Niki Made Her Choice and, Apparently, So Did We

224 thoughts on “Niki Made Her Choice and, Apparently, So Did We”

1. Well, since we turned our backs completely on The Future around Y2K, Alt-Hist is one of the up-and-coming fashions in SF. Forward Into The Past!

   LikeLike

2. “The agent of the burning is God, through His creating the black in the cotton and the disconnection of its parts, and it is God who made the cotton burn and made it ashes either through the intermediation of angels or without intermediation. For fire is a dead body which has no action, and what is the proof that it is the agent? Indeed, the philosophers have no other proof than the observation of the occurrence of the burning, when there is contact with fire, but observation proves only a simultaneity, not a causation, and, in reality, there is no other cause but God.” — Mohammed abu-Hamid al-Ghazali

   Woo. He actually said flat-out that Cause & Effect do not exist. That “God Willed my fist to snap forward into your face, then God Willed your nose to bleed and hurt. No Connection Whatsoever.” Utter Predestination.

   I’ve heard historians place the start of Islamic stagnation and decline to when al-Ghazali’s theology became dominant in Islam, after the trauma of the Mongol Incursions. (Unconfirmed: al-Ghazali was patronized and his theology enforced by a Caliph who had just usurped the position and was looking desperately to justify his coup as Divine Right.)

   At al-Ghazali’s time, Islamic medicine was the most advanced in the world. Nowadays “Islamic Medicine” means something more like “Recite the Koran over the patient while beating him with rods to drive out the Jinn possessing his belly.” Imagine how that would have worked with my perforated diverticulitis (turned peritoniitis) three years ago, with failure explained as “Inshal’lah…”

   Utter Predestination means never having to take responsibility for anything. I keep saying that “al_Ghazali set Islam down that path 800 years ago. Look where it got them.”

   LikeLike

3. “Ironically, the hypothetical was proposed (I think) to spur a more inclusive view, but I’ve always known that it comes down to this: Either you’re a Young Earther, an empirical atheist, or (most common now) a “Big Closeter”. The last seems the most disingenuous to me.”

   Humble, missionary Christianity, buried alive in scholasticism.

   LikeLike

4. Alternate ideas aren’t always good ideas.

   LikeLike

5. Please see The GENESIS FLOOD. This book began my understanding of alternate ideas to evolution.

   LikeLike

6. Emily,
   You story leaves me feeling sad and frustrated. I would say the first thing to question is any church that discourages questioning. Prayerful questioning about anything may very well lead to strengthened faith.

   LikeLike

7. …until we were leaving and we happened to walk past this fairly large anti-evolution poster board. And thinking about it more as I drove home I got rather angry, because it was quite possible that this brand of anti-scientific Christianity is all that many of these students have heard.

   To be fair, and speaking as a more conservative member of the clergy in a mainline/oldline tradition, I can say that this is as much a function of the failure of the old mainline as anything else. I’m convinced that a faithful mainline tradition is the natural home of many now-secular americans, and that it would balance against some of the elements exemplified in this post. Unfortunately, faithfulness is sometimes very hard to find.

   LikeLike

8. Yeah, that’s technically true. The Second Law requires a closed system in order to function. However, the usual versions of the Second Law never explicitly state this, ’cause the Second Law is a statement about the overall entropy in the universe, not the specific entropy in a smaller system like a planet or a lifeform.

   It’s taking the rules of a universal scale and applying them to a specific situation—kinda how, from the opposite perspective, the New Agers take quantum theory and apply it to how we should perceive the universe. It’s taking science out of context.

   Yes, I compared Christians to New Agers. Pseudoscience is pseudoscience.

   LikeLike

9. This couldn’t have been more timely for me! I was recently having a conversation with one of the exchange students from China, it was on their National Day and so we were in the library watching the parade and just talking about random things, which kept going back to many cultural differences and such. We got onto the subject of religion and how it affects their beliefs and actions. This kid wears a red string bracelet on his right arm (for Buddhism. left arm is Kabbalah) and I asked him about it and he simply told me that his mother is Buddhist and gave it to him to wear, but that he “believes in science”.

   I mentioned that I didn’t think science and Buddhism were incompatable, but something else came up in the parade and we changed the subject (and then got into a conversation about how the only things that American students learn about China are bad… hahaha) But later that week we all met at a church for their traditional culture night (for international students and their host parents, my roomate’s host parents couldn’t make it so I went with her instead) which was a great time until we were leaving and we happened to walk past this fairly large anti-evolution poster board. And thinking about it more as I drove home I got rather angry, because it was quite possible that this brand of anti-scientific Christianity is all that many of these students have heard.

   I have a neighbor who is a hard-core Young Earth Creationist (I’m pretty sure she has purchased their entire gift-shop worth of books and movies from the Creation Museum) and in the past I’ve simply tried to overlook her insistance in YEC, especially when she berated me when I was still on the fence between YEC and “the evil other of evolution” (I have since moved towards that “evil other”… not quite 100% accepting, but I do outright reject YEC) (and then proceeded to have a series of questions/answers with her daughter to “show” me what the “right” answers look like). But more and more recently I’ve been thinking about what effect this sort of behavior can have on people outside of the Church. If we can’t even give them a place to ask questions, let alone to not agree with a scientific reading of Genesis, why does anyone think they would come flocking to us? I realize that many Christians are comforted by the thought that the Bible really does have “all the answers”… but I think that is just not true at all! It has some answers, yes. And important answers to important questions, but it does not have all the answers and I think some people really need to just get used to it.

   LikeLike

10. Actually life does not violate the second law of thermodynamics because the second law requires a closed system and the earth is not a closed system (energy, a lot of it, comes from the sun).

    LikeLike

11. Hmm. I see your point. It is a bit odd that these folks, who obviously recognize the supremacy of the clear teaching of Scripture over mere human reason, don’t see the precarious nature of their own position. You have the text on your side… To reject it is to start down a very slippery slope. If “dome” doesn’t really mean “dome”, then how do we know that “cross” really means “cross”? If the sun didn’t really “stand still in the sky”, then how do we know that the Son “rose from the grave”?

    The more I think about what you’re saying, the more I feel compelled to believe it. I confess to having been raised a heliocentrist, but I’ve always been a bit uncomfortable with the exegetical gymnastics necessary to maintain my view. Everyone’s got a different explanation for what your 67 passages mean: “That’s poetry”, “God’s just speaking to us in terms we can understand”, “It’s a figure of speech”, etc. Simply taking the passages at face value is so much easier. And I’ve heard about the so-called “scientific” evidence for heliocentrism, but to be honest I’ve never really understood it. I mean, calculus and orbital mechanics and astronomy and relativity… Yeah, academics say these are all evidences for heliocentrism, but I can’t really assess that evidence for myself, can I? And why should I trust them over Almighty God?

    Besides, what a relief it would be to be able to agree with great Christians of the past like Calvin and Luther! I’ve learned so much from them that I’ve been ashamed of my disdain for their cosmological views. Embracing geocentrism sure does put me in a greater “cloud of witnesses” than the more “modern” perspective.

    Now, I realize that being a geocentrist won’t be easy in today’s world. It’s definitely a minority position… But then again, Scripture says we all must suffer persecution! I’ll get an extra crown for that, won’t I? Still, I’m already running across geocentrist communities on the internet who seem supportive and will no doubt take me in and make me feel like I belong.

    Thanks, Joel! For a while there I was starting to feel like atheism was my only alternative, but you’ve given me new hope. You are truly an instrument of God.

    LikeLike

12. This isn’t the American educational system, by the way. State schools don’t teach Bible, unless it’s as literature, or unless it’s to explain the history of Christianity. I taught at a private Christian school.

    And in Christian schools, you get the same silliness you’d get if state schools were required—as many would like them to be—to teach both evolution and non-evolution. Because the Christian schools do teach evolution—it’s part of the state instructional standards—but they get around it by immediately saying, “That’s what evolutionists believe. Here’s why they’re wrong.”

    Thing is, the counter-evolution argument is not based on science.

    “We have never found transitional forms.” Yes, we have. Lots of them.

    “It violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics.” Thermodynamics have to do with physical and chemical processes, not biology. Don’t take science out of context. All life violates the Second Law; that’s because it’s not the Second Law of Biology.

    “Darwin had issues.” Most of us do. An ad hominem attack doesn’t solve your problem, though.

    “It could’ve happened this way…” Sure it could. But people have done lots of experiments to confirm the existing hypotheses. You haven’t. Do a few. That’s how science works. If they conform your hypothesis, maybe I’ll buy your argument.

    “But the bible says…” Almost every time someone says this, it actually doesn’t. It’s a conjecture loosely based on the bible, but isn’t actually found in it. Like that looniness about there being no death before the Fall; therefore all animals were vegetarians. There was no human death before the Fall, and that’s all the bible says. Anything else is unsupported supposition. Darn near everything else is unsupported supposition.

    Ultimately the problem is folks who aren’t really interested in Science as a way to study nature; they’re only interested insofar as it confirms their religious beliefs. Which is fine, but they don’t really love science, and that’s the problem. No one should teach a subject they don’t love, and part of teaching it is in teaching that love to your students. If you don’t love science—if science is only a means to a non-scientific end—don’t teach it. Instead, these folks are teaching that science is a means to an end; and that’s why Christians so often suck at the sciences, and convince pagans we’re all nuts.

    LikeLike

13. *bows*

    But I’d have to disagree RonH. I was hoping that those in this thread who in one form or another expressed suspicion or skepticism about the findings of mainstream “science” would rally to my arguments. Then together we’d refute iMonk’s pernicious point of view that we should somehow feel bad about Niki’s choice. I suppose I could conclude that “silence gives assent,” but alas, silent support of my arguments won’t help push back the lies and darkness of nonbiblical “science.”

    First, there’s Benji Ramsaur. He did warn us that he might not be able to rejoin the discussion, but I thought my affirmation might be returned in kind. Nevertheless, if Mr. Ramsaur represents the views of presuppositionalism, then I am confident that presuppositionalists will side with me. If we are going to see the world “through God’s revelation,” if we are going to always wear “God’s glasses,” then “scientific” consensus will mean nothing to us. If Copernicanism has been around for 4 days, it’s still as wrong 400 years later. We know that because God’s revelation trumps our sense experience and reason. A consistent presuppositionalist is also a geocentrist/geostatist.

    Second, there’s martha (of the lower case) and J. Rollen. Both expressed suspicion of science. J. Rollen relativizes scientific explanations by rightly noting their mutability and their basis in the contingencies of history. It is wrong to “bow to science” because scientific theories are capricious gods. Moreover, he rejects the chronological snobbery inherent in scientific theories. Just because a view is antiquated seems to be enough to reject it. But he rightly points out that if the antiquity of biblical cosmology and biology is bad, then it is also bad for “science,” which is always discarding antiquated scientific theories. Since theories are always getting overturned, today’s “scientific truth” is tomorrow’s false theory destined for the dustbin. This is such a healthy suspicion and relativism toward “science” that I had hoped it would be obvious that his argument is one of the strongest for my position on biblical cosmology. Alas, he departed from the conversation, expressing his personal incredulity about my position. But the fixity and position of the Earth is clearly taught by the Bible. If the Bible is God’s unchanging Word and absolutely true, why would we reject biblical cosmology in favor of “scientific” cosmology. After all, we reject “scientific” biology in favor of biblical biology. What principle do martha and J. Rollen apply that allows them do that? If I knew, it sure would make my job easier!

    Finally, there was Joe Blackmon. Perhaps more than any other contributor to this thread, I thought I had a certain ally in Mr. Blackmon. Alas, I may never know. He was clearest of all in rejecting iMonk’s insinuation that evangelicals have made a bad choice on the issue of science and evolution. With refreshing honesty, Mr. Blackmon makes the point that belief in the “scientific” consensus view of evolution (the mechanism of natural selection is responsible for speciation, and the pathway of common descent for all living things) morally obligates one to affirm atheism, and by extension reject Christianity. On this mutual exclusivity, he and many atheistic evolutionists like Dawkins are in agreement. But evolution is only a recent form of atheistic science. Before Darwin, there was Copernicus and Galileo. Since Mr. Blackmon rejects evolution on biblical grounds, it follows that he should reject heliocentrism and a moving Earth on biblical grounds, too. Belief in the “scientific” consensus of Copernicanism morally obligates one to affirm atheism, since one is rejecting the absolute truth of the Word of God. I do not know if he disagrees with me about that, but I can see no rational justification for doing so given the principles he set forth in his comments.

    LikeLike

14. This is interesting. Nikki is from a 3,000 year old non-christian culture with completely different cultural roots from evangelical christians.
    I lived in Japan and have been married to a Japanese woman for 25 years. In the larger scope of things the influence of all of western christianity in Japan is very small and tends to be personal and private. Christians in total are maybe 3% of the total population and that includes the full spectrum of
    denominations.
    The Christian concept of creationism is not well known by the general public in Japan . To the girl in question – the christain creation myth was an interesting story – and not much more. The key difference is that the creation stories are ALL myths to the Japanese and not considered to be anymore than that. Nobody takes the Japanese creation myth seroiusly. There is no creationist movement in Japan fighting the teaching of the scientific theory of evolution. To my wife the idea that there is a seroius creationist movement here is just one of many oddities of the US she has observed in 25 years.
    In Japan science is science – no conflict – the definition of physics roughly come out like “reality science.”

    My wife spent a year at a US Baptist college – enjoyed the whole experience but did not do anything more with the Baptists after that. It was a cultural experience – she went along with flow, went to chapel and took bible class – then returned home and never did anything else.

    LikeLike

15. Joel Hunter has p0wned this comment thread. You rock, Joel.

    LikeLike

16. The church used to say that Jesus is who He says He is because he did this, said this, didn’t say this other, and meets these prophetic signs. Now it says, well, okay, maybe Adam was born of a pre-human (I’m not a scientist, you know what I mean), and since we can feel sure about that it seems silly to hang on to this idea of Eve from Adam’s rib. Honestly, in all likelihood Adam isn’t even one man; he’s a metaphor. Of course, serpents are an ancient literary device that is found all across the world and is poetry… Ultimately, you end up with a Jesus that is so big that it’s not actually necessary that the Word became flesh, died for my sins, and rose of His own power on the third day. Turns out He’s big enough to have become a pantheist Himself.

    At some point, some Scientific Christian will say, “No, no, no, you’re throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Just because this one point….”

    AM I???

    Jenny, you’re taking my use of Narnia both too far into the time-line of the story, and not far enough into the analogy of the real world. I’m not saying what Lucy does in the future of the books, I’m using Lucy in place of the church, or people on the church. Lucy actually experiences Narnia in the books. I’m saying that, in real life, the church asks us all to be like Lucy, telling the other children about Narnia…with this one little difference: We’re not Lucy. I went into the wardrobe and I didn’t meet a faun, or see a lamppost. I haven’t even felt a chill. Jasonbaldguy obviously is a real Lucy. He says: “I don’t know much, but I know I’ve seen and felt God, and that’s why I believe.” And I’m telling you that for most of my days, I’ve believed that there is a God, but that my sin keeps me from experiencing Him, and except very brief special instances God is removed from us all…yet we are to follow Him…through the Lucies…who may or may not have personally seen Narnia.

    That leaves me with the idea of Calvin’s Elected–which I reject straight out. Even if it were true, then I should live as if there were no God. If this logic is successful, then you can mark this station as where I get off this train and hitch a ride with Nietzsche.

    YECians say: “I have the answers…you just wait and see.” Empirical Scientists say: “I don’t have the answers, but I can give you the tools to look for them. Given enough time, we’ll have enough answers for everyone.” Scientific Christians say: “I really like what this Book says, but whatever truth is revealed by science is actually how Big God is…bigger even!” You’ve introduced science as an authority to be appealed to. God didn’t “blow my box up”. You did.

    LikeLike

17. No, when Lucy grew up she found that, just as Narnia was so much bigger and so much more than the wardrobe, the stable held something so much more and so much bigger still. That’s what made Narnia seem like a fable- it turned out to be such a pale reflection of the Real Thing.

    If you had God in too small a box, don’t mourn the fact that box has been burst asunder. The real God is so much more and so much bigger still.

    LikeLike

18. Well, it would do if ANY creationist, EVER came up with a definition for a “kind”.

    Remember, that according to evolutionary biology a cat’s offspring will be EXTREMELY similar to the parent cat. No more difference than there is between you and your parents. So, even then, each cat IS reproducing after its own kind. It is only when you see the result of thousands/millions of these reproductions that you see a new kind of animal.

    Just like a photocopier will reproduce the same kind of image, that after a few hundred copies of copies of copies of copies, you end up with a different kind of image.

    LikeLike

19. And your evidence for that is….?

    MY experience of my fellow atheists is that most of the ones I have met are atheists because we have not seen sufficient evidence for the existence of a deity or deities.

    Showing love towards someone is not evidence for the correctness of your theological beliefs. I have been shown loive by Hindus, Christians, atheists, Jews and Muslims.

    LikeLike

20. It isnt that we are smarter. We just know more.
    Now, that might seem like the same thing, but it isnt. Isaac Newton was WAY smarter than me, but I know more than him. WAY more than him on almost every single subject, including physics. That is not because I am smarter, I just live after him and so have been exposed to the amazing discoveries that existed before his time. Now, if we were to somehow transport Newton to modern times, he would struggle to understand modern physics, since it is so different to the knowledge of his time.

    LikeLike

21. By Copernicus, do you mean Fr Kopernik?

    LikeLike

22. Sorry for not being clear, Jason, and the length of this response, but there is some ground to cover; I am bringing into question your notion of changing someone’s core “intellectual” belief. This point – all belief is ‘intellectual’ in that its formation occurs in the brain, but I don’t think you mean it that way – is often a major misunderstanding between those who speak of belief one way while another understands the term to mean something else.

