homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Ship's Locker   » Limbo   » Purgatory: Church attitudes to creationism (Page 1)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Purgatory: Church attitudes to creationism
The Black Labrador
Shipmate
# 3098

 - Posted      Profile for The Black Labrador   Email The Black Labrador   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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 ]

Posts: 629 | From: London | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022

 - Posted      Profile for Merseymike   Email Merseymike   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
Christianity is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be experienced

Posts: 3360 | From: Walked the plank | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
jugular
Voice of Treason
# 4174

 - Posted      Profile for jugular     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
We’ve got to act like a church that hasn’t already internalized the narrative of its own decline Ray Suarez

Posts: 2599 | From: Australia | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Captain Caveman
Shipmate
# 3980

 - Posted      Profile for Captain Caveman   Email Captain Caveman   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
"Take this shirt
Polyester white trash made in nowhere
Take this shirt and make it clean" - U2

Posts: 519 | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76

 - Posted      Profile for Karl: Liberal Backslider   Author's homepage   Email Karl: Liberal Backslider   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Ken Ham is AiG's leading light. I thought he was an Australian.

--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.

Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Paul W.

Shipmate
# 1450

 - Posted      Profile for Paul W.   Author's homepage   Email Paul W.   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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

--------------------
"It's just a ride" - Bill Hicks

Blog
Flickr

Posts: 2835 | From: Leeds, UK | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mad Geo

Ship's navel gazer
# 2939

 - Posted      Profile for Mad Geo   Email Mad Geo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"

Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
J. J. Ramsey
Shipmate
# 1174

 - Posted      Profile for J. J. Ramsey   Author's homepage   Email J. J. Ramsey   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
I am a rationalist. Unfortunately, this doesn't actually make me rational.

Posts: 1490 | From: Tallmadge, OH | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
stigofthedump
Apprentice
# 4495

 - Posted      Profile for stigofthedump   Email stigofthedump   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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]

Go gentle with the reply's, I'm new to the ship [Big Grin]

Posts: 7 | From: Somewhere green | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Tom Day
Ship's revolutionary
# 3630

 - Posted      Profile for Tom Day   Author's homepage   Email Tom Day   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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? [Confused]

Go gentle with the reply's, I'm new to the ship [Big Grin]

Evolution [Big Grin] Have a look on this thread for some views on it all.

Tom (being as gentle as possible [Wink] )

--------------------
My allotment blog

Posts: 6473 | From: My Sofa | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
chukovsky

Ship's toddler
# 116

 - Posted      Profile for chukovsky   Author's homepage   Email chukovsky   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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).

--------------------
This space left intentionally blank. Do not write on both sides of the paper at once.

Posts: 6842 | From: somewhere else | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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] ) and holds an informed YEC position.

That went out of serious consideration well before Darwin.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Bonzo
Shipmate
# 2481

 - Posted      Profile for Bonzo   Email Bonzo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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?

--------------------
Love wastefully

Posts: 1150 | From: Stockport | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Louise
Shipmate
# 30

 - Posted      Profile for Louise   Email Louise   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.

Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Toby
Shipmate
# 3522

 - Posted      Profile for Toby   Email Toby   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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").

--------------------
'Civilization is only savagery silver-gilt'
Allan Quartermain

Posts: 99 | From: Aotearoa/New Zealand | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mad Geo

Ship's navel gazer
# 2939

 - Posted      Profile for Mad Geo   Email Mad Geo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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. [Big Grin]

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.

--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"

Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Ham'n'Eggs

Ship's Pig
# 629

 - Posted      Profile for Ham'n'Eggs   Email Ham'n'Eggs   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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!")

--------------------
"...the heresies that men do leave / Are hated most of those they did deceive" - Will S


Posts: 3103 | From: Genghis Khan's sleep depot | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468

 - Posted      Profile for Golden Key   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")

Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
JimT

Ship'th Mythtic
# 142

 - Posted      Profile for JimT     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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]

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] 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.
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76

 - Posted      Profile for Karl: Liberal Backslider   Author's homepage   Email Karl: Liberal Backslider   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.

Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Marama
Shipmate
# 330

 - Posted      Profile for Marama   Email Marama   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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
Posts: 910 | From: Canberra | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15

 - Posted      Profile for dyfrig   Email dyfrig   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
"He was wrong in the long run, but then, who isn't?" - Tony Judt

Posts: 6917 | From: pob dydd Iau, am hanner dydd | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15

 - Posted      Profile for dyfrig   Email dyfrig   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
D'oh! For "Evangelicalism" in previous post, read "Pentecostalism".

--------------------
"He was wrong in the long run, but then, who isn't?" - Tony Judt

Posts: 6917 | From: pob dydd Iau, am hanner dydd | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
adsarf
Apprentice
# 4288

 - Posted      Profile for adsarf   Email adsarf   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

Posts: 24 | From: Hampshire | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
jugular
Voice of Treason
# 4174

 - Posted      Profile for jugular     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
We’ve got to act like a church that hasn’t already internalized the narrative of its own decline Ray Suarez

Posts: 2599 | From: Australia | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Stubble
Apprentice
# 4240

 - Posted      Profile for Stubble   Email Stubble   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

Posts: 16 | From: Scotland | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76

 - Posted      Profile for Karl: Liberal Backslider   Author's homepage   Email Karl: Liberal Backslider   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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?

--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.

Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76

 - Posted      Profile for Karl: Liberal Backslider   Author's homepage   Email Karl: Liberal Backslider   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.

Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
markporter
Shipmate
# 4276

 - Posted      Profile for markporter   Author's homepage   Email markporter   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.
Posts: 1309 | From: Oxford | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Scot

Deck hand
# 2095

 - Posted      Profile for Scot   Email Scot   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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

--------------------
“Here, we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” - Thomas Jefferson

Posts: 9515 | From: Southern California | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76

 - Posted      Profile for Karl: Liberal Backslider   Author's homepage   Email Karl: Liberal Backslider   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.

Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Scot

Deck hand
# 2095

 - Posted      Profile for Scot   Email Scot   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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

--------------------
“Here, we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” - Thomas Jefferson

Posts: 9515 | From: Southern California | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Priest
BANNED
# 4313

 - Posted      Profile for Priest         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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]

Posts: 399 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
markporter
Shipmate
# 4276

 - Posted      Profile for markporter   Author's homepage   Email markporter   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.
Posts: 1309 | From: Oxford | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76

 - Posted      Profile for Karl: Liberal Backslider   Author's homepage   Email Karl: Liberal Backslider   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.

Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Royal Peculiar
Shipmate
# 3159

 - Posted      Profile for Royal Peculiar   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
Consistency is the last refuge of the unimaginative.

Oscar Wilde

Posts: 405 | From: Barking, London | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
markporter
Shipmate
# 4276

 - Posted      Profile for markporter   Author's homepage   Email markporter   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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)
Posts: 1309 | From: Oxford | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Priest
BANNED
# 4313

 - Posted      Profile for Priest         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

Posts: 399 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Ham'n'Eggs

Ship's Pig
# 629

 - Posted      Profile for Ham'n'Eggs   Email Ham'n'Eggs   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
"...the heresies that men do leave / Are hated most of those they did deceive" - Will S


Posts: 3103 | From: Genghis Khan's sleep depot | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76

 - Posted      Profile for Karl: Liberal Backslider   Author's homepage   Email Karl: Liberal Backslider   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.

Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Priest
BANNED
# 4313

 - Posted      Profile for Priest         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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?
Posts: 399 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
markporter
Shipmate
# 4276

 - Posted      Profile for markporter   Author's homepage   Email markporter   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.
Posts: 1309 | From: Oxford | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Og: Thread Killer
Ship's token CN Mennonite
# 3200

 - Posted      Profile for Og: Thread Killer     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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

--------------------
I wish I was seeking justice loving mercy and walking humbly but... "Cease to lament for that thou canst not help, And study help for that which thou lament'st."

Posts: 5025 | From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools