@Swamidass
That is so, so, so, so true. Most of the time, my comments sound far more brusque in writing than I would ever mean them to. What would you like it to be framed as (assuming I could get someone from AIG etc. to participate?)
1 Like
If I am to participate, you can point them to my blog. http://peacefulscience.org, so they can see what I am doing. Most recently (soon to hit the web) I did a dialogue with John Sanford, who is one of their YEC friends. My hope would be to seek common ground.
Knowing that we will probably still disagree about science, I would hope to dignify their position and to embrace them as family without shame. I would probably explain why I am convinced by evolutionary science and how I see it in Scripture, but my biggest concerns with AiG are in their theology of a threatened Jesus, not science.
I want to learn about why they teach that Jesus is threatened by evolution. Perhaps some versions of theistic evolution do not fit their theology, but I affirm a historical Adam, Inerrancy, a historical Fall, and all the key doctrine they are convinced is incompatible with evolution. In fact, I would call myself a “six-day-no-death-before-Adam-revelationist-creationist”, to borrow the term from Ken Ham. Perhaps they have problems with some theistic evolutionists, but what exactly does that have to do with evolution?
If you find someone there who is interested in honest conversation, I might have some funds to use to make this happen. It really depends, however, on there willingness to have a non-combative conversation with a peacemaker on the “other side”.
If you want to go with someone else, I’d encourage you to email Deb Haarsma or David Buller at BioLogos for some suggestions. I know @JohnWalton has visited AiG offices to discuss his book, and @Joel_Duff and @davidson have both visited the AiG ark and written about them extensively. So I am certainly not the only option. I may be the one most focused on seeking peace.
1 Like
And that was exactly what I thought, that nearly every museum would qualify. It is not the purpose of Biologos to present a different view of science unique to Biologos, but rather to help integrate Chistian faith into the lives of those with an interest in science. It is not reasonable to expect a relatively small organization to do things outside of its scope.
That last response was a bit too meandering to clearly answer your question. It would be best framed as:
A Dialogue
to Understand and be Understood
to Find Common Ground
I’m open to adjustments, but that is where the general thrust needs to go for me to be interested.
1 Like
No, but the founder of BioLogos, Dr. Francis Collins, recorded a video for the American Museum of Natural History in Manhattan where he explains that he is a scientist who believes in God. He also explains that when god-of-the-gaps arguments fall apart they can do great damage to a person’s faith. The video is shown in the Hall of Human Origins, if you are interested.
1 Like
"If you can’t trust the Book of Genesis as literal history, then you can’t trust the rest of the Bible. After all, every single doctrine of biblical theology is founded in the history of Genesis 1-11…"
from Ham, K. & Ham, S. (2008), Raising Godly Children in an Ungodly World: Leaving a Lasting Legacy
And yet we have millions of Christians who happily consider most of Genesis to be myth or legend…and yet still place their faith in Jesus and the Resurrection.
Observant readers noticed long ago that the Old Testament is surprisingly silent on the general resurrection… and that if anything, the O.T.'s silence is much more of a problem to Christianity than how we treat Genesis!
I guess I see this another way.
I do trust Genesis as reliable history because of the Gospel of Jesus and that he rose from the dead. I hasten to add, of course, that ancient Hebrews wrote history down differently than us, but this in no way means it is ahistorical, falsehood or symbolic. It is history.
Not in the least.
Does that mean that you agree with me?
1 Like
Something else struck me George as I’ve read the seemingly endless recent threads/posts which drill down into the OT meanings of the word “day” and how to understand the OT genealogies, OT history and Genesis. There is a great concern for literalness, accuracy of Genesis, not least the historicity of the first couple but what about this unrelated but important issue: it seems that our Lord, the good apostles and the letter to the churches called Revelation appeared to assume that the literal end of days was going to come very soon - certainly not 2000 years on and counting. At least that is what struck me as I recently read Revelation. Of course we have the much quoted text that a day for God is like 1000 years, but, I don’t think that is what the gospel writers, apostles and Revelation expected, specially if you try to get “literal.”
Anyway, that is what hit me as I’ve enjoyed reading these threads, that and the thought that perhaps some posters may need to consider joining a support group to get weaned off posting to Internet forums 
1 Like
-
It is interesting that my comment about the O.T. stirred you to offer your non sequitur view. My point was that there is not much of a slippery slope for millions of Christians who do not share your views on Genesis.
-
The O.T. seems to have been mostly vetted by the Sadduccee scribes who scrubbed it clean of any notion of a spiritual afterlife for the masses. So I find it ironic that YECs consider the O.T. so fundamental to a view that the O.T. seems to have been written to ignore!
Agree with you on what?
That focusing on an interpretation of a small part of the OT that is neither shared by most theologians, nor most Christians in the world today, nor most Christians over history, clearly constitutes diverting the focus AWAY from Christ.
While I’ve got you here, what is your exegesis of Genesis 32:22-30? I find it intriguing.
1 Like
You can watch the April Historical Adam conference panel at Southeastern Baptist Seminary with Dennis Venema and AIG’s Nathaniel Jeanson here.
You can watch Dennis Venema and AIG’s Georgia Purdom at LeTourneau here.
2 Likes
There are many times where the majority has been wrong and the minority has been right. I find your highly democratic (as in, pertaining to democracy) views toward science (and theology!!!) to be intriguing…and somewhat disconcerting.
What do you mean? (I mean, what does this have to do with the topic?)
@benkirk
It has to do with deciding whether someone is sincere about the topic.
It’s a control, as it is a different small part of the OT, yet still in Genesis. I want to see if your position has any basis in theological principles.
1 Like
Yes, but over time, as observed by Asimov, the errors are smaller and fewer.
Gravity is not going to be found to be a vastly tragic error… just as Newtonian physics are not going to be found to be irrelevant in the collision of two trucks.
Einstein’s calculations regarding the trucks might be more precise … but not so much that anyone is going to notice the differences.
The sensible development of the idea of a firmament was an important position to take in the ancient world. But over time, it became increasingly easy to see that it was a big error.
Even before we got into space, humans could verify that there was no firmament. They used sophisticated balloons with cameras. They used radar. What was a “probability” became an “impossibility”.
In fairness, I do have a broader view than this. I would modify this to…
I am open to a six-day-no-death-before-Adam-revelationist-creationist position, and do not see this in conflict with affirming evolution.
About death, Augustine did not think there was any death before the fall, but was also convinced that the death referred to in this was Spiritual death, not physical or animal. That position is literally a “no-death-before-the-fall” position. About six days, John Walton thinks the temple inauguration of Gen 1 happens over 6 literal 24 hour day. That makes him a six-day person in that sense.
You need a tighter definition of “science.” Take a look at
This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.