Now a Creationist
by Ted Slater on 01/24/2009 at 5:00 PM
I didn't always believe the Scriptural account of how "all this" came about.
I used to believe that the variety of life emerged through time from some fantastic event that took place millions of years ago in a clump of pond scum. Later, I came to believe that God had a hand in this, that He guided that process.
Then one day I heard a convincing explanation that seemed consistent with both Scripture and the scientific evidence. After further researching biblical creation, I came to see it as true. My thoughts about it have refined over the years, but I'm more firm than ever that the Bible is true when it lays out how the Creator brought about "all this."
On Friday we published an article on Boundless Webzine from someone who had a similar story. The evidence he came across left him with no choice but to believe that the Scriptural portrayal of creation is true.
In "Now a Creationist," Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. brings up some of the issues that made him change his mind about the theory of evolution: missing links, real chemistry vs. chemical evolution, information theory, the "mere change" bait-and-switch, rock layers, evolution's incompatibility with Scripture, and the problem of sin and death.
There's a lot to think about. I had never considered "paraconformities," for example, or "condensation polymerization." Big words, but fairly simple concepts.
Dr. Sarfati references two blog posts I've written, "A Theory of Creation" and "Jesus Was Not A Theistic Evolutionist." If you've got real questions about the competing theories, I challenge you to read not only Sarfati's article and my two blog posts, but the numerous references embedded in each one.
When I first heard about biblical creation, I was intrigued. Could what I had believed for so long not be accurate? I wondered. But as I came to see biblical creation as true, my faith in the power and wisdom of the Creator and the veracity of Scripture has grown.
1. Josh said the following at 6:35 PM on Jan 24:
I appreciate your conviction Ted. Personally, I'm on the theistic evolution side of things (although I hate the term myself). And while I admire people's commitment to doing justice to scripture, I do still feel obligated to try to convince fellow believers that the Genesis account is not to be taken as the literal history of the world. The reason I'll still hammer away at this issue until I die is twofold:
1) I think its true, which seems like a good enough reason to propagate it.
2) I honestly believe its a detriment to the Church in the long run to hold onto literal six-day creationism.
That said, whatever lets you work out your salvation in fear and trembling. We'll get it all figured out when we're dead, right?
2. Chris Roberts said the following at 7:29 PM on Jan 24:
I'll limit myself to one response. As far as death and Adam and Eve go, it is worth remembering that the biblical evidence is that they were not created immortal. That is, Adam and Eve were not fundamentally different from us biologically. Had there been nothing else at work, they would have died. The something else was the fruit of the tree of life. Thus we read in Genesis 3:22-23:
Then the Lord God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil. Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever—” therefore the Lord God sent him out from the garden of Eden to work the ground from which he was taken.
Living forever was a product of the tree of life, not a product of man's originally being made immortal. This means our normal understanding about sin and death might not be as simple as we tend to make it. Human death came when because of their fall humans were denied access to the tree of life. I am not aware that all animal life had access to that fruit.
3. Pedro said the following at 8:06 PM on Jan 24:
First of all, I'm not sure there's a lot of value in debating the topic to the end.
However, you have to realize that fundamental laws of physics (gravity, for example) were in place before the fall, and that physical harm and death are possible under that physical system. So, I agree that the simplistic way you learned about it in Sunday school probably doesn't do the topic justice.
4. Jared said the following at 8:12 PM on Jan 24:
An interesting journey of change, although it is the complete opposite to mine. I have moved from being a 7 day creationist to a theistic evolution proponent. Interestingly, its not because the arguments for theistic evolution have been so compelling that has caused this change, it has been because of the horrendously bad arguments made by 7-day creationists that have actually pushed me away from their camp. Having done 9 years of University level science and medicine now, i just cringe at the majority of arguments made for a 7 day creation, the science behind them is dubious at best, and outright misleading at worst. I concur with post #1, i think holding onto this perspective of creation has actually done more damage than good to the church on the whole.
5. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 8:38 PM on Jan 24:
Well Josh (#1), 150 years of the church appeasing Darwin, to the point of apologizing to him, has really helped the Christian cause, huh? Why, American Christians are so deep in their faith that they elected a supporter of infanticide and gay "marriage" to the presidency! For where that could lead, look at Britain after years of Blair. But really, if the Bible doesn't mean what it says in Genesis, where does it start to mean what it says? Maybe the Resurrection accounts need "re-interpretation" too, since science shows that men don't rise from the dead ... ?