    To me, an ‘intellectual’ vs a ‘religious’ belief means a propositional position (or working hypothesis, if you will) versus a starting assumption (a conclusion, if you will). An ‘intellectual’ belief in this light requires reasons that rank higher in probability of being true, accurate, and correct than another or competing proposition backed by reasons lower in probability of being true, accurate, and correct. That’s why I wrote that altering someone’s core ‘intellectual’ belief requires nothing more than better reasons.

    Please note: I continue to use the word ‘probable’. I do that because we have to function in the real world and we tend to trust certain explanations about phenomena more than others even if we can never be certain that our explanations about the phenomena is absolutely true, completely accurate, indubitably correct.

    For example, we prove to ourselves that our explanation about gravity works very well. We even take our explanation that describes the phenomena as fact and reasonably expect others to do the same because we have no evidence against it, and we do so because the probability of the phenomena remaining consistent between two objects with mass is very high. We use all kinds of technology that is completely dependent on this consistency and we then trust this understanding with our lives and the lives of those we love. Without such trust, for example, we could not even board a plane. So we do trust, even if we are something less than certain, not because we have to or are ordered to or fear some punishment or abandonment if we don’t but because there are very good reasons, solid evidence backed by a high probability of consistent results, to empower our trust. We know, for example, that air travel is extraordinarily safe compared to all other methods (except pipelines). We don’t need certainty to make informed choices about the safety of air travel but we do need something more than a starting position of belief that because someone says a thing can fly safely doesn’t make it so. Evidence is rarely a poor substitute for belief.

    No honest scientist will ever suggest that he or she is ‘certain’ in the truth of any explanation. In scientific terms, there is no room for certainty because it shuts down any further inquiry and removes any need for even the possibility of change. There must be room for doubt. And that is a central feature of honest inquiry. Those who present scientific inquiry and the conclusions reached under its guidance as similar to religious belief are grossly mistaken; those who present the probability of what’s true, accurate, and correct as the same ‘certainty’ shared by religious belief are doing the same. It’s a gross misrepresentation at best.

    Hence, we can understand Richard Dawkins saying that on a scale from one to seven, one being certainly true God is the creator and seven being certainly false that God is not the creator, he places his own belief in the matter at about a six. Yet he is known as a ‘fundamentalist’ atheist, fundamentalist in the sense that he is certain that there is no creator God. We recognize this, of course, as an example of a false representation. Honest inquiry and honest conclusions must leave room by means of doubt – meaning a probability of something less than 1, less than certain – for the inclusion of discoveries that may provide us with new information, better reasons, a higher degree of accuracy.

    You reveal your own understandable confusion in this matter when you write that you are not certain of anything. That’s honest. But then you write that you are certain of divine intervention. That’s dishonest. Not intentionally, I am sure, but because from where I am sitting, I can immediately understand that your ‘certainty’ is based on you attributing whatever examples you care to offer as acceptable proof for your beliefs. But where’s the doubt? What if your attributions are wrong? They may be correct. But where’s the room in your current state of certainty if there are better reasons to explain each cause of what you now attribute to divine intervention? Is there room in your self-proclaimed certainty to allow an honest review? That’s a really important question, not to disprove anything you have suggested through your faith, but to make your inquiry an honest one that I and any other atheist will respect even if we disagree with your conclusions. Returning the favour seems to be a very difficult task for the religious: to respect those who inquire honestly rather than piously.

    Finally, we really have to put to bed any notion that science or any other method of inquiry can disprove anything. You cannot even disprove that there is an invisible elephant living in your bathtub. How could you possibly do that?

    What we can do is collect enough evidence to support the notion if indeed there IS an invisible elephant living in your tub. If we provide evidence of large wet circular footprints, recordings of elephant sounds emanating from the room, trap the aroma of the creature and compare it to other elephant smells, and explain its invisible droppings by eliminating other causes of a plugged drain, and so on, we are empowering the explanation for the existence of that invisible elephant with more than self-declared belief. Without such evidence, there may be better reasons for understanding why someone might believe in the presence of the invisible elephant if we find out that that person has been raiding the medicine cabinet! Stating that the love someone may have for the elephant or that the elephant has for someone offers nothing to the inquiry in any meaningful way, and it seems to me to be a bit ridiculous to go from this position to then suggest that it falls on other people to disprove the invisible elephant living in your bathtub rather than the other way around. I suspect that the task of discovering what’s true, accurate, and correct within our physical universe is probably better served by inquiry than belief.

    LikeLike

23. Pingback: Confessing Evangelical » Blog Archive » Obviousness and ideology

24. This is a terrible tragedy, repeated over and over again. Thanks so much for posting it. Lord, have mercy on your church.

    LikeLike

25. I just woke up an hour ago, but it looks like the beginning of a Dark Night for me. Thanks go to Joel Hunter’s rational farce:

    67 times!

    tildeb’s excellent discernment of the question:

    In the face of what’s probably true, what’s probably accurate, what’s probably correct, Christianity – and any belief system that cannot fully endorse and absorb evolution into its basic tenets – is doomed with its tenacious hold on maintaining some belief in the necessity for creationism.

    and Jasonbaldguy’s test:

    “I cannot speak for self-certainty, I am absolutely not certain of myself on anything, But of one thing I am certain, I have witnessed unquestionable divine intervention in my life time and time again. I absolutely trust my creator to do what is best for me because in so many instances I have seen his hand do the impossible.”

    Well, I have not, and most people for most of history have not. Up until this point, I’ve believed because Lucy told me, and she’s more trustworthy than Edmund. Now I am beginning to suspect that was really foolish because Lucy has grown into a woman; saying “Narnia was just poetry to explain Revelation. The truth is that I was in the back of a closet…but it’s a much larger closet than Edmund said, I swear! I’m sure it was big enough for a lion.”

    I’ve avoided this “cultural battle” until now because I don’t like the choices. Now I see that it must be reconciled. Ironically, the hypothetical was proposed (I think) to spur a more inclusive view, but I’ve always known that it comes down to this: Either you’re a Young Earther, an empirical atheist, or (most common now) a “Big Closeter”. The last seems the most disingenuous to me.

    If you need me, I’ll be with Niki.

    LikeLike

26. I think one of us is capital M “Martha” and the other of us is small m “martha”, but if there’s any confusion, I’m perfectly happy to be known as Fenian Papist (some of the comments – tongue-in-cheek or not – on here make me feel like I’m being preached at by the Wee Frees up North) 😉

    LikeLike

27. Joel Hunter: “Modern astronomy allows us to laugh now at Copernicus.”
    +
    Patrick Lynch: “Even his mistakes were genius.”
    +
    Joel Hunter: “Patrick Lynch is wrong about Copernicus, whose heliocentrism in On the Revolutions was based on false premises”

    = I’m wrong?

    LikeLike

28. Joel, we all know the REAL reason that they refuse to point the Hubble telescope at the firmament is that this would give irrefutable proof of the truth of Scripture. I hadn’t realised quite how bad the heliocentrist stranglehold on academia had become. I was wondering why I hadn’t seen any recent research on the firmament.

    LikeLike

29. I’m pretty sure almost all our foreign exchange students who ever came to my Christian school were not from Christian backgrounds… I’m not exactly sure why they would choose a Christian school… I mean we certainly had our share of unbelievers and rebellious kids – after all the parents are the ones who choose to send their kids there (and it was the “cheaper” option compared with the secular private school in town) – but in the case of the foreign students with absolutely no Christian background, I’m not sure why they would either…

    I was happy with my school at the time – because I was quite the little legalist at the time (well and because this was before I found out they had lied to us about Ken Ham’s qualifications – we were always led to believe it was a real doctorate in science! I’m still pretty ticked off about that – believe the literalist YEC if you want, but at least be truthful about whether people have real doctorates or not!) – but now… when I have kids I intend on homeschooling them. Not for that particular of religious reasons (We’ll probably be trying to find more secular homeschooling groups) but because I truthfully don’t believe that either public or private schools (in most cases) are succeeding in the kind of academic atmosphere I would want for my kids – like you said – they need to address these issues while in a safe environment…

    oh and I really like your comment about Jesus is big enough – thats really the problem with all of fundamentalism and most of evangelicalism… for all their claim that they’re more true to the Bible or that they’re more Jesus focused … they’ve got such a narrow box they’ve put Jesus in…

    LikeLike

30. I see we have two Marthas commenting here. One of you may want to include a last name initial. I know which is the Irish Martha due to the little photo of her church that she includes with her posts. Plus, I know the “spirit” of the posts and knew this Martha was not the other Martha from what she said!

    LikeLike

31. Ross…Joel has GOT to be kidding, but I think he is taking his kidding so seriously that he doesn’t include the winking face, smiley face, “just kidding” notation or anything like that. That’s my take on it anyway. He is the same person who wrote on here yesterday, “The exegetical case for a fixed Earth is even stronger than that for a young Earth. There are 67 passages in the Bible that clearly describe the Earth as fixed or motionless and the entire heavens as revolving around the earth.” I thought he was was just pointing out that some people believe this, not himself, but he didn’t respond to my question about this. Oh well.

    LikeLike

32. worked on, NOT just papered over

    Sorry.

    LikeLike

33. “The intellectual climate in astronomy departments is ideologically committed to heliocentrism and dissenting voices are silenced or shouted down. No one is willing to teach the strengths and weakness of the theory. No one is willing to admit the significant gaps in the evidence. Competent scientists who can advocate the alternative biblical model aren’t allowed into the “priesthood” of academia, and so can’t get their research published in peer reviewed journals.”

    OK, not trying to win you over but where exactly are these alternative models and theories that even come close to working. Current astronomy and cosmology has a lot of cracks (to borrow a term from another commenter) but these cracks are tiny compared to any other theories or the state of knowledge 100 years ago. And the cracks are admitted and being worked on, just just papered over as though they don’t exist.

    LikeLike

34. “But what I have yet to hear from any advocate of evolution/old earth/heliocentrism is a refutation of the exegetical case for biblical cosmology (a fixed Earth at the center of the universe; waters above the dome of the heavens).”

    Basically you’re saying that the truth as told by a group of people 4000 years ago is a definition of the entire universe. Most of use reject that we have to take what they understood, given their learning at the time, as total absolute truth, And we must reject everything we can see and measure these days. I mean rockets to the planets would not work in the universe you say is the real one. But from the point of view of the people at the time the earth WAS the center of the universe. To believe anything else made no sense to them so why would God describe something to them that would be false to their point of view?

    But I can also tell I’ll not win you over so I will not (no longer?) even try.

    LikeLike

35. Thank you, martha. You said, “Does anyone understand that the problem is that evolution defies ‘made each to their own kind’?” Yes, I do. I also understand that Copernicanism defies the following clear biblical teaching:

    “And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so” (Genesis 1:6-7).
    “From the rising of the sun unto the going down of the same” (Psalm 113:3).
    “One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the earth abideth for ever. The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose. The wind goeth toward the south, and turneth about unto the north; it whirleth about continually, and the wind returneth again according to his circuits. All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again” (Ecclesiastes 1:4-7).
    “Thus saith the LORD, The heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool” (Isaiah 66:1). [What good is a moving, rotating footstool?]
    “Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it? Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof…” (Job 38:4-6).
    “Of old hast thou laid the foundation of the earth: and the heavens are the work of thy hands” (Psalm 102:25).

    Martha, you ask, “Where are all these Young Earthers condemning others anyway?” No one receives greater scorn from most YECers than us anti-Copernicans. Check out all the prominent YEC web sites and see what they have to say about their geocentric/geostatic fellow believers.

    You also ask, “Where are y’all hangin’ out? college campuses. I’m glad I’m not there anymore.” Indeed. If you think it’s bad in the departments of biology, anthropology, geology, paleontology, physics, chemistry, geography, and so on, you should see what it’s like in astronomy. The Copernican view has absolutely eradicated alternative views from serious consideration. The intellectual climate in astronomy departments is ideologically committed to heliocentrism and dissenting voices are silenced or shouted down. No one is willing to teach the strengths and weakness of the theory. No one is willing to admit the significant gaps in the evidence. Competent scientists who can advocate the alternative biblical model aren’t allowed into the “priesthood” of academia, and so can’t get their research published in peer reviewed journals. There is no academic freedom on this issue. NASA refuses to use the Hubble Telescope to verify the existence of the firmament which separates the waters in our terrestrial realm from the waters above the firmament.

    I do not find it surprising that people who have rejected the clear antithesis between evolution and “made each to their own kind” have long ago rejected the clear antithesis between heliocentrism and the many biblical passages which clearly teach that the Earth is the fixed, unmoving center of the universe.

    LikeLike

36. Ross said, “But if you’re a committed geo-centrist as you seem to post, NO MATER WHAT, then well enjoy your universe. It has a small population of believers and I hope you find a few to make friends with or you’ll live a very lonely life.”

    If I found ad populum arguments persuasive, I’d probably be moved by your concern. But the number of adherents to a truth doesn’t impress me. There are plenty of truths that no one presently believes (because they have yet to be discovered).

    The rest of your comment supports my correction of Mr. Lynch. But what I have yet to hear from any advocate of evolution/old earth/heliocentrism is a refutation of the exegetical case for biblical cosmology (a fixed Earth at the center of the universe; waters above the dome of the heavens). Nor has J. Rollen offered criteria for when it is appropriate to “bow to science” and when it is not. Mr. Rollen appeared to express similar contempt for “science” as I have, but when it comes to the Bible’s clear teaching about cosmology, he’s not answered me, he’s only expressed his disbelief. Well, I don’t find arguments from personal incredulity persuasive either.

    I think the position I’ve defended in this thread (and I think Joe Blackmon’s, but he’s been silent for awhile, too) is consistent. I think positions which reject evolution but support an old universe are inconsistent with the Bible’s clear teaching. I also think YECers who reject the geocentric and geostatic universe are inconsistent. I would be happy to know what biblical principle allows us to accept some scientific theories as true (Copernicanism) despite the clear teaching of the Bible to the contrary, but allow us to reject other scientific theories as false (old earth; Darwinism) which are also contrary to the clear teaching of the Bible. How can adherents to 6 literal 24-hr days of creation reject the existence of the waters above the dome of the heavens? It’s in the same pericope of Genesis!

    LikeLike

37. This has been exercising my mind since the gangsta roundup on it a few weeks ago. I’ve got about four pages written now of arguments, working through the various attempts to figure out what the options are for a Christian who believes that evolution is a reasonable explanation of how it’s all come about and wants to be logical about their faith. As several people have pointed out, it’s a very Western logico-deductive approach, but that’s where I am with it. The answer? None yet, though I have hopes that the reminder that God works in infinity while we live in time, and the metaphors in Genesis are dealing with that intersection, holds some possibilities. 🙂

    But I wish I could have talked to Niki. I certainly had similar and very interesting conversations with my 5th grade Sunday School class when they were old enough to ask about Genesis and science, knowing I was an honest to God professional scientist. (It’s not so interesting taking on a fundamentalist atheist or YEC, I must admit.) These days no one asks me questions like that, because discussing religion or politics is impolite.

    LikeLike

38. I fail to see your point here, are you arguing my semantics? or are you disagreeing with my comment? My point was simply that it is impossible to even begin dialogue with an atheist if you preemptively attack them. As followers of Jesus it is important to realize that truth can be questioned and will still remain truth. Once we are comfortable with that idea we can resist the intense desire to be right or even have all the answers. I have found in my experience that good science continues to confirm the existence of GOD. It is true that the very fact that I believe in God colors my perspective of science. However even the most objective scientist is only working from the subjective scope that everything he currently knows has simply not been dis-proven; that does not make any of it absolute truth but it also does not make any of it false either.

    I cannot speak for self-certainty, I am absolutely not certain of myself on anything, But of one thing I am certain, I have witnessed unquestionable divine intervention in my life time and time again. I absolutely trust my creator to do what is best for me because in so many instances I have seen his hand do the impossible. What I see when I look at science is the discovery of his thoughtfulness, his attention to detail, and a timeless love for his entire creation. I also see a history of others that have witnessed these same experiences and have found a peace that passes understanding in their lives. Ultimately I see that through all of history kingdoms have risen and fallen and the most consistent thread has been that amidst the chaos there have always been humble servants, men and women of GOD that have remained true to the story that GOD’s Love is the ultimate truth… and no one has dis-proven that yet.

    So when I attempt to discern truth… I start by looking at my Creator to understand his love… then I seek the truth.

    LikeLike

39. “Don’t let them take your Jesus!”

    LikeLike

40. that s/b each to “ITS” own kind. bad grammar.

    LikeLike

41. Does anyone understand that the problem is that evolution defies “made each to their own kind”?

    Intelligent design does NOT say that adaption within a species is unobservable. It says that Darwin’s Origin of the Species is wrong. I don’t give a hoot how old the creation is. . .but the point is God created all things, not random harmonic convergences.

    Where are all these Young Earthers condemning others anyway? Where are y’all hangin’ out? college campuses. I’m glad I’m not there anymore. My hat’s off to anyone who does college and young adult ministry in this age of skepticism.

    Here we have what us Lutherans call a Two Kingdoms conundrum.

    Niki qualifies as a bruised reed.

    LikeLike

42. Joel is in good company consider the following quotes:
    People gave ear to an upstart astrologer who strove to show that the earth revolves, not the heavens or the firmament, the sun and the moon. Whoever wishes to appear clever must devise some new system, which of all systems is of course the very best. This fool [or ‘man’] wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but sacred Scripture tells us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth.”

    “Those who assert that ‘the earth moves and turns’… [are] motivated by ‘a spirit of bitterness, contradiction, and faultfinding;’ possessed by the devil, they aimed ‘to pervert the order of nature.’”

