Former YEC's, what made you change your mind?

Faith & Science Conversation
41

One - show a Biblical verse which speaks of biological adaptation.

Two - adaptation is a matter of biology, not humanism.

1 Like
42

Heliocentrism goes against scripture in the very same way that evolution does.

"But to want to affirm that the Sun, in very truth, is at the centre of the universe and only rotates on its axis without traveling from east to west, and that the Earth is situated in the third sphere and revolves very swiftly around the Sun, is a very dangerous attitude and one calculated not only to arouse all Scholastic philosophers and theologians but also to injure our hold faith by contradicting the Scriptures….

Second, I say that, as you know, the Council of Trent forbids the interpretation of the Scriptures in a way contrary to the common agreement of the holy Fathers. Now if your Reverence will read, not merely the Fathers, but modern commentators on Genesis, the Psalms, Ecclesiastes, and Joshua, you will discover that all agree in interpreting them literally as teaching that the Sun is in the heavens and revolves round the Earth with immense speed and that the Earth is very distant from the heavens, at the centre of the universe, and motionless. Consider, then in your prudence, whether the Church can support that the Scriptures should be interpreted in a manner contrary to that of the holy Fathers and of all modern commentators, both Latin and Greek…."
–Cardinal Bellarmine, 1615

Cardinal Bellarmine sounds just like you.

43

With one critical difference (as I think you already mentioned in a prior post, T) … Cardinal Bellarmine seemed open to having his mind changed should reality prove otherwise. In that regard, Bellarmine seems to actually be ahead of his contemporary analogs, like Adam and other YECs - who don’t seem open to that same possibility.

3 Likes
44

Firstly, do not make the mistake of playing word games…do not be silly enough to pull out the Jehovahs witness line, “where is that word or phrase in the bible?”

Any statement like the above would be destructive to your entire TEism theology and therefore world view…so i would be very careful there.

Lets start answering your challenge with Genesis

“3 The ground is cursed because of you. Through hard work you will eat [food that comes] from it every day of your life. .”

Then Genesis chapter 9

“The fear of you and the terror of you will be on every animal of the earth and on every bird of the sky; on everything that crawls on the ground, and on all”

And to just prove these are intentional changes as a direct result of sin…

Note the following text

Isiaiah 11

“6. A wolf will reside with a lamb, and a leopard will lie down with a young goat; an ox and a young lion will graze together, as a small child leads them along”

Revelation 21

“4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.”

I have no problem extrapolating adaptation where it does not conflict with self revealing bible theology and doctrine. The ability of nature to adapt i believe is instigated by God because without it, sin and its consequences would be catastrophically destructive to this world and everything in it.

This leads me to a position i have which is not in line with AIG or CM. I am not convinced God created animals such as the TRex. I struggle to reconcile the argument they use …ie “look at the skull and teeth of a giant panda. Its got fearsome teeth and eats bamboo”.

I cant see that in a TRex. My gut is still in the “TRex is an animal of corruption by evil” camp, and part of the reason why God destroyed the earth in the great flood. I am also of the view that even some of the animals alive today probably wont be in heaven…they just dont seem to fit the image/model i have of creation such as crocodiles for example. The idea they might eat “bamboo”…i cant reconcile that personally.

I accept, perhaps i am wrong on this, but that is my position at present. Im willing to be convinced otherwise…that the TRex are created.

2 Likes
45

Biological adaptation is not a Biblical concept with a theological designation, such as the Trinity. There is no exegetical justification that animals which the Hebrews distinguished such as horses and mules, eagles and hawks, dogs and wolves, and goats and sheep, did not always exist such as were called by Adam. There are no ark kinds, there are named Biblical kinds.

The result of disobedience depicts nature as hostile and bereft of providence, but does not support some notion like house cats birthing lions. The imagery of restoration portrays recognizable lions and leopards.

A literal approach to Genesis has always struggled with the shift from paradise to the ecology around us. There is more than a nasty attitude change involved. Where did the fangs, stingers, camouflage, poisons, and serrated teeth come from? Were they hidden latent as some sort of plan B anticipating man’s sin? Did God recreate the world and directly author all this? Did Satan make the spiders, and out of what? What are the implications for theodicy? The fall as a theological abstraction might read as simple concept, but glosses over how all this supposedly actually happened. It offers little guidance for the specifics of biological transition to a reality featuring constraint and obligate predation.