Chris Roberts (#2): if Adam were going to die anyway, then it was pointless for God to warn him of death if he disobeyed (Gen. 2:17), or for God to pronounce the death sentence when he did (Gen. 3:19). What happens to the biblical teachings that death is the "last enemy" (1 Cor. 15:26) and "the wages of sin" (Rom. 6:23)?
In my book Refuting Compromise, I have the following:
Was immortality part of Adam’s original state?
God prevented Adam from eating from the Tree of Life after the Fall, lest he live forever in sin (Genesis 3:22). From this, some argue that Adam was not created immortal. However, this does not follow, because God ordains both the means and the end. ... Similarly, in the original creation, the end is that Adam would be without death, and part of the means could have been the Tree of Life. ...
In the Eternal State, where death and Curse will be no more, the Tree of Life will once more flourish (Revelation 22:2).
In this view, God had ordained the Tree of Life as providing eternal continuance of life. Since God’s will cannot be thwarted, even by the Fall (which He foreknew), the tree’s property would need to be true even after the Fall. Since Adam and Eve would not be allowed to live forever in sin, they could not be allowed to eat any of this fruit. If they had, God would have been forced by his own perfect truthfulness to keep them alive forever.
So the Tree of Life was not to become accessible till the Eternal State, when we will no longer have even the possibility of sin.
6. Naomi said the following at 8:42 PM on Jan 24:
Modern evolutionists have actually strayed away from the original theory of evolution because of these same scientific inconsistencies.
Although they will not be open to the Creationist view simply because it includes God, they have openly agreed that the original view of evolution is not feasible.
One other thing of course is that more than 10,000 years have past and we as humans have not yet even progressed to evolve into some other mutated state. With cancer being the top killer right now and no new organ or immune system that "mutated" to evolve us into a better state, regression and not evolution seemed to be the case.
7. Alison said the following at 8:47 PM on Jan 24:
I appreciated his article; it was well written and thoughtfully arranged.
Though not a PhD biochemist myself, I am familiar with organic/biochemistry and have come to different conclusions from analyzing the same ideas. I believe the Genesis storieS are not to be taken literally (which is not to say they are less valuable--just less literal).
All in all, it's not a salvation issue and one can be just as much of a servant for Christ while not being a Creationist, so Creationists must remember to not imply it is necessary to those asking questions about Christ.
8. rebekah said the following at 9:42 PM on Jan 24:
Josh (#1) - just wondering, why do you believe in "theistic evolution"? and why do you think a literal interpretation of Genesis is a detriment to the Church? I admit I haven't studied it much (as I am as firm a believer in the inerrancy, infallibility, and historical accuracy of all Scripture as you are in theistic evolution) but I am curious to know how you fit your belief with what you read in Genesis.
Chris (#2) - that is something i never thought of before, and I can't claim to have an absolute answer to it. But I think it might have something to do with the essential difference between humans and animals (ie humans have souls). There could have theoretically been the death of animals before the Fall. Scripture doesn't tell us either way. But since Scripture often leaves out unnecessary details, and since it is the history of mankind's redemption (not just natural history), whether or not animals died before the Fall seems somewhat irrelevant to our theology. Although the "death" that came about from eating the fruit included physical death, much more importantly it signified spiritual death and the need for a Saviour.
9. Thomas said the following at 2:36 AM on Jan 25:
I have much respect for Christians that believe in YEC, literal 6 days, etc. I think that is great and etc etc. But I get very uncomfortable when very conservative Christians start um, "insinuating" that all other types of Christians who may have differing ideas about this are not true Christians, or are bad ones. I have read much from that side that says as much. Talk about a) being hyper arrogant, I think it's clear that none of us will ever fully understand the mysteries of the world, even Paul admits that all we see now is but a poor reflection, and b) very destructive to the unity of our body.
