Why do people oppose YEC?

SkovandOfMitaze · February 28, 2022, 10:02pm

Consider it like this .

When you have roughly 8,000,000 scientists and many of them have fields that connect into the theory of evolution somehow, and even more are researched qualified to interpret scientific literature and out of those 8 million worldwide working for thousands of independent organizations and 99.9% all share the same basic consensus and then you have another few billion or so non experts who enjoy studying science listening to arguments all look at it and also fall into the same consensus and it’s all based on interpretation of data and has no connection to nationality, race or religion and yet you find people from all across these niches agreeing there is a good chance it’s right. At least far more so than a non scientific view with a few thousand experts at odds with everyone and unable to present a strong case that however many non experts accept based on faith in a specific interpretation of the Bible also accept. That’s far less likely to be true.

Randy · February 28, 2022, 10:58pm

I’m really interested–how do you, Shannon, recommend that one finds this?

Does one tell the others that the Holy Spirit does not work through them?

Yet, you have, yourself, quoted Hebrew and Greek scholars that greatly help in interpretation. That shows insight. Thank you for your contribution on this discourse.

From them, we can tell that there are Hebrew cultural expressions that we would never know without the help of experts, and that make the Bible richer for knowing… Does that help in interpreting the Bible?

Thanks.

Shannon · March 1, 2022, 2:11pm

Actually, Randy, if you notice, my questions are in regards to Christy’s claims which are confusing. I had asked her if we need the Holy Spirit for understanding of what is inspired Scripture or the Bible. Still curious as to her explanation of how one tests for approval of what the Holy Spirit reveals…
How can one approve what is truth without having the truth abiding within them?

Since you’ve mentioned Hebrew/Greek studies this may help us understand what it is to ‘abide’ in the truth:

Language Studies

Greek Thoughts

MENO* - Part 11 - εχηγεομαι (Strong’s #1834)

To remain, to abide, to stay

Resource Toolbox

Multi-Part Article

Choose a part from the list below:
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Please note that all Biblical quotes, in this and all other lessons posted to Greek Thoughts, are from The Literal English Translation of the Bible produced by BTE Ministries - The Bible Translation and Exegesis Institute of America.

In the previous parts of this study, we established the meaning of μὲνω (meno — Strong’s #3306- to remain, to abide, to stay) through an examination of its many uses in Scripture. This helped us understand that the word denotes a permanency of something/someone remaining or abiding in something/someone else.

So far we have studied the following scriptures:

Relationship with the Lord
The non-believer remains in darkness while the Lord abides with the believer (John 12:46; 6:56; 15:4-7).

Relationship with the Spirit of God
The Comforter is to remain with the disciples of the Lord forever and the abiding Spirit of God produces fruit within their lives (John 14:16; John 15:4).

Relationship with the Word of God
The Word of God remains forever. The Word of God is not abiding in non-believers; but, in contrast, the genuine believer is remaining in the Word of God (1 Peter 1:23-25; John 5:38; 8:31).

Relationship with the Body of Christ
The ones who are antichrist will not remain with the Body of Christ, but those who belong to Christ cannot leave because of the anointing abiding in them (1 John 2:19; 2:27).

Relationship of Every Person to Sin
The one practicing sin is from the devil. Every one who has been born of God does not practice sin because God’s seed is abiding in him/her (1 John 3:8-9).

Relationship with Christ Himself
We know that we are abiding in Him from the Spirit whom He has given to us (1 John 3:24; 1 John 4:13).

Relationship with God’s Love
The one not loving his/her brother is abiding in death. God is abiding in the one who is loving his/her brother (1 John 3:14; 1 John 4:12).

This week our focus is on μὲνω as it is used in II John to show how this “abiding” is the evidence that one is dwelling in truth.

2 John 1-2

The elder to the elect lady and her children, whom I love in truth, and not I only, but also all the ones having known the truth,

on account of the truth abiding (μὲνω) in us, and will be with us for ever.

