|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Church attitudes to creationism
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
There's a word for those in group C.
Deluded.
--------------------
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
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Black Labrador
Shipmate
# 3098
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 629 | From: London | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Og: Thread Killer
Ship's token CN Mennonite
# 3200
|
Posted
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
--------------------
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
|
|
John Collins
Shipmate
# 41
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
John Collins
Posts: 179 | From: Welwyn Garden City, Herts | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kevin Iga
Shipmate
# 4396
|
Posted
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
--------------------
Presbyterian /prez.bi.ti'.ri.en/ n. One who believes the governing authorities of the church should be called "presbyters".
Posts: 521 | From: Pepperdine University | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kevin Iga
Shipmate
# 4396
|
Posted
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
--------------------
Presbyterian /prez.bi.ti'.ri.en/ n. One who believes the governing authorities of the church should be called "presbyters".
Posts: 521 | From: Pepperdine University | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
No. They should say, "It is not Biblically required, as implied by its proponents."
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
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
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Xavierite
Shipmate
# 2575
|
Posted
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.)
Posts: 2307 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kevin Iga
Shipmate
# 4396
|
Posted
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
--------------------
Presbyterian /prez.bi.ti'.ri.en/ n. One who believes the governing authorities of the church should be called "presbyters".
Posts: 521 | From: Pepperdine University | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
J. J. Ramsey
Shipmate
# 1174
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
I am a rationalist. Unfortunately, this doesn't actually make me rational.
Posts: 1490 | From: Tallmadge, OH | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
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. ![[Help]](graemlins/help.gif)
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. ![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
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
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
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.
![[Embarrassed]](icon_redface.gif)
Ben26
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Collins
Shipmate
# 41
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
John Collins
Posts: 179 | From: Welwyn Garden City, Herts | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
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
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Not
Ship's Quack
# 2166
|
Posted
Ben, having the honesty to rethink things and be open about that process makes you anything but foolish.
CJ
--------------------
Was CJ; now Not
Posts: 600 | From: the far, far West | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
quote:
The Vicar of this church had an Oxbridge Ph. D.
Dare I ask in what?
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
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
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
dsiegmund
Shipmate
# 908
|
Posted
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]).
Posts: 180 | From: Bastrop, Texas | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kevin Iga
Shipmate
# 4396
|
Posted
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
--------------------
Presbyterian /prez.bi.ti'.ri.en/ n. One who believes the governing authorities of the church should be called "presbyters".
Posts: 521 | From: Pepperdine University | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Sometimes, I wonder how much we can truly know, seeing that we're *inside* The Story.
--------------------
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
|
|
Zeke
Ship's Inquirer
# 3271
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
No longer the Bishop of Durham
-----------
If men are so wicked with religion, what would they be without it? --Benjamin Franklin
Posts: 5259 | From: Deep in the American desert | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
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 ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
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
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
flatnose
Shipmate
# 4516
|
Posted
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."
Posts: 95 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lurker McLurker™
Ship's stowaway
# 1384
|
Posted
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 ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif) ) 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.
--------------------
Just War Theory- a perversion of morality?
Posts: 5661 | From: Raxacoricofallapatorius | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gracious rebel
Rainbow warrior
# 3523
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Fancy a break beside the sea in Suffolk? Visit my website
Posts: 4413 | From: Suffolk UK | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lurker McLurker™
Ship's stowaway
# 1384
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
Just War Theory- a perversion of morality?
Posts: 5661 | From: Raxacoricofallapatorius | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
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
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
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
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
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
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
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
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LowFreqDude
Shipmate
# 3152
|
Posted
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
Posts: 625 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lurker McLurker™
Ship's stowaway
# 1384
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Just War Theory- a perversion of morality?
Posts: 5661 | From: Raxacoricofallapatorius | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LowFreqDude
Shipmate
# 3152
|
Posted
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
Posts: 625 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
