Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
As for what to do, I'm afraid I don't really have any advice. I couldn't stand to attend a YEC church - it'd drive me mad.

---

That's the problem, my family goes there, my best friends go there, the minister is a nice yet newly installed minister who has done pretty well with scripture up to now, however his science is just B-A-D, stuff just copied from an origins website with no thought has to secondary sources or any attempt at checking his facts.

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
This is, indeed, a perfect example of a thread which belongs on the DH board, but please do not view this as a demotion or a shutting down. It's a discussion well worth having and I hope it continues in its new home. Fasten your seatbelts and enjoy the ride.

Trudy, Scrumptious Purgatory Host

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Duplo:
... I'm wondering if it is best just to keep my head down and wait for the subject to disappear off the radar, which will mean missing church and home groups for a few weeks...

---

A few weeks, blimey, how long do they plan to discuss this topic for? And what is their purpose in doing this? Is it to:

a) evangelise people v1 (creation = need for a creator = God exists!)
b) evangelise people v2 (evolution supports immorality whereas theistic creation provides a basis for morality)
c)reject the 'devil' (atheist Richard Dawkins supports evolution, ergo it must be wrong).
d)be smug (we Christians are smarter than those scientists, we've got it all sorted here in this book) ?

And remember the words of St Michael of Jackson, "You are not alone".

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
As has been noted by others, YECism is a minority position within UK evangelicalism - although one that is becoming more vocal (if not necessarily stronger in terms of number of adherents). Historically, it's a doctrine within evangelicalism that's a mere 60 years old (there are strands of Lutheranism which hold onto a YEC view, and Seventh Day Adventists have believed YEC for a bit longer).

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
One could more easily argue that it's the idea of an ancient Earth that's the newcomer to Christian thought.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
One could more easily argue that it's the idea of an ancient Earth that's the newcomer to Christian thought.

---

You could argue it, but St Augustine would be on the other side.

---

quote:

---

They are deceived, too, by those highly mendacious documents which profess to give the history of many thousand years, though, reckoning by the sacred writings, we find that not 6000 years have yet passed.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

"With the scriptures it is a matter of treating about the faith. For that reason, as I have noted repeatedly, if anyone, not understanding the mode of divine eloquence, should find something about these matters [about the physical universe] in our books, or hear of the same from those books, of such a kind that it seems to be at variance with the perceptions of his own rational faculties, let him believe that these other things are in no way necessary to the admonitions or accounts or predictions of the scriptures."

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
As has been noted by others, YECism is a minority position within UK evangelicalism - although one that is becoming more vocal (if not necessarily stronger in terms of number of adherents). Historically, it's a doctrine within evangelicalism that's a mere 60 years old (there are strands of Lutheranism which hold onto a YEC view, and Seventh Day Adventists have believed YEC for a bit longer).

---

I guess that depends on how you define "evangelicalism", and why that's a meaningful distinction from other forms of Christianity on this question. Christian belief in a young Earth has a fairly ancient pedigree. One could more easily argue that it's the idea of an ancient Earth that's the newcomer to Christian thought.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by mrs whibley:
On no account let it destroy your faith, or let anyone tell you that this is what all Christians believe.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
He seems perfectly happy with a brief span of human history (and presumably of the Earth's history as well) and downright offended at the "mendacious" assertion that it's even as old as eight or ten thousand years.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
He seems perfectly happy with a brief span of human history (and presumably of the Earth's history as well) and downright offended at the "mendacious" assertion that it's even as old as eight or ten thousand years.

---

On what was the mendacious assertion based? Was it based on a scientific assessment of physical data, or some other mythology? If the latter, how does this prove anything worth saying about Augustine?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jon in the Nati:
St. Augustine, while he may have believed a so-called 'young earth', took the position throughout all of his various theological discourses that when scientific knowledge conflicts directly with the Scriptures, it is scientific knowledge that must predominate. For example:

quote:

---

"With the scriptures it is a matter of treating about the faith. For that reason, as I have noted repeatedly, if anyone, not understanding the mode of divine eloquence, should find something about these matters [about the physical universe] in our books, or hear of the same from those books, of such a kind that it seems to be at variance with the perceptions of his own rational faculties, let him believe that these other things are in no way necessary to the admonitions or accounts or predictions of the scriptures."