I am working on a PhD in a top 10 research university (one of the University of California campuses). I try to spread the gospel literally on the front lines in the environment where people are most skeptical. If I were to peddle 6 day creationism as being a core tenet of being Christian, I would be laughed out of every opportunity to share the gospel. I am sure many of you YECers who surround yourselves with like-minded conservative Christians living in a nice conservative part of the country and do not deal with the secular/academic world (which I am sure many of you have labeled as evil and etc) have it very easy to believe YEC. But out on the front lines so to speak, I would rather not force the YEC issue and focus on other things (like believing in Christ as our savior).
I will say this - I am increasingly uncomfortable with the brewing conflict between conservative Christianity and I suppose more moderate and liberal Christianity. I know boundless and focus on the family are both very much in the conservative branch, but I come to read about things that all Christians can agree on, such as the importance of family, Christ in our daily life, and a few social issues that really are important. But the more I read, the more I read posts from certain boundless writers, the more i get the sense that even moderate and liberal christians aren't entirely welcome, that our views are flat wrong, that if we don't subscribe to the southern-conservative rebublican brand of Christianity, we are almost unwelcome here. I think that's a shame.
10. JB said the following at 7:13 AM on Jan 25:
Dr. Sarfati,
I have never really understood the creationist argument about information theory. Can you define "information" as you are using the term in the article?
11. Ted Slater said the following at 7:42 AM on Jan 25:
I have to admit I'm a bit disappointed in this conversation.
Some people are disagreeing with what Dr. Sarfati has written, disagreeing with the two blog posts I wrote ... but are not addressing a single point either of us have made.
Why, specifically, do you dismiss the biblical creation understanding of how "all this" came about? Which of the arguments provided in support of it do you find invalid? Don't just give your unsubstantiated opinion about Scripture being inaccurate or deceptive, or of your journey to embrace evolution; address the specific points made in the article and blog posts.
That'll make for a much more productive conversation.
12. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 8:16 AM on Jan 25:
Thomas, there is probably more intellectual diversity in the average Southern Baptist Church than the average California university faculty.
Three political science professors, Robert Lichter of George Mason University, Stanley Rothman of Smith College and Neil Nevitte of the University of Toronto, surveyed 1,643 full-time faculty at 183 four-year schools, in their paper ‘Politics and Professional Advancement Among College Faculty’, The Forum 3(1). They found that 72% of teachers describe themselves as liberal, but only 15% are conservative. Only 31% describe themselves as regular churchgoers (and that’s any sort of church). 84% are in favour of abortion rights, and 67% said homosexual behaviour is acceptable.
So conservatives at universities typically have to learn how to refute liberal arguments. But many liberals have never heard a conservative argument that hasn't been distorted.
Since you argue from experience, let me do the same. At my university, some atheists told me that they disagreed with my views, but respected me for unashamedly believine what the Bible said. They had much less time for Christians who didn't really believe their own book.
13. J. said the following at 10:00 AM on Jan 25:
Dr. Sarfati, I've enjoyed your educational article and blog comments on Creationism.
One thing some point to when arguing against a literal interpretation of the creation account in Genesis is that the moon is classified as a great light. However, we now know that the moon does not emit its own light; rather, moonlight is a reflection from the light of the sun. Dr. Sarfati, I would appreciate knowing your take on this.
14. Adam said the following at 11:26 AM on Jan 25:
Chris Roberts,
I'll limit myself to one response. As far as death and Adam and Eve go, it is worth remembering that the biblical evidence is that they were not created immortal. That is, Adam and Eve were not fundamentally different from us biologically. Had there been nothing else at work, they would have died. The something else was the fruit of the tree of life. Thus we read in Genesis 3:22-23:
Then the Lord God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil. Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever—” therefore the Lord God sent him out from the garden of Eden to work the ground from which he was taken.
Living forever was a product of the tree of life, not a product of man's originally being made immortal. This means our normal understanding about sin and death might not be as simple as we tend to make it. Human death came when because of their fall humans were denied access to the tree of life. I am not aware that all animal life had access to that fruit.
That is not what is going on in this passage. Compare this passage to what is going on previously when Eve eats of the fruit:
Genesis 3:6 When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise, she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate.
