Thread: Purgatory: Church attitudes to creationism Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=001126
Posted by Ian S (# 3098) on
:
There is a fairly widespread view that being an evangelical Christian implies belief that the earth was created in 7 literal days, 6000 years ago (sometimes referred to as "Young earth creationism"). I think this is nonsense, as in 13 years of attending evangelical churches in the UK I've only met 2 or 3 people who believe this.
I don't wish to debate creation v evolution generally - those discussions belong in Dead Horses. But I would be grateful for comments on:
1. Whether any denominations or prominent church leaders have publicly endorsed young earth creationism?
2. As I understand it, the main proponents of this view are parachurch groups like Answers in Genesis. Are these organisations associated/supported by any particular churches?
[ 19. June 2003, 18:00: Message edited by: Erin ]
Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on
:
Not sure about church support, but plenty of conservative evangelicals/fundamentalists online I have come across appear to support it.
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/Pharmacology/jurassic.html is a worthwhile link on the topic, particularly linked to the school in Gateshead which tries to pass it off as science.
Posted by jugular (# 4174) on
:
There are lots of baptist churches around here for whom creationism is the standard belief - that is, it is endorsed by the pastor and dissent is stamped on firmly. As little as ten years ago, in a mainstream average baptist church, I heard preaching condemning evolutionism regularly. The (small) Church of the Nazarene in this country had an AIG representative at its National Youth Convention a couple of years back.
The Anglican Evangelicals do not have creationism as an explicit policy, but there are a vocal minority who support it.
Many of the groups that are involved in campus ministry (i.e Youth for Christ, Student Christian Movement et al.) have a strong creationist movement.
BUT, the real hub of creationism is in the Queensland bible belt, where membership of AIG is very strong.
Posted by Captain Caveman (# 3980) on
:
A lot of people in my church (including the AFAIK the pastor and elders) are creationists. It's a small ex-brethren (ie.conservative evangelical) church influenced by 60s/70s charismaticism. (In many ways not my natural home but it's a small town and there are many great things about the church to offset the things I'm not too keen on.)
A couple of times I have come across a guy called Kenneth Ham (or similar) who's an American vocal proponent of creationism. I don't know if he represents a church or para-church organisation.
RT Kendall, until recently minister of Westminster Chapel, is, I believe, a creationist. I seem to recall hearing a tape from there a few years ago when the speaker was IIRC Greg Haslam (the current minister there) defending 6-day creationism.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
Creationism is integral to a view of Scripture that moves from the mainstream evangelical position of the Bible being the "inspired Word of God and supreme authority in matters of faith and conduct" through infallibility to inerrancy (in regard to spiritual matters) to inerrancy in all details. If you believe that to take the Bible as the inspired Word of God it has to be inerrant in all ways then there is virtually no option in regard to the opening chapters of Genesis to accept other than YEC. Such a position is held by an extreme wing of Evangelicalism, a wing that happens to be very vocal.
In larger denominations (such as Anglicans, Methodists etc) there tends to be a broad range of evangelicalism represented, and a greater realisation that one can hold to the authority of Scripture without going down the inerrancy path. In addition, such churches tend to balance Scripture with Reason, Experience and Tradition (to a greater or lesser extent) - and both Reason and Tradition would counter Creationism. Most Creationists (in the UK at least) are found in independent evangelical fellowships, or relatively small associations (to avoid the word "denomination") of evangelical churches, or churches in denominations (such as Baptists) which are very congregational in their ecclesiology.
I'm not sure if anyone other than evangelicals would hold a Creationist position. Though it's possible that groups like the JWs might.
Posted by Karl - Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
Ken Ham is AiG's leading light. I thought he was an Australian.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
YEC is a thing I've almost only met in books or websites, almost all by US "fundamentalists", though there have one or two RCs & Orthodox.
The evangelical Christians I've known in the UK almost entirely reject it - those that think about it at all. The very few I've met who who have a YEC position tend to have a rather simple and not very well-thought-out view of it.
I certainly have never actually met any young-earther with any serious knowledge of biology or natural history, nor a natural historian who believed in YEC. The "Creation Science" nonsense is, or seems to be from over here, an overwhelmingly US phenomenon.
It is really a non-issue in Britain.
Posted by Paul W (# 1450) on
:
I know a fair few people that believe in it, including most of my church, which is independant Evangelical. That's probably where you'd find most creationists in the UK, rather than in the mainstream denominations.
Paul W
Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ian S:
...
1. Whether any denominations or prominent church leaders have publicly endorsed young earth creationism?
...
Seventh Day Adventists not only endorse it, they have an institute devoted to it.
I suspect in the U.S. YEC is way more widespread in congregations than in the U.K. I could be wrong.
Posted by J. J. Ramsey (# 1174) on
:
I have never heard creationism discussed in my church per se (though I'm rather new to it and haven't had much opportunity for chit-chat), but I have seen in its lobby Answers in Genesis pamphets in and amongst various other pamphets and brochures.
Posted by stigofthedump (# 4495) on
:
This post may reveal some of my church background, but what's the alternative to God making the earth in 7 days? Isn't that what the bible says? ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Go gentle with the reply's, I'm new to the ship ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posted by Tom Day (# 3630) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by stigofthedump:
This post may reveal some of my church background, but what's the alternative to God making the earth in 7 days? Isn't that what the bible says?
Go gentle with the reply's, I'm new to the ship
Evolution Have a look on this thread for some views on it all.
Tom (being as gentle as possible ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
)
Posted by chukovsky (# 116) on
:
I've mostly met Americans or Germans (Assemblies of God missionaries including some from the former East Germany, quite a combination) who are proselytising young earth creationists.
However in my pursuit of truth I have met a shocking number of British, relatively intellectual Christians who are not particularly inerrantist on other matters but who just say "oh well, I haven't really thought about it, I suppose the earth was created and I don't see how evolution can be compatible with belief in God".
These from people who would always try and work out proper translations of the Bible, including learning the original languages, and would want to know all about NT culture and the literary style of the OT, and rely on modern medicine (which itself relies on a biology that has its roots in evolutionary theory).
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by chukovsky:
However in my pursuit of truth I have met a shocking number of British, relatively intellectual Christians who are not particularly inerrantist on other matters but who just say "oh well, I haven't really thought about it, I suppose the earth was created and I don't see how evolution can be compatible with belief in God".
That's the sort of attitude I was thinking of.
How many of them, if any, have any serious biological education? Or perhaps I should say Natural History, as it is nowadays p[ossible to get a degree in Molecular Biology or whatever without actually studying any real biology.
What I have never met - though I have read one or two Americans - is someone who claims any background in natural history (AKA real biology ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
) and holds an informed YEC position.
That went out of serious consideration well before Darwin.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Seventh Day Adventists not only endorse it, they have an institute devoted to it.
That isn't very surprising given that the modern version of YEC (as opposed to the more classical view exemplified by the likes of Usher that was the result of serious study using the best intellectual tools of the time, but was abandoned as science began to realise how old the earth is) originates with Seventh Day Adventists. Principally George McCready Price in a series of books published between 1902 and 1923. The SDA interest was (and presumably is) strongly determined by a desire to re-emphasise Saturday as the true Sabbath and day of rest using a literal 6 day Creation and 1 day of rest.
Posted by Bonzo (# 2481) on
:
Sadly there's a lot of YECism about. I've heard Gerald Coates spouting about it, and recently read an article in a young peoples Christian magazine calle 'The Walk' which referenced Ken Ham and nobody else. The article said that scientists (implying Ken Ham who has a BSc)believe in YECism and made no reference to the entire scientific community of biologists, geologists, palentologists and astro-physicists who reject it.
When we deliberately feed lies like this to our children what will God make of us?
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
Worse than sad.
I had a quick look at that Ken Ham AIG site. The man is clearly lying. I don't know why they do it but they bring the Lord into disrepute with their dishonesty.
Posted by Louise (# 30) on
:
It's becoming more common in British churches.
Sir Peter Vardy, car dealing magnate and leader of worship at the Bethany Christian Centre, is one very high profile person who has endorsed YEC.
He is spreading it not through his church but through Tony Blair's faith school/city academy programmes, which he uses as platforms for his Creationist views ( no doubt he also wants to do good in deprived areas, but somehow he can't seem to do that without having teachers endorse his anti-scientific views to pupils).
See here for example
The newest one (of six planned) is due to open in Middlesbrough in September 2003 and it will be subsidising Vardy's agenda with UK tax payers money, whether we like it or not. The government will pay over £19 million to this "independent" school, whereas Vardy will contribute only £2 million and get control of the board of governors as a result.
Local parents are already furious about this.
A Brief History of the South Middlesbrough City Academy Project
This sort of stuff is bound to have an effect on local churches sooner or later.
/Rant mode
Hey! Why don't we let the Raelians start buying schools so they can teach their unique take on creation to the hapless pupils? Darwin is wrong, it was all done by aliens with flying saucers - After all, since our education system's for sale they should have equal time too, if they can pay for it!
/Rant off
L.
Posted by Toby (# 3522) on
:
My anglican church once asked a chap from Answers in Genesis to come along and give his little spiel. He used references from obscure children's textbooks about evolution from the 1960s to show how little is known about evolution, and quoted Ken Ham (who is Australian, and whose BSc is in applied science of some form or another) extensively. The most prominent Christian student organisation at the university (Auckland University) I attend yearly asks this redneck Australian geologist YEC fellow to come along and say bizarrely ignorant things about apes. Maybe it is just the Christian company I have kept, but it seems a very popular view here (I held it for many years, as it was what was taught at my primary/intermediate school - now I'm studying biology, so when people ask me if I 'believe' in evolution, I simply say "I study biology").
Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by chukovsky:
However in my pursuit of truth I have met a shocking number of British, relatively intellectual Christians who are not particularly inerrantist on other matters but who just say "oh well, I haven't really thought about it, I suppose the earth was created and I don't see how evolution can be compatible with belief in God".
These from people who would always try and work out proper translations of the Bible, including learning the original languages, and would want to know all about NT culture and the literary style of the OT, and rely on modern medicine (which itself relies on a biology that has its roots in evolutionary theory).
While not agreeing with their opinions one way or the other, I actually understand "blind faith" that they may be using to hold those opinions. Even the most astute have their own blind spots that they have not found the time to research for faith comparative purposes.
I certainly think that everyone (including myself) that holds forth on the Ship has tried to "work out" every opinion they might have here.
NOT.
Alan,
Very interesting that SDAs/McCready was the originator of YEC. Are you sure about that?
I have seen some very old geology books with creationism included but I don't know or remember if they predate SDAs.
Just curious.
Posted by Ham'n'Eggs (# 629) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by chukovsky:
I've mostly met Americans or Germans (Assemblies of God missionaries including some from the former East Germany, quite a combination) who are proselytising young earth creationists.
Ah! They would be from EGLATYEC (Extending God's Loving Arms To Young Earth Creationists), the mission wing of the liberal or "Bakey Flakey"* AoG grouping.
(* "Bakey Flakeys" are well known for their rousing altar call of "Get your brain washed in the Blood, Sister!")
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Alan,
Very interesting that SDAs/McCready was the originator of YEC. Are you sure about that?
I have seen some very old geology books with creationism included but I don't know or remember if they predate SDAs.
Of course the first recent book to really popularise YEC is probably The Genesis Flood by Morris and Whitcomb (publ. 1961) - and as Morris acknowledges, it is almost a copy of Price's New Geology (publ. 1923). To a considerable extent all recent Creationism is indebted to Morris, who is still a major figure in "Creation Research".
Morris himself says of the early decades of the 20th century quote:
Almost the only writers to advocate literal recent creationism during this period, however, were to be found amongst the Lutherans and Seventh Day Adventists - no doubt partly because their respective founders, Martin Luther and Ellen G. White, had taught six-day creationism and a worlwide flood
(A History of Modern Creationism 1984.)
I would consider Luther to be among the last of the classical branch of creationism - his main concern being that the "plain reading of Scripture" didn't need church scholars to interpret it. I wonder whether, in the light of geological understandings still to be made in his time, he would still consider creationism to be the simplest way of reading Genesis - certainly the rather convoluted systems of interpretation developed by creationist would indicate that what they have is anything but plain! Interestingly all the Lutherans Morris refers to are not only non-scientists, but actually taught by Price. Nevertheless, I'll accept that there may have been a continuing minority strand of Lutheran creationism that may have produced some of the older geology books you mentioned.
Posted by golden key (# 1468) on
:
I grew up in a creationist church. One group of scientists they liked was the Institute for Creation Research .
This page of the ICR site has info on their scientists, and links to a list of them.
FWIW. Don't know whether those folks are good at science.
