The real point is that it is not the hot potato that this forum makes it. Most Christians do not even consider the ambiguities of Genesis with science. It is almost polar, whereby neither impinges on the other because they are never allowed to meet.
In the beginning God created the Heavens and the earth… even the terminology Heavens is not seen as a problem.
In truth it is scientists need to know (and be right) that drives this debate rather than Christian dogma
Richard
I would fully agree that these topics don’t come up very often in the vast majority of congregations.
It is scientists’ curiosity to understand how the universe works that drives science, that is for sure. Just like YEC is rarely brought up in congregations, it is also rarely brought up in scientific circles.
“Dress them up” is a good way to put it.
The tragedy is that they don’t realize that they do so because they hold a world view where truth is measured by science.
I think cognitive dissonance plays a role which results in contradictory positions. YECs try to portray any science they don’t like as a faith based religion, a rather blatant Tu Quoque fallacy that boils down to “you’re just as wrong as I am”. We are also told by YECs that science is just atheism, and yet they try to claim YEC is supported by science.
Like Geocentrism before it, once science started advancing there was going to be an unavoidable clash between religious traditions and what we discovered in nature. Perhaps in 100 years YEC will be looked upon in the same way we look at Geocentrism now.
This is demonstrably false. I quote dozens of bible texts, that are also cross referenced with other bible texts from different bible writers, in different places, and different times…who agree on the topics i talk about.
One cannot use almost zero bible referencing in trying to defend beliefs… cite naturalisms conclusions, then fabricate nonbiblical beliefs in support.
Attempting to change scripture…despite numerous other bible texts dissagreeing with those fabricated translation and intepretations is a very dangerous habit there.
I liked you comment…although i will make an observation that in both world view there, the Biblie is not the foundation…human reasoning is.
One, I do not agree that science interprets itself…very clearly it does not. Second, science methods are manmade…we conjur them up. Trying to claim they are rock solid just because they are repeatable is ridiculous…one can keeping driving a car dangerously and never have an accident…that dosent mean one is a safe driver despite the results.
As far as i can tell, Christianity is entirely unscientific. When thinkng about the notion of death, resurrection, and the second Coming, there isnt a single thing about Salvation that is scientifically plausible i dont think. How does one prove incarnation and resurrection with science?
That is troubling for me…deeply troubling and its why i reject both world views [ID and ANE]. Christian is biblical, not scientific. Trying to use science to explain and even proove Gods revelation and history is pointless.
I’d hope for 20 years, but would be happy be 50.
Nope. YEC assumes that science is a measure of truth that can be set above the Bible so that the Bible is to be read scientifically. It also assumes that understanding the Bible doesn’t require any homework, but that’s really just an aspect of the previous.
Where in the scriptures does it say that Genesis intends to teach us science?
But that’s exactly what YEC does: rather than ask what the Bible actually is, it is assumed that it is like twentieth-century objective newspaper reporting.
But that phrase you quoted is a perfect description of what YEC does!
!!! But that’s the entire YEC enterprise!
What phrase i quoted? I quote someones post…as you have also referenced there.
Since I AM yec and you are not, its absurd that you are trying to insert into YEC beliefs and into my own world view, statements of fact that are the very opposite of an overwhelming amount of published YEC material.
The SDA church openly publish our YEC in that it is founded on a literal reading of Genesis1-11. This is also supported by SDA Seventh day Sabbath and Heavenly Sanctuary beliefs.
These forums claim THE SDA church started YEC because of a “literal reading of SCRIPTURE” (which isnt correcf because in bible history YEC is clearly promoted from the earliest times of human existence) Science comes second.
Other groups such as Creation Ministries and Answers in Genesis for example, state emphatically "Genesis chapters 1-11 in the way they are written and we read through a normal use of language which has already been interpreted for us by bible writers, are the very foundations of our physical and spiritual existence.
THis one –
“one that explicitly says " we will follow the evidence only so long as it leads to certain predetermined conclusions.”)"
That’s a perfect description of what YEC does. AiG says it right up front on their website.
I have read hundreds of pages of YEC material and it almost always plainly puts science up as a measure for the scriptures, a measure it demands the inspired text has to adhere to.
Again . . . where in the scriptures does it say there is any intention of teaching science?
But that’s false – YEC requires ignoring the normal use of language, something extremely obvious in the Hebrew but even in English in the case of the Noah accounts.
They have set themselves up as teachers but they do not know the scriptures.
Would you agree that there is no scientific evidence we could ever show you that would change your mind?
Since when was the oldest, first, original always right or better?
Knowledge grows and improves and as it does our understanding changes. That applies as much to the structure of Scripture as it does to life as a whole.