    If you haven’t guessed the first quote is from Martin Luther and the second was from John Calvin.

    Peace
    Steve in Toronto

    LikeLike

43. “Patrick Lynch is wrong about Copernicus, whose heliocentrism in On the Revolutions was based on false premises, such as uniform circular movement of celestial bodies (see Kepler). He also used epicycles to “fix” the data to the theory (and so had not done away with Ptolemaic mechanisms).”

    OK. I go with you are NOT being sarcastic.

    Copernicus didn’t get it exactly right. In fact if he was promoting his discoveries TODAY he would indeed be laughed at. But in HIS TIME is was so much closer than anyone else it is incredible. And that’s what science is. Continuous movement towards understanding how things work. Plus a few backward steps. Well many some times. It is NOT pitching a perfect game every time out. Newton and Einstein are about the only 2 in the last 500 years to come close to that. And to be honest no one at the time had the math to get it very close. That took Newton. Who got asked if he had any idea why planetary orbits were elliptical rather than circular. He said no but went off and thought about it, invented calculus and got back to the questioner in a few months with an answer. Truly hard to comprehend.

    But if you’re a committed geo-centrist as you seem to post, NO MATER WHAT, then well enjoy your universe. It has a small population of believers and I hope you find a few to make friends with or you’ll live a very lonely life.

    LikeLike

44. Headless Unicorn:

    Henry Morris, the father of modern YEC, was at the conference where the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy was voted on. Despite his intense lobbying, the Biblical scholars (many of whom accepted YEC) refused to put in a statement about a young Earth.

    LikeLike

45. This post makes me very sad. Reading the comments even sadder. Why must we be so contentious? /begin sarcasm/ What a lovely picture we paint of the Faith. /end sarcasm/

    That aside, something that struck me as I read about Niki, is — and I’m having trouble finding the right words — why was she in a Christian school?

    Sadly, this is the last place I would put a person I want to evangelize! In my experience Christian schools are created to “answer” the secularity (is that a word?) of the Public Schools, and are for believers to send their believing children. They are not set up to handle the hard questions! I imagine there are teachers (maybe even schools) out there, like imonk, who can and do, but they are in the minority in my experience.

    We sent our kids to a local Christian school for a few years, but when my “overly” curious children began to question the curricula (Why shouldn’t I read this book? How do we know God is? etc) the teachers had the neither the time nor the depth to handle the questions, let alone explain why the limits were set and encourage the questions while offering a spiritually mature safety net. My children were looked upon as having “rebellious spirits” and needing discipline.

    We realized, in order to encourage them to stretch intellectually in a spiritually “safe” environment we’d have to bring them home to school.

    How much more ostracized would a child/teen feel who didn’t come from a Christian home? My goodness this whole idea baffles me.

    I’m sorry I haven’t expressed myself well, because I can’t really seem to find the words… Why don’t we think God is big enough to handle our questions? Why couldn’t someone tell Niki that “Jesus is big enough to handle your questions about evolution, even if I’m not”?

    LikeLike

46. The Treaty of Westphalia ended the Reformation Wars in 1648, Joe.

    It is now 2009.

    Sorry you never got the word.

    LikeLike

47. Joel, Tildeb, here’s a little story for you:

    Have you ever heard of a Victorian-era movement called “Zetetic Astronomy”? It was an attempt to “Defend Scripture Against Godless Theories of Men” that caused a bit of a stir back then. It used similar arguments to both Heliocentrism and Young Earth Creationism, with similar grandstanding debate and “show me your evidence” challenges to Science as today’s Creation Science/Intelligent Design types. Some were almost word-for-word what you’d expect from Ken Ham et al.

    The Zetetic Astronomy movement is still around, though much shrunken from their Victorian heyday. Still defending the Clear Statements of Scripture (TM) against Godless Humanist Science(TM), but with a name change.

    Now they’re called The Flat Earth Society.

    LikeLike

48. Intellectual beliefs? I think we need to establish what is meant by the word ‘belief.’

    “I believe I left my keys on the table.
    “I believe that roses are prettier than daffodils.”
    “I believe the Steelers will win the Superbowl.”
    “I believe God created man in his own image and Jesus was His son.”

    Intellectual beliefs about knowledge are of the propositional kind, namely, a proposition that is held to be probably true based on the veracity of the reasons that allow for an informed conclusion. If the reasons are subjective, then the belief is personal. If the reasons are objective, then the belief is a truth claim and can be tested as such.

    Changing one’s fundamental ‘intellectual’ belief in this sense means providing better reasons for the veracity of the truth claims – such as God exists and the one true path to knowing about Her is through these theocratic doors rather than those.

    Don’t forget; there are lots of competing truth claims about different deities; the point I’m making here is how can we determine which one/s are probably more accurate than another? Is self-certainty good enough?

    LikeLike

49. Joel, what a wicked sense of humour!

    LikeLike

50. Jeremy, thanks for your response.

    This is a bit of a wiggly subject: I am speaking of the creationist/evolution explanation of how life has come to be. Both are scientific claims (and unfortunately are in competition as truth claims in the nation’s classrooms, which is a significant and yet unnecessary problem).Because the two are competing truth claims, there is no evidence for the former and lots for the latter. My point is that if one chooses to follow the evidence, there is no need for any kind of belief in a divine origin especially in the science classroom, although many people are quite content to insert one… consequences to the general level of knowledge notwithstanding. That would be fine only on a personal level as nothing more than a personal insertion. But unhappily, that is not the case.

    When one believes that creationism requires divine intervention, and then brings that assertion into the public domain like science class as if it naturally counterbalances evolutionary theory when it clearly and unambiguously does not, then we have a major distortion of what’s true, what’s accurate, what’s probable. The scale of the error is gigantic. It is this error – that creationism is a legitimate scientific claim about the origins of life – that requires vigorous response.

    I am indeed suggesting that inquiry that seeks knowledge must include something more than mere assertion. As such an inquiry, the study of literature is no different. But your point would be the same if you were to insist that because you find great literature to be awe-inspiring, therefore God. I am in no position to convince you otherwise; it’s up to you to do more than assert if you wish to convince others to your point of view. Geology has nothing to do with it, unless your assertion makes a geological claim, and then the science that underlies geology is very important.

    So it’s not my job to convince anyone whether or not God exists; but if someone makes such a claim and then transposes the assertion into some kind of scientific claim like creationism, then I’m afraid that person DOES have to show why, DOES have to explain the underlying reasons, DOES have to reveal why the assertion itself is valid and meaningful in a scientific way. Self certainty simply isn’t good enough.

    LikeLike

51. Stone,not brick (I think it was just that the picture was taken at sunset so the light makes it all golden-red like that, and the sea looks so blue by contrast). The part to the right of the picture is the old church ruins (originally the church would have been facing east).

    The new church is built on to the old tower and goes out to the left of the picture.

    http://www.waterfordcountymuseum.org/exhibit/web/Display/article/111/

    “This abbey of the hermits of St. Augustine was founded c.1290. The surviving buildings consist of the 13th century chancel and the 15th century tower. After the suppression of the monastries in the 16th century the friars were driven from the abbey and lands and by 1654 the building was ruined and destroyed. The present church was built c.1820 and the chancel was repaired in 1923. The ruin is known locally as the ‘clogchas”.”

    LikeLike

52. Why do you hope I’m not being serious, J. Rollen? Patrick Lynch is wrong about Copernicus, whose heliocentrism in On the Revolutions was based on false premises, such as uniform circular movement of celestial bodies (see Kepler). He also used epicycles to “fix” the data to the theory (and so had not done away with Ptolemaic mechanisms).

    J. Rollen, I took your previous point to be that Christians are misguided when they bow to “science.” You said, “All the same, the “science” of today will be antiquated and laughed at a century from now. Yet, we think it is fine for Christians to hold on.” I think you’re exactly right and I’ve given a historical example to substantiate your view. Science constantly changes and overthrows previously held theories. Gods’ Word never changes. What should it matter whether heliocentrism has been the dominant view for 4 or 400 years? The point is that it contradicts the clear teaching of the Bible, in which there are at least 67 passages that affirm the position and fixity of the Earth at the center of the universe, and 0 passages that affirm heliocentrism. Do you think it is fine for Christians to hold to Copernicanism, and thus hold that when the Bible speaks to the order of creation and the arrangement of the cosmos, it is wrong? If it’s wrong about the order and arrangement of the cosmos (e.g., the firmament and the waters above), then it can be wrong about the special creation of Man, a literal Adam and Eve, the Fall and original sin, the Flood, and by extension, the deity of Christ. If you think I’m wrong, I’d like to know where the flaw is in my reasoning rather than be a target for ad hominems, because it appeared to me that we were in agreement on what follows when we scoff at antiquated or unpopular ideas. I’d like to know when it is appropriate to bow to “science” (Copernican astronomy) and when it isn’t (Darwinian evolution), rather than be casually dismissed with a wave of your hand.

    LikeLike

53. I don’t think you’re being serious, Joel, at least I hope not.

    LikeLike

54. Maybe. This is why I warn about considering the cascading effects of treating Adam as mythical. Where do you stop? Suddenly, worrying about Gospel-plus-anything-else becomes moot if we start questioning whether or not Jesus was mythical.

    Too bad we can’t just assume that Darwin was mythical. Considering that some believe there is no historical proof of the Holocaust or the moon landing, maybe we need to consider the possibility that Darwin is just a character in a modern parable.

    LikeLike

55. Exactly, Benji. Your comment is so right, especially, “They don’t want to submit to seeing things through God’s revelation. They want their own make believe world by which they look at the world. They want their glasses. Not God’s.”

    If we see things through God’s revelation, it becomes absolutely clear that we got seriously off-track with adopting Copernicus’ heliocentric cosmology. The biblical basis for a fixed and unmoving Earth is even stronger than that for a young Earth. (See my earlier comments in this thread.)

    You also said, “And then there are those, of course, who want the “freedom” to put God’s glasses on sometimes and take them off at other times.” This makes my point exactly. We are swayed today by the overwhelming consensus of astronomical “science,” and too many Christians who leave God’s glasses on when refuting evolution fail to leave them on when refuting heliocentrism. Look at what evil has come as a result of allowing the humanist philosophy underpinning Copernicanism to obliterate the 67 passages of Scripture that affirm the Earth’s position and fixity. Luther and Calvin who clearly saw the dire theological implications of abandoning geocentrism and the literal cosmology of the Bible.

    We’ve also bowed to “science” when we fail to teach the reality of the firmament (the “dome” of day two in Genesis 1:7-8) and the existence of the waters above the dome. If we put on God’s glasses and submit our hearts and minds to God’s revelation, we’ll understand the catastrophic slippery slope of denying the existence of the waters located beyond the canopy of space.

    LikeLike

56. I understand what you are saying with this, and it “works” in the case of how your mother explained things to you.
    However, i don’t believe it works to say that we are somehow more “grown up” than the Israelites or those people living back there.

    I think that is a somewhat arrogant way of looking at people of the ancient world. What about the Pyramids and all of those wonders of the ancient world?

    The implication is that we are smarter than those people were, or that we are more evolved, somehow.

    I think that a person runs into problems when they go down that path.

    You may not have meant to go there, but it seemed like it in my humble opinion

    LikeLike

57. If by Copernicus you mean Ptolemy, then I think I see what you’re getting at. Kinda.

    Copernicus = heliocentrist

    Also, lets not forget that Copernicus was smarter than everybody on this website. Figuring out the sky was a hobby for him. He was one of Western culture’s greatest polymaths.

    Nobody who isn’t an idiot laughs at Copernicus. Even his mistakes were genius.

    History is full of amazing people who cultivated facts all their lives while the rest of us sit around smoking and sputtering our silly opinions.

    LikeLike

58. I’m with you.

    LikeLike

59. Ok I just have to interject here … most atheists are atheists because of their experience with Christianity. Not because the Gospel is unbelievable. That is a common thread with almost every professing atheist that I have ever met and talked to(granted there are exceptions). Also most of the Atheists I have known have extremely high moral character, and by almost all standards their lives reflect the principals of Christ more than most self proclaiming christians.(again exceptions granted) How can you convince someone to completely change their intellectual beliefs, if you do not first give them a reason to believe that God exists through displaying his grace and love towards them. Changing that one fundamental belief is key to changing an individual’s world view.

    LikeLike

60. Is that a brick church in your picture? 😉

    LikeLike

61. tildeb, with all due respect, there’s a great deal to be curious about—a great deal that requires “an inquiring mind substance”—that falls well outside the realm of science. I love science. I LOVE it. I also, by the way, accept without reservation that evolutionary theory is a “framework that has worked brilliantly for more than 150 years.” But if you think that’s a valid reason for me to reject my belief in God, I’ll have to respectfully disagree. Indeed, every new thing I learn about the world around me astounds me, and in that awe—in that sheer delight—I know that God exists.

    I’m not, however, going to try to prove it to you with scientific theories or with geological evidence. Because I can’t. But I don’t have to.

    Don’t conflate a cultural phenomenon with an absolute truth. There are plenty of Christians out there who aren’t particularly inquisitive. (And many of them are plenty happy, too. More power to them.)

    But in that same crowd, you’ll find a fair share of non-believers, including a whole mess of people who purport to be scientists. Yes, Science at its best should be about inquiry, should grow from a profound desire to understand the world around us. So, too, should any kind of study. Literature, for heaven’s sake, which has almost nothing to do with science, should do the same.

    LikeLike

62. Joe, you seem to be okay with a lot of things that don’t make any sense.

    Assuming you believe we’re talking about a woman’s soul and it’s eternal destination here, don’t you think its kind of churlish to say that the poor girl “needs to remain an atheist” because she has trouble believing some silly latter-day Fundamentalist postulations?

    LikeLike

63. In Christianity, all the walls are soft..

    LikeLike

64. Ha! Thanks for the correction, Erp.

    LikeLike

65. too true too true! but honestly if you remove the label we are all just truly broken people trying to find our way. If only we could begin to act like we believed that, rather than pretending that we have all the answers. I love the church, I value the church… but I grieve for it… for what it could be if the petty issues were laid aside and people tried to follow the steps of JESUS rather than Paul, Apollos, Luther,Calvin, Benny Hinn, Billy Graham… the list goes on… We are our own worst enemy because we don’t truly love each other. Some of this may be our western capitalistic competitive tendencies granted. But we have to learn to stop looking out for “numero uno”-ourselves and begin sacrificing our lives for others.

    LikeLike

66. I do think Christians need to be careful as to what the Bible teaches concerning science and what it does not [and what might not be very clear].

    However, the fundamental issue is not whether someone is an atheist or not, but submission of the mind and heart to God.

    Anyone who *bypasses* God’s revelation and claims to believe in atheism “or” in some made up being they call God [or maybe even “Jesus”] are in the same basic boat. They don’t want to submit to seeing things through God’s revelation. They want their own make believe world by which they look at the world. They want their glasses. Not God’s.

    The “my God wound up the world and then stepped back from it” theist and “well, I really would like to believe in Jesus, but I don’t find the evidence convincing” atheist both perish for example.

    The fundamental issue is still the same–they both get to do what they want to do without interference from the God of the Bible getting in their way.

    And then there are those, of course, who want the “freedom” to put God’s glasses on sometimes and take them off at other times. An example of this would be people putting on God’s glasses when they want to know “why” God created, but then taking off God’s glasses when it comes to “how” God created. Thus these people have “mixed” vision. In theory, at least. I think Elijah’s question in 1 Kings 18:21 is appropriate.

    Of course these people might object that they do not do this but interpret the Bible “differently” than I do. I appreciate them, but I don’t think it is that simple.

    I think these people tend to want to “compartmentalize” the different spheres of knowledge: Here is science. Here is sociology. Here is mathematics. Here is Religion. Here is psychology.

    I think they tend to not ask about the presuppositions undergirding these different spheres of knowledge and instead place their faith in “Dr.” ____________. Of course, religion could be an exception:).

    Anyway, I don’t know anyone who claims that the Bible has all the scientific answers. I do, however, know there are folks who claim that the Bible provides the presuppositions for doing science in the first place.

    Big difference.

    I believe that I have come to the conclusion that Genesis gets way too much press on this thing anyway.

    I think there needs to be more attention given to “Jesus via an Apostle” verses like 1 Timothy 2:13.

    One day everyone will know that there was One who walked on the water whereas the other merely rode on it. In fact, I have a hunch that the latter might have even used the bathroom from time to time as well [wink].

    May Yahweh the Son bless you,

    Benji

    P.S. I can get consumed by a topic like this so I may force myself to not look back at this comment stream. Love you all.

    LikeLike

67. No, I just meant that the more we actually find out about our remote ancestors, the more interesting the whole question becomes.

    As for example that humans may actually be more ‘primitive’ than chimpanzees in some anatomical structures, or the pushing back of the dates for the first ‘humans’.

    I’m certainly not using any of this as a sledgehammer to say “Aha! Darwin was wrong!”

    Just that in questions of “When did humans arise?” and “Where are the other human species, or what happened to them?”, we don’t know as much as the popular science of the day, which gets translated into “Everyone knows…”, holds out and that pinning any colours to the mast just leads to embarrassment.

    Like the notion of “junk DNA”, which is now being reassessed as not junk, but as playing a purpose.

    I expect the “Humans and chimpanzees share 98% of their DNA” to be modified in future; again, not because I am denying that we are both primates, but just that this absolute genetic determinism which is popular in some quarters is not the whole story.

    LikeLike

68. “cognitive dissonance”: That’s really the issue. Cognitive dissonance is Never absent from any system – it is merely displaced. The illusion of cognitive harmony is what lies at the root of both Evolutionary as well as Creationist Fundamentalism. Actually, it is at the root of all Fundamentalisms.