IMHO, for many people the Bible is basically a user's manual. They believe it gives the basics of why we're here, how we got here, and what we're supposed to be up to. It's about reality. It's something God provided so we'd know what's what. People build their lives around it, To mess with any part of that, like Genesis, is like pulling at a loose thread--you may unravel move than you expected. And where do you stop?
There also are creationists who think of the "days" in Genesis as epochs of undetermined length.
Posted by JimT (# 142) on
:
I haven't thrown in on one of these for a while, so here goes. My father's a retired Assemblies of God minister. He gave me the Morris book in high school. I found rejection of the principle that processes in the past happen as they do now to be unscientific (God increased the erosion rate and fossilization rate because he felt like creating the Grand Canyon and dinosaur bones that day. What a joker.) "But he has a PhD and you don't," my father would say. I got my belly full of that.
Now I am getting a PhD in Molecular Biology. So Dad sends me Hugh Scott, PhD books. "Don't forget he has a PhD in astrophysics," he says. The guy really knows how to score points with people. You can read Hugh Scot's positions at Reasons to Believe.
And then there's the Assemblies of God position. I would have to describe it as "unequivocal, nay rabid, support for literal creationism." The highlight:
quote:
Assemblies of God believers hold that the Genesis account should be taken literally.
What a shocker. Literally. Can you imagine the liberal Assemblies who now let women wear lipstick in addition to eyebrow pencil take a literal position on this? ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
But in typical Assemblies fashion, they don't just let it go. They drill and they drill and they grind and they grind until you want to run screaming out into the night. Oops...Purgatory...must...breathe...deeply. They have hung their ass so far out on the line that no one in the church hierarchy can possibly bring it up and if some day some "definitive" proof for evolution came along they would really be scrambling.
quote:
Ultimately for most Christians it comes to this: if God is not Author and Creator of all that is, life offers little meaning or purpose for mankind. In evolution there is no judgment, and therefore no punishment or reward for the way we live.
How's that for an airtight case? We need Hell for the bad people and Heaven for the good people and evolution takes it away. It must be wrong. ![[Help]](graemlins/help.gif)
If you want to take it from there, you can read the Assemblies position on Eternal Punishment. Hell is still so very very central to the official church position it is sad. I understand that many clergy and lay people don't like it, but as usual the hierarchy painted themselves into a corner a long time ago and they will not come out for fear of inconsistency and admission of wrong. They will be supporting creationism and the "next week imminence" of the Rapture in Star Date 5594323.
Posted by Karl - Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
Are the folks in ICR good scientists?
Who knows.
But ICR is not, repeat not a scientific organisation.
To join it, you have to sign a religious statement of faith:
http://www.icr.org/abouticr/tenets.htm
This is not science. Science does not put the conclusion first and then look for evidence to support it.
Nor do they do much research. A look through their "research papers" at http://www.icr.org/research/ produces a list of essays based not on experimentation, but rather revisionism of existing research done by real scientists.
I'm horrified to note it's on the increase. Let it be very clearly stated at this point had the Christianity I was exposed to been YEC, I would NOT, I repeat NOT have become a Christian any more than I'd have become a Raelian, and for the same reasons.
Posted by Christine (# 330) on
:
Jugular, While some campus groups may espouse creationism - not many, one would hope - I can assure you that the Student Christian Movement (SCM) most certainly does not. SCM is liberal, ecumenical, radical indeed. It may surprise you to learn that any student Christian groups can be so described, most seem to be at the other end of the spectrum, but SCM is different and functioning at a campus near you
Posted by Dyfrig (# 15) on
:
There was a definite creationist stream at the Anglican church I attended at Uni (which, on reflection, owed more to Restorationism and Evangelicalism than to Anglicanism). I've also come across it in books aimed at youth leaders and general popular theology in the sorts of books you find in that sort of church's bookstall.
Posted by Dyfrig (# 15) on
:
D'oh! For "Evangelicalism" in previous post, read "Pentecostalism".
Posted by adsarf (# 4288) on
:
Creationism is one of those issues that people can't resist the urge to pontificate on - and certainly I'm not going to.
Two points: one off-topic, the other on. The on-topic point is that the prominence of creationism in the UK as a view ascribed to Christians by non-Christians (when not very many British Christians seem to hold it) seems to me to be one of several indications that for many ordinary, liberal agnostic Guardian-reading types the dominant image that they have of Christianity is of evangelical, right-wing American Christianity. People with long memories for trivia may remember Mr Hague making a pitch for the conservative evangelical vote in the UK, shortly before discovering that actually there isn't one. I could go on about why British Christianity is no longer understood by British non-Christians, but that isn't the off-topic point I wanted to make.
My off-topic point is just to say that actually scientists *do* in practice develop theories and then look for justifications of them. Modern medicine *isn't* really based on modern science (its more by way of being a craft discipline informed by some aspects of science in some areas) and evolutionary theory has holes you could drive a double-decker bus through. It may be the best (scientific) theory currently available but that doesn't make it true, and the rationalist(and sometimes explicitly anti-Christian) propaganda that has been built up around Darwin'original speculations deserves less respect.
Posted by jugular (# 4174) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Christine:
Jugular, While some campus groups may espouse creationism - not many, one would hope - I can assure you that the Student Christian Movement (SCM) most certainly does not. SCM is liberal, ecumenical, radical indeed. It may surprise you to learn that any student Christian groups can be so described, most seem to be at the other end of the spectrum, but SCM is different and functioning at a campus near you
Sorry, you are right, I was getting confused with Campus Crusade for Christ. Although whats the deal with FOCUS? They seem like a pack of loons.
Posted by Stubble (# 4240) on
:
ASIDE
When I was at Uni, some members of CU referred to SCM as the Scarcely Christian Movement.
/ASIDE
I am still at the point of trying to exactly figure out where I stand, a few contradictory thoughts still to be resolved, but the church I attend is definitely on the Creationist side and I am veering quite strongly in that direction.
My main issue with evolution is the place if death. In an evolutionary process, death is inherently A Good Thing. It is a necessary and integral part of the process. Therefore over the millennia millions of ancestral species had to die in order that man as we now are could come into existence.
But Biblically, death is A Bad Thing. It is the punishment for sin, something which is very undesirable.
How can these two positions be reconciled? By taking an evolutionary position (theistic or not) are we not somehow belittling the nature of death as a consequence of man's rebellion from God? This then has all sorts of implications for Christ's work of atonement, the forgiveness of sins, grace....
These are the issues I'm still wrestling with. I think I've come up with my own wee analogy which works for me at explaining why creation is consistent with the world we see. I just haven't got it in a concise written form yet.
Posted by Karl - Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
Fossilised Hyracotherium alert:
quote:
Originally posted by adsarf:
My off-topic point is just to say that actually scientists *do* in practice develop theories and then look for justifications of them.
Of course. But the important thing is they discard those theories (hypotheses is a better word) if the evidence does not support them. Creationism does not do that; it is sure of its conclusion
quote:
Modern medicine *isn't* really based on modern science (its more by way of being a craft discipline informed by some aspects of science in some areas)
Inasmuch as this is the case in some areas, the rise in evidenced based practice within the medical professions is improving this situation.
quote:
and evolutionary theory has holes you could drive a double-decker bus through.
Unsupported assertion. Name two holes.
quote:
It may be the best (scientific) theory currently available but that doesn't make it true
It is an excellent scientific model in its descriptive and predictive power. If it is not "true", it is very very close to the truth.
quote:
and the rationalist(and sometimes explicitly anti-Christian) propaganda that has been built up around Darwin'original speculations deserves less respect.
Expand. What do you mean by this?
Posted by Karl - Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
Stubble - the death that results from sin is spiritual death, symbolised in the Eden story by seperation from the close presence of God by expulsion from Eden.
God clearly says the man and woman will die the day they eat the fruit. Either God lied, or the fact they did not physically die that day indicates that physical death was not what was meant.
Posted by markporter (# 4276) on
:
quote:
Of course. But the important thing is they discard those theories (hypotheses is a better word) if the evidence does not support them. Creationism does not do that; it is sure of its conclusion
I think that both sides of the debate are equally guilty in this respect, whatever evidence is found, they find a way of fitting it into their theory.
Posted by Scot (# 2095) on
:
Welcome aboard, adsarf and Stubble! Enjoy yourself here in Purgatory, and be sure to take a look at some of the other boards too. Each board has its own set of guidelines, which you will probably find helpful, along with the FAQs and the 10 Commandments. If you have any questions, feel free to ask.
scot
Purgatory Host
Posted by Karl - Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by markporter:
quote:
Of course. But the important thing is they discard those theories (hypotheses is a better word) if the evidence does not support them. Creationism does not do that; it is sure of its conclusion
I think that both sides of the debate are equally guilty in this respect, whatever evidence is found, they find a way of fitting it into their theory.
Not so. The details of evolutionary theory are changing all the time.
The point is that I can reel of half a dozen observations that if made would utterly destroy evolutionary biology:
(a) a human fossil in a Cambrian rock
(b) flowering plant pollen in a carboniferous bed
(c) mouse bones in a fossilised Pterydactyl's stomach
(d) a mammal with true bird feathers
(e) non-correlation between phylogenic and genetic relationships
(f) a Silurian dinosaur.
I could go on.
There is no list of such potential falsifications for creationism. Anything can just be "well, it looks like evolution, but Goddidit that way".
That is why evolution is science, and creationism is not. And that is why each side is not equally guilty. Science modifies its theories as new evidence is understood. Creationism has already decided its conclusion and must "properly interpret" the evidence until it fits.
I suggest they start "properly interpretting" this.
Posted by Scot (# 2095) on
:
HOSTING
As a reminder for everyone, the topic of this thread is church attitudes on creationism, and which church organizations teach creationism. If you'd like to debate creationism vs. evolutionism, there are a number of threads containing debates in progress, such as The Death of Darwinism and The fall and overcrowding.
Of course, if you would like to discuss an aspect of the creationism debate which isn't covered elsewhere, feel free to start a new thread here in Purgatory.
scot
Purgatory Host
Posted by Priest (# 4313) on
:
As I've said before, creationism and evolution are easy bedfellows in the melting pot of Gods variable time(a day being as a thousand years and a thousand years as a day), this is basically the premiss of 6 day creation subscribed to by many people. Alan I get the impression you subscribe to something like this?
What amazes me about the zealtry surrounding this is how people who expound on Gods ability to bend time to suit, can be literal to the point of offensiveness on 7 day creation, I believe the Earth was created in 7 days, including one day of rest, just that the days by our standards were very very long. ![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
Posted by markporter (# 4276) on
:
quote:
I suggest they start "properly interpretting" this.
hmmm, well it doesn't mean a thing to me, so I wouldn't have a clue.
Posted by Karl - Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by markporter:
quote:
I suggest they start "properly interpretting" this.
hmmm, well it doesn't mean a thing to me, so I wouldn't have a clue.
Bang goes my attempt to present an easy to understand and accessible example of scientific evidence.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Priest:
As I've said before, creationism and evolution are easy bedfellows in the melting pot of Gods variable time(a day being as a thousand years and a thousand years as a day), this is basically the premiss of 6 day creation subscribed to by many people. Alan I get the impression you subscribe to something like this?
If you mean that the account is of a series of creative acts as given, but that these were over periods longer than 24h, then no that isn't my position. I can't really see anyway that the author of Genesis meant anything other than either 24h or the period between sunrise and sunset when he used the word translated "day". What I don't accept is that this was meant, in any way, to be an account of actual creative acts by God in a historical sense.
When I say I see us still being in the 6th day I'm speaking as figuratively as I believe the passage speaks. The account speaks of the creation of humans in Gods image as the pinnacle of Creation; by toying with the idea of us still being in the 6th day I'm saying that Creation is not (yet) complete, and more specifically that humanity doesn't yet fully image God.
Posted by Royal Peculiar (# 3159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Priest:
As I've said before, creationism and evolution are easy bedfellows in the melting pot of Gods variable time(a day being as a thousand years and a thousand years as a day), this is basically the premiss of 6 day creation subscribed to by many people.
I think the timescale is only one aspect: it seems to me that the nub of the debate is whether or not man is a separately created being or shares a common ancestor with other animals.
Posted by markporter (# 4276) on
:
although I think http://www.grisda.org/origins/13009.htm may show a creationist way of interpreting it.....(I could be mistaken because biology and genetics really isn't my field.....try putting music in it somewhere and I may be more knowledgable)
Posted by Priest (# 4313) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Royal Peculiar:
whether or not man is a separately created being or shares a common ancestor with other animals.
Well assuming we are created in Gods image, and I disagree with Alans hypothesis incidentaly, and in that assuming we think is similar but simpler ways as God, whenever I have designed something complex from scratch, I have built a couple of prototypes, and usually include elements of the prototypes in the final product, but often make a leap between prototype and finished unit.