I appreciate that you yourself wrestle which such questions. T-Rex does look over equipped for taking down coconuts. That was never the ecological niche it filled. In any event, the Hebrews were unaware of most species and all dinosaurs that are extinct. Adaptation does not emerge from the Bible any more than atomic theory, and speciation is arguably contrary. The Bible does not support Henry Morris, nor can those ideas be found in the prior voluminous writings and commentary of theologians throughout church history.

3 Likes
46

Thank you for your contributions, mr. @adamjedgar . Most people here are EC’s (including myself). So I admire YEC’s speaking out. And you admit that there are some things you struggle to reconcile. That requires humility.

I just want to ask some questions so I get a better understanding of your view.

  1. What is the bedrock of your YEC view? That is, what are the most important things that convince you?

  2. What would make you change your understanding of the Biblical text? Are there some issues that you think make evolution impossible? Such as the fall and original sin, or all the suffering involved in the process.

I see that you are an Seventh Day Adventist. One of your fellow believers has written this:

Quote

A God who creates through the use of sin and suffering is one who would not fare well even under imperfect human standards of fairness and kindness. The Bible goes out of its way to affirm that death came into the world through humanity’s sin (Rom 5:12). It teaches that suffering and death in nature and the animal world is connected with the attempt to bring back fallen humanity. “For the earnest expectation of the creation eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God” (Rom 8:18-21).

This unwilling subjection to “futility” is not consistent with the “good” that God saw throughout his initial creation (Gen 1:4, 10, 12, 18, 21, 25, 31). The problem of reconciling “goodness” with the suffering and death of sentient beings appears insuperable, at least if one believes that the Bible teaches a death-free heavenly world. Ultimately, Adventism cannot accept theistic evolution, or any variant of it, that allows suffering and death on earth before Adam’s sin, because has staked its theological framework on the revelation of God’s moral government and character of love in history.

Nicholas P. Miller, “A Scholarly Review of John H. Walton’s Lectures at Andrews University on the Lost World of Genesis One”, 195.

Does his position align with your own?

But as mr. @rsewell writes:

Have you read Death Before the Fall: Biblical Literalism and the Problem of Animal Suffering, by Dr. Ronald E. Osborn? If not, I really recommend it!

1 Like
47

This is simply bad theology…the bible plainly tells us exactly where all that came from.
Read genesis chapter 3 and 4! (for starters)

Even Revelation 21 tells us that in the new heavens and new earth there will be no more death, no more tears, NO MORE PAIN AND SUFFERING…

You are absolutely wrong that a literal reading has even the slightest issue with that…it does not.

The revelation to you should be rather simple…Christ died on the cross to pay the consequences of sin…life forms on earth will experience physical death no more. Life will be eternal.

John 3.14-17 says
*14Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, 15that everyone who believes in Him may have eternal life.d*

**16For God so loved the world that He gave His one and onlye Son, that everyone who believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through Him.

Note in reference to animals and death…read matthew 10:29-31

Two sparrows cost only a penny, but not even one of them can die without your Father’s knowing it.

48

1. What is the bedrock of your YEC view? That is, what are the most important things that convince you?

a caveat and slightly offtopic…i am a terrible Christian, but i believe in the gospel with all my heart.
I love this forum and whilst i vehemently disagree with much of its fundamentals, these guys challenge me every day and they truly do strengthen my belief in God. I am strangely fascinated that individuals who subscribe to a world view that i fundamentally see as being nonchristian have a passion for the gospel and Christ. I have learned from these guys on this forum that perhaps we could actually ignore practically everything else in the bible except the following:

love the Lord thy God with all thine heart soul and mind and
love thy neighbour as thyself

And Christ made the above even simpler when he said

“in as much as you do it to the least of these my brethren, you do it unto me”

That is the most wonderful text in all of the bible with the exception of John 3:16 “for God so loved the world that he gave his only son, that whosoever believeth on Him shall not perish but have everlasting life”

Now the following may sound strange but i believe in the gospel largely because historically its well supported by the external evidence and i happen to agree with Pascals Wager…ie that we play lotto in the hope we will win and if I lose, then the non believe and i will end up the same anyway. In the meantime I think I live a happier and fuller life because of my belief… so I have nothing to lose!

