|
Post by mongoose on Jul 2, 2008 21:10:17 GMT -5
I didn't mean to be confrontational, only to get people thinking and dialoging what I believe to be a serious issue. I apologize for mis-communicating.
|
|
|
Post by Divides the Waters on Jul 3, 2008 23:52:02 GMT -5
All right, now why are you having this conversation without me? I'm glad I was missed. To quote Alien 3, "This is rumor control; here are the facts...": When reading scripture, everyone starts out with certain assumptions. These things might be conclusions come to on one's own, or learned, or indoctrinated. But they all change the way we read scripture. The first thing I am going to say is that I am going to allow for the possibility that God could have worked in a way outside of what scripture has revealed. But seeing that Christ himself placed such an emphasis on the precise, inspired, authoritative nature of scripture, I think that it is a dangerous place to start when you assume that scripture means something other than what it says. Not only does Genesis clearly teach that God created man "at the beginning," but Christ emphasizes the point when discussing the sanctity of marriage. This is not to say that scripture cannot be figurative (it is, in many places), or even have hidden meaning (it does, quite frequently). But just as there are different kinds of literature, there are also different kinds of scripture, and I believe that it is a huge mistake to assume that when it speaks historically, as it does in Genesis, that we can then pick and choose what to re-interpret based on our particular paradigms. Now, I have studied Anthropology, Geology, and have a degree in Paleontology. I am not uneducated when it comes to the sciences, in other words. But I am also fully of the opinion that "science, falsely so-called" has absolutely ruined the true nature of real science. (And many scientists would agree.) The modern evolutionary theory is the most absurdly unscientific rubbish to hit the bookstores and worm (literally) its way into young minds. It has corrupted the general public's ability to look at evidence objectively, and it has torn thousands of people from their faith. Yes, you can believe in Jesus and an old Earth. Yes, you can believe that God used evolution to create. But in doing so, you are undermining the very opening verses of the Bible, and as they lay the foundation for the rest of scripture, I highly recommend that people study the subject thoroughly before tackling it from either a scientific or a theological perspective. The fact is that Charles Darwin based a lot of his ideas on Charles Lyell's writings (specifically, Principles of Geology, which Darwin took on his voyages, and influenced him profoundly). Charles Lyell was one of the first to officially propose taking the various strata you see in the rock, and assigning different ages to them. Something that very few people seem to know is that this assumption was the foundation for a number of calculations that are used to this day to determine the age of a fossil, a rock, the Earth, or even the time it takes starlight to travel from distances that are truly unimaginable. Now, all this would be well and good, except that these assumptions are FALSE. I'm not going to say that Earth couldn't be millions of years old--it could well be--but I am going to say that the evidences used to Prove it as Undisputable, Solid Fact are just so much mule dung. And to use those evidences as reasons to doubt the literal or authoritative truth of the Bible seems like a very, very bad idea to me. Polystrate fossils (fossils going through many strata) alone completely eradicate the notion that those layers in the rock represent different ages. Tree trunks that stand straight up through thousands of them, or footprints that push through dozens--impossible in evolutionary terms. But hundreds of similar fossils have been found. Moreover, fossils supposedly separated by millions of years have been found to be contemporaneous. The "missing epochs" have still not been satisfactorily explained by evolutionists. Folded sediments do not occur under the conditions insisted upon by differently-aged strata; they can only occur when the rock is malleable (have you EVER seen sedimentary rock fold like taffy? Neither has anyone alive today. But drive along any highway with exposed strata, and you will see it. Colorado, Arizona, and New Mexico have hundreds of examples of this absolutely devastating proof against differently-aged sedimentary rock). Now, some might retort that lava does fold like taffy, but the difference between volcanic and sedimentary rock is as elementary as the ABC's to any geologist worth his or her salt. The explanations aren't good, but they'd rather hold onto bad science than admit that they might be wrong, and that the rock isn't necessarily as old as they think it is. And that might get them thinking about other things altogether. No, the fact is that all over the world, we have evidence of exactly what the Bible records: a global flood, with catastrophic consequences that we experience and observe to this day. Take, for instance, the subject of fossilization. How many fossils do you see formed? Very, very few, I'd wager, and wager safely. The reason for that is simple: The conditions for fossilization are very specific, and are not typically found. So why are literally BILLIONS of fossils available for study? Because those rare conditions were, at one time, and one time only, global. It takes a combination of movement of water and mineral to replace organic tissue with rock. This does happen today (like the bat fossilized inside a stalagmite at Carlsbad Caverns, or the poor man whose casket was buried in an area that had an underground stream, and whose body turned to rock), but if the conditions for fossilization were as widespread as evolutionists would have us believe, we would see fossils forming at the edges of seas, sides of highways, everywhere we look. We do not. What we observe is that when things die, they are either buried and molder into nothing, or lay out and are scavenged into nothing. We do not see fossils formed on the scale that we should to support the record we have today. Now, this is a little peripheral to the topic, but I want to illustrate that there are some really bad reasons Christians choose to doubt the veracity of their own scripture (which, again, Christ himself viewed as absolutely authoritative). To get to the questions: Yes, animals ate meat before the Flood. There are signs of predation all through the fossil record. But no, they did not eat meat before the Fall. This is stated very specifically in scripture (that they were given every green thing bearing fruit, or seed). God created the world vegetarian (not vegan). This is further supported by his pictures in Isaiah about a renewed, restored creation (what does it mean to "restore" except to "bring back to its original condition"?). Remember the lion eating straw like an ox, and the wolf and the lamb grazing together? Paul says that man brought death to all the cosmos, meaning that the entirety of creation, not just man, suffered due to sin. Now, let's talk about death a bit. True, Adam and Eve did not drop dead the moment they ate the fruit, and so people have wrongly assumed that this meant that the death God spoke of was only a symbolic or spiritual death. This could not be further from the truth. The original Hebrew phrase is something closer to "dying, you will die," which is, I think, a perfect description of aging and death. Did you know that you start to die the moment you are concieved? Now, that's a sobering thought. It was a condemnation of a process-driven execution, not a statement of sudden loss of life. Now, did Christ's death and resurrection end physical death? Clearly not. So what does that invalidate? Exactly nothing. That wasn't the point. He came to set us free from bondage, and to give us an entirely new way of getting back in a right relationship to our Creator. Paul tells us in Corinthians that the "last enemy to be conquered shall be death." Now, does this sound like the wording of someone who believes that death is just a "natural part of life," something that has been with us since the beginning? Um, no. It sounds as if he believes what the Bible has made clear, and that is that death is an alien to this creation, and a curse upon it, and not an integral part of its formation. Which leads me to the next point. So, this all-powerful God who created the