioned is about the son of God dying so that we can have new life so we see in evolution death resulting in new life, new species through natural selection. So nothing there is out of the ordinary for what you already hold God accountable of doing.
You mention that it strips away the purpose of Christ? That does not even make sense. That’s why I mentioned what was the death Adam faced on the day he sinned. You did not really answer. You demonstrated no real defense. Christ died so that we may have eternal life. The Bible says the stomach and food will perish. Revelation mentions eating and drinking in new creation. If we demand this to be scientific it’s a bit ridiculous. So I’ll have fingers and a mouth to eat with, but no stomach? Or maybe none of that is meant to be literal. So even within EC views christ still came to die for our sins and save us.
It does not remove us from his people. He made his people the Jews and eventually grafted in gentiles as part of Christianity.
You said it takes away from us as bearing his image…. Do you think Yahweh is a bipedal humanoid being? I doubt even you think that. So in his image must not be something about what we look like but how we are able to feel and think. Our cognitive processes, imagination and emotional intelligence. So nothing in evolution changes that either.
2 Likes
“It is surely harmful to souls to make it a heresy to believe what is proved.” --Galileo Galilei
11 Likes
Easy. My own eyes. I do not have to outsource what I can see.
Just hiking in the Rockies, I encounter evidence of the earth’s great antiquity. When I view the band of the milky way, I am seeing deep time along with deep space. You can measure the speed of light with your own microwave oven. I’ve read Snelling and Lisle and the rest of them on geology and cosmology, and I think I will believe what I can plainly see for myself.
Could humans really have cohabitated with dinosaurs? “Hey, has anyone seen the cow? Not again!” AiG asserts that people would live apart. Right. Because theropods read and respect no trespassing signs. Do you find that argument persuasive? And for that awe inspiring spectacle all we get are a few ambiguous poetic verses in Job and Psalms talking about Leviathan and behemoth - that do not quite fit now, do they? - while there are hundreds of ancient depictions of cats and cattle. But in the fossil record there is not a single human, cat or cow to be found with dinosaurs.
YEC cannot even count if the counting is tree rings. Let’s go on and on about extra rings and false rings, even if about about eight thousand extra rings are needed and false rings do not look the same as annual rings and trees are more likely to miss rings than present extra rings. Now counting is something I can relate to; so yeah, I believe dendrochronology takes us back past twelve thousand years.
Young earth creationism is not just denial of the near totality of science, but a violence to common sense and observation available to any reasonably informed person.
9 Likes
That prompted my recollection of this piece:
The different methods validate each other.
3 Likes
This quote by George Orwell from Nineteen Eighty Four comes to my mind:
“The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.”
I posted that quote on Facebook a couple of years ago, without comment, when it was doing the rounds in the wake of something that Donald Trump said. The very first response I got was from a YEC accusing me of “not believing the Bible.”
YECism really is nothing short of Orwellian. It isn’t just untrue, it’s blatantly untrue. Its falsehood is obvious to anyone with only a trivial level of scientific literacy. It robs you of your very ability to tell what is real and what isn’t. Yet its adherents attempt to weaponise the Bible in order to intimidate Christians into acquiescing to it. That’s what Answers in Genesis is doing with their accusations of “heresy” and “false teaching.” It’s gaslighting, pure and simple.
12 Likes
And ice cores (with annual layers) can take us back many, many thousands of years.
4 Likes
AiG’s statement of faith really says it all.
If the evidence really did support a young Earth, then they wouldn’t need that statement. It’s like a defense attorney claiming that any evidence that makes the defendant look guilty must be thrown out because it makes the defendant look guilty. How can AiG honestly claim that the evidence is on their side when they openly reject any evidence that disagrees with them?
13 Likes
AiG has no motivation for fairness, honesty, or fair representation of others. The more anger they can stir up, both here and among their followers, the more free publicity the get and the more donations keep rolling in. This is very much a “Heads they win, Tails we lose” situation. Craft your responses carefully, and don’t play by their rules.
8 Likes
On the other hand, many prominent Christians of that era, who understood humility, didn’t have a problem with it.
Could you give concrete examples of such people? I believe you, I just find what you’re saying very interesting and would like to look into it.
Asa Gray is probably the most prominent example. He was a close friend of Charles Darwin and he remained a devout Christian his entire life.
9 Likes
I don’t know if you have seen this here yet?
Joel Edmund Anderson is the author of “The Heresy of Ham”.
8 Likes