The scientific method exists to test which views of the natural world are correct and which are wrong. That is what sets it apart from mere opinion or philosophy.
Close enough at times. Would you agree that the idea that bleeding will cure contagious disease by restoring balance between blood, bile, and phlegm, is absolutely wrong? Would you agree that the earth absolutely revolves around the sun? Is it absolutely correct that materials cannot be divided indefinitely as eventually you reach down to atoms? All of this understanding is due to science. What we have learned about nature did not stop centuries ago; current science is still revealing basic truth about nature.
Most of what YEC organizations put out are neither scientific nor in the Bible. The Bible does not speak of speeded up nuclear decay; magnetic reversals and speeding tectonic plates are nowhere to be found in scripture.
Specialization is a reality in science. But most scientists will start off as students in year one university studying the foundations of chemistry, biology, and physics before even beginning to narrow their focus. That does not make them into authorities in these other fields, but it does enable them to generally discern the experts from the crackpots. With appropriate dedication and reading, the same can be said for laypeople.
1 Like
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
154
Those denying science are telling the rest of us that we cannot believe in God incarnate because they can’t if science is true. And not just because science almost completely, by as many sigmas as you want, explains eternal material existence, but because they all believe in penal substitutionary atonement; in God the Killer. All. Apart from, of course, the merely incredulous. Which includes a handful of even otherwise great scientists - whose incredulity fails, invalidates their science at the penultimate hurdle; none of whom are YECs of course. So the all is correct with regard to YECs. There are no universalist YECs. There are hardly any universalist non-YEC Christians for that matter, showing the mesmerisingly fearful power of the historical-grammatical hermeneutic.
Sorry if I misled by saying that. I intended to make a point about people trusting “experts” and the difficulties in those decisions. Your illustration seems a bit simplistic. My mother found out she had breast cancer. Her case was well advanced and this was back in 1987. She had a choice to go through chemo which at the time was a very severe process for her case. She trusted her doctor and choose not to go that route -knowing she had a few months. Then some friend told her about a homeopathic remedy. She took that - probably as something to cling to for a short time. Either way, she knew her time was very short. Those decisions were made by trusting people she knew, rather than from some deep understanding of these person’s credentials and education. She was extremely courageous, never complaining, and strong in her faith in her Creator God. That’s a memory that inspires me often.
She didn’t have to understand Genesis in a different way or believe humans came from apes. Most people in the world don’t have time to analyze everything - understand everything. They don’t even care much about science unless they hear about some new gadget to play with. Sometimes they do flip a coin about who to trust on the big narratives of science. Maybe it’s best to let people make their choices - like the YEC / AIG people. They give hope and strengthen faith in God too. Pointing out their faults, just invites rebuttal. While it’s entertaining at times to read this back and forth, I’m not sure it’s productive kingdom building - or bringing glory to our Creator God. I read BioLogos threads and wonder if it’s having the same impact on the world. It seems to be more about leading people to “the science” than to a relationship with God. But I’m sure I have more to learn.
I was indeed being simplistic with my example - in the service of trying to drive home a point. It certainly isn’t the case that I think all homeopathy is quackery or that the medical establishment (or science generally) is always right - far from it. But if I want to know about ‘X’, I think the people who spend their lives (earn their degrees, make their livings) working with ‘X’ will probably have the most dependable practical knowledge about it.
Your mother sounds like a fine woman. I have a sister who is doing battle against a cancer and has similar disposition to not go the full medically invasive route. There are other philosophies of life in play, and they aren’t necessarily bad or misinformed ones.
Most people don’t show up here for entertainment though, they show up because they have questions that are really bothering them. If someone is a happy, fulfilled, productive Christian as a YEC and experiences no cognitive dissonance and doesn’t feel the need to go around convincing other people to distrust science and call other Christians heretics or tools of Satan because they don’t take Genesis literally, then we wish them all the best.
The vast majority of people we see aren’t in that category though, and the discussion about science and faith isn’t what is introducing questions and doubts into their lives. The questions and doubts are already there because the young earth narrative doesn’t add up for them but they have been taught science is “man’s word” to be distrusted and feel like traitors to God and the Bible when they entertain the idea that maybe scientists got a lot of things right. We have heard many many testimonies of people in that place who have been greatly helped by the BioLogos website and the discussion here. But I agree, it’s not for everyone.