---

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

With the exception of small parts of Lutheranism, and probably a few small sects, belief in a young earth had almost totally disappeared from the Christian faith by the end of the 18th century.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
He seems perfectly happy with a brief span of human history (and presumably of the Earth's history as well) and downright offended at the "mendacious" assertion that it's even as old as eight or ten thousand years.

---

On what was the mendacious assertion based? Was it based on a scientific assessment of physical data, or some other mythology? If the latter, how does this prove anything worth saying about Augustine?

---

It proves, contra ken, that Augustine was not on the "old Earth" side of the young Earth/old Earth debate. I'm not entirely sure what St. Augustine being on "the other side" (again, using ken's terminology) was supposed to prove, but he quite clearly wasn't.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Well, exactly. It's also important to remember that St. Augustine lived before there were any means to uncover evidence that would shed doubt on a 6,000 year old earth.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
It proves, contra ken, that Augustine was not on the "old Earth" side of the young Earth/old Earth debate. I'm not entirely sure what St. Augustine being on "the other side" (again, using ken's terminology) was supposed to prove, but he quite clearly wasn't.

---

There was no young earth/old earth debate at that time, in the sense in which it matters, i.e. "old earth" being based on geological and fossil evidence. So you really can't put him on one side or the other of it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
That there were people around at the time who thought the earth was older than 6000 years (if there were) is none to the point -- if there were, their belief would with almost absolute certainty be based on something other than geological strata and fossils of extinct animals.

What we DO know about Augustine, however, is what he said explicitly about places where biblical interpretation and physical evidence differ: go with the evidence.

Trying to paint him, then, as a scientific Luddite is wrong-headed.

---

quote:

---

But not even thus, as I said, does the Greek history correspond with the Egyptian in its chronology. And therefore the former must receive the greater credit, because it does not exceed the true account of the duration of the world as it is given by our documents, which are truly sacred.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Louise:

quote:

---

With the exception of small parts of Lutheranism, and probably a few small sects, belief in a young earth had almost totally disappeared from the Christian faith by the end of the 18th century.

---

Have you a reference for that, Alan? I thought Hutton only went public in 1785. That seems awful fast - am I missing something?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:
For those who are evolutionists in creationist churches:

If you believe in theistic evolution (i.e., that God is behind it), then you could just say that, and maybe add something like "we both believe God created--we just have different understandings of how".

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Duplo:The 'Genesis' question has finally come up in both sermon, home group and my discussions with my Christian friends whom I love dearly and attend the same church. The standard view as you would expect is that evolution is wrong, science is wrong and there is only one answer worth discussing. What makes it a particularly bitter pill to swallow is that the scientific reasoning used by our minister to dismiss evolutionary theory in his sermons is so bad as to be laughable if it wasn't so depressing, that my friends subscribe to this view without applying any element of critical thinking is all the more saddening.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
<snip> behe is neither a YEC or a Christian as far as I know.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:

The oppostion to Behe from experts like Ken Miller seemed to me to be clutching at straws...

<snip>

To me, then, against the tide of most posters here, evolution is a dead cuckoo. That emperor has no clothes. Now that doesn't mean the Earth is only 6000 yrs old though it may be. It does mean that God told us the truth: ie that he made the heavens and the earth elements of which have a complexity that defies all speculation abut possible randomness and left us to speculate how.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fëanor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
<snip> behe is neither a YEC or a Christian as far as I know.

---

Read and be enlightened: http://www.discovery.org/a/10501

(Spoiler Alert: Behe is Catholic)

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:

The oppostion to Behe from experts like Ken Miller seemed to me to be clutching at straws...

<snip>

To me, then, against the tide of most posters here, evolution is a dead cuckoo. That emperor has no clothes. Now that doesn't mean the Earth is only 6000 yrs old though it may be. It does mean that God told us the truth: ie that he made the heavens and the earth elements of which have a complexity that defies all speculation abut possible randomness and left us to speculate how.