universe loves death and bloodshed so much that he used it to create everything around us, including ourselves. Does that sound like the message of scripture as we know it? Clearly not. God created the world "exceedingly good," or "perfect, without blemish." Not slowly and brutally over eons of predation and suffering. What kind of a loving Creator God is that? Why did he destroy the earth? Because it was "filled [saturated] with violence." (Incidentally, I've always thought that was a point that many of the best-intentioned pacifists have missed: God's cure to violence is not only violent, but fatal, even to the point of almost annihilating the planet. Christ did come to show a new way, but he never said anything to negate God's post-flood prescription to mankind about how murderers and violent people should be dealt with. He tells us how to deal with a personal insult--turn the other cheek--but he also tells those in troubled times to sell their garments (their most precious possessions) and buy a sword. And Paul, telling us the purpose of government, says that the government does not wield the sword for nothing. The sword was a symbol of justice, but it was not used to spank naughty boys. It was an instrument of war and execution. Does God want us to forgive? Yes. Does he want us to be doormats, or refuse to pick up arms? That's not the message I get when I read scripture in context.) I've gone a little tangentially off-topic here in order to make a point: That scripture can be trusted historically and scientifically, as well as spiritually, and that I believe it is a gross error to reinterpret it according to falliable theory. If one can undermine the historical revelation of the Bible, how does one then draw spiritual truth from it? Are the historical gospels then just as meaningful if Christ's resurrection was not a physical one, or if heaven is a metaphor? Clearly not. So how is Genesis meaningful if you re-interpret Adam and Eve into mythical figures, or the specific days of creation as having gaps or being long periods of time (and that's a subject I can debunk another day). How does the Flood have meaning for us if not to show us both the measure of God's wrath and the extent of his forgiveness? If it didn't really happen, then it's just a nice story, and like all stories, becomes fable the more its spiritual truth is removed from its literal roots. Remember that the chief advantage of the Jews, according to Paul in his letter to the Romans, were that they were given the true oracles of God. Not just another version of the truth, or another mythical take on the way things were, but the actual history of God and his relationship to man. So to get back to the original point: 1) God creates man and animals as vegetarians 2) Man sins 3) Creation is cursed, animal-to-animal predation begins (I do not know, but I suspect, that it happened around the time thorns appeared. Obviously something had changed in the food chain). 4) The earth is filled with violence, God is sorry that he's made man, and decides to wipe the slate clean 5) After the Flood, God gives man permission to eat meat, and so human predation begins. Is there evidence for animals behaving counter to their nature? Yes. One of the AiG magazines gave a pair of excellent examples; one of a young lioness that refused to eat meat, and another of a horse that liked to tear chickens apart with its hooves and eat them. These may be "exceptions to prove the rule" now, but I think it shows that things don't have to be the way they are, and certainly this is backed up by scripture. We are living in a fallen world, people; a cursed creation. The present is not the key to the past; quite the reverse. The only way we can truly understand the times we live in, the nature of this world, and the relationship we have to God is to understand what has come before.
|
|
|
Post by mongoose on Jul 4, 2008 4:30:05 GMT -5
I won't presume to be able to counter what Divide's has said about history et al. in any kind of a persuasive or authoritative way. He and I have discussed these things in PMs, and came to a stand still because of our differing premises when it comes to Biblical interpretation, and the relative importance of believing these things. I hope in this post only to show that there is a viable, Christian alternative to that paradigm which Divides has proposed.
-There's enough evidence out there for macro-evolution having occurred over a long term to convince the vast majority of people honestly trying to examine said evidence and figure out an explanation that fits. If it were not so, the conviction of the scientific community would not be as it is. Note that it's fringe scientists--considered quaks by all the rest--who insist that evolution goes only so far and then stops (micro-evolution) that all of our present bio-diversity came to be within the same 6, 24 hour days as the first humans, and/or that it all came to be in the few thousand years since the great flood. So there's scientific evidence and logic to support these things. They weren't just made up and then propogated for their own sake. But they aren't all that important, either
-The age of the earth, and the state of bio-diversity now or then, or how that biodiversity came to be have very little effect on our faith in the fundamentals of Christianity. That is, I and many others have a very firm faith in each of these fundamentals, while questioning all the particulars and non-essentials, including the historicity and science of the book of Genesis, at every turn. Hang that, I even question the fundamentals, and it hasn't hurt me or anyone else yet (as far as I know).
-That might be one of the keys to my positions on these things, I do not, nor have I ever, accept what I'm taught. I always question it and look for other perspectives. By so doing I find truth, and firm up my belief in said truth so that it will stand attack from falshood.
-Fundamentals (all else is non-essential and it makes little difference what you believe about it) summarized by the Apostles' Creed: 1. The Bible is the inspired Word of God. That is, God put everything that is in the Bible, into the heads of the people who wrote it down (This isn't to assume that he put it there word for word, and they wrote it word for word, or that he put it there accuratly and they wrote it accuratly, or anything else of the sort, only that he put it there, and they wrote it. We can safely assume that they translated it into the words and word pictures that made sense to them, just as we do when God gives us His Word prophetically today.) Everything in the Bible is true as it pertains to life and Godliness and is useful for teaching, exhorting, instruction in righteousness, etc. (Whether or not it is historically accurate has little bearing on our faith. Our faith isn't about knowing what happened in what order over what period of time in the past. It's about our relationship with our Creator.) 2. God the Father is the maker of Heaven and Earth, and the only true God (notice we don't care how or when he did it, only that he did it) 3. Jesus the Christ is God's only son, begotten, not made, of one substance with the Father and the Spirit, that they are three in one. (Science has nothing to say about this, one way or another.) 3. Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the virgin Marry, lived, taught, healed and did good, suffered under Pontious Pilot, was crucified, dead and buried, and on the third day he rose from the dead. He ascended into Heaven and sits at the right hand of God the Father where He makes intercession for us. 4. Jesus will soon return to judge the living and the dead based upon their works. Each will go either to eternal reward with God, or eternal punishment away from Him, based upon their true belief into and confession of Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, or the lack thereof, and based only on those two criteria. 5. Jesus sent His Holy Spirit to in-dwell all believers, to minister between Himself and us, to seal us for God, to empower us to minister, to comfort, guide, bring peace and joy, etc. 6. Jesus established His universal Church as the instrument of His peace and ministry and the spread of His Kingdom on the Earth. It is founded on the Truth that Jesus the Christ is the only begotten Son of the Father, and the gates of Hell will not stand against it. He is making it into a bride worthy of Him, one without spot or wrinkle, and He will be re-united with her in the end.