    LikeLike

69. Headless, ever heard the joke about the Irishman flying to America to visit his cousin, who decided to bring a sample of poitín with him (our version of moonshine) for the cousin?

    So to smuggle it through customs, he decided to put it in a Lourdes water container, hoping that it would be taken for holy water and left undisturbed. Unfortunately, the customs officer opened the bottle to check what it was, and when he asked the man “How do you explain this?”, he replied “It’s a miracle!”

    Well, you’ve heard it now!

    LikeLike

70. Exactly, J. Rollen. See my earlier comments in this thread about where we went wrong in getting away from a biblically-based cosmology. Modern astronomy allows us to laugh now at Copernicus. It’s always changing. But God’s Word doesn’t change. Too bad we didn’t listen to Luther and Calvin who clearly saw the dire theological implications of abandoning geocentrism and the literal cosmology of the Bible. We’ve bowed to “science” when we fail to teach the reality of the firmament (the “dome” of day two in Genesis 1:7-8) and the existence of the waters above the dome.

    LikeLike

71. I was going to say that Nicolas Copernicus was a Canon of the Roman Catholic church, but since Joe Blackmon thinks Roman Catholic = Episcopalian = Godless liberals, I might as well just admit it right now.

    It was all a Jesuit plot to burn Giordano Bruno at the stake. Sorry it got out of hand 🙂

    LikeLike

72. Joe, if you can’t tell the difference between Roman Catholic and Episcopalian, then Thomas Cranmer might as well have stuck to it 🙂

    LikeLike

73. Well I hope you aren’t a direct ancestor of your grandmother or someone is doing some time travel and paradox:-)

    A direct ancestor is your parent, grandparent, great grandparent ….
    A common ancestor is what you and a cousin share.

    So John and Jane, first cousins, share a common ancestor in Jonathan their grandfather. Jonathan is also a direct ancestor of both John and Jane.

    In the case of humans and chimpanzees, they share a common ancestor but what the common ancestor looked like is debated (that they had a common ancestor is as settled fact as the sun being made up of mostly hydrogen and helium). These new fossils adjust the debate and seem to show that both chimpanzees and humans have changed a lot from their direct ancestor (previously it was thought chimpanzees had changed far less).

    LikeLike

74. Thanks Patrick. I’ll let folks with pseudo-glam shots debate the nature and extent of the differences between the two, but the point still stands. Christians would expect someone to leave such mythology behind & we laugh and scoff at those with antiquated ideas, bowing instead to “science”. All the same, the “science” of today will be antiquated and laughed at a century from now. Yet, we think it is fine for Christians to hold on.

    LikeLike

75. Joel writes, “There are 67 passages in the Bible that clearly describe the Earth as fixed or motionless and the entire heavens as revolving around the earth.”

    Wow, I didn’t know that, Joel. What DO people who take everything literally in the Bible do with those passages?

    LikeLike

76. Ross, that’s the problem with an age where everybody pushes the envelope and Extreme has become Normal. You cannot tell whether somebody is over-the-top-farce or dead serious True Believer. Every time I’ve gotten over-the-top as a joke on extremism (“Proof from Scripture! Aslan IS The Antichrist!”), I’ve run into somebody twice as far over-the-top on the same tangent who was Dead Serious/True Believer.

    LikeLike

77. You’ll have to take a number and stand in line.

    LikeLike

78. Sorry Kevin, whatever “inerrancy” meant in the Chicago Statement, today it includes Young Earth Creationism Uber Alles. Young Earth Creationism is now THE Gospel.

    I keep thinking if they want to drink the hyper-literal Kool-aid, why don’t they drink it straight on the rocks with Wahabi/Salafi Islam?

    LikeLike

79. It’s over on John C. Wright’s blog:

    http://johncwright.livejournal.com/

    We’re very intellectual and high-minded over there; our last big discussion was on blowing up the moon to prevent it being used as a base for space nazis (I was agin’ it) 😉

    LikeLike

80. It is a difficult task to be a Christian not because others are out to attack your faith but a personal challenge to find harmony between the tenets of the faith and knowledge.

    When one follows evolutionary theory to its logical end, the best that can be said for belief in some divine act of creation is somewhere about 13.5 billion years ago. That’s what Francis Collins has done to balance his knowledge of evolutionary theory with a creative God. How he then balances such an ancient creative deity with his personal relationship with Jesus in his day to day activities remains a mystery but such cognitive dissonance seems to cause him little discomfort.

    Young Earth Creationists (YEC) are not well-informed, inquiring people because their faith allows them to believe that they already have the answers to some very difficult questions. There is no struggle if one already has all the answers and can dismiss so much knowledge without understanding. That’s not a strength of faith; that is sanctifying ignorance and I think would be a position that insults rather than praises a god who supposedly gave us inquiring minds.

    LikeLike

81. Church of Ireland. As in ANGLICAN, not Catholic. Bishop Ussher was the Anglican Primate of Ireland when the Reformation Wars hit the British isles, and compared to the “normal” madness of those times, he was actually pretty mellow. Enforced Anglicanism in Ireland primarily through intellectual debating of Catholics instead of the usual stake and faggots.

    And Bishop Ussher’s creation date calculations have been taken WAY out of context. According to Gould, Ussher was participating in a common enough intellectual project of the day — an attempt to write a chronological timeline of all human history. His calculations were only a part of that project, yet that part is what became (in all but name ) Ex Cathedra Dogma (among Protestants, no less), marginal notes as inspired as the main texts.

    I don’t remember the Gould essay on Bishop Ussher, but it is in one of his essay collections.

    LikeLike

82. I’m through with this debate for now. In terms of evangelizing people like Niki, I will continue to share with people like her the love for Jesus, but I do not know how to tell people that they *need* Jesus. We can mourn the fact that Niki went away without accepting Christ, but unless there have a definitive answer about the question of sin, other than psychological or emotional explanations and other than a talking snake and a mythical tree, I cannot see that the Gospel is more than merely a call to a religious lifestyle of love and sacrifice as opposed to a call to the truth.

    God bless you, Mike.

    Next article … 🙂

    LikeLike

83. But as I have pointed out before, the Creationist Fundamentalists show obvious signs of being disciples of the godess of Reason, and that shows in the contradicitons (and virulent rhetoric) they espouse.

    Remember what happened the last time the Goddess of Reason sat on the throne of the Most High? They even named an Age after her, an age that echoes to this day, from Paris to Phnom Penh.

    LikeLike

84. Assuming that the cat in the analogy is the hunter creationist to the “evolutionary theory pigeons,” I will point out that this find is, in fact, evolutionary evidence, which makes it a very strange kind of pigeon indeed. If I’ve misread your analogy, my apologies.

    Also, I wish to reiterate the difference between the meaning of a common ancestor and a direct ancestor. You may be a direct ancestor of your grandmother, but share with her a common ancestor, such as a Precambrian blood worm. That does not make the blood worm your great grandmother. The point of the find is that it drives a common ancestor we have with apes into deeper time, perhaps seven or eight million years ago.

    But I do agree with Martha that ‘it’ – meaning the evolutionary blueprint of our species – is not all done and dusted by any means. It does mean that every piece of evolutionary evidence must be accounted for by evolutionary theory – a pain staking, daunting, and diligent task indeed that now informs all of the biological sciences with a framework that has worked brilliantly for more than 150 years. One simply cannot respect biology and reject evolutionary theory, any more than one can claim to respect astronomy and reject the heliocentric theory, or respect physics and reject the theory of gravity.

    On the flip side of the creationist/evolution false debate, what is required of creationist belief? Merely an acceptance that God did it. Case closed. If the case happens to be the mind, like Niki’s, the results can be much the same: accepting the assertion eliminates any meaningful and honest inquiry. But creationism is not an answer; it’s merely an assertion without evidence. And that’s a problem of the faith rather than an attack by science.

    In comparison, which position offers an inquiring mind substance: one like evolutionary theory that offers us an explanation from which an increase in knowledge can be directly applied in tangible and important ways in today’s world – like medicine – or one that simply states a vacuous assertion called Creationism and calls its belief piety to God?

    LikeLike

85. That’d be Drew Marshall.

    LikeLike

86. An interesting literary description of “theistic evolution” can be found in CS Lewis’ “Perelandra”. I wonder if any of our enraged friends here have read it 😉 ?

    Furthermore, time and again it is glaringly obvious that those most vehemently against any non-6000 year belief / understanding are also the ones who worship in the Temple of Reason the most. As a scientist, I know that my reason is fallible and limited, my comprehension flawed, and that I’m fine with that. But as I have pointed out before, the Creationist Fundamentalists show obvious signs of being disciples of the godess of Reason, and that shows in the contradicitons (and virulent rhetoric) they espouse.

    LikeLike

87. This is a very timely post – thank you!

    I fear the dogma associated with this issue is not just driving non-Christians away from the church; it is driving Christians away, too.

    At last Friday night’s Bible study, someone made a crack at the very end about the “stupidity of science” and it led to a few minutes of hardy-har-har-making-fun-of-anyone-who-doesn’t-believe-YEC time. At a certain point, not being able to take it any more, I spoke up and just reminded the group that many, many Christians do not buy the YEC model. One young lady persisted, stating how ridiculous it is to think that the earth is “millions and millions of years old”, to which I replied, “Well, I do”.

    Well, immediately a pall descended and then my divisive self become the target of thinly veiled prayers about “those who put reason and science at a higher premium than faith”. It was uncomfortable and hurtful and I honestly would like nothing better than to never return.

    What made the whole thing move from the laughable to the absolutely absurd is that one of the Bible study leaders hurried over to me at the end and said, “Oh, you know, a lot of our pastors and elders do not believe in YEC, either”. I felt like saying, “Wow, that would have been really great if you had piped up with that when I was hanging out there, flailing about on my own.” But I didn’t. I just nodded and said, “thank you”. I had been “divisive” enough for one evening.

    LikeLike

88. (copy of comment left below) You’re exactly right, Joe. We who hold to absolute, biblical truth need to stop being defensive and take back the ground that almost all other Christians have given up. This atheism all started hundreds of years ago when humanists decided that man was special all by himself and not because of where God placed him. Copernicus took pagan heliocentrism and undermined the authority of the Bible. But we know that absolute, biblical truth includes a geocentric and geostatic creation in many passages, including Joshua 10:12-13. “Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon. And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies.”

    God either meant what he wrote or He didn’t. Here, and elsewhere, the Bible clearly teaches that the universe rotates around the Earth once a day, regardless of what “scientific” textbooks teach. The choice is either believing the Bible or “believing in” modern-day astronomy. Which do you believe? The only person on this thread who has stood for absolute, biblical truth is Joe, and it appears that only he has the courage to stand up for what the Bible teaches about the fixed, unmoving Earth, and its location in the center of the universe.

    God’s Word teaches a non-moving and immovable Earth just as surely as it teaches a six-day creation 6000 years ago and a universal flood about 1600 years later. The exegetical case for a fixed Earth is even stronger than that for a young Earth. There are 67 passages in the Bible that clearly describe the Earth as fixed or motionless and the entire heavens as revolving around the earth. But a young, 6,000-year-old Earth is merely a calculation, based on the 6-day creation event and the Old Testament genealogies. There’s much stronger biblical evidence for the position of the Earth and its fixity than for its young age.

    Long before Darwin, the Copernican revolution set off a steady devaluation of man’s place in creation, of the arrangement of the cosmos taught in the Bible, and thus, the downgrade of Scripture in the minds of men on the miracles of Christ and the cardinal doctrines like the virgin birth and the resurrection. By altering God’s spatial relation to His universe, we have altered God’s special relation to us. If we can’t believe what the Bible says about the “rising of the Sun,” then how can we believe what it says about the “rising of the Son?” If we doubt the Bible’s claim about a fixed Earth, then what’s to stop us from doubting the Bible’s claim about the risen Lord?

    LikeLike

89. Roman Catholic?? Same difference.

    LikeLike

90. well my friend I would hope that you would be the one that wasn’t listed but was described… the “disciple of Jesus that would not break a bruised reed, or quench a smoldering flame”

    LikeLike

91. Just in case anyone is interested, the icon I use is an actual photo of my actual real parish church where I go to Mass.

    Just to prove I’m not an illusion or anything 😉

    LikeLike

92. “Omphalos” is Greek for “belly-button”; Gosse titled his book in an echo of the Medieval debates on whether Adam was created with a belly-button (implying birth, as archetype of all his descendants) or not (unnecessary for a direct creation from the dust).

    According to Gould, Omphalos bombed big; instead of being praised for his resolution of YEC and Apparent Age, Gosse took flak from both sides. Also according to Gould, Gosse went into True Crime Tabloid from then on — much less controversial.

    LikeLike

93. MOD NOTE: I have removed the comment this comment is responding to.

    ” Episcopalian? Allow me a few more guesses. Jesus wasn’t born of a virgin, his resurection was not real nor were his miracles, and the Bible is not to be taken literally nor does it teach that homosexuality is a sin, right?”

    Pardon me whilst I pick myself up from the floor, wipe the tears of laughter from my eyes,and stop snickering.

    Boy, do *you* have the wrong vampire.

    Roman Catholic, not Episcopalian nor (which would be more pertinent to my location) Church of Ireland; Irish, not American; Traditionalist in that I think the Pope is not some out-of-touch old guy living way over there in Rome, but the successor of Peter, steering the barque and not likely to introduce married priests/female priests/legitimise divorce/contraception/abortion and so forth, despite the progressives having waited out the last three popes before him for the Promised Dawn of Modernity.

    Recite the Creed every Sunday and Holy Day of Obligation without crossing my fingers, treating it as poetry, or indulging in any of the higher hand-waving. Might possibly be convinced on civil marriage for same-sex couples as a matter of natural justice (seeing as how heterosexuals have turned marriage into a matter of convenience, not to mention shacking up together and having kids without benefit of marriage, or ‘serial monogamy’) but cannot be convinced that “Jesus never said anything about homosexuality” or “Those Biblical prohibitions were about abusive relationships” or ‘the shellfish argument’ are anything more than a steaming pile of what St. Paul refers to in one of his Epistles.

    Tomorrow, I hope to attend daily Mass and after it Benediction (Eucharistic Adoration), despite what one of the Bright Modern Thinkers of my church says about it: “Eucharistic adoration, perpetual or not, is a doctrinal, theological, and spiritual step backward, not forward.” Also trying to regularly say the Angelus and (at least one decade of) the Rosary every day.

    Not only do I accept the Virgin Birth, I believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary; that the miracles of Our Lord cannot be boiled down to “the miracle of the carin’n’sharin'” or “the miracle of the ice floe” or “the Easter Event means the special warm fuzzy tingling feeling the apostles felt when they remembered their good buddy Jesus”.

    Probably believe in more miracles than you do, comes it to that, what with me being an arrant Papist and Lourdes and such 🙂

    Came by my scientific views by being taught science by the Reverend Mother in a convent school, and afterwards going on to third-level regional technical college for a diploma in applied biology.

    LikeLike

94. Evolution = doublepluscrimethink. No exceptions.

    LikeLike

95. Don’t recognize myself, or any of my Christian friends in your definitions there.

    LikeLike

96. No, that’s what the Special Blessed Prayer Cloth from the Televangelist is for. And Tatted Todd kicking your cancer in the nuts on the orders of his Angel Emma. And Benny Hinn’s Slain-In-The-Spirit (TM) Anointing. All for a Donation (TM) — all your Social Security Check!

    LikeLike

97. Hmmm…

    Seems to me that you can let water ferment as long as you want, it will still be water.

    Poor choice of analogy.

    LikeLike

98. Somebody beam me back to the thirteenth century, when serious Christians actually had brains and used them, because if this is the state of play, I’m going to go bang my head against a brick wall for a bit.

    LikeLike

99. Okay, so, any serious literalists out there willing to give me some insight into your thinking? I’ve got three great responses from three people who are probably more likeminded with me than not. (Correct me if I’m wrong, you three.)

    So, any serious literalists out there want to let me in on your process for making this decision? Particularly for that small minority of you who believe that a literal understanding of Genesis is critical to salvation. Any answers from you guys? If you’re going to expand 1 Cor 15 (particularly in light of the scenario Michael gives us in the original post), can you give me a good explanation why?

    LikeLike

100. I would just respectfully point out that James Ussher, Archbishop of Armagh, was Church of Ireland not Roman Catholic.

     This one we’re *not* taking the rap for 😉

     LikeLike

101. And, link courtesy of Happy Catholic, a story about ancient fossil hominid remains discovered 15 years ago, and throwing some interesting cats amongst the evolutionary theory pigeons:

     http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125440678661956317.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLTopStories

     “In fact, so many traits in modern chimps and apes are missing from these early hominids that researchers now question the notion that chimps and apes are a repository of primitive traits once shared by our ancestors. “We all thought the ancestral animal would look more like a chimp,” said Yale University anthropologist Andrew Hill.

     Instead, the new finds show that what seems most ancient about modern chimps and apes — such as canine fangs, long limbs with hooked fingers for swinging through trees, and hands designed for knuckle-walking — may actually be more recent developments, the researchers said. In that sense, the human hand today actually may be the more primitive appendage, they said.

     “It is the chimps and gorillas that have been evolving like crazy in terms of limbs and locomotion, not hominids,” said Kent State University anthropologist Owen Lovejoy, a senior scientist on the research team. “We took a different tack. We went social.”

     It isn’t all done and dusted by any means, and the more we find out, the more intriguing our origins become.

     LikeLike

102. Thanks for this post. I knew a German exchange student that had the same dilemma. I tried to explain to him that being a Christian had to do with ones understanding of Jesus and that the point of the Creation story is a loving God of order in opposition to the pagan view of selfish gods of disorder. Even though I tried to explain that to him that is not what he heard from Christianity as a whole.

     LikeLike

103. Funny how each of the dueling cosmologies of the 20th Century had direct analogs in ancient thought:

     Steady State = Aristotalean philosophical idea of the Cosmos being eternal. (Resisted during the Middle Ages through Victorian times because if Everything Is Eternal, there can be no history; Everything has or will happen eventually and nothing is distinct.)

     Big Bang = Jewish idea of linear time progressing from a distinct beginning (presumably to a distinct end).

     Pulsating Universe = Hindu/Buddhist idea of Eternal Cycles of Creation and Destruction/Recreation; Brahma-to-Vishnu-to-Shiva-to-Brahma-to-Vishnu-to-Shiva-to…

     No coincidence the originator of Big Bang came from a Christian milieu and that of the Pulsating Universe from a Buddhist one.

     LikeLike

104. Die hard “Young Earthers” are surprised to hear the comment of Spurgeon, who exclaimed,” Science has given the fact that the earth is 2.5 billion years old, Oh, to think my Savior loved me before that!” The 2.5 billion figure was then [mid to late 1800’s , the accepted age. It did not slow the Prince of Preachers a bit.
     J.Vernon Mcgee said that he thought the earth wasn’t millions or billions, of years old but Jillions![?} and thought it small minded to think that this is the first ,’go around’, after all god is infinitely old.
     These two preachers, who no one would call screaming liberals, did not find their beliefs in conflict at all with an old earth.
     The young earth theory is a stumbling block to evangelism and education. To think that people who reject all of Rome would cling stubbornly to the work of the Bishop of Ulster is amazing.

     LikeLike

105. Is that on the Baen books site? Just curious. There have been a few discussions like that on a couple of the author forums.

     LikeLike

106. Thanks, Phil. I read a bunch of ’em already, but there are some new names on the list. Appreciated.

     LikeLike

107. There is a reason I do NOT associate with Real True Christians. At all.

     Too much like Stalin’s Russia, Saddam’s Iraq, North Korea, or Airstrip One, Oceania, 1984. You never know when you’ll let the wrong word slip and find your Brother/Sister in Christ is an informant for the Thought Police.

     And Young Earth Creationism is today’s Christian litmus test of doubleplusgoodthink, along with End Time Prophecy, Abortion, and Homosexuality.

     LikeLike

108. Thanks, Joanie. I believe Jesus did all of those miracles, too. And I tend to follow a very similar process when I’m wondering about a particular passage. Also, thanks a bunch for ending with the Gospel. That’s absolutely the right place to land, in this discussion as much as any.

     LikeLike

109. Also, when I do preach (which isn’t every Sunday, thank God) I tend to read giant swatches of text to the church. We were able to have a laugh about the beginning of the 4th chapter because I read the whole letter of the Philippians aloud to the church. So it was obvious to them, after hearing it, that that was an ill-planned separation.

     LikeLike

110. heretics! !. It was Prince Madog Ab Owen Gwynedd, who landed in Alabama

     LikeLike

111. Ron, that’s an excellent point. I do my best to avoid reading with chapter and verse in mind, and only use the numbers for what they were meant for in the first place—a common reference. I preached on Philippians 4 in church two weeks ago and our church had a good laugh about “chapter” 4 beginning with the word “Therefore.”

     LikeLike

112. A common assumption here is that there is a connection between inerrancy and belief in a young Earth. This is certainly not the case. The authors of “The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy” purposefully left out any mention of the age of the Earth. They did this because they knew it was something they could not be dogmatic about, and the vote by the conservative Bible scholars who put this document together was almost unanimous on this point. There are many Evangelicals who accept both the inerrancy of Scripture and an old Earth. Examples would be Hugh Ross (who rejects evolution) and many theistic evolutionists (such as Davis Young, author of The Bible, Rocks, and Time, which is a devastating analysis of young-Earthism).

     Don’t reject inerrancy just because of Fundamentalists who abuse the concept.

     LikeLike

113. We must be able to blow through all their intellectual arguments with our Holy Hand Grenades of Truth and force them to accept the logical truths of Christianity!

     “I look for those with Holy Hand Grenades shoved up their butts and pull the pins.”
     — some Canadian Christian type I saw interviewed by two Shiny Happy Xians on YouTube

     LikeLike

114. None of the passages cited by young-Earth creationists (Gen 3, Rom 5, Rom 8, 1 Cor 15) to demonstrate that there was no death before the Fall say anything whatsoever about animal death.

     LikeLike

115. See: “differences between ‘cosmology’ and ‘cosmogony’.

     LikeLike

116. A thousand years from now, if somehow your comment survives the ages and is uncovered in some compu-archeological expedition, future people will think you were a bot.

     LikeLike

117. I think number 4 is a false premise to begin with.

     If you take the examples of people who actually met Jesus (and the early disciples) and were forgiven of sins they didn’t even “believe in”, it’s manifestly better to be Forgiven than to be ignorant. Found > lost, etc. etc.

     That whole ‘proclaim a Year of Favor’ thing is what Christians are for.

     Now, if your belief in sin somehow makes you unhappy, your problem is an inner anomie, not the pangs of a newborn ‘rationality’.

     LikeLike

118. You sound like a pretty awesome teacher.

     Do more of that!

     LikeLike

119. If y’all could stand back a moment and look at Christianity like a Niki, that is with an open mind first rather than one that assumes its truth, then one can begin to appreciate her conclusion.

     Christianity is different from other religions. What are those differences? When specific theologies make counter claims – like the various theological explanations of how life has come to be – they can’t all be right. At least one must be wrong, and perhaps all. How to decide if you are a Niki?

     Well, one can make the suggestion that it’s a matter of faith: simply choose which one to believe and believe it completely. But even that advice is hard to put into practice if you already KNOW that Christianity is true; this beginning position starts with an assumption that may or may not be true, accurate, or correct. Niki does not start from this position of assumption. She wants to inquire first, and then choose. But for many others, if your friends, family, and neighbours generally assume one faith from the get go over all others – let’s say Christianity in South Carolina – then that’s going to be the most comfortable faith for you to select… assuming you as a child have even that much leeway. But if you’re a Niki, you need more than that to believe in the theology of Christianity: you need to be convinced by means of reasoning, a preponderance of evidence, a basis of why one set of beliefs like Christianity is probably true compared to other sets of beliefs that probably aren’t. I mean, there’s a reason why most who post here on iMonk are Christian and not Jainists; most were born into a culture that accepts Christianity as the acceptable starting theological assumption. And this is where I respect Niki for taking the time and spending the effort learning what core beliefs define Christianity, weighing them for their truth-value FIRST, and then choosing whether or not to believe. That’s the path of honest inquiry even if one does not agree with her conclusion.

     So what does she say is her main reason for making that informed choice to not believe? Evolution versus Christian creationism. And that’s a very powerful reason because the theory offers us a way to understand our world in a testable, repeatable, falsifiable way that removes any necessity for a creative supernatural being. There may still be a creative supernatural being, but we no longer need one to offer us a comprehensive biological explanation with multiple layers of mutually supporting evidence of how life here on Earth evolves.

     In the face of what’s probably true, what’s probably accurate, what’s probably correct, Christianity – and any belief system that cannot fully endorse and absorb evolution into its basic tenets – is doomed with its tenacious hold on maintaining some belief in the necessity for creationism. The problem here is not ‘science’ in a general sense, nor even ‘evolution’ as a specific scientific theory…and the faithful tilt at windmills when they attack it under the misguided notion that they are battling an enemy of the faith; the problem here is inadequacy of the beliefs that inform the core of the religion. Niki understands this, and presents her conclusions not because she is a militant, strident, arrogant atheist, but a sensible and thoughtful person who has gone into the inquiry with an open mind and a willingness to honestly inquire, someone who wishes to know, and finds Christianity lacking.

     LikeLike

120. I think a great wasted emphasis on “thinking” rather than “doing” has poisoned the well for both sides in the case of Christians v. Atheists.

     Right beliefs are Fundamentals (and how much more: right cosmology!) – but the testified, lived, Gospel of Jesus Christ isn’t – and can’t be – Fundamentalist.

     Any discussion that begins with an everyday atheist asking an everyday Christian his opinion on some sophisticated theory, the maths behind which NEITHER side can appreciably obtain or expound, is a waste of time and intellectual blowharding and should really be discouraged as a disservice to the expanding evidences of a life lived after the Gospel.

     Everybody wants to talk, and nobody wants to be wrong.

     Christians should really give that up. Lets be wrong, but be GOOD.

     LikeLike

121. The problem is that it is not really an ultra-fundamentalism. The arguments over creatinism are spread far into evangelicalism and into conservative Lutheranism, Presbyterianism, etc. It is actually a rather common argument among conservative Christians from many denominations in the USA.

     But, more than that, if one is a conservative Christian and does not believe in a YEC creationism, one is almost ostracized. The assumption is that one is not truly educated and are somehow unaware of all the arguments. One is likely to be subjected to various book titles that one must read.

     LikeLike

122. Jeremy, rather than give you a couple of glib responses, I thought I’d try and point towards some resources. There is a massive academic body of scholarship on Ancient Near East literature, and in particular, biblical literaure that is all about delving into the question you ask. This discipline has it’s own language, discource, body of research, history and debate. Unfortunately, much of it’s work doesn’t ‘filter’ down to the church, in many cases. However, thanks to the wonders of the interwebnet.com there are loads of great blogs writen by academics in this field.

     Try searching for blogs or books by
     Peter Enns,
     Chris Tilling,
     Scott McKnight,
     Leron Shultz,
     Marc Goodacre,
     John Hobbins,
     Jim West . . just to name a few

     Or just do a google search for “biblical studies blogroll” . . and enjoy. 😉

     LikeLike

123. Science is a job, guys. It’s work.

     People are working on science, making it like you’d make a building or a scarf or a meal.

     Science isn’t religion. It’s not eschatology or strong moral encouragement or limpid inner truth – it’s hard work, discovering phenomena, shaping questions and solving problems.

     Religion doesn’t make anything. It’s more like a pastime. A sport, not a job.

     They don’t really compare.

     LikeLike

124. After rereading this article and spending another night wrestling over this issue and searching my heart to find out why I am so uncomfortable with all of this, I have come to the following conclusions:

     1. If a person were to ask me where sin came from, I would not have an answer as scripture merely gives me a talking snake. If they were to ask me what sin is why it is so bad, I would have an even more difficult time.

     2. I do not think there can be a real gospel without a fall into sin.

     3. If there is no real sin, there is no real need for Jesus, hence no real gospel.

     4. People who do not believe in “sin” and are happy as atheist perhaps should be left alone.

     Where do I go from here?

     LikeLike

125. Put your mind at rest, Joe Blackmon; the evolutionary theory does not hold that “(humans) descend from monkeys” (and even in Darwin’s day that was a canard); we and the other great apes are held to descend from a common ancestor.

     As to your problem with single-celled organisms, take it up with your mitochondria:

     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endosymbiosis

     “It is generally agreed that certain organelles of the eukaryotic cell, especially mitochondria and plastids such as chloroplasts, originated as bacterial endosymbionts. This theory is called the endosymbiotic theory, which was first articulated by the Russian botanist Konstantin Mereschkowski in 1905”.

     Or are we now to expunge the teaching of cellular structure from biology classes because it’s “unChristian”?

     LikeLike

126. Genealogies are tricky things. I think as moderns we have a much more literal view of what constitutes historicity than ancient people.

     For instance, it was not unknown for Irish genealogies of kings to trace their descent all the way from Adam; here’s an example of one worked out in the 19th century which interweaves Biblical sources and legendary/mythological ones:

     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_O'Hart

     There is also the example of the Book of Invasions, which is an Irish version of history, and traces the settlement and conquests of the land of Ireland. Among other things, it gives Noah a grand-daughter/grand-niece (versions vary) named Cessair who is the first to colonise Ireland:

     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebor_Gab%C3%A1la_%C3%89renn

     Now, of course we don’t accept this as historically or factually accurate, but it’s going too far to say that the compilers of such were deliberately lying or hoaxing or consciously creating falsehoods. They worked with what they had to account for things as they were.

     LikeLike

127. Christian medicine? Isn’t that what Lourdes water is for? 😉

     LikeLike

128. I read the link but I think he gets the underlying concepts wrong.

     To use your term, yes there are various cracks in the various scientific theories of how the universe works. But these are not stumbling blocks to most of us who work in or appreciate science. The reason being is that 2000 years ago there really weren’t any cracks. There were multiple Grand Canyons. Many of them. And over time as we learned more and more the Grand Canyons in our knowledge have gotten smaller and smaller. Just the progression from Roman Style counting to Arabic numerals (zeros and powers of 10) to algebra to calculus and so on has given us the tools that allowed us to shrink many of these chasms. And we keep shrinking them as we learn more and more in the sciences. You can’t accurate describe the speed of an object small in mass relative to the mass of the earth without calculus so until we had that we didn’t have accurate ways to describe the motion of such an object near earth. Then later we discovered that when objects get very large we needed a better way and Einstein showed up. Took a few decades for many to agree with him as experiments where hard to do but over time the experiments were done and as Einstein proved to be right his theories were accepted.

     And yes at this point in time in science we can describe very accurately large scale effects via work derived from Einstein’s theories and very small things based on quantum theory and we don’t know how to bring the two together. A very big crack but one we can work around most of the time. And there IS work on how to tie things together. String theory has some promise but maybe it will fall flat. But that’s how science works. Come up with an explanation, show why it’s valid, and see if others can agree with you via testing and proofing. If not toss some or all of it and start over. If yes, then take it and run with it until “cracks” appear then work on the cracks.

     Yes there are a lot of cracks. And yes we discover many more all the time. But on the whole we keep growing our plains and turning canyons into gullies as time marches on.

     To me your cracks show how much we know, not how little we know.

     LikeLike

129. Jeremy, you ask very good questions. And I do know that many Christians say we are on a “slippery slope” when we start deciding that some things are not to be take “literally” in the Bible. And yet, like you said, we KNOW that there is a great use of metaphors in the Bible and Jesus often did it. No one thinks that Jesus is an actual door or a vine (that I know about anyway). I decide what are metaphors or allegories in a number of ways: what other more-educated, more “spiritually” advanced folks have said; what I “sense” after praying about it and asking for guidance; what my “gut” tells me if my brain cannot figure it out. I know some Christians actually think I am silly for thinking Jesus did some of the miracles that he did. But, I believe Jesus did all those miracles including increasing the loaves and fishes. I believe Job did not have to be a “real” person and yet I absolutely love that book of the Bible and refer to it often. The truths there are tremendous. Job’s friends knew ABOUT God, but they did not KNOW God. Once God spoke to Job, Job was humbled and then understood his place in the universe. I believe that we have all sinned and need the grace that comes to us through Jesus. HOW we actually got to the place where we are the people we are is open to interpretation even though we have the Bible to guide us.

     LikeLike

130. Church would be fun if it wasn’t for the Christians. We are our own worst enemy.

     LikeLike

131. Plus a crossword puzzle for divination. (Anyone remember The Bible Code?)

     LikeLike

132. God bless you, Jeremy. I’m going to make what might sound an odd suggestion here, but I really would encourage you to acquire a version of the Bible with the chapter and verse breaks completely removed. I recently purchased one — a version called The Books of the Bible, which is an NIV without the chapters and verses and a different, more logical ordering of the books — and it has really revolutionized the way I read and understand scripture. In case you’re not aware, the chapters and verses were added in centuries later, and, personally, I don’t think those involved in those projects did a really good job of it. Many of the verse and chapter breaks are completely illogical and out of step with the natural flow of the text. And I think breaking scripture up into these little fragments really does affect the way you read and interpret what the text is saying and influences your brain into unconciously viewing the text as a listing of isolated, independent facts, events, rules, or ideas, rather than as what the original authors intended to be a poem, a song, a letter, a theological treatise, a story with a moral, or a historical account. To be honest, I think the chapter and verse breaks contribute to more legalistic interpretations of scripture.
     But you’re right. Trying to pin down the “correct” interpretation of all these age-old writings can tie your brain in a knot. I say just relax and read, try to listen to what the Spirit might be saying, and trust your gut when your brain fails you.

     LikeLike

133. I have found my educational background in literary studies to be a big help in dealing with the issue of science vs. creationism. When I read Genesis 1:1-2:3, I see a God-inspired poem (that section is ancient Hebrew poetry, by the way) designed to help Bronze Age children understand (in poetic terms and imagery) the deliberate and orderly way in which God created the world as they knew it — though not the whole universe, mind you. If you read the first two verses of Genesis closely, you’ll see that the “stuff” of our planet and the universe were already there when the story starts, and no explanation is offered as to how that “stuff” got there or how long it had been there. I highly suspect that this poem was also used by ancient Hebrew parents as an instructional tool to explain the observance of the Sabbath and to teach their children to count to seven.
     As I see it, a large part of both the scientific community and the Christian community have placed an absurd set of expectations on this particular piece of poetry — by which I mean expecting it to relate a scientifically measurable and provable set of facts, rather than the kind of truth and meaning that only poetry can communicate. It’s kind of like calling Frost’s “A Road Less Traveled” true or false depending on whether or not you can identify the exact geographic location of the forking path he refers to in the poem.
     But the reality is that a lot of people just aren’t that flexible in the way they think. For them, it has to be one or the other, and to suggest that it might be both at the same time will get you regarded as either a heretic or as someone who simply can’t embrace the hard facts of science without trying to spiritualize things.
     And I think one of the main reasons that people like Nikki reject faith is that we’ve allowed inflexible minds to dominate the conversation, while the rest of us just keep quiet in fear of getting bashed on the head for being whishy-washy.