I do not see why God would not do something similar albeit on a much larger scale.
Posted by Ham'n'Eggs (# 629) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Priest:
[QUOTE]
I do not see why God would not do something similar albeit on a much larger scale.
The objection to this is that the evidence strongly suggests otherwise.
Posted by Karl - Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by markporter:
although I think http://www.grisda.org/origins/13009.htm may show a creationist way of interpreting it.....(I could be mistaken because biology and genetics really isn't my field.....try putting music in it somewhere and I may be more knowledgable)
No, it doesn't. It mentions the apparent fusion, but makes no attempt whatsoever to tackle it.
It makes a logical error. It lumps together all the chromosomal similarity observations, derives hypotheses for some of them, and then acts as if the derived hypotheses account for all of them.
It's this logic:
1. Cats and Dogs are pets.
2. Dogs bark.
Therefore pets bark.
Posted by Priest (# 4313) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ham'n'Eggs:
quote:
Originally posted by Priest:
[QUOTE]
I do not see why God would not do something similar albeit on a much larger scale.
The objection to this is that the evidence strongly suggests otherwise.
So neanderthral and cro-magnon are myths?
Posted by markporter (# 4276) on
:
I will look into it and see what I find....I admit for the moment that a google search comes up with not one creationist webpage adressing this specific issues.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl - Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by markporter:
although I think http://www.grisda.org/origins/13009.htm may show a creationist way of interpreting it...)
No, it doesn't. It mentions the apparent fusion, but makes no attempt whatsoever to tackle it.
It makes a logical error. It lumps together all the chromosomal similarity observations, derives hypotheses for some of them, and then acts as if the derived hypotheses account for all of them.
Not really. It looks at karyotype evidence & tries to reconcile it with a YEC stance.
But YE is explicitly assumed and used to rule out a hypothesis of common descent.
Also the author of that paper does accept evolution, but because the earth is assumed to be young it is assumed to have not proceeded very far yet. He thinks that the orders of mammals were separatly created but that species and even genera have evolved - not so much a young earth as an early-middle-aged earth.
It doesn't say "this is the evidence, what does it tell us?". It says "this is the evidence, as we know the earth is young, how can the evidence be made to fit?" Quite explicitly.
So it doesn't even pretend to be an argument in favour of a young earth. It is rather an attempt to save the phenomena of observed variation for people who already believe in a young earth for quite other reasons.
From the conclusion to the paper Mark linked to, my italics:
quote:
It is possible that chromosomal similarities have different explanations in different groups of animals. It this is true, then one must be cautious in using chromosomal comparisons to determine relationships. Nevertheless, chromosomal data can serve as a useful check on data from other sources.
Hypothesis 3, that chromosomal similarities are due to random chromosomal rearrangements which happen to produce similar banding patterns, is not reasonable, for reasons discussed above. Hypothesis 2, that chromosomal similarities are exclusively the result of common ancestry, does not seem consistent with creation theory and does not seem a necessary conclusion from the scientific data. The fact that very large genomic rearrangement does not seem to affect morphology, and yet animals with different body plans ("Bauplan") appear to have very different kinds of karyotypes suggests to this writer that some different groups had different starting points and do not share a common ancestry.
Hypotheses 1 and 4 seem consistent with both creation theory and the evidence available. It seems likely that species which were morphologically similar were created with similar chromosomes, reflecting their genetic similarity. It is evident that large changes have occurred in chromosomes since creation. These changes have often resulted in karyotypic divergence and have contributed to the multiplication of species.
Chromosomal rearrangements seem to occur so frequently that one would expect to find very little banding homeology between species which supposedly diverged long ages ago, such as the marsupials. The existence of numerous banding homeologies can be explained as the result of a common design which has been preserved only because a relatively short time has been available for changes to occur.
How much anatomical change has occurred since creation is still an unanswered question. Chromosomal comparisons suggest that new genera may have arisen since creation, for example among the antelopes which share a Y/autosome translocation (Benirschke et al. 1980). Whether larger changes have occurred cannot be determined from chromosomal studies.
His four hypotheses are:
Hypothesis 1. Chromosomal similarities are the result of common design.
Hypothesis 2. Chromosomal similarities are exclusively the result of common ancestry.
Hypothesis 3. Chromosomal similarities are due to random changes which happen to produce the same banding pattern in different species.
Hypothesis 4. Chromosomal similarities are the result of non-random changes due to viruses or transposable elements.
By the way Mark we now possess millions of times more data - literally millions - about this sort of thing, due to gene sequencing, than we did when that paper was written in the 1980s. None of it gives any help to YE positions.
Posted by OgtheDim (# 3200) on
:
Hmmm...well the Anabaptists and Mennonites have an article on everything somewhere, so for those just dying to know what is going on among us weirdo footwashers and peace-nik types -
Encyclopedia Mennonitus Article
Posted by Bonzo (# 2481) on
:
A mistaken, even wacky view of the Bible is pardonable. What is less pardonable is deliberate and continued deception.
There is no doubt in my mind that organisations such as Ken Ham's ply their trade of deception for immoral reasons. Their refusal to even consider other evidence taken alongside their determination to pass off their unreasoned views as science, confirm that, deep down, they know that they are wrong.
But it has become a lucrative industry for them, which in the right circles has provided them with prestige. How difficult for someone so bound by sin to change.
What all church organisations should be saying is that YEC is a deception. But I don't suppose there's much chance of them doing anything useful like that!
Posted by Louise (# 30) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by markporter:
I will look into it and see what I find....I admit for the moment that a google search comes up with not one creationist webpage adressing this specific issues.
If you do, you can post it on the relevant Dead Horses thread and then maybe we could take that discussion off there, as Scot has indicated.
L.
Posted by OgtheDim (# 3200) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bonzo:
......
What all church organisations should be saying is that YEC is a deception. But I don't suppose there's much chance of them doing anything useful like that!
Some people believe YEC is an important theological point. Are you suggesting they are willfully self-deceptive and should not believe?
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bonzo:
What is less pardonable is deliberate and continued deception.
There is no doubt in my mind that organisations such as Ken Ham's ply their trade of deception for immoral reasons.
Now, I think that is going too far. I do think that YEC is wrong, but Ham et al are not deliberately deceiving people. As I said early, YEC isn't something taken in isolation. It is dependant on an understanding of the Bible as the inspired, inerrant Word of God. When that is your view of Scripture then your whole faith position stands on a requirement that the Bible is beyond doubt. If all you have is Scripture then you get into the whole "if you reject one bit where do you stop?" problem. This view doesn't only require YEC but a literal Exodus with plagues, God commanding the Israelites to commit genocide, all miracles to be actual miraculous events etc.
When you get yourself into the corner that leaves you with Inerrancy or nothing to base the Christian faith on then you're going to defend that position against all opposition - including biology and geology that show beyond doubt that the YEC position is scientifically untenable.
People who accept the YEC position are quite possibly deceived (unintentionally I'd say) but they're committed to truth as they see it - it's just that they judge scientific truth in the light of what they consider to be the more important Biblical truth.
Posted by JimT (# 142) on
:
Sticking to the topic, isn't it true that The Church should have *no* attitude toward any scientific theory? When has it ever happened that a scientist put forward a theory, a theologian has said, "you better check your facts because it would conflict with sound theology" and the result has been, sure 'nuff, theology has corrected science? When has sound theology ever overturned a scientific theory?
Posted by Bonzo (# 2481) on
:
quote:
Some people believe YEC is an important theological point. Are you suggesting they are willfully self-deceptive and should not believe?
Here are the possibilities as I see them:
- They have deceived themselves completely and are inadvertanly deceiving others.
- They have partially decieved themselves but know deep down that they are wrong but refuse to admit it.
- They are well aware that they are wrong but are making a packet out of it.
The first is unlikely, given the fact that they flatly refuse to look at the evidence in any objective way. The second is the kindest possible interpretation. The third is the most likely IMO.
Alan,
Even coming from the illogical presupposition of inerrancy a person has to be ignorant of scientific research or dishonest to hold and proclaim YEC as true. In the case of Ham et al, they can't possibly be ignorant, so they are being dishonest.
And the church should have the guts to say so.
Science itself may not be the church's province, but speaking out against those who decieve people, most certainly is. If science is not the church's province then the church should be speaking out against YEC for that very reason. Either way we should not remain silent.
Posted by Ham'n'Eggs (# 629) on
:
Priest: I'm not sure that I fully understood your original point. I thought that you were suggesting that man is a separate creation, whilst it seems to me that the currently available evidence strongly suggests that man shares a common ancestor with other animals, including the neanderthal and the cro-magnon. In terms of God's creativity, I have no problem with seeing these as variations on a theme.
Bonzo: if I were to apply the same standard to you that you apply to those who endorse YEC, then I might say that you wilfully and dishonestly underestimate peoples capacity to filter whatever conflicts with their presuppositions. Have you ever actually discussed this subject with any of them?
Given the prerequisite of inerrancy, it is a quite logical conclusion to come to, and to suggest that to do so is to be dishonest is verging on the offensive.
You say that self-deception is not possible if people are not being objective. So in other words, people are only self-deluded when they are making an accurate assessment of a situation. I'm afraid that does not compute. Please try again.
Posted by Robert Miller (# 1459) on
:
What I read in a creationist magazine - could it be that famous one "Creation Ex Nihlio"? - was to me a complete bending of a literal versus something else kind of interpretation. It went as follows (I believe the article was written by Ken Ham himself).
Ken was saddened to see that Charles Darwin was given a tomb/memorial in Westminster Abbey. This saddened him so much so that it was suggested if the foundations of the church are being destroyed what can the righteous do?
There it was if you bury/memorialise evolutionists in church grounds the foundations are destroyed ----- warped logic to the extreme?
By the way I do have two of his books on my bookshelf together with "Christian Rock Music - IS IT?" by Jeff Godwin just incase you think I'm a real extremist ![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
I agree with Bonzo that there is much wilful misrepresentation in the writings of YECs. It's similar to the way some politicians and journalists are selective with the evidence they refer to in support of their opinions.
I think it's dishonest, but not so unusual. Most of us are guilty of this sort of dishonesty at times, and often unwittingly. 'Friendly' evidence just comes to mind more easily.
The trouble with YECs is that their argument has been clearly and repeatedly lost in the public arena. Their persistence, not in the face of disagreement, but in corners away from that disagreement, is the really deceitful thing.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bonzo:
Even coming from the illogical presupposition of inerrancy a person has to be ignorant of scientific research or dishonest to hold and proclaim YEC as true. In the case of Ham et al, they can't possibly be ignorant, so they are being dishonest.
For a start I wouldn't call inerrancy illogical. Wrong, yes. Not the way the Bible seems to refer to itself, yes. But not illogical. And hardly unique, it's not really that different to the way muslims view the Koran for example.
Are proponents of YEC ignorant of science? Well, many in the grass roots may be - especially if their only knowledge of science is from Creationist literature. And quite often if you go to bulletin boards dedicated to discussions on Evolution and Creation you will find that people do repeat mis-understandings of science that are as old as the hills.
But those who are leaders in the Creationist movement can hardly be ignorant - my experience is that whenever I've heard them talk there's always been a few knowledgable folk to tell them what science says on the subject. They aren't ignorant, they're simply not convinced that the arguments of science are stronger than their arguments from Scripture.
quote:
And the church should have the guts to say so.
The church should have the guts to be more vocal in disputing the errors of Creationism. And, perhaps more importantly, showing people that there are other valid methods of understanding Scripture other than inerrancy that still maintain the authority of the Bible and the integrity of it's teaching. But accusing people who hold different opinions of deliberately setting out to deceive hardly seems an appropriate response - it's merely going to fuel the dispute.
Remember, Creationists are just as likely to accuse us of holding an illogical view of fallible Scripture and deliberately setting out to deceive believers by peddling the lie of evolution. Throwing insults back and forth does no one any favours, and that is the one attitude to Creationism I don't think the Church can have.
Alan
Posted by Bonzo (# 2481) on
:
quote:
Given the prerequisite of inerrancy, it is a quite logical conclusion to come to, and to suggest that to do so is to be dishonest is verging on the offensive.
You say that self-deception is not possible if people are not being objective. So in other words, people are only self-deluded when they are making an accurate assessment of a situation. I'm afraid that does not compute. Please try again.
Very well I'll try again
'Given the prerequisite of inerrancy' and 'logical' cannot go together in the same sentence.
What makes it dishonest deception is that in the face of huge quantities of scientific evidence to the contrary, they argue, not by stating their pre-requisite and admitting that they are unprepared to examine the science, but by insisting that science supports their argument. They deliberately tell only one side of the story and they aim this deliberately distorted view at ill informed young Christians rather than the scientific arena.