Now, I, as a Pentacostal, choose to believe a few things beyond those stated above. I'm convinced that they are true, but I'm not worried about your or my salvation if you disagree on these extra points. As a member of the Assembly of God, there's a total of "16 fundamental truths," and I believe each of them to be true indeed, but only the six listed above are essential for a person to be considered Christian. In fact, only two of them are essential for a person to be saved: Confess with your mouth that Jesus Christ is Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead (unless I got them mixed up).
The point of all that was to say that a person's salvation and faith are not at risk because they believe the claims of evolutionists, or anyone else, as long as they believe these few things. None of those claims contradict those few fundamental truths. Divides himself admitted in one phrase that you could believe the Earth is billions of years old, and still be a Christian, but in the next phrase (or one soon thereafter) asserts that the statements made in Genesis need to be taken as historical, literal and scientific truth, or you remove credibility from all of Scripture. This is simply quite false, and the cause of the stumbling of many who would have believed had they understood the Truth:
Scripture is not a history book (except for the books of history, starting with Exodus, and including the Gospels and Acts) nor is it a science text book, and it needn't be historically or scientifically accurate to be spiritual Truth. We believe that Genesis is true in its main points: 1. God created the Earth, including Human kind, and declared it all Good. 2. Sin came into the Earth, prompted by the enemy, and accepted by the first humans 3. That sin brought all of creation into bondage and death (I'll even give you the whole physical death thing, though it's not essential, and though I'm still not fully convinced) 4. God is merciful and faithful, and consistently provides the way for His promises to mankind to be fulfilled through His chosen vessels.
None of these main points conflict with any of the main points of Evolution, and none of the main points of Evolution conflict with any of these main points of Genesis, or with any of the six fundamental points I listed earlier.
Nor are these main points of Genesis, or belief in them even essential to Christianity! If I were giving a new believer in a nation closed to the Bible only 15 pages out of my Bible, the parts I figured they would need the most, I would not include anything from Genesis, and I'd be surprised if there were many references to Genesis in the pages that I would give to them. Certainly, Genesis is important for our continually growing understanding of Who God is, and the nature of our relationship to Him and to the rest of Creation, and it has much Spiritual Truth to teach us. But Genesis IS NOT the foundation of our faith! If any one passage of Scripture IS the foundation of our faith, it would have to be one of the summary statements in Romans, Philippians or Hebrews. It's all based on the person of Christ, and His relationship with us and ours with Him, not upon the origins of the world and our current bio-diversity.
And finally, given that the foundation of Christianity is not in Genesis, it would be fine if I didn't believe Genesis were inspired at all, and decided to tear it out of my Bible and never read it again. I would suffer for the lack, no-doubt, but I would be no less a Christian, a believer and no less saved for having missed that part. Likewise any other single part of the Bible. Our understanding of Spiritual Truth needs to come from the whole counsel of the whole Word of God, not from this or that portion thereof. This assumption that if I disbelieve one thing in the Bible, the rest of the Bible loses credibility for me, is blatantly false! No, I don't believe God created the world in 6, 24 hour days, with all the kinds of animals and plants etc. that we've had since. But I believe into Jesus the Christ, His birth, life, death, resurrection and its redemptive power just as much as any Bible thumping verbal plenary inspiration believing ultra-conservative Baptist. If God had a problem with that, He would have let me know, just as he has with so many other things in my life and belief that He had a problem with. And when God lets me know He has a problem with something, I try to change it. But this whole thing about an alleged conflict between Evolution and Biblical Truth is not only unnecessary and beside the points of either camp, it's been blown way out of proportion and given members of both camps a bad name in the eyes of members of the opposite camp.
This ought not to be. Just as I, a moderate liberal, ecologically minded Pentacostal can rejoice and work with an ultra-conservative, development oriented Lutheran, Baptist, or Catholic, so also should evolutionists and creationists be able to rejoice and work together as members of the same Faith.
