I see some interesting assumptions present here. In my opinion @JoelHinrichs post about using “arguing past each other” was possibly the wisest post in this thread. Let me explain: (I’ll be breaking my thoughts up to avoid “walls of text”)
Firstly, the main argument present seems to be based on the definitions and practical extents of science and theology. To talk about these things with any sort of meaning, we have to come to a mutual agreement of how they are defined. Otherwise, we’re just spitting words at each other. Like Paul said, the Gospel is a stumbling block to the Jews, but to the Greeks, it is foolishness, because the Greeks did not have the same background as the Jews.
Science. The word itself means knowledge, and by technical definition science is knowledge obtainable by observable and repeatable processes. However, in modern days it has been used as a synonym for “cosmology” “religion” “humanism” “naturalism”, among others. For simplicity, I will stick with the barest of technical definitions: what we can observe, measure, verify, and repeat.
Theology. By very nature I disagree that we should let secular definitions limit theology. The world means “knowledge of God”, and since every fact about the universe and every piece of information existing to be discovered was created by God (including the ability to think thoughts and make observations), all knowledge can therefore be studied under the word theology. Considering any novel; trying to separate science from theology is like studying the lines of the font while disregarding the authorship, the typesetter, or the layout designer.
To lay it out more clearly and in better sequence, science is the knowledge of the observable (including theoretically observable) parts of God’s creation (I hope we can all agree on this). Theology is knowledge of God in general. So, unless there is absolutely no knowledge of God present in observable creation, theology and science are inseparable knowledge.
Let me back it up further. I notice a distinct lack of Biblical quotations here. Let’s spruce things up a bit.
Colossians 1:16 For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him.
Isaiah 45:19 For this is what the LORD says— he who created the heavens, he is God; he who fashioned and made the earth, he founded it; he did not create it to be empty, but formed it to be inhabited— he says: “I am the LORD, and there is no other.
(quotes in NASB)
God does not make any distinction between knowledge of Himself, and what we can observe, and in other verses even states that His invisible attributes are clearly visible through creation.
One could even call separating science and theology as blasphemous, given that Jesus was both God and man, observable and measurable while He was on earth, as well as performing repeat demonstrations of his divinity. If we hold to the view that science and theology are separate, then Jesus was either just a man, or He must have never existed to be observed.
Now that I have discussed terms of theology and science, what are some other assumptions present?
The factuality and scientific nature of evolution (as defined by macro changes in DNA and subsequent expression in physical form).
Going back to the definition of science, we immediately see that evolution cannot be observed, measured, or repeated due to the very nature of the idea–if macro changes are occurring, then they are occurring over millennia upon millennia. Therefore, evolution cannot be scientific, as it has never been observed. Similar to how the study of Abraham Lincoln is not scientific, since we cannot observe or repeat him. Instead it is “historical science” we must turn to, using the observable and repeatable parts of today to do our best at informing our assumptions about the past. Very few people deny Abraham Lincoln’s existence (and his ensuing deeds), because of the evidence we have about him. However, since his death, he can never be scientific.
This is a controversial idea, so let me break it down further.
Natural selection cannot be evolution, as natural selection (more properly termed “specialization in adaptation to the Curse”), never facilitates the gain of any genetic material whatsoever. For example, you can breed a wolf into a corgi but never the other way around, since corgis have a much shallower gene pool than a wolf. In evolutionary terms, despite being “farther down the line”, as accelerated by human intervention (“strategic loss of genetic information due to human preference”). So, a corgi is much more cuddly than a wolf, but it is not evolved. Its gene pool is merely smaller.
Going solely off the observable repeatable science of natural selection, the most logical assumption is that humans devolved into every other creature, not the other way around. (clearly there are problems with this idea. I’m making a point not submitting a scientific theory)
So therefore calling evolution factual is the same as calling any revisionist history book factual. Neither are observable, verifiable or measurable, and both seek to present ideas about how things used to be in times gone by. Both also require a certain “worldview starting point” in order to make sense. Without the proper “glasses”, both become foolishness (as to the Greeks), regardless of their truth or falsehood. The sole distinction is that evolution claims to be in continuance today, despite lack of observable evidence (or capacity to observe). Revisionist history calls itself by a different name when used in present tense: conspiracy theory.
I should point out that neither evolution nor revisionist history is verifiably untrue, just as it is not verifiably true (in the absolute sense). We can make educated guesses that lead us towards certain conclusions, using the intelligence God has given us, however anything that is not absolutely true and verifiable must then be uncertain.
I recognize that I border on irrelevancy. Let’s add some quotes. @RichardG I appreciate your tenacity and thoroughness in response, but I should point out that attacking the ideas of your detractors rather than the assumptions behind the ideas is often a fruitless strategy.