---

This is a stunning example of truthiness-in-action -- that is, accepting the validity of one's gut instinct without regards to evidence, logic or facts.


Intelligent Design is little more than a categorical confusion -- it attempts to slap a "Science" label on a combination of sloppy philosophy and bad theology.

Then again, I'm biased. I refuse to take seriously anyone who both doubts the efficacy of the scientific method to inform us about the world and its workings with any degree of certainty and either A) interacts with a glow-y box as if someone not immediately present could possibly influence it or B) straps themselves (and possibly their loved ones) into an accelerating multi-ton bundle of partially-electrified metal through which a flammable liquid flows, is vaporized, and periodically explodes. The former points towards schizophrenic tendencies (how can one really be sure one is talking to other people?), and the latter indicates a dangerous foolhardiness.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
And this is a stunning example of how evolution reacts to any criticisim. The derisory and mocking 'laugh all opposition out of court' approach. Design is NOT something that is not opbservable. It is amazingly evident as Behe has shown.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
And this is a stunning example of how evolution reacts to any criticisim. The derisory and mocking 'laugh all opposition out of court' approach. Design is NOT something that is not opbservable. It is amazingly evident as Behe has shown.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Louise: So what's keeping you from going onto the thread which I've pointed out to you, and refuting the many detailed posts made taking issue with Behe's claims?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
I have read the thread and note the attitude of evolutionist believers to Behe. I am not interested in that debate except to say what I said above. Most of the comments critical to him on that thread came from secondary commentary. IOW, few had actually read him at that point as Neil Robbie pointed out. My post was in response to Duplo.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Louise:

quote:

---

With the exception of small parts of Lutheranism, and probably a few small sects, belief in a young earth had almost totally disappeared from the Christian faith by the end of the 18th century.

---

Have you a reference for that, Alan? I thought Hutton only went public in 1785. That seems awful fast - am I missing something?

---

It was something that I posted from memory. Now I'll have to find time to see which of my books I read it in.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Yeah, that was pretty much my point. I tend to believe that Augustine, with his "scientific knowledge trumps the scriptures" ideology, would not believe similarly today.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by pjkirk:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
I have read the thread and note the attitude of evolutionist believers to Behe. I am not interested in that debate except to say what I said above. Most of the comments critical to him on that thread came from secondary commentary. IOW, few had actually read him at that point as Neil Robbie pointed out. My post was in response to Duplo.

---

So, as usual for you in DH, you'd rather make a nuts assertion and refuse to back it up, while pretending to be more reasoned than everybody else around you.

At least you stay true to form.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:

quote:

---

Originally posted by pjkirk:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
I have read the thread and note the attitude of evolutionist believers to Behe. I am not interested in that debate except to say what I said above. Most of the comments critical to him on that thread came from secondary commentary. IOW, few had actually read him at that point as Neil Robbie pointed out. My post was in response to Duplo.

---

So, as usual for you in DH, you'd rather make a nuts assertion and refuse to back it up, while pretending to be more reasoned than everybody else around you.

At least you stay true to form.

---

just an appeal to hosts. Are personal remarks and inferences acceptable here?

Happy to back up if by it you mean clarify my belief; what 'nuts' assertion do you mean?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
[...] Nor am I knowledgeable about Science except in broadest outline.

---

quote:

---

Though Michael Behe's, 'Darwins Black Box', has been extensively discussed on this DH forum in other threads, it seems few that commented had actually read it. I found a copy recently and found it astounding. He is a biochemist whose analysis of the function of cells, the smallest organic element, left no doubt at all in my mind that the postulated mechanisms of evolutionary theory could not account for things like the behaviour of cells in blood clotting

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by TonyK:
pjkirk - I read your post to Jamat earlier and felt it might be sailing pretty close to the wind. I left it in the hope that the two of you would be able to sort it out yourselves, but Jamat has asked for a ruling.

So - my decision:

pjkirk - desist from making personal remarks in DH - you've been on the Ship long enough to know that these are only allowed in the Hell Board

Jamat - at least try to answer points made by others or drop that line of argument. Otherwise it becomes very frustrating for the shipmates debating with you

Yours aye ... TonyK
Host, Dead Horses

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:

quote:

---

Louise: So what's keeping you from going onto the thread which I've pointed out to you, and refuting the many detailed posts made taking issue with Behe's claims?