|
|
|
Post by Divides the Waters on Jul 4, 2008 17:09:32 GMT -5
-There's enough evidence out there for macro-evolution having occurred over a long term to convince the vast majority of people honestly trying to examine said evidence and figure out an explanation that fits. Sorry, Mongoose; I love you, my friend, but I'm going to have to debate you on this. That is simply not the case. What has convinced the "vast majority of people" (which isn't really the case; 45% of them believe in the Biblical creation model) is PR, not evidence. Show me the evidence for macroevolution. It doesn't exist. Microevolution (observable changes within limits) is observable, but it is the only thing which can be falsified and tested, and thus within the realm of science. If it were not so, the conviction of the scientific community would not be as it is. The scientific community has been widely mistaken about many things in the past. Why should today be any different? This is mob-rule logic, not anything with any scientific weight. Note that it's fringe scientists--considered quaks by all the rest-- No, Mongoose, they're most often legitimate scientists who have been forced into the fringe by the elite--those who haven't rejected evolution. Have you ever really studied what happens to those who study the evidence and find it wanting? They're castigated and thrown out of the club as heretics, called "fringe" by people who have bought into the PR. Are there lunatics on the creationist side? Yes, as there are in any establishment. But the real scientists are not kooks or fringe at all; they've simply been kicked out of the loop. In a game of semantics, he who defines, wins. who insist that evolution goes only so far and then stops (micro-evolution) that all of our present bio-diversity came to be within the same 6, 24 hour days as the first humans, and/or that it all came to be in the few thousand years since the great flood. In this you are simply mistaken. Creationists have grudgingly accepted the term "microevolution" because it means "miniature changes," and appears to describe what you see in nature. But it is not the same as mutation; it is in fact like a computer program running variations within its own limitations, but no further. You simply will not find evidence that microevolution leads to macroevolution. The latter is simply inferred from the former. So there's scientific evidence and logic to support these things. They weren't just made up and then propogated for their own sake. But they aren't all that important, either There is evidence, yes, but like all evidence, it can be misinterpreted. And the notion that they aren't that important is simply your opinion. I remember one famous quote (by an evolutionist, mind you) that all the evidence for evolution could be fit within a single coffin, with room to spare. -The age of the earth, and the state of bio-diversity now or then, or how that biodiversity came to be have very little effect on our faith in the fundamentals of Christianity. That is, I and many others have a very firm faith in each of these fundamentals, while questioning all the particulars and non-essentials, including the historicity and science of the book of Genesis, at every turn. Hang that, I even question the fundamentals, and it hasn't hurt me or anyone else yet (as far as I know). You know, even the greatest have questioned God. An honest look at scripture will reveal that to the most amateur reader. But while the fundamentals of Christianity may not be hurt by the spurious claims of evolution, thousands of Christians have lost their faith in it. And whether you can justify compromise or not, that alone should be enough to refute the notion that these things "aren't that important." -That might be one of the keys to my positions on these things, I do not, nor have I ever, accept what I'm taught. I always question it and look for other perspectives. By so doing I find truth, and firm up my belief in said truth so that it will stand attack from falshood. A true Berean response, and I'm proud of you for it. But I challenge the notion that you don't accept what you've been tought; you have told me that you haven't really studied the science from a creationist perspective, so you have, in fact, adopted a compromising position without looking at the reasons these so-called "fundamentalists" might, in fact, believe what they do with some scientific basis. -Fundamentals (all else is non-essential and it makes little difference what you believe about it) summarized by the Apostles' Creed: 1. The Bible is the inspired Word of God. That is, God put everything that is in the Bible, into the heads of the people who wrote it down (This isn't to assume that he put it there word for word, and they wrote it word for word, or that he put it there accuratly and they wrote it accuratly, or anything else of the sort, only that he put it there, and they wrote it. We can safely assume that they translated it into the words and word pictures that made sense to them, just as we do when God gives us His Word prophetically today.) Everything in the Bible is true as it pertains to life and Godliness and is useful for teaching, exhorting, instruction in righteousness, etc. (Whether or not it is historically accurate has little bearing on our faith. Our faith isn't about knowing what happened in what order over what period of time in the past. It's about our relationship with our Creator.) This is such a contradiction, though, Mongoose. How can you say that you have a firm grasp on the relationship with our Creator when you reject as mythological the very foundational chapters thereof? 2. God the Father is the maker of Heaven and Earth, and the only true God (notice we don't care how or when he did it, only that he did it) You may not care how or when, but he does tell us. It was obviously worth mentioning, or it wouldn't be in the Bible at all. 3. Jesus the Christ is God's only son, begotten, not made, of one substance with the Father and the Spirit, that they are three in one. (Science has nothing to say about this, one way or another.) Nor should it, though virgin births aren't unknown to science. Neither is the notion of three-in-one (atoms come to mind, though some have proposed that even those are only conjectural in nature, and violate laws of physics as currently understood). Now, I, as a Pentacostal, choose to believe a few things beyond those stated above. I'm convinced that they are true, but I'm not worried about your or my salvation if you disagree on these extra points. Well, that's all well and good--I'm not worried about yours, either, Mongoose. What I'm worried about is the millions of people who are lied to in schools and universities every day, and don't have it within themselves to compromise what they've been taught in Sunday School with what they're taught in Biology 101, and aren't educated enough to make a stand either way. Your soul might not be lost, nor mine, but others have been, and that should make a difference whether or not you agree or disagree with me. The point of all that was to say that a person's salvation and faith are not at risk because they believe the claims of evolutionists, or anyone else, as long as they believe these few things. Not if they believe in Christ, no. But as I've stated, if you cease to believe in Christ because of what evolution teaches, then it falls under the "leading the little ones astray" passage, and brings up the millstone issue. None of those claims contradict those few fundamental truths. Divides himself admitted in one phrase that you could believe the Earth is billions of years old, and still be a Christian, but in the next phrase (or one soon thereafter) asserts that the statements made in Genesis need to be taken as historical, literal and scientific truth, or you remove credibility from all of Scripture. I'm writing on full-blown sinus infection and bronchitis, so I apologize if I misspoke. Here is what I meant to say: I am not willing to put God in a box. If he chose to create in some way other than what has been revealed, then that's just fine. It's not going to ruin my faith. But I do happen to believe that starting with an assumption that he has not revealed himself truthfully is a mistake, and from my studies, I have come to the conclusion that the earth is young, because the scientific evidence supports scripture, not because I ignore the evidence and choose to believe a myth. What I am insisting on, and somehow cannot manage to communicate, is that this is not merely a frivolous or tangential issue. It is, in fact, one that has cost eternal lives, and that should matter, regardless of what side you come down on. This is simply quite false, and the cause of the stumbling of many who would have believed had they understood the Truth: Scripture is not a history book (except for the books of history, starting with Exodus, and including the Gospels and Acts) Wait a minute ... you just showed your hand there. You start the books of history with Exodus? So everything up to that is simply in error or irrelevant, despite the fact that the rest of scripture, including geneologies that go all the way back to Adam, assumes Genesis to be not only literally but historically true? I'm ... dumbfounded. nor is it a science text book, and it needn't be historically or scientifically accurate to be spiritual Truth. While it is "not a science book" (nor does it claim to be), it does need to be historically accurate, or else the spiritual truth is simply so much storytelling. None of these main points conflict with any of the main points of Evolution, and none of the main points of Evolution conflict with any of these main points of Genesis, or with any of the six fundamental points I listed earlier. Mongoose, you really, really should study this issue before going much further. The fact is that evolution and creation are at odds with one another, as has been evidenced by the violent opposition to any kind of alternative view put into schools. (Do you know that there is an 85% conversion rate to biblical creation among students who are shown just the scientific facts about the errors of evolution?) Nor are these main points of Genesis, or belief in them even essential to Christianity! If I were giving a new believer in a nation closed to the Bible only 15 pages out of my Bible, the parts I figured they would need the most, I would not include anything from Genesis, and I'd be surprised if there were many references to Genesis in the pages that I would give to them. That saddens me. The most succesful missionaries have been those who started in Genesis. If you don't know where we came from, and what our relationship with our Creator is, how can the message of Christ possibly make any sense? I'm not going to bother to respond to the rest of your message, Mongoose. You know I love you as a brother and respect you as a friend, but I disagree wholeheartedly with you in this, and believe that you are leading people astray. Not because you believe in evolution (many great Christians do), but because you say, in full acknowledgement that you haven't really studied the matter, that these things are inconsequential. As someone who has studied this from both a scientific and a theological perspective, I can tell you that nothing could be further from the truth.