John writes both II and III John to present that love and truth are inseparable. One cannot compromise with truth and be motivated by God’s love at the same time. II John was written to a woman and her children who lived in the area of Asia Minor. John states in verse one that his love for them is in truth. He goes on to say that he not only loves them in truth, but also all of the believers who have come to know the truth.

In verse two, John presents the basis for this love: “on account of the truth abiding in us.” The word “abiding” in this sentence is our word of study. “Abiding” is in the present participial form of μὲνω, which expresses a continual abiding. The participle would represent the fact that the truth abiding in us is constant and does not come and go. Not only does John say that the truth is abiding in us, but also “will be with us for ever.” This entire expression teaches a truth abiding permanently within believers.

After these introductory remarks, John goes on to teach about the doctrine of the Christ in verse 9:

Everyone turning aside and not continuing (μὲνω) in the doctrine of the Christ does not have God. The one continuing (μὲνω) in the doctrine of the Christ, this one has both the Father and the Son.

John presents two expressions that describe a person who does not have God. The first expression is from the Greek word translated “turning aside,” παραβαὶνω (pronounced parabaino - Strong’s #3845), which is the normal word for “trespass.” Some of the older Greek manuscripts use the word προὰγω (pronounced proago - Strong’s #4254), which means to go forward or beyond the doctrine of the Christ as John is teaching it. John is describing someone who “turns aside” or “goes beyond” the path of the true doctrine of the Christ. The second expression describes a person who will “not be continuing in the doctrine of the Christ.” The word translated “continuing” is our word of study, μὲνω, again used in the present participial form expressing a continuous, uninterrupted walk based on the doctrine of the Christ as John has presented it. John is stating that a person who does not have God will not stay continuously in the true doctrine of the Christ, but will rather turn off of the path into false doctrine. This is another evidence of a person who does not belong to Christ.

Throughout Church history, many false doctrines have circulated through the Body of Christ. There is a system of false teaching circulating today that is based on mental training. This system states that in order to abide and remain in the Lord, one must practice certain mental exercises to keep one’s mind on the Lord and His Word. This teaching also holds that the one who is not thinking about the Lord and His Word is a person who is no longer abiding or remaining in the Lord. The Bible, however, clearly teaches that our relationship with Jesus Christ is not mental, but spiritual. The principle governing whether one is abiding in the Lord or not is the indwelling presence of the Spirit of God (refer to 1 John 3:24 and 1 John 4:13). Paul emphasized this same truth in Romans 8:9 when he wrote, “Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, this one is not of Him.” He also writes, in Romans 8:14, “For as many as are being led by the Spirit of God, these are the sons of God.” Again, in Romans 8:16, he says, “The Spirit itself bears witness with our spirit, that we are children of God.” Paul’s expressed challenge to the Christians in Corinth is found in 2 Corinthians 13:5: “Examine yourselves, if you are in the faith; prove you own selves, or do you not know that Jesus Christ is in you, except you are reprobates?”

As we have seen from previous studies in this series, a believer’s mind can wander; but his/her spirit cannot; since it is the power of God’s Spirit that keeps a believer abiding in Christ. This understanding is found in many scriptures: 1 Peter 1:5, believers are “the ones being kept in the power of God through faith for salvation ready to be revealed in the last time;” Jude, verse 24, “… to the One being able to keep you without stumbling and to set you before His glory blameless in exultation;” John 10:27-29, “My sheep hear my voice and I know them, and they follow me. And I give to them eternal life; and they will never perish forever and not anyone will seize them from out of my hand. My Father who has given them to me is greater than all, and no one is able to seize them from out of the hand of my Father.”

Once a person has experienced a spiritual birth by receiving Christ, that person is then abiding and remaining in the Lord because of the Spirit of God abiding in him. This position, or condition, can never change; because the Spirit of God forever lives within the spirits of His people.

*MENO is the English font spelling of the Greek word μὲνω.