Posted by Bonzo (# 2481) on
:
quote:
Remember, Creationists are just as likely to accuse us of holding an illogical view of fallible Scripture and deliberately setting out to deceive believers by peddling the lie of evolution. Throwing insults back and forth does no one any favours, and that is the one attitude to Creationism I don't think the Church can have.
Well I don't agree, Alan. By this argument Jesus did himself no favours when he called the Pharisees 'Blind Guides!'. When it becomes obvious that people are saying something with a deliberate intention to mislead we should call a spade a spade! The Pharisees counter accused Jesus, saying he was a blasphemer. But at least Jesus declared where he stood and was associated with the truth rather than diplomacy.
Posted by golden key (# 1468) on
:
As I mentioned earlier, I grew up in a creationist church.
Alan, I think you've done a great job of explaining why people sincerely hold these views. As both of us have said, creationism is part of their understanding of the Bible, which they believe to be a manual direct from God--and that makes it part of the foundation of their lives. If you mess with any part of it, the rest may come tumbling down.
How many people really want to question the foundations of their lives? What's most important in you life? If the rest of the world questioned it, would you hold on to it or give it up?
As to objectivity, IME few people are ever really objective, including scientists. Even if they're trying to be objective, they bring assumptions to the table that they may not even realize. Once scientists hold a theory, they can be very tenacious about it! (And I mean any theory, not just evolution.)
How many mainstream scientists, if they found evidence that pointed in the direction of biblical creation, would dare admit it to themselves--let alone say anything? They'd get a better reaction if they said they talked with aliens in their backyards every night!
I'm just saying that the situation isn't as simple as purposely deceptive creationists and saintly scientists.
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by golden key:
How many people really want to question the foundations of their lives?
I couldn't say how many want to, but I want to. It's what being a Christian is about.
Posted by golden key (# 1468) on
:
Ok, Hatless. But now that you are a Christian...if the entire world tried to pull apart your faith AND you still felt Christianity was true, would you stick with it?
That's the position in which creationists find themselves.
Posted by JimT (# 142) on
:
I've got to take you to task here, golden key:
quote:
How many mainstream scientists, if they found evidence that pointed in the direction of biblical creation, would dare admit it to themselves--let alone say anything? They'd get a better reaction if they said they talked with aliens in their backyards every night!
I'm just saying that the situation isn't as simple as purposely deceptive creationists and saintly scientists.
I've been around and in science since I worked in my uncle's biochem labs in the 1960's. If any scientist found real and worthwhile evidence of creation they would be eager to bust the story. If scientists have a fault it is desire for fame.
Also, scientists want to be correct. To a fault; they are as perfectionist as Father Gregory was. To avoid being wrong, scientists will instantly toss precious theories the instant hard and conclusive evidence is presented. No scientist wants to be wrong for a minute. Look at relativity. "Time is dependent on speed," says Einstein. "Baloney!" cry the sceptical scientists, brainwashed by Newton. "Here is the evidence," he says. "My God (pardon the expression) you're 100% right. Newton had it right except for light speed!" The list goes on. Matter can collapse to a point and form a "black hole" from which no light can escape. One day it's poppycock and the next day it's proven.
Finally, scientists are individualistic to a fault and love to piss off their competitors; they don't worry about whether they are going to take heat unless their data has holes in it. If they have solid data, they go public, period. Even if it means something incredible like time is dependent on speed and nobody scientist or not, is going to believe them.
If the evidence is ambiguous or tentative they will be stubborn as mules before they switch theories. That is not because they are closed-minded or fearful of other's opinions. It is because they know how easy it is to be fooled by partial evidence and partial explanations.
I will grant that individual scientists do not have 100% objectivity. That's why there are millions of them to check each other. They have a point of view which rejects the supernatural, but the competition and desire for being correct prevents mass delusion, subconscious conspiracies, or mutual brainwashing.
Your quote indicates that you've spent more time reading what non-scientists say about scientists than being in the company of natural scientists doing their research. There is a Nobel prize in it for any scientist to prove that the Bible is right after all.
Posted by golden key (# 1468) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by JimT:
Your quote indicates that you've spent more time reading what non-scientists say about scientists than being in the company of natural scientists doing their research.
Quite true. I haven't had the good fortune to be in their company! FWIW, I have listened to many interviews and watched many quality (IMHO) science shows. From what I've heard from many scientists, in their own words, they often strongly resist new ideas. And they want to believe they're Right.
Which makes them like just about every other human on the planet.
I don't mean *any* disrespect to scientists. I just think that they're subject to the same weaknesses as the rest of us, and that needs to be taken into consideration.
Posted by JimT (# 142) on
:
On this we agree: scientists strongly resist new ideas. It's actually worse than that. Scientists automatically assume that any new theory is 100% wrong. That is part of the scientific method. There were very bitter opponents to evolution from inside the scientific community for decades, notably Louis Aggasiz. He fought evolution to his dying breath. But his arguments failed and the "resistent to change scientists" eventually were forced to accept the new theory as the best explanation for the origin of life despite their original incredulity, often based on their religious upbringing.
quote:
One of the great scientists of his day, and one of the "founding fathers" of the modern American scientific tradition, Louis Agassiz remains something of a historical enigma. A great systematist and paleontologist, a renowned teacher and tireless promoter of science in America, he was also a lifelong opponent of Darwin's theory of evolution. Yet even his most critical attacks on evolution have provided evolutionary biologists with insights.
The quote comes from this site.
"God created Man from the dust of the earth and blew into this nostrils the breath of life" is not something new that scientists resist. It is something that scientists used to literally believe and were forced to reject due to the evidence.
Posted by Kevin Iga (# 4396) on
:
Though I have never been to the UK or Australia, so I can't make comparisons, it is my impression that young-earth creationism is a predominantly US phenomenon. I certainly knew many young-earth creationists growing up, and I know a few now.
Let me clarify. There is a spectrum of belief, and the belief you described characterizes the extreme. Here's the continuum, roughly:
1. God created the world in six 24-hour periods, rested on the 7th. We are here roughly 6000 years later.
2. The "roughly 6000 years" can be as much as 10,000 years.
3. The days can be somewhat longer, like 1000 years (the most popular alternative), but certainly not millions of years. Perhaps the 6th day is 7000 years and we are still in it.
4. The days are indeterminate in length. Perhaps billions of years--who knows?
5. The events in Genesis 1 happened an indeterminate amount of time in the past. The timing can be as science says, but the methods are not.
6. God could have used evolution and stellar formation and so on to some extent, but the specific days correspond to supernatural interventions. So the first fish were supernaturally created, then could evolve to other kinds; then later beasts of the field were created supernaturally, etc.
7. Genesis 1 can in some sense be viewed as inerrantly correct, and evolution is fine. Literal Adam and Eve, etc., numerous explanations on how pieces of evolution story fit with Genesis 1-4.
8. Beyond that, the rest, which I collapse into one point because it is not the focus of this thread. Metaphorical understanding of Genesis to anti-creationists to understanding Adam and Eve as prototypical/archetypical, etc. Lots of different views here.
I know lots of people in the first 5 categories. I'm not sure I know anyone in the 1st category. Personally, I sympathize with some of category 7 but am mostly in category 8.
I had a friend growing up who was Jehovah's Witnesses and he was certain about young earth creationism: category 2 or 3. Since we were both young (though precocious) I'd imagine he was just saying what he was taught in church.
Young Earth Creationism is an American phenomenon. It has its roots in the late 19th century urban revivals, and reaction to modernism. This modernism manifested itself with ideas from Freud, Nietzche, Marx, Darwin, and modern Biblical criticism in Wellhausen, etc., and in social changes like industrialization, urbanization, and concentration of wealth. But most of all, it was minimizing the traditional views of the Bible in favor of scientific and modern ideas. Some felt the academics in charge of the Church were leading everyone astray into modernism and then (it was assumed) secularism.
America was culturally close to, but physically far from the source of the new ideas: Europe. Furthermore, there were many more different independent congregations and those that were part of a larger denomination were still staunchly independent of them. These congregations were primarily driven by the less-educated local population, who were concerned with bringing people to Christ more than squaring doctrine with science or current philosophical trends. They were supported by para-church organizations that had many of the same kinds of people, and who went from church to church, and were thus able to spread trends quickly. So the US was the perfect setting for the backlash against modernism and liberalism. This gave rise to fundamentalism in the early decades of the 20th century. In the 1920s, fundamentalism became more and more focused on evolution in particular.
This was also the time when many non-religious scientists were also criticizing evolution, and supporters of evolution were coming up with answers to this criticism. By 1930 or so, the scientific community had satisfied itself about evolution and felt its critiques were answered.
But given the timing with the rise of fundamentalism, evolution seemed like an easy target for creationists at the time. (Some of the old pre-1930 arguments against evolution are still circulated in creationist circles as if no one answered them). It was also a time when Darwinian evolution was linked with Eugenics and social Darwinism, which made it a particularly important target.
The Scopes "Monkey" trial in 1925 (where a teacher was prosecuted for teaching evolution) was the first in a series of embarassments for the fundamentalists, after which fundamentalism declined in popularity, though evolution was still not popular.
In the wake of the social upheaval of the 1960s, there was another conservative backlash, with fundamentalists leading the charge but also joined with a broader evangelical audience. When prayer in school was banned, there was a sense among evangelicals that we needed to reclaim the schools for God. This brought back up the topic of creationism in the classroom. But with a twist.
You see, the rulings that banned prayer in the schools were based on the principle of separation of church and state. If creation and evolution were both viewed as scientific theories, both on the same footing, then they could argue that schools ought to teach both. And viewing both as religious in basic assumption gives you the power to say that teaching only evolution is tantamount to the state taking sides in religion, in this case, against Christianity.
So in the 1970s was born Creation Science. The goal was two-fold: to develop creationism as a scientific theory (and build scientific evidence for it) and to expose the religious or at least metaphysical underpinnings of Darwinian evolution.
So the roots of anti-evolutionary creationism, and in the case you cite, young-earth creationism, are specifically US, based on our historical situation.
Kevin
Posted by golden key (# 1468) on
:
Kevin--
I grew up with ideas 1-3, and a smattering of 4. I'm familiar with the rest, and a few more.
[tangent]
RC novelist Dorothy Sayers played with an interesting idea in an essay (and she was *not* trying to say it was true, just playing with it). When she wrote novels, the characters had built-in prior experiences that didn't take place in the chronology of the story. E.g., Lord Peter Wimsey, one of her characters, was an adult in the stories--but he'd had a childhood.
Anyway, DS posited God might have done something similar--i.e., created the world with built-in prior experiences of dinosaurs, etc.
[/tangent]
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by JimT:
To avoid being wrong, scientists will instantly toss precious theories the instant hard and conclusive evidence is presented. No scientist wants to be wrong for a minute.
<snip>
If the evidence is ambiguous or tentative they will be stubborn as mules before they switch theories.
Thomas Kuhn described this tendancy as a paradigm - a set of theories, models and assumptions into which it is expected that all data will fit. Scientists do, generally, work in paradigms (there will always be a few outside the fold) which they will resist substantially changing. However, eventually as more and more data that doesn't fit the paradigm is accumulated the system fails to hold together and a new paradigm that better describes and explains the data is adopted - a paradigm shift. The adoption of Quantum Physics and Relativity could be described in these terms. Scientists don't propose entirely different theories without good cause - they're much more likely to tinker with existing theories for as long as possible. I see no evidence of Evolution being replaced at all - though there is still a lot of minor tinkering going on.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kevin Iga:
Let me clarify. There is a spectrum of belief, and the belief you described characterizes the extreme. Here's the continuum, roughly:
You missed out one position (should be between 2 and 3 I'd say), namely that in Genesis 1 the earth became formless and void so there was a gap of indeterminate length between the formation of the earth and the 7 days during which the geological column complete with dinosaurs was laid down.
quote:
This gave rise to fundamentalism in the early decades of the 20th century. In the 1920s, fundamentalism became more and more focused on evolution in particular.
Interestingly none of the authors of the Fundamentals were YECs (category 1 or 2), they had a range of "Old Earth Creationist" opinions on the subject - day=age (category 4-6), gap theory (what I just added to your list) and even theistic evolution (would be an option within category 8). Though they all considered the creation of humanity as a special event.
quote:
The Scopes "Monkey" trial in 1925 (where a teacher was prosecuted for teaching evolution) was the first in a series of embarassments for the fundamentalists, after which fundamentalism declined in popularity, though evolution was still not popular.
To be precise, the Scopes trial was about the teaching of the evolution of humans rather than evolution per se - the prosecuters of the case were closely aligned with the authors of the Fundamentals on this. Evolution of animals wasn't important, what was important was that humans are different and have a uniquely divine origin.