|
|
|
Post by Divides the Waters on Jul 4, 2008 18:18:32 GMT -5
This was just an exercise in random thoughts. I just wondered if there were carnivorous animals in Eden? After the fall, we know what we have. Hope I didn't derail this train of thought further. My answer to this, which is fully scriptural, is in my first long post above. I hope it helps. Incidentally, I think that Teskas' exploration of the nature of Eden is intriguing, and bears more scrutiny. I'm going to have to look into this further.
|
|
|
Post by mongoose on Jul 4, 2008 19:35:43 GMT -5
Interestingly, what causes more would be believers to stray away from faith is seeing the die-hard commitment of ultra-conservative or fundamentalist Christians to non-essential doctrines that they simply can't accept.
I wonder if I should be bothered by the accusations, above, that I don't know what I'm talking about? I did study this in college, and have listened to everything any Creationist would tell me, and after much thought and prayer have come to the conclusions I've come to. They haven't led people astray, nor would they, as they make everything fit logically, without having to jump through hoops or ignore things. You don't want to believe Creationism? Fine. You can still be a Christian. You don't want to believe Evolution? Fine. You can still appreciate the offerings of science.
People don't want a position that's in opposition to everything else they've seen, known, or heard. They want something that fits, that has power, that has reality and meaning to them. They want a personal relationship with their Creator. To insist that the rest of the world is not only wrong, but that they've intentionally forced those who are right to the fringe due to political or PR motivations, alienates those who would be in the world but not of it. If we can more effectively lead people to Christ by being seeker sensitive, without compromising the fundamentals of our faith, then that's what we need to do.
If, on the other hand, there are people (however many you want to postulate) who are so dedicated to an anti-Christian evolution (in all of my classes on evolution, no one tried to dis-prove any of the fundamental truths of Christianity) that they can not accept the fundamental truths of Christianity when said truths are presented in such a way that they allow the person to remain an evolutionist, then I'm afraid they were too far gone before the Christian got to them for any given approach to have reached them. It will take an act of God in their lives.
Now, if a person chooses, due to the numbers of people allegedly drawn astray by the teachings of evolution, to make finding the truth of that issue one of their battles, then by all means they should research the evidence in favor of Creationism to the same extent that I've researched the evidence for Evolution, if not more so. As for me, it's not one of my battles, for reasons I've stated before. So I may not be the MOST qualified person around to argue for Theistic Evolution, which is why I'm not trying to. But the fact of my relative lack of education does not in any way invalidate the plausibility of the explanation. So all I'm trying to do is to show that there is another view in keeping with the fundamental truths of Scripture. If someone chooses not to accept it because Divides or someone else is more educated and thus provides the better argument, okay. No skin off my nose. I just hope and pray that all those who are undecided, as yet, will give the issue as much consideration as they do any doctrinal issue, and not assume that because the conservative church and someone as well educated and well spoken as Divides espouses Creationism, it must be true. We don't have to oppose everything, but we should certainly question everything.
Even things like the omni-present nature of God, or the goodness of God. But those are other issues for other threads. *grins*
|
|
|
Post by Divides the Waters on Jul 5, 2008 11:02:39 GMT -5
Interestingly, what causes more would be believers to stray away from faith is seeing the die-hard commitment of ultra-conservative or fundamentalist Christians to non-essential doctrines that they simply can't accept. Is this a fact, or simply an opinion? Because this is not what I have observed, nor have I read any statistics that would support it. I wonder if I should be bothered by the accusations, above, that I don't know what I'm talking about? I did study this in college, and have listened to everything any Creationist would tell me, and after much thought and prayer have come to the conclusions I've come to. Okay, fair enough. First, I apologize if I have offended. This is obviously a subject I feel passionately about, but I don't want to make enemies over it, particularly here. If you studied this in college, I would be curious to know what sources of creation science you used. Most people I know, when presented with the science, and not just the common conception of what "creationists" are, are blown away by just how little evidence there is for evolution. And in the debates I've seen, the evolutionists end up looking foolish and bigoted, and the creationists (even the weakest) are the ones that end up flooded with questions at the end. The "accusations" were based on the fact that you have freely admitted to me in the past that you have not really studied creation science in depth. They haven't led people astray, nor would they, as they make everything fit logically, without having to jump through hoops or ignore things. You don't want to believe Creationism? Fine. You can still be a Christian. You don't want to believe Evolution? Fine. You can still appreciate the offerings of science. I would hope so. Most of the greatest scientists have been creationists. People don't want a position that's in opposition to everything else they've seen, known, or heard. They want something that fits, that has power, that has reality and meaning to them. Tickle my ears, in other words. Yes, I've seen this quite often. And I suspect everyone is guilty of it. I remember an old friend of mine who claimed that she was going to look at all the religions and then extract what she liked about each one, and go with that. I asked her what the point would be; I believe things because (ostensibly) they are true, not because I like them or dislike them. They want a personal relationship with their Creator. To insist that the rest of the world is not only wrong, but that they've intentionally forced those who are right to the fringe due to political or PR motivations, alienates those who would be in the world but not of it. If we can more effectively lead people to Christ by being seeker sensitive, without compromising the fundamentals of our faith, then that's what we need to do. Well, therein, again, I differ. While I fully understand that the divisive nature of inter-Christian debates can turn off quite a few people, I also believe that part of the reason we've had such a great falling away in the Church is that it has become so seeker-sensitive that it no longer has anything of substance to offer the outside world. If, on the other hand, there are people (however many you want to postulate) who are so dedicated to an anti-Christian evolution (in all of my classes on evolution, no one tried to dis-prove any of the fundamental truths of Christianity) that they can not accept the fundamental truths of Christianity when said truths are presented in such a way that they allow the person to remain an evolutionist, then I'm afraid they were too far gone before the Christian got to them for any given approach to have reached them. It will take an act of God