David_Lee · March 1, 2022, 2:44pm

A perhaps overlooked, but vital, word on @Christy’s reply was “we”. The plural “we” in contrast the singular “I”.

The search for understanding is a corporate, plural exercise, that the church undertakes, under (we trust) the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Doctrine emerges, over time, as the church (i.e. the corporate “we”) comes to a common consensus.

T_aquaticus · March 1, 2022, 4:25pm

How do you think a theory is verified? What is the process?

Mervin_Bitikofer · March 1, 2022, 5:28pm

I don’t think this is right. When Jesus cites the most important command given as being that we should “Love the Lord your God with all of your heart … soul … and mind”, we are not given any indication that any part of our lives are excepted here. We are to love God with … everything, which most definitely includes our intellects. And Paul also appears to agree with Jesus in this when he shows concern (in his letters to the Corinthians I believe) that even while his spirit may be praying in tongues, he also thinks it important for the mind to be engaged as well, and not just the spirit.

I don’t think it’s wise (or maybe even possible) to tease mind and spirit apart as much as we would like to do that sometimes. We have plenty of quotes from Paul and Jesus which sound like there is a hard division between flesh and spirit (or soul). I’m more than dubious about how modern believers have tried to apply even that, however, in ways that seem to me to ignore just about everything else Jesus and Paul taught and lived (and end up with very gnostic-leaning attitudes that are blind toward anything good about the flesh or anything potentially bad of spirit.)

mitchellmckain · March 1, 2022, 6:31pm

I don’t think your objection is valid Christy. I agree with RichardG. The problem with consensus ESPECIALLY when alternatives simply are not even considered is that this is too easily just a formula for the repetition of error. The quintessential example for me is Aristotle’s error regarding gravity where he said that the speed of a falling object is proportional to its weight. This was accepted for nearly 2 millennia before it was shown to be wrong. That is the problem with relying on authority (and especially tradition) whether it is a product of consensus or not. Sure the consensus NOW is in agreement with Galileo but that is only a mere 500 years compared to the 2000 where everyone accepted Aristotle’s claim.

T_aquaticus · March 1, 2022, 6:50pm

At a minimum, the consensus of experts should at least give an idea weight so that it can’t be just brushed aside by a simple statement of denial. One should at least understand the reasons why this consensus was reached, and then argue against those reasons if they think the consensus is wrong.

We also have to look at how scientists interact with the consensus theory. For example, if Newton’s laws of gravitation were wrong in some major way then why would scientists still be using them to plot the orbit of spacecraft? Someone who is challenging the consensus would at least need to explain why the consensus has been so successfully applied in the fields where it is used.

If Aristotle’s job was to predict the acceleration of falling masses, this may have had a different outcome.

rsewell · March 1, 2022, 7:23pm

I think this mostly demonstrates that philosophy is useless as a means of arriving at truth concerning nature. We learn about the natural world not by thinking about it, but observing it. The scientific method mostly comes down to observing nature in a controlled and measurable way as available technology permits. Scientific consensus is based on expert appraisal of the validity of such observation. While it may take time, eventually a consensus emerges based on experimental results. Challenges to that consensus must then take on the high burden of demonstrating why and how scientists in the field are wrong concerning the evidence and conclusion. In that respect I agree with @Christy, although I would stipulate “there is wisdom in many qualified counselors”. If someone does not know what they talking about, their opinion counts for little.

Steven Weinberg leaves little appreciation for the contribution of philosophy in his engaging book To Explain the World: The Discovery of Modern Science.

Mervin_Bitikofer · March 1, 2022, 7:54pm

I’ve not read Weinberg’s book - though the descriptions (like yours) that I hear about it don’t give me much incentive. I am happy to be reading Kreeft’s “Philosophy 101…” on the more Socratic inspired attitudes toward philosophy. In that ancient reading, the observations that we now call science certainly had (have) an authentic and honored position within the human corpus of knowledge. But it isn’t everything - to the exclusion of all other forms of knowledge that some science enthusiasts today try to make it. Those who deny philosophy still operate with full philosophical foundation - they’re just choosing to be mostly ignorant about it, or not wishing to expose it to any critical self-reflection. It doesn’t inspire much confidence in their general life wisdoms.

