Do you know what the great advantage the James Webb Space Telescope has over the Hubble and why?
1 Like
This is a religious forum is it not? My understanding is that Biologos was founded by a Christianā¦i do not see what the relevance is of any claim here that the James Webb telescope is going to provide an intimate knowledge of every aspect of the cosmos. It still cannot answer a very basic question and the most fundamental problem of scienceā¦
Where did the energy and matter come from that started the big bang and,
How did the big bang startā¦ie what started it?
Do you honestly think that humanism will ever be able to answer that question using James Webb, Hubble, or even swinging my horses tail until one gets some sense knocked into ones brain by two hind quarter hooves?
I am silenced, but not by what you think.
oh ā ā ā ā , i didnāt think you would take the āswinging the horses tailā comment literally enough to try it? 
Adam, Adam, Adam, it is not my opinion, it was the open expression of concern from his mother.
The problem is that when the gospel is linked and even made dependent on untruths such as a 6000 year old earth, the gospel is rejected with the realization that the associated baggage is false. There are many who can testify to that path, and this mother fears her child will follow that path. It is important that those in that position realize that it does not have to be that way, but that scripture can be harmonized with the factual observations of creation, and there are a variety of faithful views of Genesis.
I know no amount of evidence can convince you that creation is indeed as it appears so long as you rigidly hold to your current views on origins, but would encourage you to humbly consider how other Christians both historically and currently have found deeper meaning in the story of creation than the limited view expressed.in some of your statements.
2 Likes
Can i let you in on a little secret? I am a former High school teacher and have taught in both Public and Christian High schools. My father is also an SDA minister who was trained to Bachelor level in theology (so he can read both Hebrew and Greek)
I have observed more children lose their way due to very poor biblical theology and faith than i have children with poor knowledge of evolutionary science.
I can also attest from my observations and discussions about my dads ministry over 40 years (he is now retired) that salvation is not gained through a great knowledge of scienceā¦it has zero to do with it. People usually lose their faith because they were poorly grounded in Christianity in the first place. One only has to read and listen to those who have left the faith to come to this conclusion. It is almost universally NOT because of science beating theologyā¦its because they struggled with their theology in the first placeā¦People lose their way because they were never really ever converted or had any genuine faith!
That is the problem, people leave the church because of poor faithā¦I do not believe science will fix that problem.
So my belief is, it is simply not true that Christians stumble and fall because of scienceā¦As far as i understand, Christ in the Gospels clearly disagrees with that claim, so in that sense its contrary to the bible.
EDIT
I personally struggled with my own faith because i was worried that evolution might actually be true. I can honestly say that thanks to the YEC movement ministries, I am genuinely grateful that i found them when i did. So contrary to the claims of the O/P. for me, evolutionary science via TEism would not have helped meā¦i would have left religion completely!
The reason why i would have left Christianity completely is because i have a very deep grounding in the bible and i had to make a choice between blind faith and scientific theory. It does not mean I am even remotely a theologian (i am anything but), however, i realise how well linked the various themes within the bible are.
Dr Kirt Wise in one of his youtube videos makes the comment that he once went through his bible and cut out the sections of it where evolutionary science disagreed with bible writings. When he finished his bible was in tatters. I completely agree with Dr Wise statement in that regardā¦because of my own knowledge of the bible i completely understand how he came to that result (and i am not of his denomination btw) Hence, my faith was strengthened when i found science that agreed with the literal reading of the bible.
If, prior to finding YEC ministries online, i had not buried my head in the sand citing blind faith and stayed with the science, i would have left the church completelyā¦and that is a universal problemā¦it is not unique to me!
I do not agree with your statement here and the reasons why are quite obviousā¦For example, polically correct statements can also be used as a means of clouding the true meaning of the terms used. Politicians are masters at this technique so they can avoid enlightening answers that bury them with the voters and ensures little or no accountability!
If we break down your phrases i think it should be quite easy to explain why i take issue with your postā¦
-
metaphysical naturalism
-
Secular science/humanistic interpretation
of the above two words, which one do you think a layperson will better associate with the following belief of a known atheist and world renowned scientist Stephen Hawking? (i donāt think this question really needs an answerā¦its pretty obvious given my politics comment leading into this!)
In Stephen Hawkingās final book āBrief Answers to Big Questions(opens in new tab),ā published Tuesday (Oct. 16) by Bantam Books, the professor begins a series of 10 intergalactic essays by addressing lifeās oldest and most religiously fraught question of all: Is there a God? [Big Bang to Civilization: 10 Amazing Origin Events]
Hawkingās answer ā compiled from decades of prior interviews, essays and speeches with the help of his family, colleagues and the Steven Hawking Estate ā should come as no surprise to readers who have followed his work, er, religiously.
āI think the universe was spontaneously created out of nothing, according to the laws of science,ā Hawking, who died in March, wrote. āIf you accept, as I do, that the laws of nature are fixed, then it doesnāt take long to ask: What role is there for God?ā
āI have no desire to offend anyone of faith, but I think science has a more compelling explanation than a divine creator.ā
I am of the firm belief that one simply cannot use that world view as it source of authority in scientific interpretation or even investigation. It is well known that humans generally only provide evidence that suits their chances of winning the balance of probabilities. I fully accept that YEC are equally as bad in this regard, however, i think its the safer option philosophically - ie when salvation is at stake.
That was not the term used in contrast, so not sure where you got thatā¦ Had he used that, even though not totally accurate, it would have been closer to his intended meaning, but still not really what he intended.
Adam, please stop derailing this thread with YEC apologetics:
Avoid repeating the same ideas over and over because you have failed to convince everyone to accept your viewpoint.
