Refuting Compromise: The Troubling Tone of Creationism


(Steve Buckley) #21

I find curious that you take the discussion all the way back to Brown vs the BoE trial.
I don’t demonize you at all.
I do think you’re mistaken, at least, and downright wrong.

Yesterday I saw the videos of a young PhD who just published a book titled–
Replacing Darwin.
I further saw a newly published text from the folks at EvolutionNews.org. IT too was a “debunking” of the ideas of the “theistic evolution” views.

After having ran through the gamit with numerous BL supporters the other day, I’m not entirely interested in repeating it.
I think the point you’ve noted, and what I see are completely different.

You use a term which I do think is troubling— christian opinions.… about origins.

For decades I tried getting the bible to fit the evolutionary time periods. The ONLY reason I did so, is because I didn’t want to be considered a freak, or idiot for believing that God created everything. I.e., peer-pressure. I consider myself a reasonable individual, have been educated in math and physics. Can code in a couple of different programming languages, and am really good with my hands at fixing things. And I mean REALLY>>>>>>>> good with my hands.

I find it disconcerting that normally intelligent, and otherwise godly people would go this way, trying to get the bible to fit the world’s views on origins. I.e., christian opinions.

Jesus told us— if anyone WANTS to be my disciple, let them pick up their cross (instrument of death), and deny themselves daily, and follow me.

As I’ve come to understand this over the past 4 decades— denying ourselves consists of not just self-denial of our appetites for carnal pleasures, but our ideas, and our thinking on ideas which would go counter to the biblically defined views of life, and reality. I.e., as Jesus told Peter, in Matthew 16— we’re learning to see as God sees. We already saw as man sees, and in following JEsus, it’s time to put aside the ways we saw before, and begin learning to see what/how God is teachings us to see.

So. the question becomes---- what’s more important to you?
To continue to get man’s point of view, or learn from God’s Point of View?
One-- man’s pov-- is finite, and limited to finite/myopic means of understanding and awareness.
The latter-- God’s PoV-- is infinite, and unlimited by man’s means of understanding and awareness.
Isaac Newton sure didn’t have a problem with God’s PoV. He actually said he depended on it, so he could gain a more accurate perspective. This allowed him to develop the ideas he had, and published. While his ideas of alchemy were wrong, calculus, gravity and optics are still used to this day in math and physics.

I won’t say that there are others who don’t “demonize” your beliefs about “theistic evolution.” I am not one of them. I will say, that I do not understand why you’d be so ready to dismiss what God said he did, and believe man over God.
Who are you following?
Man?
Men who claim to follow God?
Men who claim to seek truth, but get stuck in the quagmire of the unknown claiming to know?
Or God?
If God, then learn what God has ACTUALLY said, and not what you THINK he said.
Telling people that the bibical creation narrative is in error, and therefore the reason for Jesus’ coming to die for our sin is in error— you’re not promoting truth. You’re promoting an opinion for which the rest of us will indeed stand against you, because you’re standing against the gospel— which is the only reason we profess the name of Jesus to begin with.
WE’re not to follow other men, unless they’re following Jesus (1 Cor. 11:1), and then only to the degree they’re actually following Jesus. We’re SUPPOSED to be following Jesus ourselves! Remember what Jesus told Peter when Peter asked about John’s duties. “What does it matter to you if I decide he sticks around until I return! You follow Me!”

Don’t follow the ideas of men. Follow Jesus. Men have been leading people astray for millennia. Jesus has never once led anyone astray.


(Marshall Janzen) #22

I follow (imperfectly, haltingly) a man who I believe was also God incarnate. When others claim I am not following God because of my views on creation, that indeed comes across as something pretty close to demonization.

I don’t think the creation narrative is in error, nor do I think that’s a common view here.

When God gave Nebuchadnezzar a dream of a tree on a flat earth – a tree so tall (not wide) it could be seen from anywhere on earth – I don’t think God was in error or the dream was in error (Dan. 4). It was simply accommodated to a human perspective. The error would be to assume the dream reveals God’s knowledge of the shape of the earth.