Posted by John Collins (# 41) on
:
I don't think "dishonesty" is too strong a word for the Answers in Genesis people myself. There is an abundance of material on their pages which has been refuted many times, where they very selectively quote people (without links or references to enable the quotes to be seen in context) and so forth.
A particular example which springs to mind as the subject interests me is Supernovae and the "remnants" - i.e. the rubble and debris after a star has exploded. This is said to go through various stages many thousands of years (about 5 minutes on the astronomical timescale!) apart.
Of course having any "third stage" or later remnants is a bit inconvienient for a YEC so Sarfati says in this page in AiG the following as a final statement in large bold print (having said it numerous other times as well) quote:
There are actually no third stage SNRs observed in our galaxy!
Yet this is not true - see in particular the extremely comprehensive analysis here.
I don't see how Sarfati can be unaware of this yet that page has stuck there unchanged for years as have numerous other pages of misinformation. There are various examples of where Christians have written with criticism of parts of those pages and have had extremely ungracious replies. (I even wrote myself and got an ad hominem reply by Sarfati posted on their pages. They even changed their colour coding of question and reply, which I had criticised as being confusing, for my benefit).
Obviously I'm not saying that all YECs are dishonest and offensive but there is abundant evidence to my mind that people such as AiG are.
Posted by Karl - Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
There seems to be a streak of, shall we say, economy with the truth. I think in the professional YEC mind lesser truth can be sacrificed for the Bit 'Truth'.
The tale of Kent Hovind and Cytochrome C springs to mind: http://members.cox.net/ardipithecus/evol/HovindLie.html
Indeed, the entire site http://members.cox.net/ardipithecus/evol/lies/index.html is illuminating in terms of creationists' apparent casual attitude to truth and accuracy, and their inability to let an argument drop just because it happens to be horsefeathers.
Posted by Louise (# 30) on
:
quote:
A particular example which springs to mind as the subject interests me is Supernovae and the "remnants" - i.e. the rubble and debris after a star has exploded. This is said to go through various stages many thousands of years (about 5 minutes on the astronomical timescale!) apart.
You know this is part of what gets me.
To support YEC you not only have to ditch modern biology and geology and parts of physics but also you need to ditch modern astronomy.
From about the time I was 12 I was fascinated by astronomy and soon knew that light from very distant objects such as quasars had to travel billions of light years to reach us and that the development of stars and galaxies happened over huge timescales.
When I encountered Creationism I automatically pegged creationists as loonies and Christianity as whacko because I associated it with the sort of people who espoused creationism - it has a huge negative evangelical effect.
Churches need to take a strong line against it for this sort of reason - for every person it can attract, it drives many away. When I was at university I was very interested in religion but for a long time completely dismissed Christianity because I associated it with stuff like creationism.
I can't tell you how angry it makes me to see people push this sort of thing as integral to Christianity.
Perhaps the situation is different in America where it has a kind of 'critical mass' in some areas, so you'd be more likely to find intelligent people who believe it because they've been brought up to believe it, but over here in GB I think it's not generally accepted anywhere (unless it has a few strongholds in the Western Isles).
It depresses me lots to see people trying to teach it in schools in Britain. ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
L.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
You missed out one position (should be between 2 and 3 I'd say), namely that in Genesis 1 the earth became formless and void so there was a gap of indeterminate length between the formation of the earth and the 7 days during which the geological column complete with dinosaurs was laid down.
That was probably the majority opinion amongst the minority of evangelicals (IYSWIM) opposed to the usual scientific views back in the 1970s & 80s when I last came across many such people in real life.
It has at least the benefit of allowing us to believe the evidence of our eyes. As do the various "old earth" ideas of successive creations that were the main opposition to evolutionary ideas in the 19th century.
The idea that the earth is old has been around for a long time - probably as long as people have thought about it - but became generally accepted in the very early 19th century - before Darwin & the general acceptance of evolution. So the Gap theories and successive creation theories became popular back then. Goes along with the Scofield Reference Bible & dispensationalism.
I think you are a little too generous to some of the YEC people. I don't know anything about Ken Ham or the AiG other than what I saw on their website the other day. But it is, it seems to me from that brief view, close to lying.
Not - using the British tabloid press as a metaphor for lying - blatant Daily Mail type lying, but Sun type lying.
For the benefit of those lucky enough to never have read the British tabloids, the Daily Mail has sometimes been caught out with direct lying. Usually a day or two before a general election. For example they might print that such-and-such a Labour politician had been bribed - and the day after the election retract the story without evidence (I've seen that twice). The Sun will find (and often pay) someone else to say that the politician took bribes, and print the story as "so-and-so says such-and-such took the bribe". Subtle, eh?
Anyway, the AiG site has all sorts of things along the lines of: "We talked to a prominent Hebrew scholar who said that it was impossible that the first chapter of Genesis could mean anything other than normal 24 hour days".
No doubt they did. Most people have probably always taken them to mean that, and if they believed the Bible to be true therefore . But as the people putting the website up know perfectly well, at least a large minority of biblical scholars - going way back to the time of Christ - thought that Genesis 1 supported an old earth.
Nowadays we see that the minority view looks right, because the earth indeed looks old (despite the stupid anecdotes aboput Australian opal miners & carpenters going on about stalactites that AiG bring up - aside thought - maybe these guys often seem to come from Texas or the US midwest or Australia because of the relatively simple geology of those places - I'd like to see them explain the relatively complex landscape of the British Isles, where my home town sits on top of a heap of chalk a kilometre thick and you can drive in an afternoon across the geological column from the Recent back to the Precambrian (minus a big chunk of Jurassic) - heck, a fit person could do it in a day on a bicycle) So we know which of the old scholars interpreted the Bible correctly. It is like the Biblical test for whether a prophet is from God or not.
Sticking to discussing the churches attitude to YEC, rather than the truth or falsity of YEC, what makes me angry is the theological implications of the thing. They make the world a sort of VR, a working model of a world rather than a real world. This is I think unchristian, it brings the Church into disrepute, is dishonouring to God, and tends to diminish the truth of the Incarnation.
I suspect, though I don't know, that they will tend to doubt the reality of the incarnation. Either by Arianising; or by hyper-spiritualising, making the physical world into an illusion or at any rate something of unimportance. I woudln;t be surprised if Turn your eyes upon Jesus is one of their favourite songs.
Another supposition. Heresies tend to creep into the Church through the back door as a reaction to other religions & philosophies. For example, famously, in rejecting Gnosticism & Manicheism, the late Roman Fathers (usually & unfairly summed up as "Augustine" - he was neither the only one nor the worst one) imported a lot of it into Christianity, where it still hangs around in dark corners and bites us every now & again.
I wonder if some of the novelties of 20th century US fundamentalism are either imports from, or reactions to, the Mormons? Does anyone know if the Mormons are officially YECs, or if YEC is common amongst them?
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by golden key:
RC novelist Dorothy Sayers played with an interesting idea in an essay (and she was *not* trying to say it was true, just playing with it). When she wrote novels, the characters had built-in prior experiences that didn't take place in the chronology of the story. E.g., Lord Peter Wimsey, one of her characters, was an adult in the stories--but he'd had a childhood.
Anyway, DS posited God might have done something similar--i.e., created the world with built-in prior experiences of dinosaurs, etc.
And there was I thinking Sayers was an Anglican. Not that I know. Maybe I'm getting her confused with Rose Macaulay or someone.
Anyway, that idea is older than her. Best known from Philip Gosse's "Omphalos" in the 1850s - which is a much better argument than it is usually held out to be. It is - and was - almost universally mocked, but he talks a lot of sense. Undisprovable of course.
If they were honest the YECs would admit that that is in fact what they do believe. But, maybe because Gosse was so laughed out of court, they skirt round it.
And, if true, the Omphalos makes no difference whatsoever to the way we should do or teach science. All science, all knowledge of any kind, has the sort of implied rider: "I might be making this up" or "I might be the only being in the Universe and dreaming it all" or "I might be a simulation in some computer model and apparent reality is just the programming" or "I might be a character in someone else's dream".
Just like we used to talk about over coffee when we were in the sixth form.
But if true it makes no difference to how we do or teach science. If God Almighty has faked the world, he's probably done it pretty well, and it behooves us to live in the world we see, not the one we imagine might have been had God done it differently. And in studying such a world we are studying the mind of God - which Christians who are scientists makes the practice of science a kind of worship.
Posted by Ian S (# 3098) on
:
Thanks for all your contributions to this thread.
Appears it's still pretty small in the UK, although the refers to Vardy trying to have it taught in schools is pretty worrying. As an evangelical I am embarrased to be equated with views such as this which have no serious scientific or theological basis.
I wonder who funds Answers in Genesis and their ilk. They have very impressive websites and publications (the presentation I mean NOT the content). Does anyone know?
Posted by John Collins (# 41) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ian S:
I wonder who funds Answers in Genesis and their ilk. They have very impressive websites and publications (the presentation I mean NOT the content). Does anyone know?
I believe they are connected with "Gospelcom" which has Mr DeVos of Scamway fame on its board.
If you poke around sites about Scamway like this you should find the refs.
Posted by Stubble (# 4240) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Sticking to discussing the churches attitude to YEC, rather than the truth or falsity of YEC, what makes me angry is the theological implications of the thing. They make the world a sort of VR, a working model of a world rather than a real world. This is I think unchristian, it brings the Church into disrepute, is dishonouring to God, and tends to diminish the truth of the Incarnation.
I suspect, though I don't know, that they will tend to doubt the reality of the incarnation. Either by Arianising; or by hyper-spiritualising, making the physical world into an illusion or at any rate something of unimportance. I woudln;t be surprised if Turn your eyes upon Jesus is one of their favourite songs.
As I said before the church I attend is creationist and have in the past hosted AiG events. However I don't see how your other points follow. They also preach that we live in a real physical but sin-cursed world, that Christ was fully man and fully God, died, was resurrected, ascended and will return bodily to claim his kingdom. I don't see any contradiction in these positions indeed they approach all Scripture from what I would see as a consistent hermeneutic position, that the Scripture is true unless something in the text or elsewhere in Scripture says otherwise. I'm not sure I end up agreeing with them on every interpretation of what it all means and the application for our life, but it is a valid position to start from, surely.
My personal take on this is similar to the Sayers / (other guy whose name I can't remember) approach but is based more on my experience of working in a engineering environment.
This issue also ties in with different church's perception of why God created (by your method of choice) the earth and us in the first place. But that is probably a separate thread.
And though some people like it, I'm not a big fan of that particular song.
Posted by Ham'n'Eggs (# 629) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bonzo:
'Given the prerequisite of inerrancy' and 'logical' cannot go together in the same sentence.
This is nonsense. Any a priori condition however illogical may be used as the basis of a logical argument. The very fact that a condition is a prerequisite immediately renders it unnecessary to apply logic to its evaluation.
Posted by Jimi Kendricks (# 3274) on
:
I come from a conservative church background in a conservative country - House churches, evangelical summer camps, "field services", etc, etc.
As someone who's 1/ read "Creation Ex-nihilo", 2/ been to a Ken Ham lecture, 3/ sent a Creation Science book to a former school science teacher, 4/ brought "Creation Ex-nihilo" books to my Christian Union in college and who 5/ now doesn't give a rats about origins other than believing that God was involved, I feel I am qualified to speak on the subject!
1/ Creation Ex-Nihilo pretends to be a scientific magazine, but it's only way of convincing readers of creation is by reducing science to the level of Children's cartoons. I remember a drawing of a Neanderthal man with a big bowler hat on, with the caption something like "Neanderthal men were normal humans. If this man were to pass you on the street he would look like any other man"
2/ Ken Ham is one of the most arrogant speakers I've ever had to listen to.
3/ For about 2 years I believed 7-day creation was one of the most important parts of Christianity. Am I stupid? No. Am I educated? Yes. Am I a scientist. No.
4/ Creation Science and Christian cults have a lot in common. They both take sections of the bible, declare them "the most important thing to believe first" and as a result completely miss the essence of what Christianity means. With creationists like Mr. Ham, the line is "If you don't believe in 7-day creation, you don't believe the bible and therefore your faith is a LIE, therefore you are a LIAR and you are DECEIVED".
5/ I gave up my strong belief in 7-day creation because all the Creation Science I read was rubbish and all the Creation Scientists I met were at least half mad.
Posted by Jimi Kendricks (# 3274) on
:
P.S. Alan C - you have a very good understanding of the 7-day creation supporters which displays good understanding and rational thinking. Much more palatible than Bonzo's rash generalisations.
