False assumptions like
Men plant a seed and a woman only provides a fertile place to grow it.
The earth is flat and supported by columns.
The sun moves across the sky.
Hell is a place underground.
etc. etc.
(edited by moderator, avoid personal comments)
Greetings!
I found this helpful; see also the link by @Fernando . Thanks.
In medicine, enantiomers are quite interesting, as in general, we often break down left (sinister) types better.
You might find this book by @DOL Dr Denis Lamoureux (triple doctorate, in theology, evolutionary biology and dentistry; thus has worked with dental evolution) interesting.
The Ancient Science in the Bible - Articles - BioLogos
As Dr Lamoureux writes, there is no evidence of lying on God’s part. It’s accommodation to what we would understand. Just as if I talked to my daughter when she was 3, saying, “The sun is rising,” I would not be telling the truth, but would be communicating what was appropriate. As she is now 8, we can have great conversations about how the Earth turns toward the sun. However, using new science to an old group would have turned them off of God’s message with extraneous information.
Dr Lamoureux has a great video series at Denis Lamoureux, Instructor | Coursera
I love learning this stuff!
Thanks for your discussion.
I think we should open whole separate discussions:
“Did Lord Jesus Christ believe in the Young Earth Creationism?”
“Did the Bible imply Young Earth Creationism?”
What I personally believe are:
John, who is the “he” in your comment? It is not possible for someone to say the Bible has geocentricism and a flat earth. It’s one or the other. The Bible have a 3-tier universe. Here are a couple hermeneutical principles from my book that you might find helpful: https://sites.ualberta.ca/~dlamoure/bas467.pdf
Blessings,
Denis
Just a couple of examples. It isn’t hard to generate a rather long list but I don’t have the time.
Ecclesiastes 1:5 The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose.
Genesis 1:7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
YEC requires/begins with one’s foundational belief system. I tried to accept a synchronous belief in creation and evolution, as espoused by a professor at university of Alberta, Edmonton, but during my own research conducted in my forties, I found there are many holes and leaps of faith (ironically) in evolution theory, minimizing it’s scientific credibility. Thus I am left with one conclusion, to accept Genesis, which by the way is the breathed word of God ( 2 Timothy 3:16). Bottom line = either believe God or believe human intellect. No contest for me as a child of God/disciple of Jesus Christ.
Could you please share with me, @Avsec, the holes in evolution theory that you think degrade its credentials as a scientific theory?
My experience is quite the opposite of yours. I found YEC was built upon lies and manipulation of scientific evidences and inference by experts like Dr Duane Gish, ultimately.
Regardless you cannot help but screen what you think the Bible means through your human intellect. Putting your hand on the Bible does not get you out of the need to make sense of of it.
Why is a particular interpretation of Genesis required for instruction, conviction, correction, or training?
I think a more important discussion is, did Jesus consider the issue to be important?
I do not see any evidence in the Bible that He did. Every time He refers to creation or the Flood, it is only in passing, only to make a point about how we should be living our lives today, and with little or no reference to any details. When YECs quote His words on the matter in this respect, they take them completely out of context and blow them out of all proportion.
One thing that we do see Jesus taking a firm stance on however is the kind of woodenly literal thinking that YEC rests on. The teaching that was nearest to YEC in that respect in His time was the Pharisees’ obsession with the minutiae of the Law, to the extent that they got upset at Him for healing people on the Sabbath. They were more concerned with dotting all the doctrinal "i"s and crossing all the doctrinal "t"s than with the actual welfare of God’s people.
Well yes, but God’s Word is not just to be believed. It is to be obeyed. And that means that you need to be honest in how you approach it.
The problem with YEC isn’t the age of the Earth or evolution itself. I don’t really care how old the Earth is, or who or what did or didn’t evolve from what. But I do care passionately about accurate and honest weights and measures, about the accurate and honest portrayal of scientific evidence, scientific methods, scientific literature and scientific practitioners, about maintaining high standards of rigour and quality control, and about promoting basic scientific literacy in general. Such attitudes are essential for the proper functioning of the modern workplace, modern society, and even the modern Church.
The bottom line is that any creation model, any interpretation of the scientific evidence, any challenge to the scientific consensus on the age of the Earth or evolution, must consist of honest reporting and honest interpretation of accurate information. That is what the Bible demands and therefore that is what I demand as well. “Believing God versus believing human intellect” does not give anyone a licence to fudge measurements, misrepresent evidence, or quote mine scientists in the way that YEC does in order to support teachings on subjects about which the Bible leaves a lot of things wide open to interpretation. Such an approach is neither scientific nor Biblical.