Compare that with the passage you quoted:
Genesis 3:22 Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever "--
Notice how these two verses have the same two verbs in them "to take" [laqah] and "to eat" ['akal]. In fact, Genesis 3:6 and 3:22 are the only two places where these verbs are used in combination like this in Genesis 1-3. It is also important that we have the Hebrew term "gam" in the text meaning "also." What God does not want them to do is something in addition to what they have already done. This action is also parallel to them "becoming like one of us," spoken of earlier in the verse. All of this screams the fact that this action is being paralleled to the eating of the tree by Eve. Thus, the action that will give them life is paralleled to the action of Eve's eating which was not repetitive over a long period of time, but rather, a one time action of disobedience. In the same way, the author is intending us to understand the eating of the tree of life that would cause them to live as, not a continuious event that Adam and Eve had to keep doing before the fall, but as a one time action as well. Thus, I would say that there is no exegetical warrant for saying that Adam and Eve had to continually eat from the tree of life in order to remain alive.
Now, addressing the OP, I agree that I think evolution is wrong. It goes totally against scripture, and, as Richard Taylor has pointed out, results in pure epistimological scepticism, since it destroys epistimological realism. It is based off of his famous analogy summarized here:
http://faculty.winthrop.edu/craigheadh/articles/csl.htm
While traveling across Britain by train, one sees rocks on a hillside spelling out "The British Railways welcomes you to Wales." If one concludes from this evidence alone that he is entering Wales (as he probably would), then he could not consistently believe that the arrangement of the stones was accidental. In fact, says Taylor, "it would be irrational for you to regard the arrangement of the stones as evidence that you were entering Wales, and at the same time to suppose that they might have come to have that arrangement accidentally, that is, as the result of the ordinary interactions of natural or physical force."
At the same time, it is irrational to suppose that our five senses came about by naturalistic processes, and also believe that our senses function to tell us about the external world. The only way one could ever know that our senses function to tell us about the external world is if they were designed to do so! However, no one can be sure that their senses function to tell them about the external world if they were only brought about by naturalistic processes.
All this being said however, I will have to say that I am agnostic about the age of the earth. I think some of the exegetical methodologies used to say that the earth is young [such as the geneological method] are questionable. However, I do believe that the world was created in seven literal days, just as the text says. However, as far as the age of the earth, I leave that open to exegetical debate.
God Bless,
Adam
15. BDB said the following at 11:57 AM on Jan 25:
Back when I was studying Biology/Environmental studies, I had one (1) conversation with my advisor about Evolution. He was an agnostic and the chair of the Biology department.
But frankly, he said only that I needed to understand Evolution as the organizing principle of Biology. The theory had nothing to say about the origins of the universe, God or anything like that. It was just about where different species came from.
Interestingly enough, the chair of the Physics department was a strong Christian. In fact, while I was an undergraduate, he was going back to school to do a Master's degree in Theology. You can check out his book, Science and Christianity: Four Views.
16. Craig M. said the following at 12:14 PM on Jan 25:
Be very, VERY careful about reading Christians out of the faith due to their belief that portions of the early New Testament are essentially metaphorical--this is VERY thin ice. I suspect that many of those who try this lack a fully formed sense of church history. Dr. Safarti's analysis places the faith of St. Augustine, C.S. Lewis, and Benedict XVI in serious question, as all of these men understood substantial portions of Genesis to be metaphorical (or as Lewis said in a question-and-answer session recorded in "God in the Dock," "fantastical.") These men were/are intellectual giants of the faith.
Christianity is not dependent on a six-day literalist interpretation of Genesis. I hope that's not what Boundless is suggesting. Christianity is dependent on Christ and His resurrection. Everything flows outward from there.
I'm struck by the sociological and moralist arguments Dr. Safarti is using--the church is "compromising" with the world and undermining itself if it interprets Genesis metaphorically, etc. Shouldn't the focus be on truth? I'm only an educated layman, but my sense is that almost every Christian scientist (not "Christian Scientist"--ha) acknowledges at the very least that the world is very, very old. Light travels at a constant rate, and we can see stars that are millions of light years away--meaning the light has been traveling for a long time in order to be viewed by us here on Earth.
As C.S. Lewis noted, what we see in Genesis is "something gradually coming into focus" from myth and allegory to historical reality. I believe that's the truth, and I don't believe God conditions my faith or relationship with Him explicitly on my belief in propositions that are contrary to reason in light of the observations of modern science. It's extremely troubling to see assertions from fellow believers that the faith of Christians like Lewis is in question.
