You have heard of Karl Giberson I suspect. He went from card-carrying Creationist to Theist Evolutionist because of physics … not because of biology.
If we could get all the YEC’s into the Old Earth stance … it would be much easier to discuss everything else.
Frankly, I don’t even like to start a discussion about Evolution with discussions of Evolution - - if you get my drift. First, I need to find out where a person stands on science in general. And Geology is a fairly calm and mild discipline, with less emotion than the dreaded phrasing: “Common Descent”! … or even worse … the term “Speciation”!
You could…but Jesus didn’t. His argument was based on what God said and the way things were. And if God didn’t say those things or if that’s not the way things were, then His argument falls apart.[quote=“Bill_II, post:60, topic:36201”]
When I started reading about geology at the library I found the work of the early geologists that were trying to work out the age of the earth as opposed to the deluge geologists that still believed in a global flood.
[/quote]
To what degree did this consist of the “scriptural geologists” of whom Terry Mortenson writes?
Maybe you weren’t aware of the grandness of the consensus, but by your own testimony it sounds as if you had to be aware of the geological consensus.
What is it telling? I included the biologists because their stance indirectly speaks to the age of the earth and would be impossible for anyone attending a public school (and most private ones) to be unaware of.
Speaking of economy of effort with regard to study of the age of the earth, is it reasonable to say that geology is the field of science that paved the way for such discussions…and that the debate about uniformitarianism versus catastrophism was what paved the way for geology?
Is it also fair to say that uniformitarianism and catastrophism are both assumptions about the past - albeit one you think is right (i.e. supported by the evidence) and the other you think is wrong (i.e. not supported by the evidence)?
How is this any different from @Bill_II’s stance of commitment to the conclusions of modern science and history such that he’s committed to rejecting any evidence from Gen 1-11 that conflicts with the conclusions he believes must be upheld?
Aren’t you weighting the argument against the Bible by framing it this way? The Bible is a text of fixed length, settled long ago. Modern science is churning out more details with each passing day. If you want to decide the age of the earth in favor of modern science, that is one thing, but to do so on the basis of who talks the most about the subject seems to be logically questionable.
By the way, there can be no denying that science as a community is more united in its view of origins than is Christendom. In the former, one finds a clear majority of opinion and in the latter controversy upon controversy. In fact, is it not fair to say that the proliferation of Gen 1-2 interpretations over the last, say, 200 years bears ample witness to which community has invested more effort in accommodating the other?
I suppose one could say that the readers of God’s book of nature have not needed to be as accommodating to the readers of God’s other book as the other way around…but why?
Is it really logically questionable to use evidence when choosing which source is most helpful? The Bible was never intended to give us scientific details about our origins – not when it was written, and not today. I can’t understand how it would be illogical use the aspect of revelation that humans can keep adding to.
Yes, adjustments to theology have had to be made in light of new scientific discovery. But this would have to be the case since it would be impossible to adjust theology due to scientific discovery before the discoveries were made!
Are you saying God didn’t have a plan for marriage before he created? Really? Do you believe he just wings it as He goes? “Let’s see, man created, check, woman created, check, now what am I going to do with them?” He might not have said it in those verses but based on what we know about God from the entire Bible I am sure we can say with confidence that yes he did have a plan.
Sorry but my memory is not quite that good. The problem with the scriptural geologists is the evidence that should have been found based on their assumptions wasn’t there. And what was there didn’t match their assumptions.
Sorry no evolution in my public school. Not even a hint.
I[quote=“Mike_Gantt, post:65, topic:36201”]
How is this any different from @Bill_II’s stance of commitment to the conclusions of modern science and history such that he’s committed to rejecting any evidence from Gen 1-11 that conflicts with the conclusions he believes must be upheld?
[/quote]
That is not my stance. I let the evidence from God’s own creation speak to my own human, fallible interpretation of Genesis. If you think I am trying to uphold science over God you are very wrong.
Most likely because God’s word does not speak to nature as we continue to grow in understanding. You said the Bible was fixed so it is stuck in presenting nature as understood when it was written. You seem to be unaware that the understanding of God’s word has likewise continued to grown which has resulted in changes in which you do not appear be aware.
Science has established procedures that involve open inquiry, not pre-determined conclusions. Bill’s acceptance of science is an acceptance of the results of an established scientific method. He is not personally performing the method when he is committed to accepting scientists’ conclusions. He is trusting their performance of the method. I bet if scientific consensus on something changed, Bill would accept the new conclusions.
This is entirely different than someone claiming to be a scientist and claiming to participate in open inquiry and the scientific method, but being unwilling from the outset to go where certain observations would lead because the hypothesis is actually the conclusion.
Biblical interpretation relies on a different process than the scientific method. When we (speaking for myself as an Evangelical-ish person) approach a Scripture passage, it isn’t an open inquiry process in the same way, because conclusions must fit an accepted orthodox theological framework, and must be coherent with other established interpretations.
Yes, I think so. You’re a judge and there are two witnesses at the trial. One talks more than the other. Should you assume loquaciousness correlates with reliability?
Agreed. But are you saying that the Bible was never intended to give us historical details about our origins?
I can’t think of an example where a scientific discovery requires an adjustment in theology.
Of course, not. What I’m saying is that Jesus’ argument does not refer to this premeditation; it refers to the way things were in the beginning. And if they weren’t that way, His argument fails.
I’m going to have to ask for some evidence here. You cannot really separate science and history and I think we’ve been over this in another thread. The two are linked together, especially through disciplines like Geology, Stratiagraphy, Cosmology- and then Paleontology, Anthropology, etc. If the historical events ocurred as you believe, there would be evidence… unless God is hiding the evidence. Some won’t have lots of historical evidence (like specific things Moses said obviously), but a global flood, 6000 year old cosmos, all humans have a bottleneck after Noah’s flood, all fossils buried in flood should be pretty evident by looking at the world. They’re not however, and it’s a serious claim to pretend for the absolute historicity of your interpretation of Scripture when there’s no evidence for and loads against.
How about the shift from geocentrism? That required a reinterpretation of many Scriptures. The ‘fixed cosmos’ of say Jeremiah 31:35 needed to be adjusted as Brahe saw a supernova in 1572. And instead of a finished cosmos, it turns out that God might still be creating. Dinosaurs needed to be reworked in the Scriptures or theology needed to be redone to account for these massive creatures that seem to be nonexistent in the Biblical account. Or everyone believed the Earth was flat, even those who wrote the Bible. Or despite your insistence on say a global flood, centuries of evidence contrary have led many to adjust their theology of Noah’s flood. Or perhaps the recent book, Adam and the Genome and genomic evidence have led many to rethink through the Genesis account and Paul’s arguments in Romans 5.
I honestly don’t see how this differs in principle from the approach @Christy ascribed to YEC’s.
I do not think that in your own mind you are “trying to uphold science over God,” but that appears to be the net effect of your view with respect to historical claims made in Gen 1-11. If there are historical facts in Gen 1-11 that you would exempt from scientific trumping, I don’t recall your identifying them.
Agreed, but does one of these methods, in and of itself and all other things being equal, produce more reliable results? In other words, are you saying that those who read “God’s book of nature” are less susceptible to human frailty than those who read “God’s book called the Bible”?