Ok so…

To answer your question properly would require an essay/book that would take days/weeks/months to write (one i should have already written i think)…given I’m disorganized and obviously haven’t composed/compiled said essay, i will just present some of the biblical part that i ramble on about it here on these forums regularly.

Genesis chapters 1,2, and 3

  • God made garments out of skins for Adam and Eve, its significant that the sacrificial killing of animals was a direct reminder to Adam and Eve that because of their sin the animal kingdom and all of creation would suffer under sin

  • The argument over sacrifice that motivated Cain to kill Able…clearly the sacrificial system was in place long before Moses

  • Old Testament Sanctuary Service -which outlines exactly how salvation works

  • 4th commandment “in six days God created the heavens and the earth”

  • genealogies in the gospels

  • 2 Peter Chapters 1 and 2 - The apostle Peter writes he received direct revelation from the writings of prophets, divine revelation (which we know includes visions …from Old Testament examples), and ministry of Christ, and Peter describes the flood and destruction of Sodom and Gomorah as real events and these events are clearly presented by the apostle as literal evidence that the power of God can save the righteous from sin

  • Roman 6:23 - the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Christ - Christ died physically on the cross to pay the wages of sin…so sin and death are very much also physical in consequence and that redemption ultimately is physical (spiritual death and physical death go together…they are inseparable)

2. What would make you change your understanding of the Biblical text? Are there some issues that you think make evolution impossible? Such as the fall and original sin, or all the suffering involved in the process.
I think the above answers this question…i was hoping for the opposite question actually, what issues appear to deny YEC is correct (and these are not scientific btw, but theological issues)

Im not sure i can answer this right now…i have posted some problems on these forums in the past that i think are concerning for YEC…but i cant for the life of me think of them right now (might have to come back to this)

I see that you are an Seventh Day Adventist. One of your fellow believers has written this:

Quote

A God who creates through the use of sin and suffering is one who would not fare well even under imperfect human standards of fairness and kindness. The Bible goes out of its way to affirm that death came into the world through humanity’s sin (Rom 5:12). It teaches that suffering and death in nature and the animal world is connected with the attempt to bring back fallen humanity. “For the earnest expectation of the creation eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God” (Rom 8:18-21).

This unwilling subjection to “futility” is not consistent with the “good” that God saw throughout his initial creation (Gen 1:4, 10, 12, 18, 21, 25, 31). The problem of reconciling “goodness” with the suffering and death of sentient beings appears insuperable, at least if one believes that the Bible teaches a death-free heavenly world. Ultimately, Adventism cannot accept theistic evolution, or any variant of it, that allows suffering and death on earth before Adam’s sin, because has staked its theological framework on the revelation of God’s moral government and character of love in history.

Nicholas P. Miller, “A Scholarly Review of John H. Walton’s Lectures at Andrews University on the Lost World of Genesis One”, 195.

Does his position align with your own?

I am struggling to get the context of the review by Nicholas Miller. I will study the review and the lectures it is based upon and start a new thread about this directly if the moderators would allow that. Otherwise send me a pm with this title and i will get back to you about it…although it may take some time for me to do this

But as mr. @rsewell writes:

I do not agree at all with the above statement. In my view its complete nonsense…the opposite is actually the case and its easily supported biblically with a normal reading and understanding of language that the bible is translated into.

Have you read Death Before the Fall: Biblical Literalism and the Problem of Animal Suffering, by Dr. Ronald E. Osborn? If not, I really recommend it!
[/quote]

thanks for that, I will download this in Kindle and read it.

1 Like
49

Just as the Bible tells us that the Sun moves about a stationary Earth.

1 Like
50

The same sort of issues that deny Geocentrism based on Biblical literalism. You know, FACTS.

51

Wrong… that is not what it says

52

True, it says it moves across the firmament, and returns to its origin each night.

Ecclesiastes 1:5 ESV /

The sun rises, and the sun goes down, and hastens to the place where it rises.

1 Like
53

Then you don’t believe in the Bible (in the very same way you accuse TE’s of not believing in the Bible).

This is the very same argument you use against evolution.