     LikeLike

134. This may be what you get when you grab a handful of evangelical Protestants from the (Southern?) USA. But for the world in general, three randomly-chosen Christians will probably get you one Catholic, one unobservant Catholic, and God knows what for the third. (Orthodox? Anglican? Pentecostal? It’s a crap shoot.)

     LikeLike

135. Maybe Moses didn’t exist either.

     LikeLike

136. No way I am going to resolve all the issues you raise, but might I point out that part of the problem is self-made. That is, the expectation that Genesis 1-3 will speak the truth in exactly the same way that the gospels do. Genesis 1-2 are Hebrew poetry, so if by taking them at face value one means literally or anything close to that, and one hangs their hat on that, one will inevitably run into problems. The gospels, on the other hand, are sober narratives; Luke in particular reads like a history. Different genres merit different approaches. The way a poem conveys truth is very different from the way an historical narrative does so. Ironically, it’s our desire for scientific precision as children of the enlightenment that often makes us ask questions of some Scriptures that they were never intended to answer. So we think Genesis 1-2 is going to frame our scientific understanding when it was never designed to do that. When we try to make the text submit to something we want, things never turn out well; when we submit to the text, things have a way of working out with incredible grace.

     LikeLike

137. “Christian alt-hist”…? One shudders to imagine…

     LikeLike

138. Isn’t this from the Kalevala? I think they DID convert to Christianity!

     LikeLike

139. I don’t think she would have to accept YEC to be a Christian. However, if by “believing evolution” you mean she doesn’t accept that God spoke the universe into existence and that there was a iteral Adam and a literal Eve and that they were the first two human beings that God created and that they did not decend from moneys or single celled organisms then yes, I would say she needs to remain an atheist.

     What has any of this to do with the gospel? Not a shred. What it has to do with is your particular parameters around the creation-evolution debate. I don’t ascribe to most of your above formula and I’ve a Christian for decades and have every intention of continuing. Thank you for making Michael’s point.

     LikeLike

140. Pingback: The Monday Melange 10.05.09: Bangladesh Farmers and Young-Earth Creationism « Everyone’s Entitled to Joe’s Opinion

141. Nikki isn’t alone, not by any means. As a parent of two teenagers, I can’t begin to tell you how hard I work to distance myself from the belief and teaching of a significant number of the Christians around us for whom Christianity is not just belief in Jesus, but belief in Jesus and ____________ (insert favorite moralistic or anti-scientific belief here). Who are these people kidding? Teenagers see right through this kind of nonsense. And so do I. Count me as one really angry person when I see people drive potential believers away over stuff like this. Does anyone honestly think that’s what Jesus wanted?

     LikeLike

142. Original sin doesn’t require faith, simply looking around. We don’t need the Bible to tell us there is inherently an evil part to every human being. How it got there is a good question, but it pales beside the need to grapple with it every day of one’s life, and after. That is where Christ comes in.

     LikeLike

143. I think the real problem here is that what we commonly accept as christianity these days is nothing like the christianity that gave us the nickname at Antioch. The truth of the matter is when you grab a handful of christians you generally get one of three types…

     1. The basic christian that listens to christian radio, and has a christian bumper sticker but otherwise.. has no idea about anything, and really does’t care what you believe as long as church doesn’t cut into the Superbowl festivities.

     2. The radical christian that listens to christian radio, they are always into rallies, they are political activists and they make sure everyone knows what they believe… they want people to get saved… and they wear t-shirts with aborted babies on them so people will realize how horrible abortion is. They commonly great strangers with “If you died right now do you know where you would go?” and they will adamantly argue with anyone about evolution vs. creation, baptism vs. sprinkling, republican vs. democrat, marriage vs. gay marriage and a multitude of other things that they really do not understand, but-they-read-a-book-that-explained-it-all-so-they-are-gonna-convince-you-that-you-are-wrong-and-they-are-right.

     3. Gods gift to mankind, the theologically educated and completely bigoted, this christian knows his Jesus literature and can summon any passage at a moments notice, they know greek and they are not afraid to let you know that you are an infinitesimal speck compared to their incredible ability to “rightly divide the word” if you don’t agree with them then you obviously have “itching ears” and have no desire to seek the truth honestly, because if you did you would just instantly accept what they say as truth and become a thrall for them. They eat Mormons for breakfast and they blow their nose on Jehovah’s Witnesses. They can tell you exactly how many years old the world is by counting the generations from Adam to Jesus and they even figure in leap years! (and the day the sun stood still) They know where the dinosaurs went, and they know what a nephilim is.

     Our poor Niki is doomed if she meets any of these individuals, the reason… they absolutely cannot introduce her to the Jesus that meets people on their level and changes their lives. She will hear many other things but not the simple truth that Jesus gave up everything for her. That he loves her as she is now and can give her hope and peace. She will also not experience that love, the pure peaceful unconditional love handed out by a disciple of Jesus that would not break a bruised reed, or quench a smoldering flame. No she will be told that she must accept the truth, or she will burn in hell… she might even be told to go find another religion that will tell her what she wants to hear… because we like adding that extra venom to the barb so that there is no hope that she will ever come to Christ.. “Tag ’em and Bag ’em” this one is “Lost”

     LikeLike

144. “… a literal Adam and a literal Eve and that they were the first two human beings that God created and that they did not decend from moneys or single celled organisms then yes, I would say she needs to remain an atheist.”

     Why? I don’t believe any of that, and I’m a Christian. What do single-celled organisms or monkeys have to do with the Gospel?

     LikeLike

145. I am am not being facetious, but can I believe the Gospel &, being reductionistic, the Apostles Creed and believe that “God created it…”, but believe that a cosmic goose laid a celestial egg, which hatched forth the sun, which in turn gave birth to the world?

     Would we really expect someone to give up such a cosmology in coming to Christ?

     LikeLike

146. The problem I have is I can’t tell if joel has HIS tongue in his cheek. I’ve heard people talk exactly like this and be totally serious and other being totally satirical.

     LikeLike

147. I would preface this to say that I am a layman in both science and religion, and the “cracks” I spoke of were the inability of physics to explain relativity in terms of quantum mechanics and vice versa, and the necessity of an observer (i.e. mind) to establish the position or the direction of subatomic particles.

     Here is a webpage that deals with some of these issues on a very popular level:

     http://www.thebigview.com/spacetime/questions.html

     LikeLike

148. Pingback: The tragedy of “creation evangelism” « The GeoChristian

149. I need to chew on this a little more. Much of Genesis is genealogies which trace back to a literal Adam. Even the genealogy of Jesus through Mary is traced back to Adam. Much of the Jewish narratives were passed from generation to generation along with these genealogies. To claim that Adam was merely a character in a parable has a cascading effect through the entire bible narrative.

     LikeLike

150. “(4) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7wtfrSSFew”

     is a cute parody. But colon cleansing here is thought by many to be the real deal. And it’s sold as a “secret” that doctors don’t want you to know. 😦

     And don’t get me started about Christian talk radio selling Christian weight loss pills, Christian ADD medicine (NATURAL OF COURSE), etc…

     LikeLike

151. You’re exactly right, Joe. We who hold to “absolute, biblical truth” need to stop being defensive and take back the ground that almost all other Christians have given up. This all started hundreds of years ago when humanists decided that man was special all by himself and not because of where God placed him. Copernicus took pagan heliocentrism and undermined the authority of the Bible. But we know that “absolute, biblical truth” includes Joshua 10:12-13. “Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon. And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies.”

     God either meant what he wrote or He didn’t. Here, and elsewhere, the Bible clearly teaches that the universe rotates around the Earth once a day, regardless of what “scientific” textbooks teach. The choice is either believing the Bible or “believing in” modern-day astronomy. Which do you believe? The only person on this thread who has stood for “absolute, biblical truth” is Joe, and it appears that only he has the courage to stand up for what the Bible teaches about the fixed, unmoving Earth, and its location in the center of the universe.

     God’s Word teaches a non-moving and immovable Earth just as surely as it teaches a six-day creation 6000 years ago and a universal flood about 1600 years later. The exegetical case for a fixed Earth is even stronger than that for a young Earth. There are 67 passages in the Bible that clearly describe the Earth as fixed or motionless and the entire heavens as revolving around the earth. But a young, 6,000-year-old Earth is merely a calculation, based on the 6-day creation event and the Old Testament genealogies. There’s much stronger biblical evidence for the position of the Earth and its fixity than for its young age (which, I hasten to add, must also be true).

     Long before Darwin, the Copernican revolution set off a steady devaluation of man’s place in creation, of the arrangement of the cosmos taught in the Bible, and thus, the downgrade of Scripture in the minds of men. By altering God’s spatial relation to His universe, we have altered God’s special relation to us. If we can’t believe what the Bible says about the “rising of the Sun,” then how can we believe what it says about the “rising of the Son?” If we doubt the Bible’s claim about a fixed Earth, then what’s to stop us from doubting the Bible’s claim about the risen Lord?

     LikeLike

152. I think I can buy into this. The Genesis account is what God inspired Moses to record. It is God’s account of what happened, which could be a parable or allegoric, similar to God’s questioning of Job. Then, the burden becomes proving whether or not the Genesis in our Bibles is what Moses recorded, or if it is the recording of oral tradition during the diaspora, as the higher literal critics propose. There is no where to hide from those who say in their heart, “there is no God”. There was a time before the age of enlightenment when people actually believed that God talks to us. Perhaps this died with Kant. To me, it is important that God spoke to Moses and the prophets. It is still outside the realm of science, and if being scientific means not being able to believe in the unseen and untestable, then count me out. I think it is a farse, because the greatest minds in science dealt with subjects which were unseen, whether it was newton and gravity, Dalton and early atomic theory, Einstein and black holes, or even current studies in string theory, which remains untestable. I worry for the future of science, if the new atheists are truly going on a jihad-like campaign against any scientists who dare to believe in the supernatural and unseen. It will mean the end of meaningful scientific discovery.

     LikeLike

153. I hope and pray Niki finds Jesus regardless of where she lands on Genesis. It’s sad when we as Christians put up religious barriers to the gospel that Jesus never seemed to think important enough to make central in his teaching of who he was or what it means to enter into relationship with him. I believe the creation story is important to know, however you may interpret it. However, it is not near as important as our re-creation story in Christ.
     At the same time I know that there are many things Niki could look at in my life and so much of American Christianity that seems so contrary to the way of Jesus. If people like Niki decide in the end to remain atheists, I hope it is because they are rejecting Jesus and his great love for them. That they decide they don’t want to be apart of communities that are worshiping God, loving others and bearing witness to the glorious gospel of grace that is we have in Christ.

     LikeLike

154. Can one of the folks in the room who takes Genesis 1-2 literally please help me with something? How do I know which parts of the Bible are literal and which ones are not? For example, did Solomon really have a lover whose eyes were actual doves? Another question: is Jesus—on some other existential plane or maybe even in this one—actually a gate, or a vine, or a lamb?

     This might seem tongue-in-cheek, but it’s not meant to be. I’m quite serious here. By what authority, exactly, are you deciding which parts of the Bible are literal and which parts aren’t? Because you—all of you—will acknowledge that some parts of the Bible are not literal.

     I’m not questioning the validity of the Bible. I’m not wondering whether or not it’s God’s Word, delivered to His people in order that we might know Him and the salvation that comes through Christ Jesus. I’m not suggesting that it’s all either literal or it’s not. Please don’t respond by admonishing me about the importance of accepting every part of the Bible as true or I’m in trouble. I think it’s *all true.* But I—like you—acknowledge that some parts of the text are not literal. Sometimes—actually, let’s be honest, very often—God uses metaphors to convey meaning. Jesus did it, even. A lot.

     So how does it work? What is your method for knowing which is which? A whole lot of it is easy, but a lot of parts are hard. What’s the standard? The length of the story? The way it reads in the original language? The human author?

     To make it easy: specifically for Genesis, 1-2, what’s your argument for why I should read it literally?

     LikeLike

155. Can we have the Fall and original sin with evolution? Evolution is built on the view that death is part of the process. How can we have death prior to the Fall? Or is the Fall and Original Sin not important doctrines that we must believe? If we don’t have original sin, then why do we need Christ?

     LikeLike

156. Mike, I really appreciate your admonition to be a “Christian who believes while thinking,” but I disagree that a Christian must present a cogent argument for the specific nature of the creation of the universe in order to be classified as “one who thinks.”

     Of course, it’s more than reasonable to hold a view that differs from prevalent scientific thought. But if you really want to admonish me to be “one who thinks,” I’d hope you’d admonish me to do everything I can to understand why it’s the prevalent thought before I reject it.

     LikeLike

157. Now, what if God accelerated the evolutionary process so that what normally would take millions of years was actually accomplished in six literal days. That would mean that everything would be young while looking old.

     The trouble with that is that there is no reason for God to leave evidence that would purposefully mislead us. Water into wine required an acceleration of the natural.

     LikeLike

158. Monk,

     And I’m sue I’ll be corrected if I’m wrong, but isn’t the RC position on th first Adam/Eve that there they were the first “parents” but not the first humans, that perhaps they were pulled apart by God and given a soul or something like that. Again I may be way way off.

     but if that is the case, what about them livng amongst other humans who had no souls etc.

     Anywyay,

     I can accept an old earth, and I can accept dinasorus, extinct animals and all of it, but I’ve read pretty good arguments for God working in creatve “spurts” and one of those spurts being man.

     I just think that without a first adam and eve like Stuart says it brings some big theological issues up

     LikeLike

159. If “Niki” is at all clever, she will quickly discover that there are other types of Christianity, most of which are quite willing to take Genesis cum grano salis. She may also learn that most forms of Christianity do not, in fact, teach that non-believers (including, probably, her entire family) go to hell–even some of the Baptists admit to uncertainty. So let’s say she finds a comfortably liberal Christian denomination (Are there Quakers, Unitarians, or United Church of Christ people in Japan?) and dispels one myth after the other. Does that solve the problem?

     At the end of the day, Niki will have to figure out what it is that she *likes* about Christianity, that attracts her to it. The figure of Jesus, or some aspect thereof? The theology? Western religious culture? Her particular circle of Christian friends? Because if Christianity is just one more religion, then she might as well pick something else. Buddhism is likely to strike her as hidebound (although it’s all the rage over here), just as church does for us. Shinto she probably associates with weddings. And then there are all the “new religions,” some of them cults, which offer community without all of the Christian baggage, though they typically have some of their own. (The Raelians, for example, think evolution is just great.)

     LikeLike

160. That’s just ignorant, fundementalist talk. I mean, you need to realize that to deny science is to check your brains at the door. You need to just accept the fact that we’re all going to heaven: Buddists, Muslims, practicing homosexuals, Catholics. Not Mormons, though. We’ve checked and they really are space cadets. But there is no such thing as absolute, biblical ttruth. The Bible is just a book written by men, riddled with errors, and has been changed substantially over the centuries anyway.

     (Tongue planted firmly in cheek)

     LikeLike

161. Just for fun, let me throw out an idea.

     In the account of Jesus turning water into wine, we have basically a process that can take quite a long time (ferminatation, etc.). Yet Jesus seems to do it in a single evening. Could He have supernaturally accelerated the process?

     Now, what if God accelerated the evolutionary process so that what normally would take millions of years was actually accomplished in six literal days. That would mean that everything would be young while looking old.

     I know it’s nutty idea, but since we’re all trying to be right on issue … 😀

     LikeLike

162. HUG,

     I was unaware that the question had long been given the designation “Omphalos”, in all its now-apparent Greecian glory. Thanks for the link to the Source of All Knowledge enlightening my ignorance. (My own pet definition of “science” is somewhat broader than that suggested by Popper’s “falsifiability” criterion, but I do think the criterion is dead-on with respect to the Omphalos Hypothesis, as articulated by the classical criticisms of B. Russell et al.)

     I also hadn’t thought of other “applications” of the issue to, e.g., soteriology. It’s an interesting point, but I had better stop here before my magesteria start to overlap or something.

     LikeLike

163. “I do find ‘Credal Christian’ a useful term because of its affirmative character. It’s precise without being exclusive,”

     Exactly, FollowerOfHim. It’s a wonderful description, in my opinion.

     LikeLike

164. That should obviously read “literal Adam and literal Eve”.

     LikeLike

165. I don’t think she would have to accept YEC to be a Christian. However, if by “believing evolution” you mean she doesn’t accept that God spoke the universe into existence and that there was a iteral Adam and a literal Eve and that they were the first two human beings that God created and that they did not decend from moneys or single celled organisms then yes, I would say she needs to remain an atheist.

     And I’m ok with that.

     LikeLike

166. (1) It was a small band of Siberian hunter/gatherers many thousand of years ago.
     (3) All hail Emperor Norton (in San Francisco)

     LikeLike

167. (It also gets treated as a self-help book, a diet book…)

     Don’t forget a history book of the future, written in advance.

     LikeLike

168. The ultimate holy-grail quest of YEC, were it a science rather than an apologetic endeavor, should be to articulate a program pursuing how one distinguishes “created with an appearance of age” from “actually old”. Everything else orbits this central question.

     In other words, Prove Omphalos. Which is by definition Impossible, according to Gould. Because the Omphalos Hypothesis states as its first axiom that God created the cosmos ex nihilo with a perfect appearance of great age. The hypothesis is literally NOT falsifiable; any evidence of age is pre-emptively explained by “God Created It That Way”. The Dwarfs are for the Dwarfs, and Won’t Be Taken In.

     In practice, the “Ultimate Holy Grail Quest of YEC” is Finding Noah’s Ark — finding undeniable, airtight PROOF that Everything Happened Just As It Is Written that they can rub in the face of everyone else. “SEE? SEE? I’M RIGHT! YOU’RE ALL WRONG! HAW! HAW! HAW!”