FAQ - The BioLogos Forum
If you want to talk about a particular issue/question/concern you have with mainstream science and/or evolutionary creationism you are welcome to start a new thread.
Why would you have to believe that there is no God in order to also accept the science demonstrating constant half lives of radioactive elements and the exclusion of Pb from zircons during crystallization?
I would suggest that you check out this article at BioLogos:
https://biologos.org/articles/atheistic-meteorology-or-divine-rain
Do you have to believe that there is no God in order to also accept that rain forms from the natural condensation of water vapor?
1 Like
The more basic question for YECism is how we can see stars that are billions of light years away.
Do you have to believe that there is no God in order to accept that the speed of light is 3E8 m/s? What happens when kids are faced with the choice of denying the most basic features of physics or being a Christian? It could be that for you it isnāt a problem, but that isnāt going to be the case for many others.
As @jpm discusses, there are many who have left Christianity because the theology they were taught set it up to fail. There are YEC families who are starting to see this problem, and kudos to them for opening up other paths for their kids.
Steve Meyer, who was trained in geophysics before becoming a philosopher of science, is an OEC, not a YEC. I know hundreds of scientistsāIām not one myself, though I did major in physics and worked in radio astronomy in college. Iām hard pressed to think of any one of them who starts with āthe scientific statement āthere is no Godā,ā which certainly isnāt a scientific statement. I know many who donāt believe in God, but none who regard that as a scientific conclusion.
2 Likes
As an SDA yourself, adam, you are in a better position than I am to say who condemns SDAs to hell today, and why.
As an historian, however, I point out that for many years SDAs themselves condemned most other Christians for Sabbath breaking. Hereās an example. http://www.seventh-day.org/EGWLAW.jpg
The YEC beliefs affirmed by many evangelical and fundamentalist churches today were heavily inspired by SDA authors, especially George Price but also several others from the first half of the last century. You wonāt learn that from Ken Ham, who essentially denies it, but itās absolutely true. For a short version of this story, go here Ken Hamās Alternative History of Creationism - BioLogos
What is clear in the whole discussion is, that it essentially is a matter of authority. The authority of God, of personal experience of science of the secular mind of the bible of the church and of the moderator.
That sounds good until you find people who think they speak from God and their interpretation of things is the ultimate authority, rather than looking at scripture from a position of humility. At that point, conflict is introduced. It can certainly be from those on both sides.
That is true. All these authorities are interrelated. But their exact position and relative strength explains the outcome. Especially that of parents is important in this discussion. Interesting!
This topic should be moded to personal messages. Its clearly not scientific in nature and in maintaining harmony with another thread that was moved, so should this one.
Hi Ted,
all relevant points which i am familiar with.
It is true that SDAās are generally considered too legalistic in their rather literal interpretation of Mosaic lawā¦but SDAās have very sound scholarly works for their view on this and its supported at great length using extensive biblical referencing. Sure we cannot escape the EG White stuff I accept that.
Whilst i believe that EG White was a prophet of God, I do not use her writings in any of my personal theological positions. My reason for taking this line is that to many other denominations, her name presents a stumbling block until they come to really understand that her writings are not contrary to the bible or considered by SDAās to be an authority above it. Obviously, i must admit it is almost impossible to separate the EG White from my personal beliefs given she was a church founder and wrote extensivelyā¦many here may not know this, but she is one of the most prolific writers of published material in history actually. She wrote over 40 books (since her death this has increased to over 130 with additional compilations from previously unpublished writings), 5,000 periodical articles, and 100,000 pages of materialā¦there is a huge trove of writings held in archives written by her.
SDAās themselves allowed the conservatives within the church many years back to gain far too much voice in condemnation of others who do not keep that Sabbath, Tithe, abstain from alcohol, and also disagree with the heavenly sanctuary Investigative Judgement Doctrine. Again, I agree with all of these doctrines, however, generally, I think the church has moderated its stance quite a lot over the last 20 yearsā¦the CBās (concerned brethren) within the denomination do not seem to have the public voice they once did (fortunately).
I have studied the claims regarding George Price at length. To be really honest, and I say this with respectā¦its a red herring. He was discounted back in the 20ās as a crackpot by the outside community as he was not a trained archeologist even though he had a passion for it. The only reason his writings were dug up in more recent times was because a couple of YECāers from a different world view needed published material to support their own push for re-igniting the YEC movement in the 60ās (if memory serves me correct) in response to Theistic Evolution and Secularismā¦it had nothing to do with George Price actually.
Going back a little further, TEists have attempted to even blame EG White for starting the YEC movement. This is an extreme twisting of the reality as our church only started in 1860ās and Judaism has maintained a literal reading of Creation, the flood, the genealogies etc for more than 2 millennia. The point is, EG White simply reaffirmed a doctrine already held by Jews and the early Christian churchā¦so there is no SDA YEC conspiracy there.
Thank you for your article documenting the SDA influence on early creationism. If the timeline, however, was shifted a la marvel movie, and before his writings George Price was hit by a bus, do you think we would be in a different place in regards to YEC, or was the idea niche just waiting to be filled?
My recollection from the '70ās, being raised in a very fundamentalist environment, was that YEC was not the dominant force in the evangelical church. The pastors and Bible college instructors were all loosely OEC, adhering to some form of day age, Scofield Study Bible gap theory, or somewhat undefined idea that there was a prehistory that was not around the garden of Eden. Back then, I never even heard of anyone who thought that dinosaurs would be on the ark. Since then, the origins discussion seems to have become squeezed into ID and a more militant, do not give an inch, YEC.
2 Likes