T_aquaticus · March 1, 2022, 8:40pm

Weinberg is one of my favorite curmudgeons in physics. His beef with philosophy is also found in the book “Dreams of a Final Theory” and can be found separately as an essay entitled “Against Philosophy”.

Physicists do of course carry around with them a working philosophy. For most of us, it is a rough-and-ready realism, a belief in the objective reality of the ingredients of our scientific theories. But this has been learned through the experience of scientific research and rarely from the teachings of philosophers. This is not to deny all value to philosophy, much of which has nothing to do with science. I do not even mean to deny all value to the philosophy of science, which at its best seems to me a pleasing gloss on the history and discoveries of science. But we should not expect it to provide today’s scientists with any useful guidance about how to go about their work or about what they are likely to find.
–Steven Weinberg
http://joelvelasco.net/teaching/167win10/Weinberg%20against%20philosophy.pdf

Mervin_Bitikofer · March 1, 2022, 9:53pm

Thanks for that balancing perspective.

I think he’s being way too modest, actually. Everybody (including physicists) has much, much more than a merely practical - or ‘working’ (in the Weinbergian sense) philosophy. They have a richer, more expansive philosophy for how they live out their entire lives, even if they refuse to reflect on it. I’m sure ‘successful’ contributors to society like Weinberg have (perhaps) navigated life beyond science to their own satisfaction, and so they really do know something of it. I would chalk his sloppy language here up to a mere deficiency of clarity or truth on his part, far inferior to the clarity and truth he will rightfully and demandingly exact of his own language when it comes closer to his own professional specialties.

rsewell · March 1, 2022, 10:47pm

Granted. I do not advocate for an unexamined life, having studied philosophy both in and out of academia. Aristotle of course played a huge role in the history of the church, and to some extent, was himself an astute observer of nature. But the idea of experimentation does not owe debt to any philosophical school. Science has progressed and is attested by technology and consensus, and in contrast it must be asked; beyond propositional logic, what questions posed by philosophy have been resolved to everyone’s uncontested satisfaction?

Do not let my clumsy postings put you off. Weinberg is at the very pointiest apex of the scientific community, and his take on the impact of philosophy is well informed in science and art. Considering the subject material, his writing is refreshing down to earth, but his insights are not simplistic. His book is an enjoyable read even if you assign more weight to the importance of philosophy than he allows.

Mervin_Bitikofer · March 1, 2022, 11:06pm

That question neatly sorts out history’s questions into the ‘scientifically resolvable’ and those much higher, harder (and perhaps even more important questions) that aren’t. And then makes it sound like some separate ‘team science’ has triumphed while philosophy languishes with no proofs or technology to show for its questions. But that’s a rather self-serving way for science enthusiasts to carve up history. In Greek times, people we would today call scientists were all under the purview of philosophy - whether ‘natural philosophy’ (science) or theology. I don’t think they disowned observers of the world and nature - but they took (or variously ignored) cues from creation as well, just like we do today. We’ve probably gotten better today (the attentive among us anyway) at training our minds not to ignore what creation shows, even when it flies in the face of our ‘common sense’ or desired goals, since we’ve had the benefit of seeing our common sense historically humiliated a few more times in the intervening history. But I’m still suspicious of the view that casts the world as being science vs. philosophy (rather than science as a subset of philosophy). I strongly suspect the latter view is more historically accurate, though I’m always open to correction.

Christy · March 1, 2022, 11:48pm

Why are we assuming alternatives are not considered? Consensus that is at all meaningful should always be consistently evaluating, refining, and responding to challenges. That’s why theology and science evolve and change over time.

