I fully empathize with what you’ve said. I wrestled with this issue a good bit before arriving a position of resolution and peace in my own mind. Like you I’m EC but still maintain a high view of scripture and its authority. I remember being shocked that scientific concordism fails as an approach to biblical interpretation. I felt like my whole world was caving in.
There are lots of resources on the BioLogos site to help work through these issues. Many of us are enthusiastic about finding harmony between science and scripture. I predict that in one more generation, EC will emerge as the dominant view of creation in Christianity.
Beginning of the 20th century there was an important debate on the subject of truth between Wittgenstein and Karl Popper. Popper’s initial opinion was that if a statement can’t be falsified, then neither can it be claimed to be true. I agree with that statement. Then the discussion got very complex, beyond my understanding.
EC is a view of creation that harmonizes evolutionary theory with Christianity. Evolution is a theory in the scientific sense, not a mere hypothesis. It is a model that incorporates rigorously confirmed hypotheses and observations from multiple fields of study in a way that is testable and has predictive power. So, yes, evolution is science. Other views of creation lack this cohesiveness of explanation with theories that ultimately fall short of authentic science.
I just wanted to publicly apologize that you’ve learned a lot of bad science from people who claim to be upholders of truth. They claim to speak as authorities but are none at all, they don’t publish any papers in journals that can be critiqued by other experts in the field, and do it all in the name of God.
Is there a specific claim that you want to address or would be open to evidence contrary to everything you’ve said. To begin though…
Nothing you said has anything to do with evolution.
There are some interesting questions regarding the fields of astrophysics and Cosmology, but none of those questions are even central to an ‘evolutionary creationist.’ Your argument is essentially:
You all can’t explain this or that, therefore whatever I claim to be true is right (in this case it seems you might be coming from a ‘God created the universe with apparent age about 6,000 years ago’ perspective).
That is the classic god-of-the-gaps fallacy where if there’s anything someone can’t explain about creation- #goddidit.
But please clarify if you want to discuss any of your claims in detail or just want to wave your hands and claim some other position is ridiculous.
Can I just say? I have missed the lively debate that you incite in our cozy little corner of the internet! It’s often boring without you!
Welcome back.
I don’t expect you to change your mind this time any better than your other visits, but what you do a great job doing is giving us EC folks a marvelous conversational foil so that other YEC people who visit BioLogos’s forum can get answers to their own questions that are similar to your concerns. It helps us make the case in an engaging, conversational way to our readers.
Hi Prode,
I didn’t say EC was science. Science is science, as @jasonbourne4 outlined above. I grew up with the perspective set forth on places like Answers in Genesis or Creation dot com, so I’m familiar with the arguments, and I’ve come to see that it’s pseudoscience. Deciding the universe must be a certain age and then picking and choosing “evidence” that seems to not contradict that number is not science and is dishonest. I agree with @pevaquark that it’s very unfortunate that believing in a young age for the universe has been set forth as foundational to the faith, as if the truth of Jesus depended on it. It doesn’t. Jesus is the foundation.
I am happy to hear that you have found your true home and you are no longer in search of explanations for the existence of physical things. It might be a little inconsistent with your theology but that is OK.
I agree with you: To be saved, one has only to call on the name of Jesus, the Son of God, confessing with one’s mouth that he came here bodily, and believing in one’s heart that he died and rose again from the dead.
It just seems a little bit skew that you believe the “science” when it talks about the billions of years and self-made stars, planets and life but when it comes to dead bodies coming to life all by themselves or virgins giving birth (both of which are ruled out by real-life scientific observations) you call it a miracle or say “God did it”. Or you accept the origin story as painted by the atheistic science but reject the future heat death in favor of a glorious remaking by God. Just a little bit skew, but that is OK too.
Just a reminder (again) that your posts should relate to the topic or at least to the turn the discussion has taken. You’ve had plenty of reminders about this. All your posts that fail to engage in productive conversations and just try to push the same old buttons are going to be deleted.
I can’t help but wonder if you place the same emphasis on every word in the OT that you do regarding Genesis. If accepting its literal truth in lieu of modern science where cosmology is concerned is an absolute test of faith for you, do you likewise regard acceptance of the information the OT provides regarding proper diet over the modern science of nutrition another such test of faith? If not, how do you personally decide what you and other real Christians should hold to without regard to new learning?
A lack of wisdom on all sides. The theory of evolution is well established, but science unwisely extrapolates their success to speculate on a theory of creation. Evolution being the development from A to B and creation being the jump from Null to A. This is true in astrophysics and biology.
Theologians unwisely cling to the manmade doctrines laid down in medieval times, limiting the scope of their investigation. They deny the concept of the Logos was developed by the same culture of the father of logic and refuse to use this logic to investigate all of the texts and doctrines.
This lack of wisdom on both sides means that the debate will not evolve into a constructive discussion until each player has the humility to question their own assumptions.
My view of creation is not shared with anyone in this forum, so I will not open that can of worms. But what my view does for me is to allow me to live in wonder of God’s creation and, at the same time, accept the huge injustice in this world. I can feel genuine compassion for those who harm me and my family.
Here is just one practical example. My 22 year old daughter has nearly died three times in the past 20 months, each time suffering from others. 1) The police and doctors misdiagnosed her stoke, treating her like a drug addict. The emergency room doctor damaged her airway intubating her. 2) Six months later, a ganglion grew in her throat (from the pervious damaged airway) and she nearly suffocated. The medical technician falsely installed the respirator, tearing her larynx and pumping air into her body. 3) Last week she was carjacked and kidnapped. Her friend was shot in the face and she was able to to keep her from bleeding out and escape captivity safely.
Without my family’s belief in the reason for God’s creation, we would be in a very negative place right now, judging by the reactions of everyone around us. My wife has grown dramatically in the last 20 months, and it is only our unique belief that could have done this. We are so happy to be blessed with the wisdom behind the saying “What doesn’t kill you makes you stronger.”
Wow! That is a set of trials that no person (or their parents) would want to have to go through or see their child go through. Is she okay (on hopefully on her way to ‘okay’) now?
I’m thankful you’ve got faith in place that helps you cope with all this.
But what if it’s our calling as believers to not accept injustices, but to stand up against them? Of course that’s rhetorical, and I think I know what you meant … that you have a theodicy that is untroubled at its core by the fact of evil in the world. Although even there, one might make a good case that an untroubled (or untouched) theodicy is an inherently flawed theodicy.
But in any case, may you[we] all continue to grow stronger and wiser.