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by golden key:
Ok, Hatless. But now that you are a Christian...if the entire world tried to pull apart your faith AND you still felt Christianity was true, would you stick with it?
That's the position in which creationists find themselves.
The entire world is trying to pull my faith apart! At least, the world is a strong challenge to my faith, and many people have good arguments against my faith (not least other Christians).
If I take my faith seriously I must engage with these challenges. I must consider the difficult arguments as thoroughly and fairly as possible. They might be right. I must consider the unpalatable truths about human nature and the suffering of others. That means, because it is faith and not certain truth, that I must live with many unanswered questions. My faith is on probation. Sometimes I think my faith has what it takes to come through it all, sometimes I doubt it. That's faith, isn't it? It has an open character.
Coleridge said something like: He who begins by loving Christianity more than the truth, proceeds by loving his sect more than Christianity, and ends by loving himself best of all.
Posted by OgtheDim (# 3200) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bonzo:
Here are the possibilities as I see them:
- They have deceived themselves completely and are inadvertanly deceiving others.
- They have partially decieved themselves but know deep down that they are wrong but refuse to admit it.
- They are well aware that they are wrong but are making a packet out of it.
The first is unlikely, given the fact that they flatly refuse to look at the evidence in any objective way. The second is the kindest possible interpretation. The third is the most likely IMO.
Apply your three approaches to Christianity too; many have done it before. In fact, if you think somebody else's beliefs are false, you can apply these approaches to almost anything.
Bonzo, you ever actually sit down to a meal with the laity who sincerly believe this? They believe, sincerly. Are they wrong? Probably.
But these people's beliefs are sincere. Your calling their belief self-deception is not a proof that these people are self-deceiving themselves.
Heck, Bonzo, much of this world think we, being Christians, are self-deceiving. Because, as Hebrews says, faith is the evidence of things not seen.
Posted by J. J. Ramsey (# 1174) on
:
I think the mindset of many YE creationists can be summed up in Orwell's idea of "doublethink" in 1984:
quote:
Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them. The Party intellectual knows in which direction his memories must be altered; he therefore knows that he is playing tricks with reality; but by the exercise of doublethink he also satisfies himself that reality is not violated. The process has to be conscious, or it would not be carried out with sufficient precision, but it also has to be unconscious, or it would bring with it a feeling of falsity and hence of guilt.
Doublethink lies at the very heart of Ingsoc [English Socialism], since the essential act of the Party is to use conscious deception while retaining the firmness of purpose that goes with complete honesty. To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing them and to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies - all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth. Ultimately it is by means of doublethink that the Party has been able - and may, for all we know, continue to be able for thousands of years - to arrest the course of history.
Posted by Tom Day (# 3630) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by OgtheDim:
Apply your three approaches to Christianity too; many have done it before. In fact, if you think somebody else's beliefs are false, you can apply these approaches to almost anything.
Bonzo, you ever actually sit down to a meal with the laity who sincerly believe this? They believe, sincerly. Are they wrong? Probably.
But these people's beliefs are sincere. Your calling their belief self-deception is not a proof that these people are self-deceiving themselves.
Heck, Bonzo, much of this world think we, being Christians, are self-deceiving. Because, as Hebrews says, faith is the evidence of things not seen.
The problem is not what people believe, as we are all going to have different opinions on different aspects of our faith, but when people say you can't be a proper christian unless you take the bible literally / believe in a Young Earth and creationism. The creationists that I have met / know seem to be more judgemental of my christianity then others, which leads to stereotypical views about literallists.
I think it is also easier as a liberal christian to respect others views as christian, as you are coming from a different angle. As I said, there is no problem with people believing in a Young Earth, even with all the scientific evidence, the problem comes when some people claim to believe otherwise is wrong.
Posted by OgtheDim (# 3200) on
:
Can I point out one YEC'er I know was ushering on the weekend wearing sandals and his usual goofy grin? He's a nice guy; gives a darn about the world etc. Wrong on the dinosaurs? Yeah, but a nice guy and, as per usual, not the stereotypes hinted at on this thread.
All comes back to a particular thing God keeps pointing out to me: It's too easy for me to be judgemental until I get to know those I am being judgemental about. ![[Embarrassed]](icon_redface.gif)
Posted by J. J. Ramsey (# 1174) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by OgtheDim:
Can I point out one YEC'er I know was ushering on the weekend wearing sandals and his usual goofy grin? He's a nice guy; gives a darn about the world etc. Wrong on the dinosaurs? Yeah, but a nice guy and, as per usual, not the stereotypes hinted at on this thread.
Fair enough. I'd say that there is a vast difference, though, between Christians who believe YEC because they don't know any better and don't have the knowledge to call bullsh*t on AiG and the like, and the creationist pseudoscientists who engage in twisting of the facts.
Posted by Bonzo (# 2481) on
:
quote:
Fair enough. I'd say that there is a vast difference, though, between Christians who believe YEC because they don't know any better and don't have the knowledge to call bullsh*t on AiG and the like, and the creationist pseudoscientists who engage in twisting of the facts.
I agree wholeheartedly with this.
How far do people have to go before we call them deceivers. What about the BNP (extreme right wing British National Party) who claim they are not racist and who post lies and half truths through peoples doors. We (mainly) seem happy to say that they are deceivers yet they believe passionately that they are right. Now I'm not saying AIG is in that league yet. But what they are doing uses the same methodology which is deception.
Whether or not their deception is deliberate or not (and my assesment is that most likely it is). The Church should be more active in speaking out against it.
Do a little exercise. Count up the number of times you have heard creationism claimed from the pulpit or in a speech or at a concert or Spring Harvest or whatever. Now count up the times you've heard it denounced in the same sort of places.
Posted by Bonzo (# 2481) on
:
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Bonzo:
'Given the prerequisite of inerrancy' and 'logical' cannot go together in the same sentence.
Reply by Ham n Eggs
This is nonsense. Any a priori condition however illogical may be used as the basis of a logical argument. The very fact that a condition is a prerequisite immediately renders it unnecessary to apply logic to its evaluation.
You are technically correct. But you are well aware that the a priori position is completely bobbins and you know that's what I'm trying to say. Whether or not you can pursue a logical argument from such a position, there's very little reasonable point in doing so. Let's leave the semantics and get on with the discussion.
Posted by Ham'n'Eggs (# 629) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bonzo:
You are technically correct. But you are well aware that the a priori position is completely bobbins and you know that's what I'm trying to say. Whether or not you can pursue a logical argument from such a position, there's very little reasonable point in doing so. Let's leave the semantics and get on with the discussion.
This is precisely the approach that many atheists of the Richard Dawkins school would take towards Christianity.
Why should it be wrong for them, and right for you?
Posted by Ham'n'Eggs (# 629) on
:
I do have to say that there seems to be substantial inconsistency on the part of those who actually formulate creationist ideas.
The most glaring error is that very few of them actually believe that the earth is flat and immovable. This is despite very many specific references to this fact in the Bible. In fact, belief that the Earth is round is wellknown to be a Pagan invention, and such apostacy among people who claim to be among the elect is to be deplored.
Posted by Bonzo (# 2481) on
:
quote:
This is precisely the approach that many atheists of the Richard Dawkins school would take towards Christianity.
Why should it be wrong for them, and right for you?
Christians who wish to argue their faith using science and logic, and will not question their assumptions, when they are easily capable of doing so, also behave dishonestly. Atheists take the moral highground if they point this out.
Are you trying to tell me that you think the YEC 'a priori' assumption has credibility, or are you trying to say that any 'a priori' assumption must be respected as reasonable?
Posted by Ham'n'Eggs (# 629) on
:
Neither. I am attempting to point out to you that the Christian a priori postion of the existance of God is rejected by the more militant atheist for precisely the same reasons that you object to inerrency - that they are both ludicrously illogical.
Such a judgement depends more I suspect on philosophy rather than science, and ISTM that both you and they are employing the wrong tool in this regard.
Posted by Bonzo (# 2481) on
:
I don't have an a priori position on the existence of God. My argument on that subject would be that one can never know either way, but that given the impossibility of reason to deduce God's existence it is both reasonable and perhaps scientific to explore using whatever tools are available. So I hope without proof or too much concrete evidence that God exists and I try to have a relationship with her (if she exists). The relationship itself and the fact that it works for me is reason enough to keep at it. I beleive this to be an honest approach.
Posted by J. J. Ramsey (# 1174) on
:
There are two different kinds of a priori assumptions: the kind that you believe no matter the evidence, and the kind that you are willing to stop believing if evidence and argument show the assumption faulty.
There was nothing wrong with scientists from a few centuries ago to assume YEC. Based on the info available, YEC fit decently well with what was known at the time. As new evidence was uncovered, YEC assumptions became less and less tenable, and so it was ditched by the vast majority of the scientific community.
There is a lesson here: wrong initial assumptions do not necessarily lead to wrong results in the long run so long as we are willing to put our assumptions to the test, and ditch them when they cease to fit reality.
Posted by Karl - Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
There is a discrepancy between the run-of-the-mill YEC one might meet in church, and the one one meets on the web.
As a rule, the one one meets on the web is the one who's adamant about it. He sees any deviation from Biblical literalism as apostasy, and believes he has a mission to warn the heretics.
It's probably true that most aren't like this. Just the ones you meet on the web on creation/evolution debating boards. So this probably jaundices the view of folk like me and Tom, who do pop in on debates on sites that are in more - erm - rigidly conservative areas of Christianity.
Besides that, as I posted on evcforum (http://www.evcforum.net):
quote:
Well, I divide creationists into three types.
(a) Originators. Folks like ICR and AiG, lone mavericks like Kent Hovind. These guys come up with the creationist arguments, and invent new ones as old ones are shown to be complete bollocks and enter the PRATT list. Many (but not all!) of these are competent scientists, but driven by ideology rather than by the scientific principle.
(b) Propogators. These are the churches, organisations and individuals who take the stuff that group (a) generates and disseminate it. So here you have the majority of creationist web sites, for example. These are a bit behind group (a), and they know that group (c) (below) will swallow whatever bullshit they are fed, working on the "what I want to believe" principle.
(c) Rank and File. The Man in the Pew. The reader of "Dinosaurs, Jesus and More". He probably has enough science to understand a creationist argument, but not enough to see why it's horsefeathers. His delusion by groups (a) and (b) is aided by two things: firstly, he has an innate trust in the teachers in his church, and secondly, he wants to believe there is scientific support for his faith-based worldview. The first of these is actually quite significant, because it is what stops the creationist from actually checking what he has been told. It is why we get individuals on here who spout a load of regurgitated gobshite from AiG or Hovind. These creationists don't read the counter arguments, and certainly don't follow any links to further information. They don't need to - they know the 'truth' already.
I would add that I would question the honesty sometimes of groups (a) and (b) (for reasons outlined in an earlier post and link). Of group (c) I have no question of the sincerity. Indeed, pointing out the inaccuracies and misrepresentations of groups (a) and (b) forms a considerable part of the creation/evolution debates I am involved in.
It should be minded that I was thinking of the "active" creationist one meets on the web when I wrote section (c), and it is totally based on my experience and I stand by it. As I explained in my first paragraphs above, I know that many YECs are not like this, just the ones one meets in internet debates.
Posted by Priest (# 4313) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ham'n'Eggs:
Priest: I'm not sure that I fully understood your original point. I thought that you were suggesting that man is a separate creation, whilst it seems to me that the currently available evidence strongly suggests that man shares a common ancestor with other animals, including the neanderthal and the cro-magnon. In terms of God's creativity, I have no problem with seeing these as variations on a theme.
Having not as yet found an acceptable answer in either conventional creationism or in conventional evolution, I sit somewhere between on the basis that evolution could easily be a display of God's "baking cake" of the world and humanity, going through the changes in the oven of time until it becomes the finished product.
This is a hypothesis that sits adequately with me and will do so until evidence to contrary is presented to me.
Posted by Louise (# 30) on
:
quote:
firstly, he has an innate trust in the teachers in his church,
This is actually the bit I find really scary about these creationist schools. Many of these teachers will be dedicated people who have chosen to dedicate themselves to working with kids from deprived areas to improve their education. That will give them immense authority and influence over a lot of the children - who will then be fed complete crap about science and the natural world - by people they have learned to trust for their dedication and knowledge in other areas.
It reminds me of the old saying about a spoonful of shit in the honey spoiling the lot.
This is another reason why non-Creationist Christians and churches need to be much more vocal on this issue. It is no longer just a problem to be associated with certain states in America. It is here and it is being assisted by the policies of our own government.
There needs to be more thought about government funded faith schools and what they can teach, but perhaps this whole issue needs a separate thread.
Louise
Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on
:
There's a word for those in group C.
