Looks like an upcoming movie: “The Ark and the Darkness” is being promoted pretty heavily right now. A poster got sent to our school anyway. AiG is among the enthusiastic pushers which probably tells me what I need to know about it. I’ll admit - I haven’t even watched the two-minute trailer for it yet, but noise about it is already circulating around my lunchroom circles. Apparently it was at least partly filmed around the Kentucky Ark Encounter.
I think the main difference for me as a creationist, from say a secular individual, is that i see evolution as something that God initiated as a result of sin, a mechanism for making provision for the consequences of evil in this world and its destructive influences. Whether He initiated it as part of His original design to help facilitate population growth of it came after sin entered this world or began after the flood, at this point im on the fence. I suspect that its probably a combination of all of the above factors.
I subscribe to the view of Henry Morris, that the adaptation mechanisms that God inserted into the natural world comes from a Creation Science perspective, not one of humanism.
It seems to me that the fundamental tragedy of Christianity is seen in so called “believers” claiming creation science is not a science but that its a religion, and then using this as justification for denying the inerrancy and indeed even the adequacy of scripture. The irony of this tragedy is that given no one has ever seen any major evolutionary change in new kinds of creatures on this earth, both worldviews require faith. That makes evolution equally a religious view.
Dean H. Kenyon Professor of Biology San Francisco State University writes…
there continues to be a widespread misunderstanding in the scientific community concerning just what “creation science” is. Many have considered it to be simply religion in disguise and have chosen to shun it altogether, even to the point of refusing to examine any scientific creationist writings. This situation is regrettable and exhibits a degree of close-mindedness quite alien to the spirit of true scientific inquiry.
(Morris, Henry ; Parker, Gary. What Is Creation Science? (The Henry Morris Signature Collection) (p. 12). Master Books. Kindle Edition.)
Or they just don’t know.
One of my coworkers went to Weaton. Either she’s an anomoly, or the school is broadening their view.
1 Like
I just watched the trailer…it would be an interesting movie and i dont see that it should be viewed with any skepticism from Christians of either position.
Putting “air quotes” around the word turns it to a pejorative which goes against the forum rules.
Since “creation science” doesn’t follow the rules of science it is a religion.
No justification is needed when you have a correct understanding of inerrancy and adequacy of scripture.
1 Like
Phylogenetics and the fossil record is consistent with the processes and pace of what we directly observe. Innumerable consilient observations support the scientific understanding of the history of the Earth. That makes evolution an empirical view, contrary to a religious view.
Presuppositions in biology and geology are based on centuries of validated prior work. That is not the equivalent of a predetermined conclusion to accommodate dogma.
More particularly, creation science is apologetics, explicitly so by self admission.
YEC rejects uniformitarian geological principles, which is essentially synonymous with observational science. What is left for scientific inquiry? There is nothing there to even be closed minded about.
2 Likes
Who has done that here? I don’t believe in the inerrancy of the Bible (indeed, I don’t even think it’s a coherent concept), but that’s because I’ve read the Bible, not because of anything to do with evolution.
On the other hand, many of us have read scientific creationist writings. They are indeed not at all scientific.
2 Likes
I would say the main difference between YEC/OEC/ID and Evolutionary Creationism is that evidence matters to the EC’s. The only thing that seems to exist in the world of @adamjedgar is the Bible. It’s as if the whole world outside of that book doesn’t exist.
Creationists demonstrate that creation science is not science.
“No apparent, perceived, or claimed evidence in any field of study, including science, history, and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the clear teaching of Scripture obtained by historical-grammatical interpretation.”–Answers in Genesis
When you start with the conclusion and throw out any contradictory evidence you are no longer doing science.
Like I said, you pretend as if no evidence exists. People are convicted of murder on the weight of forensic evidence, even in cases where no one witnessed the murder. We have mountains and mountains of evidence that life shares a common ancestor and changed over time through evolutionary mechanisms. That’s not faith.
A young Earth creationist writes . . .
2 Likes
We just got a big alumni survey asking about how/if we currently identified or practiced Christianity and how well we aligned with the “historical” Evangelical faith commitments expressed in the current statement of faith and community covenant. They know they need to change and or pick their lane on a number of issues, including but not limited to inerrancy, historical Adam and Eve, DEI, and LGBTQ inclusion. It will be interesting to see who wins what in the tug of war. My daughter is fairly progressive relative to the student body, but she was heavily recruited, given a ton of scholarships and grants. Two different professors have asked her in conversations what made her decide to come because they want more students like her. There probably is quite a diversity of ideals among the faculty though and I imagine some not very united duking it out over future priorities going on at the Board and admin levels.