in their lives. Well, you have had a different experience, and I laud you for it. But I've lost track of the number of times I've read of professors fired for merely presenting evidence counter to modern evolutionary theory, or others calling students' faith to task and telling them that if they believe in God, they won't by the end of the class, etc. Are some of them urban legends? Doubtless. But most of these are quite well-documented cases. And many people I have talked to have had similar experiences. Now, if a person chooses, due to the numbers of people allegedly drawn astray by the teachings of evolution, to make finding the truth of that issue one of their battles, then by all means they should research the evidence in favor of Creationism to the same extent that I've researched the evidence for Evolution, if not more so. As for me, it's not one of my battles, for reasons I've stated before. So I may not be the MOST qualified person around to argue for Theistic Evolution, which is why I'm not trying to. But the fact of my relative lack of education does not in any way invalidate the plausibility of the explanation. So all I'm trying to do is to show that there is another view in keeping with the fundamental truths of Scripture. If someone chooses not to accept it because Divides or someone else is more educated and thus provides the better argument, okay. No skin off my nose. I just hope and pray that all those who are undecided, as yet, will give the issue as much consideration as they do any doctrinal issue, and not assume that because the conservative church and someone as well educated and well spoken as Divides espouses Creationism, it must be true. We don't have to oppose everything, but we should certainly question everything. This last part I generally agree with. But we all know what it is like to have people know just enough to be dangerous. I've been guilty of this myself; I've walked into debates with fledgling theology, convinced people because of my articulate manner and confident position, and then gone back and realized that I was wrong. It's not a pleasant feeling, to say the least. Even things like the omni-present nature of God, or the goodness of God. But those are other issues for other threads. *grins* Agreed. As is this one, probably, since the original question was much more limited in scope than our debate has made the answer. And believe me, I've had my own "deep thoughts" about those issues, as well. Well, I think I've said all I really care to on the subject. You know where I stand, and if you have any specific questions, I'll do my best to answer them, or lead you to those who can. In the meantime, I would highly suggest checking out the Creation Research Society, or some of the various books on creation science. A personal favorite of mine is Bones of Conention, by Marvin Lubenow, and you would probably like that one, as it is written from a young-earth perspective, but is designed to be read by anyone, regardless of their views on the age of the earth. Michael Oard is a good starting place for the semi-technically-minded. I do apologize, again, if I offended you.
|
|
|
Post by mongoose on Jul 6, 2008 23:01:21 GMT -5
Was that "Bones of Contention?" If I was offended, nice post, and I'll let go of any former offense. *looks to see if there were anythings in it that needed to be clarified or answered.* The bit about people's responses to various Christian groups was my personal observation/experience, mostly speaking with liberal college student friends of mine. "Hey, I might be okay with Jesus, and God and all that," They might say, "If I saw that it was real. But what I see is a bunch of stuck up people with all these rules about not having fun, and beliefs in things that don't make sense, telling everyone else that we have to be like them or go to hell. No thank you." No doubt at all, too many congregations in the West have become TOO seeker sensitive. But if I'm not going to reach the above person by insisting on a young earth and a limit of micro to evolution, but could reach them with the love of Christ without compromising my fundamentals, why would I not use the latter method? If the culture is liberal, and hates conservatives, and you're trying to reach them, you'll have to find someway of preaching truth, without sounding like everything they hate about conservatives. Don't ask me how that is done. I haven't preached to large crowds with spectacular effects yet. I have ideas, but they're untested. What I do know is what my friends expressed about their needs vs. their judgments of Christianity and other religions' abilities to meet those needs. I'll take your word for it that people mix theology with science (the bit about professors stating that students would lose faith, or getting fired for postulating dissenting views). This really frustrates me, as the two have very little to say about each other if you look at what they are supposed to be/do. But what influence do I have? That whole knowing enough to be dangerous is one of the reasons I now try to avoid postulating anything as truth. Our own beloved guy-in-charge of Wherethemapends advised me to state that "I believe . . ." or "It is my view/opinion . . .," and my boss, to whom I look with the greatest respect (though he's a liberal,) tells me that I need to understand that what I believe is based upon what I have experienced, and that other people believe things based on their experiences. Thus the frequent disclaimer in my workshops, "In my experience, that hasn't worked, but this has." It's another way of saying "That's wrong, but this is right," without offending people and pushing them into a defensive rejection of what I'm preaching. It also ensures that I haven't committed more than I'm willing to deal with the consequences of, and it gives the person the choice of how much of what I've said to accept. They can throw out the dirty bathwater of what I've said, without throwing out the baby. I don't like admitting that I don't know it all, but apparently, even if I do know it all, I can communicate more effectively if I pretend that I realize that I might not. Again, whatever works, as long as it's legal, moral, ethical and possible with likely results better than the results of non-action. This last post was a discussion more of communication methods than of science or theology, evolution or creation. That would be off topic. But if you have questions for me, as if you have questions for Divides, feel free to ask. I'll just tell you what I know, believe, suspect, etc. And if you want to do other reading, check out an introductory college text book. It should give you some case studies, examples in which macro-evolution has been observed, if it's any good for this question. Wikipidia might even do a decent job of addressing the difference between science and theology and philosophy. Or not. I wasn't satisfied last time I checked, but again, I didn't have time to really dive into that. Too busy trying to help people find jobs and deal with mental/developmental/emotional barriers to financial self sufficiency. But the information's out there for anyone interested enough to look.
|
|
|
Post by Divides the Waters on Jul 7, 2008 9:55:31 GMT -5
Was that "Bones of Contention?" It was supposed to be. Apparently I'm operating on fumes these days....
|
|
|
Post by strangewind on Jul 7, 2008 14:54:03 GMT -5
Please continue this good old fashioned fistfight. In love, of course. I find it very illuminating, and it brings to mind great Christian debates of the past. I'm convinced that both Divides and Mongoose have the salt to keep the disagreement a friendly one.