God revealed to Jeremiah, “I the LORD test the mind [literally, heart] and search the heart [literally, kidneys]” (Jeremiah 17:10). Our translations change the words to be more meaningful to us and our own figures of speech, but the actual words fit what was then understood. Hebrew didn’t have a word for the brain. Ancient people didn’t see much use to the stuff inside our head; when preserving bodies to prepare a person for the afterlife, Egyptians discarded the brain like so much used Kleenex while carefully preserving organs like the heart, liver and kidneys. Yet rather than revealing the true organ of thought, biblical writers use the common understanding. Even God’s speech uses the common understanding. This doesn’t make God’s words wrong. It makes them understandable for the humans they were given to.

If the Bible can speak of the commonly assumed source of thought (heart, kidneys) to speak of thought, maybe Jesus can also speak of the commonly assumed source of the law (Moses) to speak of the law. Maybe creation accounts can also use language that describes how things look to a human observer rather than anachronistically conforming to modern scientific expectations.

To me, none of this makes the Bible in error. It only exposes errant ways of reading the Bible that force it to speak to matters that are beside the point.


(Steve Buckley) #23

Here’s a novel thought…
What if the kidneys to us, contain some attribute of which we’re unaware, and unfamiliar with?

There are plenty of things which consist of the creation and we really have no idea what is, at the foundation of them.
A Christian outfit on facebook argues for theistic evolution. Today’s article link is to the problem with YEC-ers saying that the earth is 6000 years old. I’ve previously posted that JAmes Ussher was the one whence we get that age. And he did so, based entirely on the ages of the males, in the Genesis genealogy.
The problem I have is not with an age of the planet. I have a problem with the lack of language which shows evolution. For all I’ve ever known, God could have created, recreated, recreated, and done so over and over again, for untold eons, and as Deuteronomy 29:29 says— simply didn’t think us capable of handling it during this part of our lives.
Thus, he told us— there are secret things which belong to YHVH your God, but the things he has given to you are for you and your children to do, for all generations.

I see lots to describe that God created it. I see nothing to say that God evolved it. Yes, like the kidneys, there could be some term which just doesn’t quite translate right into other languages.
Bara still comes out— create from nothing.


(Christy Hemphill) #24

:beers:[quote=“Steve_Buckley, post:23, topic:36755”]
What if the kidneys to us, contain some attribute of which we’re unaware, and unfamiliar with?
[/quote]

Are you seriously suggesting that scientists will someday discover our kidneys think? I have seen some pretty wild attempts to defend biblical literalism at all costs here, but I think that one wins. :clap: :beers:


(Marshall Janzen) #25

Bara can be used for creation from something. For instance, Psalm 104:30 speaks of how when all sorts of animals are born (including carnivorous animals) each is created (bara) by God. Ecclesiastes 12:1 says that God is our creator (bara), yet that does not rule out us having parents. See also Isaiah 41:17-20; 43:1, 7; 54:16; 65:18; Ezekiel 21:28-30.

What is special about bara in the Bible is that God is always the agent (or the implied agent). The word doesn’t tell us anything about a process or starting conditions or lack thereof.

Regardless, I still believe God created the universe from nothing!


(Steve Buckley) #26

Considering that humans know less than one trillionth of 1% of all reality, I’m amused that you think you know enough to claim otherwise.
Or did you somehow breach that barrier?
I’m not the one who has a problem with the bible. You’re starting to make it sound that you do.
This is what I find troubling.
So, if you think I’ve compromised science because I’m recognizing just how little science actually knows, then there is indeed a problem.
Creation is clearly a foundation of the biblical narrative.
It is the first phrase of the bible.
It’s throughout the bible.
The people who lived in that day clearly did not have a problem, and were acutely aware of their finite knowledge and awareness.
So, let me ask you a question, since my credulity is now in question…

Why are you so sure that God is lying?
What makes you so sure that science actually knows what happened, that you’re actually challenging the biblical narrative, and saying that God used evolution, and didn’t do exactly what he said he did (spoke creation into existence-PS 33:9, John 1:1-3, Col. 1:15-19, Hebrews 1:2-4)?
At least for all my education, I recognize that science just isn’t that smart…
For no other reason than they were not present to make the observations which the scientific method limits them to.


(Christy Hemphill) #27

I don’t think God ever lies. What makes you think I think God is lying?

I don’t see any irreconcilable conflict between “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” and scientific models of the Big Bang and biological evolution.