2 Likes
And how pray tell, do you confirm you have that given your doctrines are not supported by cross referenced reading of the bible? You openly ignore cross referencing and make up scriptural claims to support secular evolution world views.
For example…
exodus 20 specifically says, in 6 days God created the heavens and the earth
2 peter chapter 2…peter states, he recieved direct revelation from God via the writings of the prophets, via Christ during His ministry, and from God…then peter goes on to directly support Noahs flood wiping out all life on earth and the desctruction of sodom and gomorah
The apostle John in the book of revelation says there will be no more tears, no more pain or suffering, the lamb will lay beside the wolf
I could add more bible statements like the above…there are loads of them…andall of these statements follow a central biblical theme of crewrion, the fall, salvation, redemption, and most importantly, restoration of this world and its life back to its created glory.
Show me cross referenced bible texts and themes that demonstrate im wrong on this. Unless you can do that, your statement is made up and unbiblical. That says that your theology is naturalistic in its origins and naturalism claims there is no God according to men like the late Stephen Hawking, late Christopher Hitchens, Dichard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Neil degras Tyson (these are all famous names in the debate and they are leaders in the evolutionary model of the origins of all life.)
I follow the bibles as a Christian because i believe what tue bible says using a common understanding of language.
I accept that the writers of tue bible have used common language to reveals Gods word to us (as the bible itself states directly).
The bible very specifically.tells us that all creation has been corrupted by sin. It tells us directly that satan has the power to manipulate nature (story of job is but one example)…and yet you say,
“Nope, nope, nope, thats all wrong”
Wrong based on what, Hawking, Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris, Tyson???
Think you mean chapter 3.
That would be God directly wiping out all life on earth, men, women, and children.
Inerrancy is a man made doctrine. You won’t find it called out in the Bible. When you know how the Bible came to be it is clear it can’t be inerrant (in the strict sense of the word).
1 Like
Did Christians change their interpretation of scriptures that said the Earth didn’t move in order to support secular Heliocentric views?
Or, just maybe, did people change their interpretation of those scriptures because they conflicted with demonstrable facts?
Facts aren’t a “secular worldview”.
So if Christians accept that the Earth really does move, contrary to scripture, then their theology is naturalistic in its origins and naturalism claims there is no God.
So do you think Christians should be Geocentrists?
In other words, no amount of scientific evidence will ever change your mind. This is why YEC is not scientific.
1 Like
My background was growing in a Lutheran church that was definitely not YEC. I surrendered to Jesus as a young man starting his university studies. At that time, my worldview was black-and-white and I believed that true Christians spoke the truth, despite and in contrast to the secular ideologies in the society. So, when I read Christian books that were advocating YEC, I swallowed the teaching. The explanations seemed credible. By the way, I later learned that much of what was in those books was imported and translated from sources in USA - they did not originate from independent study of the Bible and the creation.
My difficulty and perhaps luck(?) was that I was a biology student in a purely scientific university (no religious affiliations). I learned about geology, fossils and age of life on Earth, methods used in the study of common ancestry and the results these methods produced, how the basic assumptions of evolutionary theory simply worked in ecology and in explaining observations about the past life on Earth. Slowly, detail by detail, I started to see that the seemingly convincing explanations in the YEC books were simply false, misunderstandings or deliberate misinterpretations of observations. That was a difficult process because it eroded my trust in what fellow believers were telling.
I believe that God left us two books, one with a spiritual message of God and salvation in words (biblical scriptures) and the other as the ‘book of creation’. If they are both from the same God, Creator, they should tell the same general messages. If these two sources seem to be in conflict, then our interpretations of one or both of the sources are wrong. Truth has been very important for me, both as a believer and as a scientist. When I slowly had to accept that what the YEC books told created a conflict between these two sources, and was simply false in details, I had to abandon the YEC teachings. It took some time to rebuild the picture again after that.
Later I learned more about what kind of book the Bible is, how it has to be interpreted and the interpretations can go along the wrong path, how our worldview affects how we interpret the Bible and the observations around us (we all have coloured spectacles), etc. I hope that has built a more mature and credible way to interpret the two books of God.
Luckily, I now belong to a church (Evangelical Free Church of Finland) that allows and even encourages openminded thinking and discussion about matters of faith - you are free to question and challenge any belief as long as you do it in a building and loving way. Theological and other education is valued and encouraged. Disagreements in matters that are not the core of Christian faith are accepted and considered normal in the growth of our understanding and faith. I know there are many who have YEC-type beliefs but also those who have another type of understanding about the start of the Genesis (including me). That has not prevented us from being in the same congregation, loving and respecting each other, and working together side-by-side. Of course each of us, including me, has to consider others in how we express our disagreeing interpretations. That is a matter of learning to live together, as in any family.