17. Mommynator said the following at 12:38 PM on Jan 25:
For those who think a six-day creation scenario is impossible, I suggest you may want to read to the end of Hawkins' Brief History of Time.
Towards the end, he discusses the impossible forces present at the first of creation (big bang, whatever), which distorted both matter and time.
If time is indeed relative (per Einstein), and time can be affected by physical forces (such as the gravitational forces at work at the beginning), then a six-day creation is definitely possible.
Just saying.
18. farmer Tom said the following at 12:53 PM on Jan 25:
7. Alison said,
Alison, to what salvation are your referring?
Please explain to me, using Scripture as your source how man came to need a Savior if Genesis 1-11 is not literal?
Did man evolve as a sinful being?
To what do you assign the evolution of metaphysical concepts of sin and salvation? Did the need for a Savior evolve?
Do you give special significance to the rainbow or do you believe it is only a natural occurring phenomenon?
One last thought.
If evolution is true, was the death of Christ on the cross really necessary?
Paul asks in Galatians 2:21
If man really is just a material being, there is no spiritual component to human life, then Christ died for nothing, right? Furthermore, since Colossians 1:16 says,
Paul is a liar since he attributes the act of creation to Jesus Christ, John is a liar as well since he says the same thing in John 1:10
So which is it, What God said about His creation in His Word, or some other theory which contradicts His Word?
19. Kim said the following at 1:08 PM on Jan 25:
I had the opportunity to hear Dr. Francis Collins, former head of Human Genome Project speak this week. I recommend his book "The Language of God" to anyone interested in theistic evolution (although Dr. Collins prefers the term BioLogos). He also recommended checking out authors Darrel Falk and Karl Giverson, and the American Scientific Affiliation (www.asa3.org).
20. Texas Craig said the following at 1:15 PM on Jan 25:
J. (#13):
I also am interested in Dr. Sarfati's response, but to me the issue is not relevant. You read into the passage something that is not there. You read "light" to mean that the moon has to produce its own light. I do not see that in the passage. Rather, it simply says that we have a greater light in the day and a lesser light in the night. The moon is the means for that light, but nothing in the passage indicates that it must be the originating source. Although it is not luminous itself, without the moon, you do not have the illumination in issue.
21. Kari said the following at 1:33 PM on Jan 25:
People should download Ken Ham's stuff on iTunes SermonAudio. I LOVE his mission and his viewpoint-- everything in the world (sin, languages, races, perpetual conflicts like Israel's, physics, chemistry, biology,geology, rain,... etc.) can be explained by Genesis 1-11, and if you will not take Genesis 1-11 literally, you cannot have the rest of the Bible... no Jesus, no crucifixion, no resurrection, no salvation, no life after death. We take all of those concepts because of God's spoken word and through faith-- and we MUST do the same with Genesis 1-11. We make the mistake of fitting the Bible around our likes and "scientific" observations, instead of looking through the lenses of Scripture to determine the truth, regardless of if that truth conflicts with our man-made, limited, flawed scientific experiences.
22. John said the following at 1:40 PM on Jan 25:
J.
It's the same as when the bible says "corners of the world".
Does the world have corners?
Is the moon a light?
Depends on what you mean.
You, we, still say "moonlight", even though we know the moon reflects sunlight.
It's language. Semantics make a difference.
23. Ranz said the following at 1:45 PM on Jan 25:
The problem with believers holding to a non-traditional creation account is Scripture itself. In Genesis 1, when Moses--who is generally considered to be the author--writes "day," it is paired with a numerical adjective in the Hebrew, which ALWAYS refers to a 24 hour period. Why is it so hard to believe that the God of the universe could not create something "ex nihilo" solely by His speech in 7 days?
Indeed, it is not that God "needed" this time or, much less, that he required rest on the seventh day. No: God was creating a rhythm and order in His creation and set the precedence for us to take a day of rest each week. However, what disrupted this rhythm? Sin. And what now restores this rhythm to our daily lives? The sanctification of our souls and bodies through Christ!
To those who attempt proselytism at campuses and fear scorn from non-believers: it's good that you men and women are actively sharing the Gospel to those who do not yet believe, but remember: we are to be honest and transparent about all that God has done, including a biblical 7-day creation account. And what if they laugh at you? Be a mirror of Christ and continue to love on them!
