Funny that the word evolution occurs nowhere in the Bible. Just search for it using any Bible software. Again, science did not begin with Darwin. Science thrives on plurality of theories. Evolution is a purely materialistic philosophy of origins (too bad many in the church just swallow it wholesale uncritically). If theistic evolutionists want to “theify” evolution, to put a ‘god’ behind evolution would men that evolution is now supernatural, thus outside the purview of science. Theistic evolution is not science. You can’t have it both ways.
YECs also ignore Jeremiah 33:25 with their penchant to have a variable speed of light and capricious radionuclide decay rates. We could talk about their games with dendrochronology and varves, too, not to mention ice core stratigraphy.
1 Like
How about your wisdom about ‘flood geology’ concerning girdled rocks in the following (by a Christian, and actully kind of fun):
or this:
New evidence always supports the antiquity of the earth and the universe, and it continues to build. (It’s too bad that YECism is so frequently so closely identified with Christianity as to be integral to it. It’s not evolution that deflects unbelieving enquirers and alienates young people raised in YEC homes and churches!)
Quite right. Truth or fiction, you cannot have it both ways.
4 Likes
This is a really funny argument. The words “gasoline” and “microwave” and “iPhone” don’t appear in the Bible either, but I’m pretty sure those all exist. One could play that game forever. It’s not even remotely interesting, much less a meaningful statement.
I’m actually curious, do you consider that a serious argument against evolution or were you just trying to be…I don’t know, provocative I guess?
9 Likes
You are now the tenth YEC and counting to take this ridiculous line with me.
Deuteronomy 25:13-16 applies to every context in which measurement is used. No exceptions, no excuses. You cannot fob it off as applying only to business dealings for the simple reason that claiming that it does not apply to other contexts is demanding the right to tell lies about those contexts.
And no, you can’t just fob off measurements by saying that they have to be interpreted. There are honest interpretations and dishonest interpretations. It is not honest to interpret measurements, for example, by taking one measurement from one place and dividing it by another measurement from a completely different place.
If YECism had a shred of integrity, you would have responded to me by trying to justify the YEC approach to measurement. By playing the “out of context” card, you have (a) admitted that you don’t have a leg to stand on in that respect, and (b) demanded the right to flat-out lie about it. I’m sorry if you think I’m being ungracious there, but if you don’t want to be called a liar, don’t demand the right to tell lies.
7 Likes
Okay, instead of blasting off about Evolution let’s consider the purpose of Genesis 1-2 (we can worry about the Garden another time). The Jews are stuck in exhile. They are surrounded by people who not only do not believe in their God, they have very strong and insidious beliefs, one of which is about creation. God inspires some one, (or ones) to write the version we read in Genesis, In fact, it is very similar to the Babylonian one except it places God at the centre of creation and changes the number of “days” from 8 to 6, You will notice that on two occasions God does 2 things, allowing six days to create and one to rest.
So Genesis 1 has 2 distinct purposes: To claim that God created everything, in order, and to establish the Sabbath.
The time scale is not important. “A thousand years are but a day in God’s sight”, is misusing another part of scipture but it serves a point. What is important is that the passage is easy to read (poetic).
Genesis 2: 4 onwards is actually written by a different hand. If you look the style is different, and the sequence of creation is also different. The purpose of this is the creation of man as a distinct and different creation from the rest of what God had made. And the establishment of the Marriage of male and female. It also serves to keep the Jewish female subservient.
Science was not an issue because science did not exist. Most people could not read so the 1st creation story is designed to be chanted and learned.
Scripture is about faith and God, not science.
Richard
7 Likes
Why does YEC oppose poetry and science?
3 Likes
Welcome, @Matthew_Cserhati. I appreciate your interaction. Maybe you can tell us more about yourself. I currently live in West Michigan, where my parents are originally from, but I was born in West Africa, where they were missionaries. I really enjoyed growing up near the predominantly Muslim country farmers, where they asked you how you and your family were doing, and seemed to have time to get to know you. It reminds me of many parts of West Michigan, including the Amish where I currently live.
You also might want to look at the "What We Like About AiG, to discuss areas of agreement, as well. Thanks.
I look forward to learning from each other.
1 Like
Good to see you again, Richard! I hope you have been safe and well. Good insight.