In quote above, it is assumed that evolution is “fact”, and that because of its factuality, it is somehow foundational for all of life science (biology).
In summary, evolution is an idea which must be taken by faith, regardless of evidence, due to the nature of truth, and cannot be correctly portrayed as absolutely true, nor as a solid foundation for anything. Let me break it down:
The word “fact” is very difficult to discuss due to its slippery nature. Is a fact something that is absolutely true (existence of God)? Or merely something that is true to our limited perspectives based on our current date in history (much of astronomy)?
I don’t want to misconstrue your quote here, @JoelHinrichs , so correct me if I’m wrong. I see two possible interpretations of your use of the word “fact”. The first is “absolute truth” and the second is “truth according to what we know”. I believe you meant the second definition (the first meaning is openly incorrect), so I shall base my arguments off it.
Truth according to what we know is a severely limited concept. It obviously excludes everything we might not’ve discovered yet (which seems to be quite a lot), and it also excludes anything that happened in the past. Let me back this up.
Regardless of distance into the past (minutes and seconds included), no cultural, historical, or natural information is 100% verifiable except for what God specifically gives us (Him being omniscient and infallible). This is because of some very stupid reasons. Since we are finite beings, existing at only one point on the timeline, we can only experience that infinitesimal moment on the edge of existence. We cannot choose to exist backwards or forwards.
Imagine any well-known historical event. That event is not verifiable truth, despite it being taught as such, as (using our imaginations), we can concoct any number of absurd sounding circumstances explaining how that event never really happened. Now, am I suggesting that a big purple hippo ruled England until last week? No. But we as humans can never experience that moment again and so it can never again be scientifically verifiable. We can, of course, come to logical conclusions, but in terms of verifiable truth vs. unverifiable there is only one thing standing in the way of complete historical subjectivity. This is, of course, God’s sustaining power in the universe. 2 + 2 will always = 4, and we can reasonably trust our memories and our experiences (in most cases) regarding recent historical events. Our own experiences and memories are not perfect, but God sustains the laws of physics, mathematics, etc, etc, regardless of what we can observe or not. Thus, these are absolute truths.
Back to the point, history is subject to interpretation. Therefore, historical events can never be absolute facts, but must instead be subjective knowledge. We are, in essence, taking history by faith (believing in things we cannot verify), except for those events that God has deigned to share with us.
Going further into the statement, evolution cannot be foundational, as observable, repeatable science should never be built upon unverifiable ideas. Rather, the opposite should be true; observable science should be the “first layer” upon which we can make logical assumptions, extending into the past and future. Starting with an idea that may be untrue will always create reasonable doubt as to whether anything built upon that unsure idea is true.
Indeed, the only thing that is absolutely true (and a worthy foundation for our scientific pursuits) is the Bible. Since it is the only set of information that is infallible, it is the only foundation for any science that offers true stability and surety of results. Even our minds can be corrupted and deceived, as we are fallible human beings. Obviously, the Bible does not speak on every area of knowledge, but the principles it contains are always true and starting from any other place is a logical fallacy equivalent to doing an algebra problem without knowing the value of Y and calling the answer correct.
This is a very dangerous statement, and I invite you to provide actual evidence for why the historical writings in the Bible are, in fact, mythological in nature. Are you familiar with the Greek and Hebrew the Bible was originally written in? (with parts in Chaldean and Aramaic)
Now, to test your idea, let’s take it to its logical end.
If the Bible contains “no true history”, then therefore any part could be mythological according to the subjective whims of the reader/interpreter. So then, we must consider that the following Biblical doctrines could simply be myths.
God. If God’s word cannot be trusted, then there is no avenue to trusting God Himself beyond claiming some special personal revelation given to you. Without God existing as the omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent (etc), creator of the universe, then you cannot trust any fact or thing presented as true–it is all just mythology.
Marriage. If the doctrines concerning marriage are mythological, then adultery should be accepted and promoted, because what moral foundation is there for the marriage of one man and one woman if the Bible is only a myth?
Murder. If the doctrines concerning murder are mythological, I would not be wrong in walking into your house and killing you. Who cares if it’s all just a myth?
And finally, salvation. If Jesus’s work both on earth and on the cross are simply mythology, then there is no foundation for Christianity at all. You are wasting your time on this forum trying to convince anyone of anything since there is no salvation–it’s all just a myth that attempts to explain why things are the way they are.
@Vinnie , your own actions speak against you. If the Bible is just mythology, then why are you here discussing its genre? You should be treating it with the same importance as you treat any fairy tale or fiction that contains a moral idea. Where are your comments on the Poky Little Puppy forums?
)