Deluded.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl - Liberal Backslider:
(a) Originators. Folks like ICR and AiG, lone mavericks like Kent Hovind.
[...]
Many (but not all!) of these are competent scientists, but driven by ideology rather than by the scientific principle.
This is the bit I find hard to swallow. Some of the things some of these blokes say are so off-the-walll that I have trouble believing they are both competant and honest.
(Much less problem with your categories b & c - most people are ignorant about lots of things & we all tend to trust those who seem trustworthy)
Being a natural-born conspiracy theorist I wonder what they are getting out of it.
It sometimes looks malicious. Sometimes it is malicious. Some of these guys are genuinely nasty - threats and lies and attempts to damage the reputation of scientists.
As you noticed, they make me cross. Lies make me cross and I think some of them are lying in order to stay in power in their little sects.
I have less sympathy for that than I do with some church leader or evangelist caught with his hand in the till, or his willy in a member of the congregation other than the one he's married too. I can sort of sympathise with that. Lots of otherwise decent people fall for such temptations.
Maybe that's just my problem. Am I really saying I'd prefer an church leader to be an adulterer than to be a young-earther?
No, I guess I'm not. But I think I might be saying I prefer a church leader to be an adulterer than to be a scientist who makes up lies about science for some reason.
But then, like I said before, for me doing science can be a form of worship. Finding out about God's creation and our place in it is a way of putting God in the correct place in our minds & that's worship.
Posted by Karl - Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
One can be a competent scientist but leave one's competency outside of certain areas. This I am sure is what is happening.
And I did mention that I am given to question the honesty of group (a).
What do they get out of it? Lucrative lecture tours and book royalties, I think.
Posted by Ian S (# 3098) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
quote:
firstly, he has an innate trust in the teachers in his church,
This is actually the bit I find really scary about these creationist schools. Many of these teachers will be dedicated people who have chosen to dedicate themselves to working with kids from deprived areas to improve their education. That will give them immense authority and influence over a lot of the children - who will then be fed complete crap about science and the natural world - by people they have learned to trust for their dedication and knowledge in other areas.
It reminds me of the old saying about a spoonful of shit in the honey spoiling the lot.
This is another reason why non-Creationist Christians and churches need to be much more vocal on this issue. It is no longer just a problem to be associated with certain states in America. It is here and it is being assisted by the policies of our own government.
There needs to be more thought about government funded faith schools and what they can teach, but perhaps this whole issue needs a separate thread.
Louise
An excellent idea Louise - I will start one.
Posted by OgtheDim (# 3200) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Merseymike:
There's a word for those in group C.
Deluded.
Oh My God, please pray for me all you saints above because I actually agree with Merseymike on somehing. ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Deluded perfectly fits this group. Nice some of them, but...deluded.
Og needs coffee to recover from the shock
Posted by John Collins (# 41) on
:
I think we all agree (more coughing and spluttering in astonishment) that group C are deluded but what about group A?
I agree myself with Bonzo that it goes beyond incompetence with people like AiG and what have you.
They are telling porkies and regurgitating stuff they know has been refuted umpteen times over yet they still publish the same thing.
If this "makes people stumble" as Louise has pointed out (not in those words), then surely, going back to the thread, which is "Church attitudes to creationism" then the conclusion should be that churches ought to disown it at least as quickly as the activities of the owners of the misplaced hands or willies that Ken refers to?
Even if they aren't deliberately lying, though I am personally sure they are, it is still something which should be corrected if it misleads some people and deludes our category C friends.
Posted by Kevin Iga (# 4396) on
:
About my post on the rise of fundamentalism: I didn't say anything about the theological work "The Fundamentals" after which fundamentalism was named. That's because "The Fundamentals" (1910-1915?) was a series of pamphlets against modernism in general and not against evolution.
It was only in the 1920s that the focus of fundamentalism was Darwinian evolution or biblical inerrancy. "The fundamentals" is not a part of the story of the rise of creationism; 1920s fundamentalism is.
---
About whether YEC or AiG is deliberately lying:
I don't know about the particular individuals involved, but I can easily imagine people taking their positions honestly. It's a matter of being firmly committed to a particular view. If you see information that supports your view, you accept it. If you see information that contradicts your view, you reject it, and possibly deconstruct it. If you see information that might be construed to support your view, you find a way for it to support your view.
There is a point at which you might reject your view. That point is different for different people.
People, I think, do this kind of thing all the time, for lots of things. I see this in students who have a particular view of things, and need to be challenged to view the world differently. I see this in myself, when my acceptance of facts depends on how well it fits into my worldview.
Scientists do this, too. But in science, there are built-in checks in the methodology to make the choice of when to reject a theory and when to keep it much more systematic.
YEC are no different. But for some, rejecting YEC seems immoral, so they will refuse to do so unless someone can demonstrate the reverse from the Bible, using the hermeneutic they accept as definitive, or something at that level.
Kevin
Posted by Kevin Iga (# 4396) on
:
Another thing: If it is wrong for the Church to make statements about whether a certain scientific theory is right or wrong, then does it follow that the Church also shouldn't come out against Creation Science and the like, even to say that "it's not science"?
Kevin
Posted by JimT (# 142) on
:
No. They should say, "It is not Biblically required, as implied by its proponents."
Posted by golden key (# 1468) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by JimT:
No. They should say, "It is not Biblically required, as implied by its proponents."
Respectfully:
If non-Creationist churches want to say that for the record, and maybe to help fence-sitters hop off the fence to the evolution side, good.
But it would do nothing positive for the folks who truly believe. They take an entirely different position on the Bible, and will simply think the evolution-accepting churches guilty of all the things that have been said about creationists here.
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
Rather than knocking YE Creationism, wouldn't it be better for 'non-Creationist' churches to affirm the ideas about creation which they do hold?
You could say that creation is not just about origins, but about a constant relation between God and the world. God is there moment by moment as a sort of 'cause' or reason or ground for the world.
You could say that belief in God as creator affirms the value of created things. The idea that Homo sapiens must be specially created in order to be sufficiently special - a spiritual being - is less persuasive if all creation is in its natural processes, including evolution, an expression of God's nature.
If God's world is evolutionary, then there aren't brute animals on the one hand, and humans with souls on the other. There is a continuum. Evolution can produce different degrees of sentience at different times. So there is a respect proper to other animals, and perhaps to the inanimate world, too. Colossians says that all creation will be perfected in Christ. This world is not just a disposable container for an experiment with souls, it all has an eternal destiny of some sort. Evolution expresses this better than 6 day creation.
An evolutionary understanding of creation implies that God can work in other natural and normal processes, too. If creation is evolutionary rather than six-day, then healing can be medical or drug assisted and still be God's work. God doesn't just work through miracles - good sanitation can be the Spirit's work.
Evolutionary creation shifts the whole relation of God and the world away from special, invasive, divine acts surrounded by acres of non-God stuff, to a much more immanent view with everything charged with God's presence.
I'm sure others could do better than I have, but the point is that it may be better to affirm the alternative than to knock YEC.
Posted by JimT (# 142) on
:
A 'Creationist' church which denies evolution on theological grounds is in the same position as a hypothetical 'Newtonian' church which rejects Einstein's theory of Relativity on the grounds that it leads to moral relativism and therefore cannot be correct. It would do no good for other Churches to somehow respect the 'Newtonian' churches' opinions on how theology should inform science, nor to tippy toe around 'Newtonian' followers on the premise that they need the Absolutism of Newton and would be disturbed by the Relativity of Einstein. That's my view.
Posted by Jesuitical Lad (# 2575) on
:
JimT,
I suspect you may get a kick out of this. (And no, before everyone starts piling on, Sungenis does not represent Catholic teaching in his whacky anti-Einsteinianism.)
Posted by Kevin Iga (# 4396) on
:
Yes, I agree that the Church should not come out in favor of evolution either, except to say that it does not contradict church teaching.
Knowledge in science is always being updated and tweaked and sometimes revolutionized. You're talking about Einstein's theory of relativity just now. There were two such: his special theory of relativity, and a more-encompassing general theory of relativity. In my view, his general theory of relativity will one day be replaced by a more encompassing theory still.
The Church coming to grips with Aristotelian views of physics was what got it in trouble when Copernicus suggested the earth went around the sun. Or rather, what got Galileo in trouble for a few years, and what got the church in trouble for 350 years since. You see, the church was overly-invested in a particular view concerning a theory of astronomy, so when Galileo came around, it took sides when it should not have.
Similarly, if one day someone finds a more encompassing theory than evolution, the church shouldn't suddenly defend Darwin.
Kevin
Posted by J. J. Ramsey (# 1174) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kevin Iga:
Yes, I agree that the Church should not come out in favor of evolution either, except to say that it does not contradict church teaching.
The problem is that it's a lot more complicated than that. Let's face it. Evolution and an old earth just do not mesh well with the Bible as we have it. While it is not fatal to Christianity per se, it is a major challenge not only to beliefs in inerrancy, but also to our understanding of sin and death. To say that evolution "does not contradict church teaching" is often just not true, especially among more conservative traditions.
Posted by JimT (# 142) on
:
JL, immensely entertaining. You have definitely earned a ![[Not worthy!]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Right off the top, we have the "Pink" Einstein. Not communist pink. Homosexual pink. First thing you know, Things are Relative, next thing you know gays are in the church.
I knew there had to be "anti-relativist" Biblical literalists somewhere. All the arguments are the same: scientists have a secret agenda, scientists all brainwash each other, they can't prove it to me to my satisfaction so it's not proven and is a matter of opinion, yada, yada, yada. ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
I'll tell you what, he doesn't back off an inch. The earth is the center of the universe, evolution is wrong and so is relativity...until the Church says so. What I really like is his implication that when and if the Church says to switch, he will switch and defend the opposite position as vigorously as possible. That's his job as a Catholic. ![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif)
One wonders why someone as smart and clever with words as he is doesn't latch onto "but relativity is based on an Absolute: the speed of light." Instead, he rolls his eyes and says oh yeah, prove it. He's already there. The theory of relativity could as easily be renamed the theory of absolutivity. ![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
Thanks again.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kevin Iga:
Yes, I agree that the Church should not come out in favor of evolution either, except to say that it does not contradict church teaching.
Knowledge in science is always being updated and tweaked and sometimes revolutionized.
OK, I'll disagree with that. I think the church should be coming out in favour of evolution. Something along the lines of what hatless wrote would be a good start.
The church should be affirming that the scientific method is the best way of understanding the material universe, and that this is an exploration of the creation of God as it is and as such scientific results are (provisional) truth. Such an affirmation is impossible without supporting the best understanding of the universe we have - and that includes Relativity and evolution.
The church should also, naturally, be clearly demonstrating that the material is not the totality of all that is. And I would be a little bit concerned if the church started forming dogma dependent on any scientific theory.
Posted by Ben26 (# 4201) on
:
My old Church was very creationist. I seriously think that about 99% of the people there (including all the staff) would say they are creationists.
According to them, Evolutionists are liars, misquoters, idiots, psuedo-scientists and utter morons who use Darwin in a an attempt to get out of their responsibility to God. They say, there is no evidence whatsoever for any form of evolution, that people who believe there is evidence are brain-washed and/or have twisted the evidence to suit themselves. They falsely qoute scientists such as Dawkins, Hawkins, Gould and Darwin as saying that the main/only reason they believe in evolution is that it isn't Biblical Creationism which might might them feel guilty for their sins. The Vicar of this church had an Oxbridge Ph. D.
I also know of roughly 5 other churchs in the same area that take this attitude.
The thing is, much as I am ashamed of this, I agreed with this pov for years and am only just learning about the other side to the story. I therefore am not 100% sure who or what to believe but it does seem as though evolution is true. I'm a bit confused about it right now.
If anyone can give me the ISBN number for finding Darwin's God I would be grateful. Am also reading Stephen Jay Gould a lot at the moment but I know so little about the issues that I'm not sure how far I should rely on what he says.
Ben26
Posted by John Collins (# 41) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ben26:
If anyone can give me the ISBN number for finding Darwin's God I would be grateful.
ISBN:is 0060175931
I would recommend The Talk.Origins Archives - they have some incredibly well-written articles, many by Christians.
Posted by Ben26 (# 4201) on
:
Thanks John.
Will try and order the book on Monday and will look at the website you posted. Not sure how a few fanatics managed to convince me that evolution is nothing but lies, but convince me they did. I am starting to feel extremely foolish.
Ben26
Posted by CJ (# 2166) on
:
Ben, having the honesty to rethink things and be open about that process makes you anything but foolish.
CJ
Posted by JimT (# 142) on
:
quote:
The Vicar of this church had an Oxbridge Ph. D.
Dare I ask in what?