(George Brooks) #28

@Steve_Buckley

I am more inclined to think you are the one making God into a liar more than someone who has figured out how the human writer approached the context and did the best he could to describe the indescribable.

Geology is not really as complicated as you make it out to be, Steve.

There’s ten different ways to ascertain the age of the earth, and they all converge on 5+ billion years.

Don’t you think God would be impressed by that kind of sacred convergence?


(Christy Hemphill) #29

4.5 billion years


(George Brooks) #30

LoL…

I seem to recall us having this discussion before…

or was that the age of the Universe?

4.5 billion years. 4.5 billion years. 4.5 billion years. 4.5 billion years.

If the neurons in my brain can’t remember it … maybe the neurons in my finger muscles will…

4.5 billlion years. 4.5 billion years. 4. 5 billion years. 4.5 billion years

4.5 billion years. 4 .5 billion years . 4.5 billion years. 4.5 billion years.

4.5 billion years. 4.5 billion years. 4.5 billion years… 4.5 billion years.


(Phil) #31

I would have to take exception with you there. The Creator is the foundation, and that is the message on Genesis one, that creation is not the center, but rather God, and as seen in John 1, Christ. The sun and moon are purposely not named, as they had common names that were those of deities, but they are created lights. Genesis reveals to us who the creator is, not what creation is. Now, I think you know that and your statement was perhaps poorly worded, but it is a vivid example of how easy it is to focus on creation rather than the creator, and how the literal/historical reading of Genesis lends itself to that that particular fallacy [quote=“Steve_Buckley, post:26, topic:36755”]
you’re actually challenging the biblical narrative, and saying that God used evolution
[/quote]

The Biblical narrative does not speak to whether or not God used evolution as a mechanism of creation. That is not the purpose or subject of the scripture, and it does not speak any more to evolution that it speaks to relativity, neuroscience, or heliocentrism. We really need to move beyond seeing the scripture as saying what we want it to say, and open our hearts and kidneys to hearing what it says.


(George Brooks) #32

So, @jpm, you aren’t just a pretty face… I will have to remember this category of response!


(Steve Buckley) #33

Hi JPM.
Curious… I think I’ve just found the problem here…
You changed what I said, based on your assumptions, and preconceptions, instead of just repeating what I said, and in spite of the fact that you actually quoted me.

Please look again at what I said.
I did not say THE foundation.
I said A foundation.

I know full well that YHVH is THE foundation.
That’s actually part of my point. God said quite concisely that he created everything. And he didn’t just leave it to a single statement at the beginning. We see it over and over again, throughout scripture. Which is why I find the idea that we evolved or that “God used evolution” so ludicrous.
If he’d stated it any other way, I’d be more ready to believe you.

So, I’m glad that you’ve taken exception. I take exception with your exception, because you’ve based your premise on something I did not say.

It actually says that he spoke creation into existence. Psalm 33:6-9. It then says that Jesus holds it all together by the word of his power. Hebrews 1:2-4.

Here’s the irony…
I’d PREFER that it said evolution. It’d make those who claim to be scientists, and lovers of science easier to believe.
So, that you actually THINK I want creation to be actually spoken into existence, in the 6 24 hour day cycle it actually stated to have taken place— based on the written word… just shows you are the one who has the presuppositions, and biases.
Seeing the written word as it is tells me that I will one day answer for my life, my actions, inactions, silence, and words.
He’s inviting all of us to believe Him. He’s promised that if we do believe him, he’ll open his treasuries to us. After years of trying to figure it out on my own and learning little of eternal value, I’ll continue to learning what he’s said he’d do-- it carries a far greater eternal weight.
No J. I am not one who wants to see what I read.


(Steve Buckley) #34

Hi G.
I didn’t make anything out of geology.
Nor am I one having a problem trying to make science and the bible fit together.
I am however curious.
Ever read anything on the variable speed of light? Back in the 90’s there were 4 to 6 cosmologists who did research, and 2 of them found evidence that the speed of light changes.
Dr’s J. Maguiejo, Andreas Albrecht, Moffat, and the others’ names I can’t remember. Moffatt was the one who found the evidence.
https://www.google.com/search?num=100&source=hp&ei=gT1IWsSaM9HQjwPOu6C4CQ&q=moffatt+variable+speed+of+light&oq=moffatt%2C+variable+spee&gs_l=psy-ab.3.0.33i22i29i30k1.982.9657.0.10889.24.23.0.0.0.0.273.2779.11j7j4.22.0…0…1.1.64.psy-ab…2.21.2684.0…0j46j35i39k1j0i131k1j0i131i20i264k1j0i20i264k1j0i46k1j0i20i264i46k1j46i20i264k1j0i10k1j0i22i10i30k1j0i22i30k1j33i160k1.0.70QjEuVKAKg