We are not living in the Dark Ages! There are many who think that science and technology has gone too far but that is a different conversation. You cannot stick your head in the sand and just claim the knowledge isn’t there. (well you could but eventually you will suffocate)
That is a very valid question.
Richard
Although ID claims to follow the evidence wherever it leads, much ID does not follow the evidence very well. ID is a self-described big tent, and includes quite a lot, so characterizing it is tricky.
Christianity and other theistic religions, as well as some other views, hold that everything is ultimately intelligently designed by God. The ID movement, however, claims that design has been implemented in certain ways and can be detected in certain ways, neither of which is required by the general belief that things are intelligently designed.
The proposed methods of design detection are problematic. ID promotes complexity and information as hallmarks of design. But if you think back to the last time you filled out tax forms or otherwise dealt with bureaucracy, complexity is no sign of intelligent design. In fact, design is more simple than randomness in important ways. To precisely describe the shape of a lamppost is not very complex mathematically. Describing the shape of a tree precisely, on the other hand, requires specifying where each branch is, where it bends, etc. All natural processes, including but not limited to mutation, constantly produce new information. The claim that an intelligent agent is needed to create new information is simply wishful thinking on the part of ID advocates.
In reality, design is detected in quite different ways from what the ID movement advocates. One way is through comparison with a large set of known designed and undesigned objects. I had a job doing design detection of this sort. It was an archaeological dig. As a geologist, I was acquainted with what rocks look like and was able to recognize rocks that looked like someone had chipped them to shape into a tool versus rocks without archaeological interest. Another way is to see if something specifically fits with a purpose that the putative designer would have. When ID claims to be simply following the data, it claims not to know who the designer might be. But that means we don’t know what the goals would be. ID assumes (along with some atheist claims to detect lack of design) that the design goal is like a human engineer’s. But that is not necessarily God’s goal. Empirically, it looks like creating myriad diversity of organisms may be a goal of creation; evolution by natural selection achieves that goal nicely, but is not as effective for hyperoptimization of certain functions - natural selection merely asks “does it work adequately?”
ID focuses on two different areas. One is front-loading / anthropic principle. Do the laws of nature point to a designer behind them? Many seemingly independent laws need to be extremely close to what they are for lifeforms similar to us to exist. Is that unlikely to happen in a universe that is undesigned? These are reasonable questions to raise, but the answers will be a matter of what seems plausible to each person. Science can’t get at these questions. We don’t have suitable data to calculate accurate probabilities.
The other ID focus is seeking for gaps within the history of the universe, especially within evolution. This somewhat clashes with the front loading - if the laws of nature were designed to enable our existence, they could be designed to bring about that existence through several steps without interference-style action. But the claimed gaps are not very good. There is also a wide range of views within ID from no gaps in evolution (e.g., current Denton) to gaps only in creating the first cells (Behe, Darwin in the 6th edition of the Origin of Species) to trying to attack all evolution (Wells, Evolution News).
In claiming to just be following the science, ID welcomes all sorts of beliefs, e.g. Raelians or Moonies. But ID also markets itself as Christian apologetics. These two are not compatible.
I am very wary of people defining something that they clearly do not accept
The main problem with ID is the need (by science) for examples. This becomes problematic for the simple fact that the results exist and their genesis cannot be proven, or witnessed. ID and IC ae bedfellows in many ways. ID claims some systems had to be designed, while IC contends that the same systems could not evolve gradually. Scientists just claim that evolution can produce anything given time, and no matter how convoluted the steps involved there will always be enough to convince them that it would work, Any suggestion of incredulity is mocked.
The result is an impasse.
A bit like the existence of God Himself, for those who believe no evidence is needed, for those who doubt, no evidence is enough.
Richard
I tend to agree, interesting how Biologos and AiG essentially do the same thing but with different predetermined conclusions in mind…
In fairness to @adamjedgar , I doubt he’d be claiming that Scripture is literally teaching “science” as a discipline as we are understanding it.
At the same time, in all fairness, I think we’d all agree that Scripture makes truth claims about scientific realities. When Christ offered his disciples the opportunity to touch his flesh and bones to test and confirm that he was not a spirit, he was essentially making a claim about something that falls within the realm of science, no?
The issue taken with AiG is that they assume the same kind of claims are being made in Genesis 1-11 and other places, and the question is as to whether that is warranted, but I wouldn’t go so far as to claim that the Bible makes no claims about things about truths or facts that fall within what we would classify as “science.”
Rarely. Adam assumes that all statements of scripture that touch on possibly scientific matters are meant scientifically.
Replace “other places” with “everywhere” . . . except when they decide to declare something metaphorical).
But that very assumption set up science as a measure of truth that is higher than the Bible – they didn’t ask, “How does the Bible define truth?”, they assumed that scientific accuracy is a measure of truth that requires reading science into the Bible.
“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.