I would have to say that I've always understood microevolution to mean "documented, observed evolution" and macroevolution to be the theoretical "changing of the species" which has not yet ever been documented via fossil or laboratory evidence. That's where I understand some of the scientific dispute to be: one side will say that because no species change has ever been observed in nature or the lab, that it would be wrong to infer that it has occurred at some point in our past. The other side says that, although no species change has ever been observed in nature or the lab, that it is possible to infer that it has occurred in the past because even in narrow time frames, for example, generational changes in fruit flies cause them to adapt to the enivronment.
In other words, the evolutionist would simply state that if it is known that insect X changes colors (microevolution) over generations to better survive its given environment, it can then be inferred that fish Y turned into salamander Z when the environment became less hospitable to the fish and more hospitable to the salamander? Where as the critic of evolution would state that because there is no historic or scientific record of the transformation of a prehistoric creature from fish to salamander, that it should not be inferred, even if it seems plausible, until evidence exists to support it.
Am I framing that correctly?
|
|
|
Post by mongoose on Jul 7, 2008 19:26:13 GMT -5
There's nothing strictly incorrect in your framing of the evolutionist argument, but I am uncomfortable with it because it doesn't really show what we believe occurs.
1. There have been several populations that were observed, over time, to speciate. That is, one population changed so much that at the end of the time frame there were two populations that could no longer mate effectively, which is to say there were now two species where there used to be one. THAT is macro-evolution (unless someone lied in recording that evidence, or something.)
2. Evolution doesn't say that one kind of organism turned into another. Rather, it says that one kind of organism had a number of descendants, some of which had one characteristic, and some of which had another characteristic. Generations later these characteristics were passed on to further descendants, other micro-evolutionary changes happened, and eventually members of the two populations could not mate with each other, or could not mate with members of the original population effectively. So it isn't quite right to say that species C evolved from species B. Rather, the more appropriate way of saying that something evolved is to say that species B and species C are both evolved from a common ancestor, presumably species A.
Theistic Evolution, as I understand it, says that it's God that caused those mutations, those environmental pressures, those sexual pressures, that genetic drifting that caused differentiated heritable characteristics over the generations of organisms ever since He caused the first organisms to exist on Earth. And why not? Divides can speak more authoritatively to the question of what's wrong (if anything) with the idea of Theistic Evolution, and he may already have done so to your satisfaction.
Of course, Theistic Evolution only works if you do not interpret Genesis to be historically accurate, but do assume that it is true. We've discussed that already to some extent, so I won't go deeply into it right now. Suffice it to say that I've figured out that I can take Genesis (and other poetic and prophetic books) to be the author's written transliteration of visual images that God showed them. They couldn't really grasp the science of it, much less describe it accurately to their readers or hearers, but they did the best they could. (how would YOU describe genetic mutations to someone who's not even aware of molecules?) This method of interpretation is in keeping with acknowledging the whole counsel of the whole Word of God as true in as much as it pertains to life and Godliness, so it's no conflict with any fundamental doctrine of Evangelical Christianity.
Sometimes this assumption that God only showed most of the authors of must of the Bible the Truth, rather than dictating it to them word for word, is sufficient. They did the best they could under that visual or conceptual inspiration, if you will, and any historical or scientific errors have no impact on the Spiritual Truth of life and Godliness being communicated. If that still doesn't allow things to mesh, I either have to seek a further explanation without trying too hard (the simplest explanation is probably closest to the truth) or accept that it is true, and I just don't know how.
In many cases I'm okay with that, the whole evolution and creation thing being one of them. The "origins" debate is a battle others have chosen (on any given side of said debate) I'll let them gather all the information, and I'll just evaluate their conclusions. In other cases it's a battle I've chosen as my own, and I'll get all the information I need to ensure that I'm on the right track. In the example of how Christians are called to react to physical attack, I'm doing an in-depth study of Luke as suggested by someone on this message board. My notes are posted on my blog [http://mongoosenest.org]. I'll post notes on the parts addressing that question, in the appropriate part of this forum, when I get to those passages. That is a battle I've chosen to fight, and it's where I'll put more of my mental energy.
So why do I post here, stuff about Evolution? Only because I don't like to see people making statements about the right or wrongness of the position, when they don't know what the position really is. I'll give the same treatment to any issue that I take to be mis-understood, but will only study those I really care about.
|
|
|
Post by strangewind on Jul 8, 2008 13:15:59 GMT -5
I'm sorry if I'm pressing on this, but I want to get it straight. So speciation occurs when two groups are unable to mate, although they have a common ancestor, and, given enough time (millions of years) this accounts for the development of all species on earth from one common ancestor, which was, presumably, the original lifeform, correct?
So, presumably, there is a ape-man ancestor whose descendent line included some type of near human ape and another type of near-simian human, correct?
My question is where is that ancestor? Aside from inference, what evidence do we have of a common ancestor? I honestly don't know the answer to that question. Furthermore, is the inference of speciation from a common origin the only inference that can be made, given the evidence? Is there any possibility that there were conflicting, competing or cooperative life forms in the primordial era?
On a secondary issue, I do have to say that if there is error in the Bible (and I don't mean the error of translation but in the original script), logic insists that I question its claim to be the word of God. I don't doubt that it is a remarkable book, and if it claimed merely to be men's perceived encounter with God, I might give error a pass. But if it really came from God, even through imperfect vessels, it's going to harmonize with, or at the very least not dispute, known scientific and historic fact.
At the same time, I search the Scriptures for wisdom and redemption, not error.
|
|
|
Post by torainfor on Jul 8, 2008 16:21:16 GMT -5
"...it's going to harmonize with, or at the very least not dispute, known scientific and historic fact"
That's assuming "known scientific and historical fact" is actually true.
This is where I find the whole debate quickly approaching tedium. It's all well and good to dig in the ground, find some clues, and take a gander at what it means. But I honestly don't believe we know enough to even begin to say what's what with any degree of confidence. We are the great, clicheic blind men trying to describe an elephant.