If his numbers are correct, 10^30 km/s, then the age calculations would place the age of the earth at a much, much, much younger age.
Oh… wait. I forgot. This would be sacrilegious to the realm of science, wouldn’t it? What would all those scientists who promote evolution, and billions of years old think if they learned that the 6000-20,000 years is actually correct?

From what I read, the only thing God is impressed by— is faith in what he said- Hebrews 11:6.
Jesus was clearly impressed by the Roman Centurion who had enough faith to ask him to only say the word, and he would believe. Matt 8:10.
So… God impressed…?
It seems to me that if we want to impress God, we’d do well to start where God says he’s pleased, and Jesus expressed his pleasure.
By believing Him.

p.s. Here’s a secret for you— God’s long known about this too.
I don’t specifically have a problem with an earth that is even trillions of years old. The reason is because I wasn’t there to observe. And as the evidence is not as clear as even evolutionists claim it to be, I find such arguments amusing. and it’s entirely because no one was around… EXCEPT God.
Have a great day, and new years.


(Chris Falter) #35

Hi Steve,

The Variable Speed of Light (VSL) hypothesis and the inflationary hypothesis are 2 competing ways of solving the horizon problem. According to the inflationary hypothesis, the universe is 13.78 billion years old. According to the VSL hypothesis, the universe is 13.78 billion + 2 or so extra years old.

The reason that astronomers are so convinced that the universe is 13.78 billion years old is that all of the spectrographic observations of light show that the Lorenz Invariant holds. And if the Lorenz Invariant holds, then the speed of light is necessarily constant.

There are only 2 possibilities here:

  1. A completely literalistic interpretation of Genesis 1 - 7 is valid, but for some reason God has chosen to make the spectrographic observations of light that reaches us from every corner of the universe give the appearance of a 13.78 billion year history.

  2. A figurative or metaphorical interpretation of Genesis is more appropriate, and the 13.78 billion year history written in the spectrographic lines is real.

Wishing you and yours a 2018 full of God’s blessing.

Chris


(Chris Falter) #36

The subject of this thread is the unnecessarily hostile, and sometimes venomously sarcastic, tone of some Young Earth Creationists. Were you aware of that, Steve?

Of course, many YEC proponents are not that way. Also, hostility knows no borders, so there are proponents of every view who sometimes fall prey to that temptation. We are all in need of God’s grace.

Best wishes for 2018,
Chris


(George Brooks) #37

The change in the speed of light is connected to General and Special Relativity.

As the speed of light changes (as perceived by someone not traveling in the same frame of reference) so does time. Thus it becomes impossible to identify changes in the speed of light within one’s own frame of reference.

@Steve_Buckley, read some articles on General Relativity.


#38

That’s what God inspired humans to write. Not quite the same thing.[quote=“Steve_Buckley, post:33, topic:36755”]
I’d PREFER that it said evolution. It’d make those who claim to be scientists, and lovers of science easier to believe.
[/quote]

Then you seem to be saying that your acceptance or rejection of scientific theories has nothing to do with the actual evidence. Rather, you accept or reject scientific findings based on their conformity to your religious beliefs.[quote=“Steve_Buckley, post:33, topic:36755”]
He’s inviting all of us to believe Him. He’s promised that if we do believe him, he’ll open his treasuries to us.
[/quote]

Do you include listening to the Creation itself in that process?


(Steve Buckley) #39

Hi G.
So, you haven’t read the articles I referenced?
Did you have some specific research on GR/SR that you wanted me to read?
Because without something specific, I can’t just pick an article, as it may contradict your claim, and then I’d be accused of confirmation bias.
According to the research done by Moffatt and company, they found evidence that the speed of light changed.


(George Brooks) #40

@Steve_Buckley,

Yeah… sure they did. How could anyone do that?