It would do you well to dwell on 1 Corinthians 2: 14: "But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised."
Also, read 2 Corinthians 4:3-4: "And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing,in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.
24. fisayo said the following at 2:08 PM on Jan 25:
hi J,
at the risk of sounding over simplistic in a very intellectual debate and knowing you asked specifically for Dr Safarati's take.
it stands to reason that although the Bible did not mention the moon reflecting the light of the sun, the moon still does provide light at night.
this can't be fully appreciated until you have lived in places where there are constant power outages and the moon really becomes a great light. just my two cents.
25. Thomas said the following at 3:09 PM on Jan 25:
Ted - With regards to me, I have nothing against YEC and think it is very possible, which is why I do not bring up any issues with what you guys say. But that is not the same as saying I totally believe YEC, I struggle with it, and ultimately I do not believe it is necessary to be Christian and believe in it literally, but instead perhaps understand it as something else. I DO take issue with the idea that to not be a YECer is somehow unChristian or not believing of the Bible. Christ is what matters, HE is the revelation, Genesis points to him, not the other way around. I do NOT think you YECers are wrong. But I would wish that you guys are willing to accept us other Christians as being Christians also who might not be YECers. None of us will ever know the mysteries.
Jonathan - I appreciate your response, I do agree that you do not find a lot of intellectual diversity on a top tier research university. It is quite liberal here, and this is why I say this is the front lines, not safe and sound in a southern Baptist church.
There are multiple Nobel prize winners on my campus, everyone in my department is from a top university around the world, people here are extremely smart and pretty closed minded. At this level, everyone thinks they know everything, and everyone here has always dominated academics. If I were to say something like "if you do not believe in 6 day creationism and throw off evolution as false, you can't be a Christian" no one would even listen to me.
I have never stated I don't believe in the Bible to them, but when I talk about faith, I never ever start off about evolution or a literal reading of Genesis. I have always focused instead on the Cross and what God did for us there. I have always said too that I personally don't think it is necessary to be a YECer/anti-evolutionist, and I think it is to our detriment if we start epousing this.
In closing, Jonathan, I think your arguments are good and nowhere did I suggest you were wrong, but that does not mean I need believe or agree with what you say. I think there is enough uncertainty about things that none of us will ever fully know, science nor our faith will ever be ever to unlock all the mysteries of the world that God created, but in the end does it even matter? The whole of creation points to the Cross, not the other way around.
26. Samaria/daydream11 said the following at 3:16 PM on Jan 25:
One of the first things my government and English teachers told my class regarding research papers and essays is that we students must write papers that pull from a variety of resources, even if the resource opposes our point. In that way, they said, our reader can trust what we are saying because (1) we aren't the only ones with that point and (2) even our opponent's words can be used to demonstrate our point.
I didn't read the article, because I didn't approve of the resources list. When it comes to all things regarding science (and, for that matter, any nonfiction), if the resource list isn't diverse, the person can't be trusted. Every single one of the sources used were from one site, and every single author of that source is a creationist. (To run with that point, I have yet to come across a prominent creationist who didn't manipulate an evolutionist's words and/or misinterpreted them. See Expelled Exposed for an example.)
Anyway, let the guy be a creationist if he wants to, but don't tell me that Christians can't be evolutionists, or that creationism is the only way. If my biology teacher hadn't told me that "evolution doesn't tell who made the world, but how it was created" and helped me realize that evolution and Christianity aren't incompatible, I'd be an atheist or an agnostic by now. (If you want me to be real, theistic evolution is one of the few things holding me on to Christianity.) I'm a Christian evolutionist and proud of it. Let me be clear when I say that six-day creationism isn't impossible, but that God working through evolution speaks more to His power and creativity because evolution is so precise, so dependent on details that it's only logical to conclude that a supreme being (that being God) could have used it... and that this world is way too complex to have just popped up in six days (way to use a creationist argument, hmm?).
Six days, I conclude, is not miraculous. Evolution is, because if the process had gone any differently, the world as we know it wouldn't exist. Evolution is such a lovely and awe-inspiring way for God to display His magesty.
And yes, my spirit is at peace. In fact, the day when I finally came to peace with evolution was the day I found my spirit breathe a lot easier concerning science. Finally, I found peace with my intellectual side and my spiritual side, and I haven't turned back since.