---

I have read the thread and note the attitude of evolutionist believers to Behe. I am not interested in that debate except to say what I said above. Most of the comments critical to him on that thread came from secondary commentary. IOW, few had actually read him at that point as Neil Robbie pointed out. My post was in response to Duplo.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Louise:

quote:

---

With the exception of small parts of Lutheranism, and probably a few small sects, belief in a young earth had almost totally disappeared from the Christian faith by the end of the 18th century.

---

Have you a reference for that, Alan? I thought Hutton only went public in 1785. That seems awful fast - am I missing something?

---

It was something that I posted from memory. Now I'll have to find time to see which of my books I read it in.

---

OK, I've not found where I read the specific claim about the Christian faith. So, I may be mistaken there ... it's certainly true that by the end of the 19th century belief in a young earth had all but disappeared ... when even the authors of the Fundamentals, the con evos of the day, write on the assumption that the earth is ancient and don't even mention there being any contraversy about that you can bet that young earth ideas were almost non-existant. And, by the time Lyell was touring America to packed audiences in the 1840s I'd expect the majority of Christian thinkers and writers to have accepted that the earth is ancient (ie > 1 million years old, certainly not allowing the 'literal' 4004BC date for creation).

In reference to the speed with which the idea of an ancient earth arose. You're right that Hutton in 1985 presented his ideas to the Royal Society in Edinburgh which was the foundation of modern geology - with the concept of uplift and continual erosion, and the necessity of an ancient earth. But, he was a long way from the first scientist to suggest that the earth is ancient, and even provide evidence for it. In 1778, Comte de Buffon published his calculations (based on cooling rates for hot iron spheres) that the earth was at least 75 thousand years old. Before that Edmund Halley proposed measuring the amount of salt in the oceans and rate of salination to estimate the age of the earth (an approach which was actually impossible), part of the early 18th century of scientific investigations into the nature of the earth - it's size, mass, distance from the Sun and age included. Basically, the ideas of Hutton took off and were accepted almost universally by scientists within only a few years because scientists were already reaching the conclusion that the earth is ancient.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Duplo:
Sorry for potentially flogging a dead horse, but this problem is a first time one for me which I was hoping to avoid for as long as possible...
As a background I'm in my late thirties, and a recent convert to Christianity (approx 5 years ago), I live in N.I and attend a Presbyterian church.
The 'Genesis' question has finally come up in both sermon, home group and my discussions with my Christian friends whom I love dearly and attend the same church. The standard view as you would expect is that evolution is wrong, science is wrong and there is only one answer worth discussing. What makes it a particularly bitter pill to swallow is that the scientific reasoning used by our minister to dismiss evolutionary theory in his sermons is so bad as to be laughable if it wasn't so depressing, that my friends subscribe to this view without applying any element of critical thinking is all the more saddening. The arguments are poor, frankly a straw man argument used to dismiss science out of hand because it doesn’t have all the answers to all the questions ‘right now’, and they have no place in the pulpit IMHO. I mean, ‘explosions destroy things so how could creation come from the big bang’ was possibly one of the more comical moments, alongside ‘information doesn’t have weight so it can’t be a physical thing otherwise your brain or a hard drive would get heavier as you put information into it’
Obvious I subscribe to the theory of evolution and its difficulties for someone who wishes to be a Christian, frankly if I could believe the YE creation position it would make my live a whole lot easier, but I certainly wouldn't be true to myself. Although I’m feeling fairly alone in my faith right now.
So, I'm hoping that there are others who have had the same experience as me and dealt with it successfully, I'm not naive enough to think that there is an easy option but I'm wondering if it is best just to keep my head down and wait for the subject to disappear off the radar, which will mean missing church and home groups for a few weeks, or to state my position in the best and most genuine way I can. I'm not understating things when I say that this isn't quite a crisis of faith but I am at a crossroads as to whether I can continue with this church, but if not where can I go from here?

---