Looking at it from outside the religion it appears to me that
“ I believe the Bible” tends to actually mean “ I believe in myself,
when I report what the Bible means”.
@jammycakes: I worked as a High School tutor during my college years in Indonesia and I helped students ace their grades in order to enter tier-1 universities back in Indonesia and some for outstanding universities in Singapore.
For me why this issue matters a lot is because I found that it was harder for students who have creationistic views to absorb science lessons even in subjects that are not directly related to biology.
Creationism truly weakens students intuition in understanding concepts in Physics and Chemistry. It is mainly because there are many corollaries in Physics that imply a 14 billion years old universe. YEC, in particular, denies this view.
The ‘secular’ hard sciences* all concur and attest to the antiquity of the universe. They share much of the mathematics, measuring tools and techniques and technologies, and these are the same sciences that put men on the moon. They also brought us the atomic and hydrogen bombs. (Feel free to argue with THEM. 
)
The physical and earth hard sciences and their subcategories that all attest to the antiquity of the earth and the universe would have all advanced to where they are today even if the concept of biological evolution had never been dreamt of, or even if the life sciences did not exist.
YECism also belittles the import of Psalm 8:4, not only because of the vastness of the size of the universe, but also because of the vastness of its antiquity.
*Astronomy, cosmology, astrophysics, elementary (high energy) particle physics, planetary science, geology, physical geography, oceanography, meteorology, hydrology, climatology, …and more.
I can absolutely relate to this 100%.
The reason for this is that there is a core set of skills, principles, disciplines, and ways of thinking that are essential in every area of science – and even in other related areas such as engineering, information technology, medicine and finance. The core skills in question are basic mathematics, logic, evidence-based reasoning, critical thinking, and the general principles of how to measure things.
The problem with YECism is that it seriously undermines your ability to develop and apply these core skills in particular. This is because just about every single argument that they come up with demonstrates a complete failing in these specific areas. Furthermore, because they then go on to attack any dissent with accusations of “compromise” or “not believing the bible” (sic) or “putting your faith in secular science” or even “speaking with the voice of the serpent,” it can seriously put you off attempting to develop and apply these core skills in any context, not just creation and evolution.
What is more, these are skills that are essential in order to function properly in the modern workplace. If you aren’t able to apply them correctly and consistently, at the very best you will need a lot of hand-holding and micromanagement, and at worst you could end up driving your employer out of business and possibly even killing people in the process.
I’ve found this even in my own career (software development). Over the years I’ve worked with several other Christians, most of whom have been good and competent at their jobs. But I’ve found that the ones who start out as YECs tend to go in one or two directions. Some of them remain YECs, but end up under-performing because they aren’t able to develop the core skills and disciplines that their jobs require without running into all sorts of conflicts with their a priori commitments to a young Earth. The ones who actually do develop the necessary skills and disciplines to do their jobs properly very often end up losing their faith altogether because they haven’t managed to disentangle their YEC teaching from the Gospel message.
Hard to ‘like’, but easy to see how it is true. There is kind of a subculture of homeschooling and YEC curriculums at Christian schools that engender and reinforce it.
Yes. Because when you are taught you can’t trust science in biology and geology, it’s hard to trust science in chemistry and physics. And when you are constantly on the defensive against “secular” thinking, you are approaching the material as something you might have to argue with to maintain your worldview, you aren’t approaching it as a reliable explanation of how the world works.
It’s also a problem for evangelism. Who would even consider a religion if they’re under the impression it necessarily involves believing obvious falsehoods? It put me off for a long, long time, and continues to challenge me.
From my pov creationism / fundamentalist th8nking is a grave cultural weakness for the USA especially in this harsh and increasingly competitive world.
A dangerous indulgence with so many only too happy to take the USA down.
Dunno. Engineers, computer nerds can believe all manner of crazy antiscientific, antisocial stuff and still be effectively brilliant. China is an awesome threat all round as it is using authoritarian methods to educate the masses in science and technology, but it, like Japan, lacks maverick, creative flair. They don’t do liberal studies. The Chinese Communist Party has to stifle individuality to survive; it’s shut down crypto-currency. It’s worse than the US Constitution.
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.