Posted by Ben26 (# 4201) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by CJ:
Ben, having the honesty to rethink things and be open about that process makes you anything but foolish.
CJ
CJ - Thank you for your kind words. I hope I have not annoyed too many people with my monkey-quibbles. To everyone who has tried to help me re: evolution - thank you.
Jim - the vicar in question has an Oxbridge Ph. D in Theology.
Ben26
Posted by dsiegmund (# 908) on
:
The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod has this on the subject in their FAQ:
quote:
Q. A person, because of his study of science, does not believe that the universe was created in six literal 24-hour periods. Does this fact, by itself, render this person ineligible for membership in the LCMS?
A. A person's private views regarding this question do not automatically disqualify a person from becoming a member of the congregation. It is possible, of course, that someone holding to a given theory about the "six days" of the creation accounts also holds to views about the Bible that would be troublesome and perhaps in some cases detrimental to saving faith.
It has generally been taught in our church that unless there is a compelling reason, on the basis of the biblical texts themselves, to understand the six days of the Genesis accounts as anything other than normal 24-hour days, we are to believe that God created the world in six 24-hour days (see Luther's Small Catechism with Explanation, Question 97 [CPH, 1986, p. 106]).
Posted by JimT (# 142) on
:
Having spent a little time on the LCMS web site recently, I would say that they are right: if you can't swallow six 24-hour days, you are not going to be able to swallow the rest of their doctrine.
Posted by Kevin Iga (# 4396) on
:
As a friend of mine pointed out, if God's going to try that hard to make it appear as though the earth was old, who am I to fight God on this? I'll submit to Him and believe the earth is old.
Kevin
Posted by golden key (# 1468) on
:
Sometimes, I wonder how much we can truly know, seeing that we're *inside* The Story.
Posted by Zeke (# 3271) on
:
Good one, Kevin.
Ben, I have always enjoyed Gould's essays, and have 5 books of them. He helps you understand complex ideas about God's universe, and see how wondrous and even entertaining it all is. He was a paleontologist, but reading his essays make you see that he had a piercing interest in all creation, and you get to experience the delight of it with him. I was very sad when he died recently.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by dsiegmund:
The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod has this on the subject in their FAQ:
quote:
It has generally been taught in our church that unless there is a compelling reason, on the basis of the biblical texts themselves, to understand the six days of the Genesis accounts as anything other than normal 24-hour days, we are to believe that God created the world in six 24-hour days (see Luther's Small Catechism with Explanation, Question 97 [CPH, 1986, p. 106]).
Aaaah - yet another issue on which Calvin talked more sense than Luther
Posted by Ben26 (# 4201) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zeke:
Good one, Kevin.
Ben, I have always enjoyed Gould's essays, and have 5 books of them. He helps you understand complex ideas about God's universe, and see how wondrous and even entertaining it all is. He was a paleontologist, but reading his essays make you see that he had a piercing interest in all creation, and you get to experience the delight of it with him. I was very sad when he died recently.
Yes, Gould is an excellent writer who has introduced me to some (for me) very new and exciting ideas. Have also been looking at this website originally posted by John Collins
All I can say about the website in question is - wow! I had genuinely not heard much of this stuff before and as for the utter demolishing of Gish and other creationists - wow. So, it is the creationists who use smear tactics and lies to hide weak arguements. Should I say "allegedly"? I take it that most scientists aboard the ship take the arguements in "Talk Origins" pretty seriously and I am in no position to doubt that they/you say. Wow.
Wow.
Ben26
Posted by flatnose (# 4516) on
:
My head has been caved in so much with the attitudes of my local Independant Evangelical church in regards to Creationism. ![[Waterworks]](graemlins/bawling.gif)
I am very much at peace with the Genesis story which I interpret in the following way.
1) God created everything in six periods of time and rested in the seventh period of time.
2) God could have used anything as a tool to do this job, including evolution if He wanted.
3) I wasn't there and I really don't have a clue. Like Revelation, Genesis is on the limits of my understanding and I like it that way.
4)I'll find out all about it when I get to heaven.
We moved house recently and went to a new church and before long I was getting battered with young earth creationism. Their attitude seems to be that if you are a Bible believing Christian you have to believe in YEC and to entertain any other ideas is against scripture. I suffered some mental anguish as the peer pressure was phenomenal and suffered more than one sleepless night.
My wife and I believe in suppporting our local church but after attending for a year we left. Although the congregation are good generous genuine folk we felt burdened in the fact that we could not truly be our natural selves on a number of issues and had to live up to a 'party political broadcast' the main context of which, the absolute literal interpretation of the Bible as preached by the pastor and YEC was a fundamental to spiritual maturity.
I have to say that I believe that there is sometimes an element of spiritual pride in those who preach YEC so fervently. Not many people in the modern world can accept YEC. It is a burden to those outside the church looking in and is, I believe often used as a benchmark to judge a persons spiritual health in some Evangelical circles. I have now come to the conclusion that anybody stating that YEC is an essential, noble or desirable requirement of the Christian walk adds a great spiritual burden to the Gospel and in doing so is walking the path of the pharisee.
Isaiah 28,10
For it is:
Do and do, do and do,
rule on rule, rule on rule [1] ;
a little here, a little there."
Posted by Lurker (# 1384) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
Perhaps the situation is different in America where it has a kind of 'critical mass' in some areas, so you'd be more likely to find intelligent people who believe it because they've been brought up to believe it, but over here in GB I think it's not generally accepted anywhere (unless it has a few strongholds in the Western Isles).
In my experience, YEC is widely believed by young evangelicals in Scotland, particularly Baptists and Charismatics, Brethren etc. I think CU types (or ex-CU types) form the bulk of active YECs here. I became a YEC (don't worry, I've repented it ) through a youth-oriented meeting which Ken Ham spoke at (does he still have that silly beard?).
I don't know about the Western Isles, but I do know that Thomas Chalmers, who founded the Wee Frees, was a gap theorist (he may have actually invented it).
Another point from Scottish history:
Earlier in the thread, someone mentioned Ken Ham moaning about Darwin being buried in Westminster Abbey. When he spoke in Edinburgh, Ham complained about the contrast between this and John Knox being buried under a car parking space (well, it wasn't a car park when he was buried, obviously) outside St. Giles. This shows the anti-Christian bias in our culture, Ham contends.
Actually, I think the reason John Knox doesn't have a fancy tomb is that he would have considered such a thing to be 'Popery' and would have 'birled in his grave' if his followers took time off from smashing up crosses on Iona to build him one.
Posted by Gracious rebel (# 3523) on
:
quote:
I am very much at peace with the Genesis story which I interpret in the following way.
1) God created everything in six periods of time and rested in the seventh period of time.
2) God could have used anything as a tool to do this job, including evolution if He wanted.
3) I wasn't there and I really don't have a clue. Like Revelation, Genesis is on the limits of my understanding and I like it that way.
4)I'll find out all about it when I get to heaven.
I like this approach. Very much. In fact its exactly what I think too, and is about as much as I want to think about it.
Strange though, when I'm talking to YEC folk, I feel like an evolutionist, and when talking to staunch evolutionists I seem like a young earther. Weird that.
Posted by Lurker (# 1384) on
:
Alan, have you or any other Scottish shipmates been to the young-earth Creationist shop in Edinburgh Paradigm Shift? They sell telescopes etc and other things mainly aimed at children who are interested in science ('my first microscope' type stuff). And they teach YEC. They want to provide resources for creationist parents who homeschool, as well as reaching the members of the public who wander in.
Their website also slags off Galileo
quote:
Galileo and others believed that science was a higher authority than the church's. As a consequence the authority of the Bible was undermined.
I wonder if they still sell the "Oi! Evolution! No!" tract?
Posted by Louise (# 30) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lurker:
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
Perhaps the situation is different in America where it has a kind of 'critical mass' in some areas, so you'd be more likely to find intelligent people who believe it because they've been brought up to believe it, but over here in GB I think it's not generally accepted anywhere (unless it has a few strongholds in the Western Isles).
In my experience, YEC is widely believed by young evangelicals in Scotland, particularly Baptists and Charismatics, Brethren etc. I think CU types (or ex-CU types) form the bulk of active YECs here. I became a YEC (don't worry, I've repented it ) through a youth-oriented meeting which Ken Ham spoke at (does he still have that silly beard?).
I don't know about the Western Isles, but I do know that Thomas Chalmers, who founded the Wee Frees, was a gap theorist (he may have actually invented it).
The current Free Church and Free Presbyterian Church (and splinter groups thereof) are not to be confused with the original Free Church of Chalmer's day.
The Free Presbyterians split off in the late 19th century because they wanted to keep a strict interpretation of the Westminster Confession and the bulk of the Free Church re-united with the Church of Scotland in 1929. It was a small minority of the most strict and conservative congregations which tended to stay out. As a result you're dealing with a different kettle of fish from Chalmer's day, though you make an excellent point: in Chalmer's day there was much more freedom of thought about this issue in the Free Kirk than most people realise. There are still eminent Free Church ministers though, like Professor Donald Macleod who represent the best of the earlier tradition of scholarship and piety.
I'm sorry to hear that YEC has as much currency in Scotland as you mention, as there is a fascinating tradition here of scholarly evangelical thought on the matter. Some eminent Scottish evangelicals like Chalmers and Hugh Miller rejected Young Earth views as early as the 1820s - long before Darwin wrote.
cheers,
L.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gracious rebel:
[QUOTE] Strange though, when I'm talking to YEC folk, I feel like an evolutionist, and when talking to staunch evolutionists I seem like a young earther. Weird that.
Not that weird. YEC would consider interpreting the "days" as anything other than 24h as dangerously compromising the plain reading of the Genesis account. On the other hand, reading the days as an account of the sequence of creation (albeit over considerably longer periods than 24h) has no more scientific support than YEC.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lurker:
Alan, have you or any other Scottish shipmates been to the young-earth Creationist shop in Edinburgh Paradigm Shift?
I know of the place. I was at a church in Edinburgh in Novemeber where the place was quite heavily advertised as being something "all Bible believing Christians should support". Though it was a (regular) service following an event organised by AiG which the AiG people were preaching at - so YEC may not be the normal line taken by that church.
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on
:
I have been all over the map on this one. I've been a YECist, a godless atheist, and everything in-between and several things out the sides which aren't really in-between at all.
Currently I find myself in something of a "the Bible is not a science textbook and must often be interpreted allegorically" and "let science do what science does best and theology do what theology does best" camp.
I hope I'm not beyond salvation even so.
Reader Alexis
Posted by LowFreqDude (# 3152) on
:
Unfortunately, to take the position that the Creation narrative is an allegory for an old earth/evolutionary view of things is that no-one has adequately explained the allegory in that light!
To my mind, trying to interpret it symbolically is a compromise too far; either reject the Genesis narrative entirely, or face up to it as a description of the creative will of God in action.
To return to an earlier point, I'd be interested to hear allegorists(!?!) mapping of the story to current evolutionary history (quote-unquote...). If the hosts deem it appropriate, I might kick off a new Purg thread to that effect.
LFD
Posted by Lurker (# 1384) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
On the other hand, reading the days as an account of the sequence of creation (albeit over considerably longer periods than 24h) has no more scientific support than YEC.
The idea that light was created before the sun, moon and stars kind of throws the day-age theory out of the window (not that I think it does 6-day Creationism any favours). Are you familiar with Hayward's 'days of divine' fiat theory? I'm not sure about it, though it was his book that 'converted' me from YEC.
LFD
quote:
Unfortunately, to take the position that the Creation narrative is an allegory for an old earth/evolutionary view of things is that no-one has adequately explained the allegory in that light!
Can allegorical or symbolic explanations be explained as clearly as a literal interpretation? I think, by their very nature, they can't be reduced to, say, a timeline like YEC can.
I think a thread along the lines you describe would be interesting, though.
Posted by LowFreqDude (# 3152) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lurker:
Can allegorical or symbolic explanations be explained as clearly as a literal interpretation? I think, by their very nature, they can't be reduced to, say, a timeline like YEC can.
I think a thread along the lines you describe would be interesting, though.
In my mind just saying "it's symbolic" is a cop out - the choice of symbols needs to have at least a partial comparison to the literal behind the allegory - consider the parables, for example.
Anyhoo, I'll fire up a new thread, once I've thought of an opening gambit.
LFD
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lurker:
[Actually, I think the reason John Knox doesn't have a fancy tomb is that he would have considered such a thing to be 'Popery' and would have 'birled in his grave' if his followers took time off from smashing up crosses on Iona to build him one.
So it was the Papists who put up th Knox monument in the Glasgow Necropolis then?
Posted by Lurker (# 1384) on
:
No, but it dates from the 19th century. The hardcore Presbyterians of old wouldn't have built one.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0