Randy
1 Like
All that is being contradicted is a fallible human interpretation of an ancient text from another time and culture (something difficult to interpret in other words) that insists Genesis 1 is literal history and you can calculate the age of the earth from adding up ancient genealogies. No one is contradicting God, God’s word, or the Holy Spirit. They are saying YEC leaders are not God, misrepresent God’s word, and are not hearing the Holy Spirit correctly. That’s different, and all the references or verses you cut and paste won’t change the assessment that your exegesis and hermeneutics are poorly done.
You cannot effectively interpret meaning by doing word searches and the fact that you recommend this approach for people to understand the Bible is telling. No one learns anything about what the texts are intending to communicate by counting how many times a word is used.
Agreed. Evolutionary science didn’t end with him either.
Give one example where a plurality of theories has led to advances. This isn’t really how science works. Science thrives on consensus and the ability to constantly refine and adapt consensus models as new information is discovered and new ways of measuring observations are developed.
Yes. No science done according to the scientific method takes into consideration God or the Bible. This doesn’t mean that science rules out God or God’s activity, it just can’t describe it.
Agreed. We say that all the time here. We also prefer evolutionary creation because it does sound like theistic evolution is offering a different scientific model, and we aren’t. We accept the evolutionary model presented by science. When we start talking about creation we enter the realm of faith claims. To say we believe in evolutionary creation is make a statement about faith not science because it affirms we believe that God is the creator and that he created in a manner consistent with what is described by science in Big Bang cosmology, ancient earth geology, and the evolutionary model of biology. We aren’t trying to have it both ways, we are saying anything that is true must describe reality. Science describes aspects of reality and God’s word describes aspects of reality and they can both tell us true things and work hand in hand to help us understand reality better.
10 Likes
Welcome to the forum, @Matthew_Cserhati. Always good to have a YEC voice among us. BioLogos is after all about cultivating gracious dialogue on science and origins so the last thing we want is the forum to become an evolutionary creationist echo chamber.
Earlier, in this thread:
I’m curious, what do you think Sola Scriptura refers to? And what does it have to do the age of the earth? Both are genuine questions.
3 Likes
If that settles it for you, that is no trouble. You are welcome to ignore science. I take issue with YEC not so much over the theology as the misrepresentations, quote mining, and general dishonesty over the scientific evidences.
As a general statement, this is untenable. We should still be entertaining alternatives to a spherical earth? a heliocentric solar system? common ancestry? the germ theory of contagion? the atomic limit to material divisibility?
6 Likes
I think that you will find more division than consensus within science. It has long been said that for every theory there is an equal and opposite one. Science claims very few actual facts and certainties, mostly it proposes a theory that stands until disproven or adjusted.
That having been said, there are many scientific assumptions within scripture that would not hold water within modern knowledge. Especially in the realms of biology and medicine, but also in cosmology and science that was beyond the scope of the writers.
Richard
I think a more generous reading of Matthew’s statement would be “science thrives on competition.” That allows for a “plurality” while also, eventually, declaring a winner.
3 Likes
I think discussion or opposition would be more accurate. There is no prize other than an accolade, and very little certainty enough to declare any successes. Even Einstien’s theories of relativity attract discussion and proposals of adjustment. I doubt that many scientists are motivated by thoughts of prize-winning or even getting their name attached to a theory.
Richard
This is very misleading. I think the divisions may get more attention because that’s where the frontier of science is right now, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t an enormous amount of consensus underlying and supporting today’s scientific arguments, even at the fringes of our collective knowledge.
Also, science claims very many facts and certainties. You are misusing the word “theory” here, or rather using a definition that is improper in this context. As scientists use the word, it doesn’t just mean “we think this might be true.” They stopped using the word “law” as in “law of gravity” a long time ago, but a modern “theory” (e.g. theory of relativity) holds the same weight.
6 Likes
I was lead to believe that this was not true by people claiming scientific high ground on another forum. A forum that dismisses evolution on the grounds that God could not be a party to it.
Richard
I wasn’t referring to “winning” as in a foot race where you get a medal at the end. I meant that, of competing theories, one eventually becomes the generally accepted answer (or at least the best guess at the time, always subject to correction or adjustment).
1 Like
Consensus will never be the master of science, nor knowledge.
The world would have us believe that God and evolution have no comonality. That is the consensus, not the facts.
Richard
Few are motivated solely by that, but recognition and approval by their peers is probably the most important motivation for many scientists.
6 Likes