     I, too, find it odd that from the YEC perspective, God is somehow “pulling one over on us” — indeed this is more problematic theologically than scientifically.

     If God “pulled one over on us” in this, how do we know that he DIDN’T pull another one over on us in, say, Salvation? I thought Islam was the faith that emphasized God’s Omnipotent Will while Christianity emphasized God’s Nature and that God Does Not Deceive; even if He could redefine reality and Will False to be True and True to be False, He would not.

     LikeLike

169. The only Gospel these days is (1) Young Earth Creationism Uber Alles, (2) Pin-the-Tail-on-The-Antichrist, and (3) Culture War Without End, Amen.

     Christ got thrown under the bus a long time ago. “DIE, HERETIC!”

     LikeLike

170. Dan,

     The ultimate holy-grail quest of YEC, were it a science rather than an apologetic endeavor, should be to articulate a program pursuing how one distinguishes “created with an appearance of age” from “actually old”. Everything else orbits this central question. Of course, since science can only proceed on the basis of observation, this is hopeless from the outset, as the half-hearted and episodic nature of the YEC response to the issue attests.

     I, too, find it odd that from the YEC perspective, God is somehow “pulling one over on us” — indeed this is more problematic theologically than scientifically. (To his credit, Ken Ham actually acknowledges as much in some of his discussions on, e.g., the age of distant starlight.) I’m not sure how much stock to put in Paul’s statement that creation alone tells us everything we need to know about God — this certainly has to be held in tension with the necessarily revelatory character of the Gospel, as I’m sure you’d fully agree. But I do take Paul to underscore the coherent character of Creation in that passage, and this point all Christians should take at least as seriously as non-Christian scientists do.

     Peace,

     LikeLike

171. Ross

     (1) It was St. Brendan of Ardfert sometime in the 6th century 🙂
     (2) Have *you* ever seen this “Australia” place?
     (3) The only emperor is the emperor of icecream
     (4) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7wtfrSSFew

     🙂

     LikeLike

172. JoanieD:

     I do find “Credal Christian” a useful term because of its affirmative character. It’s precise without being exclusive, and, for myself, it (attempts to) maintain some positive connection to various corners of Christendom where I’ve found myself nurtured and strengthened, even if I no longer inhabit some of them today. It also has a centering quality that is much needed to draw me in from various tangents on which I tend to fly off periodically (and aperiodically). Such as trying to explain to everyone why YEC is off-base in its particularities, for instance…..

     Others, perhaps, view creeds from a purely dogmatic and ultimately ossified perspective; such is neither my experience nor my intent in promoting the term. Feel free to use the term in your RC setting as well — it’s not been copyrighted, to my knowledge!

     LikeLike

173. I stopped taking people who claimed you could not accept evolution and be a Christian seriously when I heard a creation “scientist” explain on a Christian radio station how carbon dating and other scientific tools were flawed because the materials God used in creation could not be measured accurately. I had to measure this against Paul’s assertion that everything we needed to know about God we could discover in his creation. So God was deceiving us in order for him to reveal us. Wow – that’s quite a god. At that point, I stopped taking “creationists” seriously – and thanked God that the Christians who kept open minds about evolution were much more successful in defending the God of the Bible. Theologians like Augustine and Aquinas saw our intellects as gifts and as means of knowing God’s world and word. I pray for the young Japanese lady -may she meet Christians who see what we know through science as evidences of the Sovereign Creator.

     LikeLike

174. MWPeak…I understand the tough place you find yourself in. I have resolved this for myself by deciding that the Bible is the story of people coming to understand God in a slow, halting, less-than-perfect way. Jesus saw how astray so many people had gone, especially the religious leaders who were putting burdens on people that God never intended for them to have. Even if creation was created over a long period of time and even if Adam and Eve were not REAL people, Jesus was still needed. ALL human beings had gone astray and did not know how to listen to God and in many cases, did not even want to listen to God. So God did the ultimate act of love…he became man. He gave us a voice to hear, acts to see, a Person to touch and to touch us. AND…when Jesus died, he had lived a perfect life while both fully human and fully God. He offered up that life for the world which he loved so much and his grace is now available to anyone who understands that they are in need of that grace. He truly is the Savior of the world. You can be a thinking person and be a Christian and if anyone tells you that you are not REALLY a Christian, they are very wrong. Just focus on the love of God for his creation, and most especially the human beings, and everything else will get worked out. I wish you well.

     LikeLike

175. “Credal Christian” … I have considered describing myself that way as well, FollowerOfHIm.

     LikeLike

176. Tigger*,

     “The most wonderful thing about Tigger” is how you “centered” the discussion on the Creed. I tend to refer to myself as a “Credal Christian” these days for just such reasons.

     “Don’t forget that true evangelism is a team sport – one will plant a seed, another waters that seed, yet a third will do something else to cultivate the seed. And ultimately it is G-d who gives the increase.” Amen. So often we feel like we’re responsible for the whole of a person’s journey; it’s really rather presumptuous, when you think about it.

     LikeLike

177. Allow me to further state that in all my debates, the gospel never really came up. I now see I was expending a lot of energy in the wrong field. We need only know that sin ravages God’s goodness and the cross is the cure.

     LikeLike

178. Pingback: Scientists in the church « I Think I Believe

179. Wonderful post Michael. One of the better things TEC has done over the past several years what work on the “Catechism of Creation,” a document I am very thankful for even while being troubled by so much else. This also brings to mind the experience of Methodist Missionary E. Stanley Jones who, when he was in India, says that he discovered he could not expend his energy defending the literal reading of Genesis AND the truth of Christ’s life, death and resurrection. In fact, as he said, defending the former made people believe it was equally important to what he taught about Jesus (and that when they rejected the former, they also rejected Jesus). So, he says he stopped. He started to focus on the cross, which he helpfully calls “Christ’s professorial chair,” and his ministry began to bear fruit.

     It also brings to mind something I share with folks about evangelism. I always say that we have to be careful not to assume that people have rejected Jesus–they may have actually rejected us (Christians) and the way we have presented Jesus. That’s to our shame.

     LikeLike

180. Without getting into the specific argument, I just wanted to say how much I agree with Michael’s point that the simple Gospel + Anything = Non Gospel.

     I’ve heard (besides the young earth, anti-evolution issue) Gospel + Particular Denomination, Gospel + Particular Sacraments,Gospel + “natural medicine,” Gospel + Dispensationalism, Gospel + Shaklee, Gospel + Mannatech and Gospel + you name it. Such arrangements always suck.

     LikeLike

181. If we want to talk about christianity and in particular if we want to work with G-d to save the lost we need to do two things. 1) Cut to the kernal of the issue. 2) Show them what a christian looks like, smells like, and thinks like.

     The way that we do the first is to confine ourselves to the time tested and classic definitions of faith. I append one example of the several that are available.

     I believe in God the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth;
     And in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord: who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried; the third day he rose from the dead; he ascended into heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of God the Father Almighty; from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
     I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting. Amen.

     On the issue of small c catholic vs large C Catholic – it may be necessary to explain that the small c spelling indicates the universality of the christian faith rather than the time tested ‘brand.’

     The second task merely requires that we tell our story – how we were once as they are lost, destined for an eternity in hell. How we heard and began to understand the truth that Jesus came to be the propitiation for our sins, and not for our sins only but for the sins of the whole world. 1John 2:2

     Don’t forget that true evangelism is a team sport – one will plant a seed, another waters that seed, yet a third will do something else to cultivate the seed. And ultimately it is G-d who gives the increase.

     LikeLike

182. (1) It was Leif Erricson

     (3) We teach a benevolent dictator/monarchy is best but they never stay that way.

     (4) If you lived over hear and stayed up late watching TV you’d know that colon cleansing is the key to all health.

     🙂

     LikeLike

183. Would you expand slightly on this comment. It’s not obvious to me (and others?) what kinds of “cracks” you mean.

     LikeLike

184. Let me come to the defense of the YEC Christians, having been one myself.

     One of the main concerns is that the Christian faith is based on believing what scripture says (hearing comes by the word, etc.). For example, If I did not take the gospel accounts of Jesus as trustworthy and reliable, then what basis do I have for believing in Jesus, as opposed to simply adding Him to a long list of loving, smart martyrs? In the same way, to not take the account of Genisis at face value is to question whether the entire cannon of scripture can be taken at face value. If there was no literal original sin, as recorded in Genesis 3, then what the heck did Jesus die for other than as a mere political martyr? Can scripture be trusted in what they say? That is a major issue for the YEC movement. To say that science has a better answer than Genesis is to say that science has a better answer than all of scripture. I almost became an atheist over the issue.

     It is a matter (at least in my case) of whether Christians put their faith in a mythical Jesus or a literal Jesus and whether there is a literal sin that Jesus died for or if sin is just another “”word” for our concept of what we *think* is bad in our world.

     This is exacerbated by the fact that when I debated atheists on college campuses as YEC, I would pull the bible as the source of what I believe and the atheists would pull science. Guess who won? The atheists. So as a YEC I was trying to find some way to hold onto my faith as coming from scripture because if there were no scripture, there would be no gospel. Again, hearing comes by the word …

     It continues to be a very tough crisis of faith for me.

     LikeLike

185. Wow Michael. I want to email this to just about everyone I know. I want my non-Christian friends who think being Christian equals being scientifically illiterate to read this. I want my Christian friends who think being Christian requires being scientifically illiterate to read this. Please keep writing on this. Your voice is so important in reaching out to those who might otherwise not hear this kind of message. God bless you and your work.

     LikeLike

186. There are a number of Christians who don’t identify precisely with fundamentalism, yet continue to hold young earth as a fundamental doctrine. They base this on the necessity of being “biblical”–that is, of reading the bible as straightforwardly as possible and horse-laughing at anything which, to them, smacks of being otherwise. (The Wilsonites are a good example).

     Many of these folks have outstanding contributions in the field of biblical and cultural exegesis and idol-smashing, which are good and necessary. However, on this issue, their blindness is really a stumper. Of course, confronting them with this leads to the usual religious chest-beating.

     The irony of this position is that the biblical picture of the gospel-driven growth of Christ’s church doesn’t look anything like becoming “biblical”. Rather, the gospel is taken to people groups, most of whom don’t know or appreciate a scrap of the Hebrew story of creation.

     Imagine bringing the power of the Cross to some Germanic or Native American tribe who don’t know anything about Adam and Eve, who are soaked in their own creation stories. Imagine persuading them of the truth of the Cross, and having their families baptized, and them receiving the Holy Ghost. Then imagine telling them, unless they swallow young earth creation and the “biblical” exactitudes of Genesis, that they are inferior, unfruitful, unfaithful, apostasizers.

     That’s the quandary. Basically, Christ doesn’t call people to become “biblical” in the way these people demand. He calls them to trust his blood, and do the works that he did. Everything else follows.

     Essentially, these people are more interested in converting believers to their version of Christendom, than they are of evangelizing them.

     LikeLike

187. Excellent points, MWPeak.

     LikeLike

188. Astonishment

     LikeLike

189. I appreciate your position and yes, the devil takes comfort in acrimony. I’m intrigued by your use of the word “literally.” The YEC-ers seem to have no ability to read anything metaphorically (thus denying God His right to be a creative artist and poet), and they have no ability to understand the original intentions of the writers (to establish the Israelites — surrounded by tribes of polytheists and idolaters — as the people of one Creator God). Jesus of course never said, “You must understand the first chapter of Genesis — or the first eleven chapters — in the most literal, pedestrian kind of way.” What He said was, “Follow me.”

     LikeLike

190. That she would remain an atheist because she can’t deny evolution or accept YEC?

     If that’s acceptable to some Christians, then my point is made.

     LikeLike

191. Yet another reason why I continue to read I-monk. Good stuff here.

     LikeLike

192. If Niki goes to MIT, or works for NASA or cures cancer or AIDS, will she remember her journey among evangelical Christians as an encouragement to be a great scientist?

     Or perhaps Niki will go on being an atheist.

     For many Christians, that will continue to be an acceptable outcome.

     I’m sorry, why would that NOT be an acceptible outcome.

     LikeLike

193. When I was a very small child, my mother explained my birth by saying that a stork delivered me to her as a gift from God.

     When I was a bit older, I learned about “birds and the bees” and the actual mechanics of reproduction. (No storks involved.)

     When I was much older, I learned that my mother’s pregnancy was the result of a very unhealthy relationship, and that she went through a great deal of hardship when she was pregnant with me, but through it all she always considered me a gift.

     Why didn’t she tell me that story when I was three? Because I wasn’t ready for it, of course. She gave me a clean, happy parable to explain my existence. But the facts around it were not happy and not clean, but the story conveyed to me that I was a gift. When I was ready to hear all the facts, I was told. I embraced those facts because it helped me understand my mother’s life and my own that much better. I didn’t hide from them. I didn’t say “But a stork brought me to you!” and expend a great deal of thought to figure out an explanation where a stork *actually* brought me to my mother, and determine the scientific principles of the stork’s role in the procreation process.

     I consider the creation stories in Genesis the same way. We as humans were young with limited understanding, so we have this parable that explains our role in this world. But as we get older, we learn more of the facts, and the facts seem to indicate that there was a lot more randomness in our creation than we might be comfortable with, that this world is not the whole universe, that all the stars we can see in the sky make up just a tiny fraction of all of creation.

     Understanding that is hard, just as understanding my own complicated story of conception was hard. But with that understanding comes a great deal of joy in this actual creation around us. The newest pictures from Hubble, with a picture full of galaxies, show just how small, and fortunate, we are.

     LikeLike

194. I think there is an unstated assumption among evangelicals that to appear not to know something in front of a nonbeliever equals a failure to accurately represent the Gospel. If a nonbeliever can outargue you, how will that convince them to repent and be saved? We must be able to blow through all their intellectual arguments with our Holy Hand Grenades of Truth and force them to accept the logical truths of Christianity! It’s how evangelicals try to avoid being undermined by the “right for you, but not for me” philosophy—by presenting creationism as a series of unassailable proofs for the existence of God and moving on from there. The problem, of course, is that God didn’t tell us everything (Where would the fun in that be? Thousands of theologians and scientists would have to find other jobs!) and that uncertainty seems to be a major part of His plan for our lives down here. Plus, trying to force someone to believe in God’s existence is a far cry from talking about Jesus and the life He brings. I’d rather start there, and then if they ask about evolution, I’d go with Mike’s approach (below). It’s not my job to convince anyone, it’s His job, and that’s something we forget. A lot.

     LikeLike

195. “I am hoping this post will make one point: the Gospel combined with anything- a view of science, political opinions, convictions on gender, etc.- becomes a non-Gospel.”

     Very well said. 1 Corinthians 15:3ff tells us what is “of first importance,” and it isn’t YEC, the GOP, and complementarianism (and the same could be said for old earth creationism, the Democratic party, and egalitarianism). As you said, to add anything to faith in Christ and him crucified alone as necessary to salvation is to proclaim another gospel – and I say this as a former fundamentalist who at one time argued adamently for YEC. It isn’t the gospel.

     LikeLike

196. Check out the Catechism of the Catholic Church on the subject of science and a literal Adam

     LikeLike

197. I can almost accept evolution/Big Bang/whatever. But I have a hard time accepting that there was no “starting point” for the human race. Mankind is too unique. And there are too many problems that come up if there was no literal Adam/Eve…which of course we can never prove scientifically, but which I’m forced to accept that there was.

     LikeLike

198. No, I was thinking more along the lines of there actually being a created man and woman born without sin who eventually did sin, thus creating indwelling sin and passing it on to us til we need the next Adam, Jesus.

     Make sense?

     LikeLike

199. At one time I preached that if a Christian cannot take Genesis 1 literally, they cannot take Genesis 3 literally and if we do not trust the biblical account of creation, we cannot trust the account of the fall, which means there is no such thing as “sin” and we really do not need Jesus. This was an argument for a literal reading of Genesis.

     That was then.

     Now, I am more agnostic on the issue of origins. No one was actually there, so no one can actually know. We’re all just guessing, creationists and scientists, all of us Christian. Turning my focus back to Jesus, I came up with several main presumptions from which I attempt to wrestle with these issues.

     1. This world exists by design and not by pure random chance (God) and something has gone horribly wrong with this world (sin).

     2. The biblical theology of creation / fall / redemption through Christ makes the most sense while God may not have meant early Genesis accounts to be taken literally.

     4. Imperfect scriptures and imperfect science leads me to trust more in a perfect God and perfect Savior, Jesus Christ.

     The all or nothing debate between creation and evolution wears people out. Perhaps that is the devil’s idea?

     LikeLike

200. All nature sings . . . .
     All of God’s Creation speaks to us of the Creator.
     Through science, we can study His Creation, and it will lead us to a deeper faith in the wonders of our God.
     If we cannot accept that God is also the God of the natural world, how can we accept Him as the God of the Universe? We need to respect the natural laws He has put into place, not ridicule them by denying reality.
     To disrespect the study of our world is to disrespect its Creator.
     “Faith” has nothing to do with denying scientific truths. Faith is the hope of things ‘unseen’. God is the Creator of all that is seen and ‘unseen’.
     May He be honored as such, with integrity from people who refuse to deny the lessons that His Universe unfolds before us.

     Science reveals “how” God made His Creation.
     But the Holy Scriptures reveal ‘why’ He made Creation and placed His Creatures in it.
     If the Bible were a ‘science book’, it would contain so many details that it would fill the whole Universe.
     Think about how science reveals the thousands of sequential steps that take place during ‘photosynthesis’: the process whereby the Sun’s energy is converted into food.
     Think about how the Jewish people simply pray this: ‘Blessed be God who brings forth bread from the Earth.” Each expresses the truth: the scientific explanation, and the ancient prayer.
     No conflict. No ‘either’ ‘or’. No fundamentalism denying God’s mighty hand in photosynthesis.