Or people are actively hurting the Kingdom by telling people that to be a good Christian they need to be anti-intellectual and cynical about all scientific expertise, and yes, we are going to oppose these ideas because they are harmful and divisive and hurt the witness of the church. Not to mention these anti-science attitudes are getting people killed these days with all the opposition to vaccination and evidence-based treatments.
The mission of BioLogos is to help the church (and the world) find harmony between faith and science. People who aren’t part of the church are a secondary audience, and most of them don’t have an issue accepting the science part, so there isn’t really a need for nonbelievers to be led to “the science.” It’s the church that is woefully deficient in their understanding of science and acceptance of scientific facts like evolution and climate change.
We assume the primary audience, the church, has already been led to a relationship with God. We would like to give people resources to strengthen their relationship with God, understand the Bible better, and embrace all of the truth God has revealed to the world, but the primary goal is not to be an evangelistic ministry that preaches the gospel. That is the role of the church, and BioLogos is coming alongside the church to help in an area where specialized expertise is needed. That’s how the Body of Christ is supposed to function.
If you have a Christian ministry that is dedicated to helping churches be trauma informed and minister well to abuse victims, you would expect them to spend a lot of their time talking about psychology and abuse and victims. It would be unfair to judge the effectiveness of their ministry by saying “It seems like they are just trying to lead people to psychology not Jesus.” Well, yes, because expertise in psychology is what they are offering the church, not the gospel. The church already has the gospel.
Yes, so who determines bad science and bad exegesis? I agree with Augustine to not affirm rashly (or strongly) either BioLogos views or YEC/AIG views of science or theology, but rather engage in dialogue that builds the kingdom and gives ultimate glory to God. While readers here may think I pick sides and imply a position, my concern is more about staying on the narrow path to heaven. I am reminded that “few there be that find it.” What brings life, peace, love and joy? Sometimes it may be challenging worldviews and big narratives that are typically blindly followed by the masses to give perspective and attempt a conversation to focus back to our Creator God.
Again, I’m no theologian, or educated scientist. Just making my way among the people around me, but knowing that I believe in Jesus and want to be on that narrow path.
I do as well (I’m a septuagenarian), but that kind of distracts from the topic at hand, namely YEC ‘science’ and badly mistaken presuppositions, resulting the diminution of God’s honor before the world.
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
198
WYSIWYG. As for Russia neutralizing Ukraine, that needs it’s own thread and I’m amazed that no one has raised one. I’m intrigued at how you bring the perception of flesh-tearing to my comment.
Well bad science is anything that doesn’t obey the rules of science. And the rules of science are well established because they get applied in Real World contexts to Get Things Done.
Science (especially the physical sciences) is a set of exact subjects that are very mathematical and technical, easy to get wrong, and tricky to get right. It yields very precise results that leave little or no room for interpretation. In most cases, getting things wrong has consequences. In some cases, getting things wrong can end up killing people.
Biblical exegesis, on the other hand, falls under the category of arts, humanities, and social sciences. It concerns the vagaries of humans and other living beings, and as such it does leave some things much more open to interpretation. Having said that, there are limits. You couldn’t just say that the Hebrew word bereshith (“in the beginning”) meant Heathrow Airport, for example.
I think it is important to note that in theology (just like in science) consensus matters and there is a process for vetting interpretations. It’s not a free for all. If people have an idea what a passage means or how it applies, it’s not enough to just cite a Bible verse and declare one’s interpretation valid. There is a body of relevant consensus scholarship in languages, history, and literary studies that applies, as well as 2,000 years of church tradition and teaching that can’t just be overthrown lightly. Bible scholars and theologians also have to put their ideas forward for peer review.
I think it dangerous to state that any truth can be arrived at by consensus. Truth is. It is not governed by any human thought or concept. That must apply to Biblical interpretation, and any Scientific theory, hypothesis, or deemed truth. (And IMHO Evolutionary theory has passed or igored that point)
Biblical truth has the additional problem of the intent or understanding of the author(s).Which is where Divine inspiration and/or dictation becomes a major factor. If the writer is God then the truth is precise. If the writer is human then factors of Culture, Knowledge, and understanding become very important.