Where AiG becomes important for me isn't in that they have the absolute truth (on things that happened thousands of years ago they never witnessed). It's merely the mental exercise of taking the evidence and seeing how it may have possibly fit in with the Genesis story. It doesn't answer the question so much as point out the delicious ambiguity of the whole thing, and give me reason enough to tell evolutionists, "You know what, I don't know what happened, but it probably wasn't that."
|
|
|
Post by Divides the Waters on Jul 8, 2008 18:54:14 GMT -5
Right. And the trouble is that all sorts of things that are neither known, scientific, nor fact are lumped in casually into the "known scientific fact" category. This is where creationists have their biggest battle--defining science to people who think they already know what it is.
|
|
|
Post by mongoose on Jul 8, 2008 23:27:23 GMT -5
I don't know that pressing on this is a bad thing. All of us have the choice to press back, or just get out of the way. *grins*
In answer to your question, Strangewind, that does jive with my understanding of what was being taught in my classes on Evolution in particular and biology more generally.
I asked the same question of my professors concerning whether there might have been several parallel developments of the first life, in different forms/kinds in the very beginning. I figured that I couldn't deny that macro-evolution had occurred, but I doubted that it went all the way back as was assumed. The professors said that we have no evidence, nor logic to show that there was more than one species to begin with, as opposed to one common ancestor to all living things. This did not mean to them, however, that there could not have been multiple 1st generation species. Only that it wouldn't make sense within the framework of what they knew.
As for the missing link, maybe God did something different with homo sapiens sapiens than with everything else on the planet? I've often asked what the difference is between us and every other animal, and no one has shown me any good evidence of any biological difference between us and chimpanzees, our closest surviving relative according to the scientific community. Even gorrilas seem pretty close. Yet I believe the Bible indicates that there is a difference. God was in the business of distinguishing between one thing and another, the holy and the mundane, the sacred and the secular, etc. I'm convinced that he did give us something special that he did not give to animals. But it's not intelligence, the ability to communicate vocally, the ability to reason, or the ability to appreciate beauty or grandeur. Other species have all of that. So what is it, and how did it happen? I suppose it's our ability to interact spiritually with the Spirit of God, but do we really know that animals can't do that? And what about humans who lose much of the brain function that we think makes them human and sentient, as opposed to something else? How is it that many of them are still Christians? That I was saved when I was three, and many animals have the intelligence of a six year old, and can be taught to speak, not just what they've heard, but to actually construct original sentences to express emotions of their own?
Given that I take the Creation account to be poetic and metaphorical, what does it really mean that God breathed the breath of life into Adam, but not into the other animals (according to chapter 1. In the second Creation account, God breaths the breath of life into all of them)?
As for the whole question of the definition of science, who or what defines it? who or what has the right? Myself, I ask scientists. I read science text books. They tell me that science is the systematic study of a thing, gathering evidence to disprove an idea, theory, or law (depending on how much evidence has been gathered in favor of it), and comparing that evidence and the conclusions of those studies the evidence and conclusions gathered by others until the community as a whole can determine which of several explanations makes the most sense, given the body of evidence that has been collected and studied.
Whether or not any given idea has been arrived at scientifically is another question, but once an idea has been accepted by the generally very critical, peer reviewing scientific community, it then gains the status of scientific theory, and after many attempts to disprove it fail, of scientific law. Of course attempts to disprove things will continue, and some may even succeed. But scientific laws take a great while and a large body of evidence to change. So keep at it, you Creationists, if that's your battle. But don't just keep throwing the same arguments at the same people who stopped listening years ago. Find some more evidence, do some more studies, disprove some things, and get your findings published in peer reviewed journals. Eventually they'll worm their way into the awareness of the scientific community for due consideration, assuming they hold up to the critical peer review.
In the meantime, us laypeople will decide on the basis of forum and blog posts, wikipidia entries, popular magazine articles, and college classes, I suppose.
As for the bit about logic demanding that the Bible meet a given standard of accuracy, who died and made logic God? Seriously. The Bible's not all that logical (yes, I'm reading it, and it boggles the mind. Ecclesiastes and other books even say so.) God's not all that logical. There's not even that much consistency in what he does or demands, though I have found some common threads. But what God does is neither fair, logical, equal, nor even equitable, assuming that the Bible is accurate throughout its length. We believe that God doesn't change. But then why do we have him seeming a being who's mind can be changed by a logical argument in parts of Genesis, and the almighty ruler of the Universe who's had every moment of Eternity planned from the beginning in the New Testament? Did God change and get more powerful and decisive and in control, or did the understanding of God's might in the minds of the authors change? Why does the God of one book seem so different in nature and motivation than the God of another book, if He's dictating the books to the authors, and making sure they transcribe it accurately? If we're being logical, logic would demand that either 1. What looks different is really the same, in which case there's either something deeply hidden or we're just bad at reading comprehension, or 2. God changed over time, or 3. God stayed the same, and there's nothing so deeply hidden such that God is really portrayed as all-mighty and all knowing even though he seems weak and in-decisive, but rather the authors wrote what they knew/believed, and their knowledge and belief matured and grew closer to reality over the ages until the death of the last of the apostles (we assume we don't need new revelation of God any more, but only that which illuminates what He's already given us in the Bible.)
Which of those is most likely to be true? I go with the most simple, and alas yes, the most logical given my basic premises. I think that makes number 3 the winner for now, at least for me. And if number 3, and people wrote, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, what they perceived of God and what He revealed to them, then they might have done a bad job of describing some things. I do not propose that there are errors in the Bible as statements pertain to life and Godliness, only that there are errors concerning history and science. I do not think that any amount of historical or scientific error in a book invalidates the truth of its message. Nor do I think that an error in one part of a book invalidates the truth of any other part of that book. So I have no problem at all believing the whole message of the whole of the Bible (which is neither a historical nor a scientific message, but a message about life and Godliness) while believing that some parts of it are historically and/or scientifically inaccurate based on the extra-Biblical evidence I've heard from the scientific and historical communities. I'll let pastors and Bible scholars tell me what is True of God and life, and I'll let scientists tell me what has happened biologically etc. and I'll let historians, anthropologists and archaeologists tell me what happened with societies other than the Israelites in the past.
|
|