     Fundamentalism denies God’s power in Creation. It does this by denying the natural law He set in motion.

     LikeLike

201. Are you going to answer if a literal Adam, Eve and a talking serpent can be verified according to scientific standards of truth? Because if you want overlapping magisteria, you can’t pick and choose.

     LikeLike

202. Ok, so…you don’t have to believe in Young Earth Creationism to be a Christian…

     But do you need to believe in a literal Adam and Eve?

     Ignore the rest. Does there need to be a literal Adam and Eve?

     LikeLike

203. Okay, K.W., that right there is what makes me go “The American educational system is screwed up.”

     There is no one perfect system of education, but for crying out loud – let the science curriculum teach science and let the religious education classes teach religion. If they’re going to demand that the science curriculum cover all the reasons it’s wrong, then I insist that they equally teach:

     (1) In history, Columbus was not the discoverer of America
     (2) In geography, why the earth is flat
     (3) In civics class, why a monarchy is the perfect system of government
     (4) In health education, why letting blood and mercury are the cure-alls and forget this rubbish about antibiotics

     I could go on…

     LikeLike

204. Yes, that’s the irony. The eternally existing, uncreated, contracting and expanding universe of the Steady State theory was the one without a creator; to quote Wikipedia on this:

     “In medieval philosophy, there was much debate over whether the universe had a finite or infinite past (see Temporal finitism). The philosophy of Aristotle held that the universe had an infinite past, which caused problems for medieval Jewish, Christian and Islamic philosophers who were unable to reconcile the Aristotelian conception of the eternal with the Abrahamic view of creation. As a result, a variety of logical arguments for the universe having a finite past were developed by John Philoponus, Al-Kindi, Saadia Gaon, Al-Ghazali and Immanuel Kant, among others.”

     The notion of any group of Christians arguing that the Big Bang theory is godless materialistic atheism makes me want to cry. Or go “Hulk smash!”, depending. It really does make me go “What do they teach them in the schools nowadays?”

     LikeLike

205. I had a similer experience growing up. I became an atheist for many reasons but the thing that first started to crack was the fact that what I was taught about evolution in church was anti-intellectual, and in many cases outright falsehoods.

     I think what really makes me fired up about the topic is the anti-intellectuaism that is so evident in the sermons, and materials preached by the AIG crowd. It is an outright attempt to close off curiosity about certain topics. Rather than say “Were are not sure go find out what you think” YEC’ers say, “We know it all, no need to look behind the curtain, give us money”
     I was warned against pursuing areas of stuy because they were too dangerous. I was told not to go to the leading university in my area because I would learn too much and be lead away. I guess they were right but not for th reasons my old church believes.

     LikeLike

206. Perhaps someone who has successfully made it through Chesterton’s “Everlasting Man” could respond better; I’m still working my way through it. Chesterton does differentiate between different types of evolutionists and gives the rationalist evolutionist the hardest time. If, as he proposess, that no one should make wild assumptions about prehistoric events, which by definition occurred be for recorded history, then I think there could be more latitude for both the evolutionist and the creationist to live in peace. But that is not the case. The evolutionists claims to hold the rosetta stone in the fossil records and carbon dating, and therefore science somehow can tell us about history when history is silent. But this results in “scientific” evidence being interpreted wildly because it lacks a historical context. Chesterton gives the example that evolutionists believed the prehistoric man wore no clothes, because no evidence of clothes is found in the fossil records, to which Chester makes a witty comment about prehistoric man wearing stone hats. He also points out in several places where evolutionists want it both ways, expecting to be allowed to make wild claims that would be appalling if anyone else did the same.

     The modern creationists answer is that two can play at that game, and they, too, begin to make wild assertions about the fossil record or prehistoric high-tech gismos some have claimed to have discovered.

     I would propose two answers:

     1. The creationist admits that Genesis cannot be proven scientifically or historically, because it, too, is set in pre-history. But then explain why we believe in the God of Genesis.

     2. The church should challenge everyone on how to think and reason through any issue, be it evolution or abortion. If someone believes that evolution is true because an archeologist assembled a full skeleton from one tooth, a good, compassionate Christian should ask them why.

     I just think Christians have already lost the battle, not because an evolutionist doesn’t think he or she can become a Christian, but that it is assumed that if your a scientific-minded person that you must be an evolutionist. A perfect example is new atheists protesting President Obama’s nomination of Francis Collins as head of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), because no one who believes in God should be allowed to hold a scientific post like that. Again, they want it both ways.

     LikeLike

207. Believers have always been one of the biggest stumbling blocks for non-believers. In this case, it’s the tendency for some believers to treat the Bible as a science textbook. (It also gets treated as a self-help book, a diet book…)

     I think another stumbling block for non-believers is the stubborn (and possibly dishonest) refusal of many Christians to admit the obvious: the Bible is really, really hard to understand. It doesn’t “explain itself” and it requires a great deal of knowledge that can only be gained outside of its own covers.

     LikeLike

208. Young Earth Creationism is one of probably half-a-dozen ultra-fundamentalist doctrines that are crippling our ability to share the Gospel. I have no idea how to combat the loud and increasingly powerful drumbeat of the ultra-fundamentalists, a drumbeat incessantly emanating from “Christian” radio, TV, bookstores, and thousands of pulpits and websites. YEC, along with Lindsey/LaHaye eschatology, prosperity, alcohol absolutism, and King James Onlyism are literally drowning out the quieter voice of the Gospel, the real voice of Christ. The ultra-fundamentalist simply refuses to learn anything or submit to any teaching authority (unless it reinforces ultra-fundamentlism). Like Dan Smith (above), this “tears me up inside.” Thanks, Michael, for your gentle but insistent/persistent voice of sanity and for offering the great forum.

     LikeLike

209. Good point, the Big Bang was scoffed at first for bringing God into the picture when most believed in Steady State.

     LikeLike

210. I want to thank you for sharing this. Japan holds a very special place in my heart because I lived there for a few years as a sailor. Even now, years removed from walking her streets every day, I still long for her people. To know that Christians, in our comfy, cozy, no persecution, Western world fed her a bunch of stuff that wasn’t the gospel is unfortunate (that’s the nice words I’ll use). This tears me up inside!

     LikeLike

211. 1 Cor 8 I mean, of course.

     LikeLike

212. I once almost lost my faith over this issue – I had been a Christian for years, when fellow Christians and the literature I was given began arguing that if one was a thinking Christian, one had to disbelieve evolution because the two just did not go together.
     Rejecting all of human science’s findings about earth history was something I just could not fathom; and I thought if that was the only way to justify my faith, I would have to lose my faith.

     I came back from that brink eventually, but it was a hard battle, because my friends were so earnest and honestly concerned about this.

     I tried to explain to my friends how I felt using what Paul writes in 1 Cor 18 – paraphrasing here – how people who are stronger in the faith should humor those who are weaker in some things to not make them stumble. I do not think they understood but eventually they saw my distress and thankfully stopped sending me links to creationist websites.

     LikeLike

213. This has troubled me for a while, particularly now that I teach math and science at a Christian high school. I have repeatedly run into students and other teachers who grow angry with me when I talk about things that suggest an old universe or the big bang, even if I preface it with “You may not believe this, and that’s fine, but you need to know that the scientific world in general does.” They don’t want to know what the scientific world thinks, but in doing so, they alienate themselves and cut off any chance of communication or relationship with those who think differently than they do. As you’ve already implied, way to open the doors to evangelism…

     Sometimes I overhear other teachers, including science teachers, who flat out preach in their classes that science must be wrong but we know the real truth. Why teach science if it’s wrong? What part of science is right and what part isn’t, and how do you know? If the Bible contradicts it, then it’s wrong, but if it doesn’t it’s right, but if similar processes led one to make conclusions about both, then aren’t the processes wrong, bringing into question everything, not just what the Bible contradicts?

     I love talking about the Large Hadron Collider. I think it’s fascinating. But when I explain what it is and what scientists hope to learn from it, I get students who are both awed and some who are furious. Why the anger? At that age, I think some of it is just sub-culturally absorbed, but for others… Anger is often a mask for fear; they can easily be triggered by the same stimulus, and both are a basic psychological means of dealing with a problem or unwanted element that are often conjoined for this reason. But if this anger that arises is really a mask for fear, then why the fear? This suggests to me that people’s faith is fragile. They have to protect it from the evils that might shatter it, and then what would they have? Wouldn’t it be wiser to find ways to strengthen that faith as opposed to just sticking it in a plastic bubble?

     You make a really good point, Michael. Wish the church weren’t so scared as to deal with it intelligently.

     LikeLike

214. I don’t know if this is any help, but on another blog I frequent (because of SF fandom), there is a discussion which is covering, amongst other things, why Europe developed science and the Islamic nations, after being advanced, failed to do so, and I would like to quote a comment which I think is pertinent; the argument is made that the triumph of a certain school in Islamic theology, by defending what I imagine in Christian terms would be the absolute sovereignity of God, closed down all discussion and speculation in the natural sciences:

     m_francis
     2009-10-03 08:59 pm UTC

     “The imponderable decisions of God cannot be weighed by the scales of reason.”
     — al-Ghazali, Tahafut al Falasifa [The Incoherence of Philosophy]

     He wrote also that fire does not burn cloth:

     “The agent of the burning is God, through His creating the black in the cotton and the disconnection of its parts, and it is God who made the cotton burn and made it ashes either through the intermediation of angels or without intermediation. For fire is a dead body which has no action, and what is the proof that it is the agent? Indeed, the philosophers have no other proof than the observation of the occurrence of the burning, when there is contact with fire, but observation proves only a simultaneity, not a causation, and, in reality, there is no other cause but God.”

     (The weird thing is that this is also David Hume’s position on causation.)

     The golden age of Islamic natural philosophy was confined to a relative few individuals (many of whom were Greek or Syriac Christians or ex-Christians). All of them were persecuted at one time or another when they lost the protection of powerful Caliphs or emirs. (Al-Kindi, for example, was publicly flogged.) Natural philosophy was never forbidden, but was regarded with suspicion. The books could often be found in madrassa libraries; but they were never taught formally in the schools. (Nor were madrassas very much like a European University.) Even so, they came closer to inventing science than anyone beside the Christians. Far closer than the Chinese, for example.

     But the idea of secondary causation — that God had endowed material bodies with natures capable of acting directly upon one another. Also known as “instrumental” causes. (What causes the music, the piano or the pianist? Or the composer?) See, for example, Aquinas’ Summa theologica, Part I, Q. 115, art. 2; or more pithily, Adelard of Bath:

     “[T]he natural order does not exist confusedly and without rational arrangement, and human reason should be listened to concerning those things it treats of. But when it completely fails, then the matter should be referred to God. Therefore, since we have not yet completely lost the use of our minds, let us return to reason.”
     — Adelard of Bath, Quaestiones naturales

     Or St. Albertus Magnus:

     “In studying nature we have not to inquire how God the Creator may, as He freely wills, use His creatures to work miracles and thereby show forth His power; we have rather to inquire what Nature with its immanent causes can naturally bring to pass.” — Albertus Magnus, De vegetabilibus et plantis”

     LikeLike

215. Back when I taught at a Christian junior high school, our science curriculum spent two full months explaining why evolution and an old earth was invalid. I felt it excessive, but our Science teacher at the time felt it absolutely necessary, otherwise the kids’ faith in Jesus might be shaken. She taught the kids all the apologetic arguments against evolution.

     I taught Bible that year, so when the kids got to my class, they wanted to know why I wasn’t teaching them all these useful apologetics.

     “Okay,” I said. I picked one of the more strident students. “You be the Christian and I’ll be the atheist. So… I believe in evolution; why should i believe otherwise?”

     I’m no fun to debate; I grew up with an atheist father and know all the counter-arguments. I dropped a few of them on her and let her twist in the wind a bit, but that wasn’t my point; I only did that to make a different point, which I finally did after twenty minutes:

     “All right,” I said, “Let’s say we’ve been doing this for two hours. I concede. Your arguments have been brilliant and convincing; I am now agreed that evolution doesn’t have all the answers.” I looked at my watch. “Wow! Look at the time. Gee, I gotta be somewhere. Good talking with you.”

     And I left her in the front of the classroom and sat at my desk. She stood there uncomfortably.

     “You have to remember that in real life, people don’t have an infinite amount of time to discuss things,” I pointed out. “We only had twenty minutes. In all that time, did we talk about Jesus?” “No,” she admitted.

     “Shouldn’t we have?” I said. “Like how?” she asked. “Like so,” I said; “now I’ll be the Christian and you be the evolutionist. You start.”

     I went back to the front of the room and she said, “I believe in evolution.”

     “Me too,” I said. “Let’s talk about Jesus.”

     The next year I taught Science as well, and skipped all the anti-evolution stuff. The kids had all been indoctrinated the previous year anyway, and I had actual science to teach.

     One or two asked me about young-earth creationism, and my response was, “That’s Bible, not science. Talk to me in Bible.” And in Bible, I explained that the bible says the earth was created “in the beginning,” which could be six thousand or four billion years ago; it doesn’t say, the purpose of its genealogies are not to fix the date of creation, and it’s wrong to take the bible out of context. “I’m not saying we should believe in evolution,” I told them. “I’m saying don’t waste your time on a non-biblical idea, and lose sight of what we should really be talking about: Jesus.”

     LikeLike

216. “Niki heard, as a matter of routine, that the phrase “big bang” means “there is no God and the universe is an accident.”

     The originator in modern times of the “Big Bang” theory was Monsignor Georges Lemaître, a Belgian Catholic priest. The actual name “Big Bang” came about from Sir Fred Hoyle, who was a proponent of the ‘Steady State’ theory and sarcastically referred to “this ‘big bang’ idea” in his BBC radio lectures (but over time, he reluctanly came around to it).

     I suppose it depends whether you think Catholics (Belgian or otherwise) are actually Christians at all, but oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.

     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre

     LikeLike

217. Interestingly enough, when I was in the physics program at my college, I lost my faith in science. I was also a Christian at the time, so this wasn’t quite the crisis that it sounds like. Even though I had been taught correctly by my teachers all my life, I had been under the assumption that science could discover some kind of irrefutable truth about the universe. I have been a Christian for most of my life, so I only thought it would be a truth about the physical realm, but a truth nonetheless. As it turns out, science is like strong rationalism, which can’t adequately explain itself as Tim Keller points out in A Reason for God. Just because something has happened thousands, millions, or even billions of times before is not a reason in and of itself to believe that it will happen again.

     However, if we don’t live our lives as if we do expect the world to work the same way as it always has, then we’re not ever going to get anything done. I consider it an increasingly common-place miracle that all of the electrons vibrate in just the right way for me to post this comment. I guess my point is that science has its place. We do everyone a disservice if we don’t keep it there.

     LikeLike

218. thanks for your courage in posting this. i plan to link to it on my “weekly discussion” post this week. the church needs to talk, now.

     LikeLike

219. While I agree that placing a requirement on a shared view of a clearly non-essential aspect of our faith is quite silly, answering with “I believe God created the world, but I don’t know how” is probably too far on the other end of the spectrum of replies.
     My brother is a very intelligent, outspoken atheist and if that was my comment in a discussion about the origins of the universe, he would place me in the large category of “Christians who believe without thinking”. And he would be correct. I think any intelligent person holding an opposing view has a much greater respect for a well articulated theory than a simple “I don’t know how He did it, and I don’t really care, because it’s not essential”.
     I think it’s within the realm of reason to hold a view that might differ with prevalent scientific thought, as history holds many cases of misguided theory in the scientific community.
     Present your belief honestly and openly, and even though the atheist might differ, he will respect that you have at least thought through your position.
     Follow it up with explaining that while it is fascinating to ponder the genesis of the universe, how are we to take this Jesus fellow??

     LikeLike

220. None of the answers currently being offered to this impasse are intellectually compelling. The cracks in the positivist/materialist view of physics have been apparent for some time, but they haven’t yet appeared in biology. Biology is now where physics was before the discovery of relativity and quanta, and is very triumphalistic.

     LikeLike

221. To me this is just one more example of how Fundamentalism hinders the Gospel. I grew up in this kind of enviroment and pretty much assumed the same thing that was told Niki. Fortunately I learned differently from other Christians. While there are essential truths of Christianity, reading Genesis 1-12 as a literal account of how God created isn’t one of them. That’s why I point people to the creeds of the church to show what essential faith is. We should be careful of which “facts” we become dogmatic over or we fail to become salt and light and risk becoming a poision instead.

     LikeLike

222. This story makes me sad. To hear that the stumbling blocks we as Christians put out are opinion (as Anna says above — the how of creation is not specified) rather than the “chief cornerstone” (1 Pet 2) is wrong.

     Why do we have to have an answer for every aspect of the Bible? Why can we not just say, “I believe God created the world but I don’t know how?”. Why is lack of knowledge considered a weakness than a strength? Why, if we don’t have the answer, do we seem to make up answers?

     LikeLike

223. even if I was as firmly in the young earth camp as I used to be, I would have never told anyone that it was necessary for salvation, for becoming a Christian… Sigh… this is why the whole idea of what is essential – what is necessary to believe/understand for salvation, vs the nonessentials of theology facinates me so much – because we so much of the time “require” beliefs that are very clearly not essentials… It just annoys me – its almost as bad as the fact that the church expects non-Christians to act like Christians… grrr…

     LikeLike

224. That sound that you just heard was a cry of pain, from the Cleveland area. From one who is both Christian and a scientist. One who believes in “God Created” but doesn’t specify how.

     I just hope that she learns more about the hidden Christians of Japan, and that may encourage her to consider Christianity again.

     LikeLike