Shannon · March 1, 2022, 11:48pm

Is it the common consensus that everyone goes to heaven?

mitchellmckain · March 2, 2022, 12:08am

I was ONLY agreeing with Richard about the danger of relying too much on a consensus. I am not agreeing to anything else you might be disputing with either RichardG or Jammycakes. Certainly in my example, with Aristotle’s claim about gravity, there wasn’t much consideration of alternatives.

The point about considering alternatives is that when someone suggest a new alternative which hasn’t been considered before, demanding an acceptance of the consensus isn’t all that reasonable.

Besides talking about consensus in religion is a bit far fetched, UNLESS it is about defining terms. For definitions, accepting the consensus on the meaning of terms, at least as a default, is the only way language can communicate anything.

rsewell · March 2, 2022, 5:22am

Philosophy deals in more all encompassing questions, and so science can be taken as a subset and I think is generally not adversarial. It is distinct in two ways I may mention however, one - by being in principle empirically testable, and two - I hold that the results stand regardless of one’s position with respect to other metaphysical domains. For instance, I have not been much impressed by post modern critiques.

My original point was to put a distinction between consensus based on philosophy, worldview, or social conformity, and consensus which is based on weight of scientific evidence. Galileo did not arrive at his conclusions by just out-thinking the prevailing idea, although his intuitions were uncanny. He subjected them to physical test, as he relates in his letter to the Duchess Christina.

I hold the sun to be situated motionless in the center of the revolution of the celestial orbs while the earth revolves about the sun. They know also that I support this position not only by refuting the arguments of Ptolemy and Aristotle, but by producing many counter-arguments; in particular, some which relate to physical effects whose causes can perhaps be assigned in no other way. In addition there are astronomical arguments derived from many things in my new celestial discoveries that plainly confute the Ptolemaic system while admirably agreeing with and confirming the contrary hypothesis.

jammycakes · March 2, 2022, 7:31am

That’s all very well in theory, but the question is whether or not it happens in practice.

How much is the consensus of experts affected by political and social pressures, especially in the humanities and social sciences? Would it not be the case that the further a conclusion lies from the centre of the Overton Window, the less likely it would be to be accepted for publication?

I agree there. For the record, the danger of relying too much on consensus is the only thing I’m agreeing with Richard about too. Even then, I don’t believe that disputing expert consensus should be a free-for-all. It needs to be backed up by coherent and consistent reasoning, and not by empty rhetoric or dismissing experts just because they are experts. And much as it is a factor for consideration, “Overton window” is not a magic shibboleth.

RichardG · March 2, 2022, 9:25am

I do not think there is a universal answer. It would depend on the circumstances and factors involved.

The theory that my chair will hold me is verified when it does and canceled if it ever collapses. Just because one chair collapses does not mean every chair will collapse, yet in aviation if one plane is declared faulty, every plane is withdrawn until that fault is identified and solved.

Evolution is not just one theory. It is a combination of many different things, which, in theory, need to be verified. But, time has erased much of the actual evidence and only provided a few snippets, which are by no means conclusive.

The bulk of evidence (Which, in this case, comprises most of the verification) is based on what can be seen now. But, some of the theory is based on ideology. Specifically that it is possible to create humans from a microbe over time. I have already been discussing the possibility of the impossible elsewhere on this forum but that possibility is not part of the Evolutionary theory. IMNSHO it should be.

Richard

PS Abstraction. I would suggest that abstraction is a valid means of verification which is almost totally ignored by Evolutionists. Abstraction being the validation of the principles behind a theory and its cohesion, both within itself and in relation to the world around it. If a theory stands by principles that cannot be compared or demonstrated in other fields or situations then it is setting itself up as a “special case”. A lofty position that cannot always be maintained.
Even the concept or existence of God is subject to abstraction and analogy. The analogies do not have to be exact, but they can be cited and understood. It seems that evolutionists claim that no analogy is possible? Or relevant?