There is a difference between saying truth is arrived at by consensus and truth is created by consensus. I’m not saying truth is created by consensus. But there is wisdom in many counselors and not all propositions about what is true are equally valid.
This makes absolutely no sense, practically speaking. How are humans supposed to access truth about Bible interpretation without reference to human thought or conception? Obviously human thought and conception must govern our Bible interpretation because human thought and conception is foundational to human knowledge and human language. We don’t have some kind of magical way to mainline truth into our psyches in a way that bypasses human thought and conception.
But the writer isn’t God. God is the inspirer of Scripture. The writers were human, had finite minds, were embodied, used language, had cultures, and inhabited a time and place in history. Even if God could write down truth for us, the use of human language (which is dependent on human embodied experience for its symbols and learned cultural frames for its interpretation) would constrain its “precision.”
That phrase is the bone of so much contention. No, I do not believe God is the author of scripture, but there are many who do, and that will colour their interpretations of it.
Whatever, the establishment of truth cannot be just by consensus. Otherwise we would still live on a flat earth because that notion could not be overturned by consensus alone.
This thread really moves around , but still within the topic. It’s amusing reading through it.
Genesis 1-11 has always been written as mythological. It has never been written as a historical or biographical narrative. It was a myth when it was spoken between ancient people and it was a myth when it was written and it was a myth when it was copied, translated and printed.
Even before we knew about evolution and even if the world was created 6k years ago in a week and all the science supported it genesis 1-11 would have still been written as a myth.
However, except for a handful, we have a greater than 10th grasp on earth sciences. Other than a few of us we understand the difference between a scientific theory and a persons theory on how Bigfoot is able to blur video images. Talking about two very different things. Also as Christy said there is a difference between wisdom from the consensus of experts sharing their knowledge versus the consensus of unlearned and uneducated people just musing collectively and landing on a random position.
The reason why YEC is opposed is simply because it’s a lie. It’s a lie based on anti scientific, anti intellectual and full of conspiracies. It would be like if someone said gravity does not exist angels who keep everything working smoothly grabs apples in the air and throws them back down. The only people that take YEC serious is young earth creationist. Same goes for flat earthers.
1500 years ago the theory of evolution may have been possibly tossed around by some random person but in general it was not really something well known, believed or studied until recently. People use to think fossils were rocks that god shaped to be evidence of his finger in creation.
But now days more and more people are realizing and being outspoken about the genre and narrative style of genesis 1-11. Now days more and more people accept evolution as the obvious truth. My 7 year old niece always understands we evolved from fish to what we are today. She understands chimpanzees and other primates look a lot like us because we are closely related. She also believes in god as much as a little kid can ( which is actually often 100% complete faith in what their adults are telling them ). Evolution is accepted by almost all young people. Very few young people make up the bulk of YECists. In a few generations I think YECism will essentially be nonexistent and more of a “ weird cult “ than a significant portion of Christianity. The majority of Christian’s already seem to accept evolution.
But my arguments and positions are not YEC.
Your 7 year old niece will have been emersed in Evolution from the first time it became vaguely appropriate. There will have been no argument (valid or otherwise) against it. And she would have no reason to doubt or question her teachers. And the same could probably be said since the eighties, maybe even earlier. That is the main reason it is held as fact. It has been taught as fact for so long it is part of every curriculum in the (Western?) world.
But, unlike the belief in God, she will not be advised or even, probably, given the opportunity to question Evolution, unless she decides to study it. And even then the teaching will endorse what is “believed” with little credence given to alternative ideas.
And if she dare approach it from any other angle, she will be shouted down and mocked.
Long live the God Evolution!
Richard
PS your view on the acceptance of Genesis 1-11 is naive, to say the least. I would have said, from the Christians I have met, that the ratio is about 50/50, 70/30 max myth /history.
Also I only read a selection of responses and I don’t think any of them was yours and so my response was not directed at you. I used terms like most of us because I presumed this long of thread means those that disagreed.
70/30 max would be the majority. I was thinking it was actually around 60/40 based off of pewreiveiws or something like that.