54

It all just felt unbelievable in the end. I was a young angsty teenager and put my faith in these YEC speakers like Ken Ham and his team. They had degrees and were, as far as my impressionable self could see, legitimate scientists, who for many reasons didn’t agree with the scientific consensus. I also thought that being a Christian meant that you had to affirm these YEC views; I was mistakenly led to believe that this is what all Christians believe, or at least, that it was foundational to the belief.

So when I finally gave in to this nagging feeling and set out to finally challenge what I asserted to be true on the statements of, what I would now call, questionable people; I found biologos and the rich history of Christianity and faith, which is what got the stone rolling again.

To be honest, the entire period is very hazy. I can barely remember what really moved me to believe what I did during these years. I can only vouch for how dangerous misinformation is in a persons life, most importantly their youth. I couldn’t speak about the science, so I couldn’t engage with the core of the issue, and thus I was misled. For that reason I am rather bitter towards YEC and it’s popularizers; especially when children are involved.

6 Likes
55

I think a lot of us have been or are. Perhaps my feelings have softened a bit in recent years, as I see many YEC folk as accepting it without really giving it importance, and being sincere Christians. It is difficult to abandon your lifetime teaching, and to think that your pastors, parents and friends are all wrong (or liars!)

I do have a little bitterness towards the YEC leadership, and to the church in general who perpetuate what I see as false teaching, as I feel little good will come of it. And that goes not only for age of earth and science, but also other things like purity culture teachings, sanitizing of Bible characters or even elevating pretty problematic figures to superhero status (Samson, David, Joseph etc.), along with politics and all that.

2 Likes
56

Yes, I would agree. I also meant that my feelings are directed towards YEC leadership as I wouldn’t blame the average YEC Christian for the spread of misinformation.

My views of the church aren’t all too great either for the reasons you give and some more. I do believe the ball has been dropped on many issues that warrant a grand reform of how, the catholic church in particular, conducts it’s practice.

57

I think the vast majority of us see it the way you do. People trust YEC leaders the same way people in any congregation trust their pastor and church leadership. It is the “professional” YEC proponents that are letting their fellow Christians down, and possibly creating irreversible trust issues in the process.

3 Likes
58

Thank you for your answer!

I think everyone here can appreciate your words. :slight_smile:

I will come back on this later.

I get that. Although doesn’t that also imply that your theology informs your interpretation of science?

Have you ever heard about the bombardier beetle? Its use of chemical spray against other insects is often used as an example of “irreducible complexity”. But before the fall it wouldn’t have any need for such a defense mechanism if animals lived at peace with one another, right? So do you think this beetle was created after the fall?

2 Likes
59

Perhaps you forget, I am SDA and am not Catholic and like most other SDA’s, i think their [Catholic] theology is crap?

The ancient Greeks had proposed the idea of planetary orbits in the 3rd Century B.C.

Aristarchus of Samos (/ˌærəˈstɑːrkəs/; Greek: Ἀρίσταρχος ὁ Σάμιος, Aristarkhos ho Samios ; c. 310 – c. 230 BC) was an ancient Greek astronomer and mathematician who presented the first known heliocentric model that placed the Sun at the center of the known universe, with the Earth revolving around the Sun once a year and rotating about its axis once a day.

Instead of quoting idiots, show me the bible verse where it says that the earth is stationary. The fact is, the idea of a stationary earth is not biblical…its an extrapolation based on vague biblical statements. This is very different from historical genealogies that are in the bible that point specifically to times, dates, ages, individuals, others around them…these are very very specific. The idea that TEists continue to try to link the two [vague statement of stationary earth with genealogies] is incorrect i think.

60

Your fellow Christians think your insistence on YEC is also bad and for the same reasons.

I Chronicles 16:30
Tremble before him, all the earth! The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved.

1 Samuel 2:8
8 He raises the poor from the dust and lifts the needy from the ash heap; he seats them with princes and has them inherit a throne of honor. “For the foundations of the earth are the LORD’s; on them he has set the world.

Psalms 104:5
5 He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved.

There are also many verses that describe the Sun moving about the Earth. I could list those as well.

So if you don’t believe in Geocentrism, then you don’t believe the Bible for the very same reasons that accuse TE’s of not believing the Bible.

2 Likes