7 Likes
A small note on the creation story:
When reading old texts that have been told and written in a very different cultural and historical context, we will misunderstand them, at least in some way. Not as ‘may misunderstand’ but ‘will misunderstand’. That holds true also in the case of Genesis. Understanding the messages better demands humbleness, a conscious attempt to minimize the distorting influence of our modern thinking, trying to learn about the historical and cultural context of the writer and the receivers, and careful and repeated reading of the text. An attitude that we in the modern world understand the message better than the receivers, or even that ‘we should not interpret the text, just believe what is written’, are either ignorance or arrogance. Unfortunately, this kind of ignorance or arrogance seem to be common among many Christian groups. I guess this is the reason why also the creation story has been and is such a bone of contention even today.
Yesterday, I watched a movie that tried to describe the life of some people in the 19th century America. In one part of the movie, the persons were in a distant house very far from any larger settlements or railroads, with no visible poles in the scenery. There was a fight and some criminals were killed. When the persons were leaving, those living in the house said something like ‘we have already called the sheriff’. I guess that was an example of how our modern context affects our view of how the historical people would have reacted - if you end up in trouble, you call the police, right? In this case, the temporal distance was less than 200 years and the historical context well known, so nothing compared to thousands of years ago in a very different, almost alien culture.
4 Likes
Walton’s book Wisdom for Faithful Reading … echos much the same thoughts on interpretation, @knor , and I am thankful you found your way to faith where so many reject it. Thanks for sharing.
3 Likes
Realizing the science actually supported the existence of god and was not in conflict with it. I never took a minute to realize that genesis never described the creation process, just that god did it. With that obstacle gone I was open to all of the evidences and found that science really supports a creator. I am now a creationist in the sense that whatever way god created everything, I accept it. I also realized how much the evolution vs creation mindset that’s pushed by answer’s in genesis and others really damaged me, it took me a long time to remove atheism from evolution because they frame in such a way that if you accept it, your basically giving into atheistic theories. I had severe doubts and really wrestled with it for such a long time and even to this day sometimes those thoughts come back, however I hold to a structuralist view of evolution now. (the view held by Michael Denton) My last reason was Apologetics, I realized that without the scientific evidence that apologetics for the existence of god basically are gone, and how am I able to defend my faith with both of god’s revelation in nature and scripture if one of god’s greatest tool’s are gone?
2 Likes
Nah Chapter 2 vs 4 onwards.
Actually one should start in chapter 1 which is where Peter tells us his witness derived (prophets, christs ministry and God)
This is not what the bible teaches. Im sick of hearing the complaint to be honest. Its been dealt with by academics a long time ago and simply is wrong theology. This is a classic example of the error in theology from straw plucking and not cross referencing to ensure adequite explaination of the text in question.
You are refering to Psalms 104 btw
2He wraps Himself in light as with a garment;
He stretches out the heavens like a tent,
3laying the beams of His chambers
in the waters above,
making the clouds His chariot,
walking on the wings of the wind.
4He makes the winds His messengers,
flames of fire His servants.a
5He set the earth on its foundations,
never to be moved.
6You covered it with the deep like a garment;
the waters stood above the mountains.
7At Your rebuke the waters fled;
at the sound of Your thunder they hurried away—
8the mountains rose and the valleys sank
to the place You assigned for them—
9You set a boundary they cannot cross,
that they may never again cover the earth.
Read the following texts
Micha 6.2
Psalm 90.2
Psalm 24.2
YECs are only sick of hearing this in the same way that anybody gets sick of hearing a devastatingly true statement that they can’t come up with any good answer for. And none of the verses you list even remotely support your point. “Dealt with long ago…” in this case means: “over the last several centuries” - after it was demonstrably shown from non-biblical sources that the earth does indeed move! Your insistence that the Bible never taught so was only enabled by these modern scientific findings. To deny that is for you to say that Cardinal Bellarmine and every other heavy-weight theologian or church father of earlier times were all somehow mistaken about how they understood the Bible. As indeed - they were - but you have the privilege of knowing this now because of science and only because of science. Your denial of - or blindness to - what is nakedly apparent to everybody else on the moving planet doesn’t help the YEC case but simply showcases yet another reality that YECs are forced to desperately ignore or deny. You imagine their misunderstanding to somehow be different than your own. It isn’t. You’ll just have to get used to hearing the same tiresome retort that 2+2=4 for as long as you keep insisting that it’s really 5. Or else prove to everyone that it really is 5 - which you remain unable to do.
4 Likes
So you should be able to point us to these “academics” that show the Bible teaches a heliocentric universe.
1 Like