27. Adam T. said the following at 3:20 PM on Jan 25:
My story's similar, Ted, thanks in no small part to Dr. Sarfati who I used to follow on another website in a galaxy far, far away. My experience in science (I have an undergrad in biology and I'm halfway through medical school) has made me less confident, not more, in science and science's accuracy with respect to issues like these. My thoughts on the topic are many, but I won't go into them here, but I am looking forward to reading the article.
28. JB said the following at 5:31 PM on Jan 25:
I am unconvinced by Dr. Sarfati's arguments. I begin with, I think we we have clear transitional fossils. Archaeopteryx is a brilliant example. Dr. Sarfati's book argues that Archaeopteryx is a perching bird. If so, it is a bird with teeth, no break, and a brain which resembles reptilian forms. I'm willing to call that transitional.
I am more convinced, however, by the abundant evidence of genetics, an independent source of information not available to Darwin which confirms evolutionary relationships derived from fossil evidence. Species which have more distant evolutionary relationships show more divergence in the sequence of common genes, as predicted by Darwinian evolution. This alone would, to me, be sufficient evidence to believe in evolution. In the face of this evidence, a YEC would be forced to argue that God created the cytochrome c genes of whales, humans, birds, and reptiles in such a way as to mimic descent from common ancestors.
29. Alison said the following at 5:52 PM on Jan 25:
Hi Craig (#17),
Did you perhaps mean "old testament" rather than "new testament" in your opening paragraph? I am confused.
30. J. said the following at 6:13 PM on Jan 25:
I'd like to clarify my comment (#14) above to alleviate possible confusion. I should have indicated that the moon is called a great light in *Genesis*.
31. .j said the following at 7:32 PM on Jan 25:
Although not entirely pivitol (as far as salvation, etc.), I believe this is always an interesting conversation to have. It's neither meaningless, nor is it essential.
@J (#14) I really never understood people's issue with this. It's just arguing semantics. IMO, the sun is the big light of the day, the moon at night: it's not rocket science. Yes you can technically tear is apart and say the moon isn't actually exuding light...but are you going to void any flashlights that make use of reflectors as well? Just a shakey argument people use to try and wink and prod at Genesis being strictly allegorical I guess.
@16: Agreed. Micro and Macro-Evolution often get lumped into the same pie, but I believe micro-evolution can teach us a ton about how God's amazingly designed system was built to change and adapt. It is a shame to see some "hardcore Christians" utterly vilify science, as I believe science is our way of viewing and discovering God's universe. It's evolved (heh) from just ignoring the "E word" to some people all-out pointing up their nose at the whole of science: which makes them look like total imbeciles. It's also a shame to see acedemics totally disparage anything spiritual.
I do think science has gone out of it's way many times (especially in the realm of creation/evolution) to grasp at information that backs itself up, rather than trying to interpret the data given (if that makes sense). Adding God into the equation means you first have to acknowledge the existance of God, which is too troubling for some people to consider I think (and conversely, as is the idea that science may know what's up sometimes ;) ).
When it all pans out in the end, I sometimes wonder if there will have been far more "evolution" than some people claimed, and far more creating than others claimed. I think there are lots of holes in evolutionary theory, and I think there is some possible wiggle room during certain portions of Genesis (gap theory, tree of life, etc.). In the end, I always figured it was worth studying while here on earth if you're interested in it, otherwise I figured God would just fill me in when I get up to heaven. ^_^
32. Kyle H said the following at 9:11 PM on Jan 25:
In response to #17 Craig M:
I certainly agree that Christianity is based on one's faith in Christ and His death and resurrection, and isn't based on one's view of Creation. However, for me personally, if I were to decide that the Bible wasn't speaking literally in Genesis, I would then question the rest of Scripture also. How am I supposed to know what areas of the Bible are figurative and what are literal? God Himself says in Exodus 20:11 "For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day...." (Almost certainly the Israelites to whom He was speaking would have taken that literally.)
Secondly, I don't see enough reason for the Church to try to merge evolution with Creation. I know there is evidence for both sides, but to me Creation makes much more sense, especially since most arguments for evolution can easily be explained by Creationists. I can understand why the secular world would want to explain the earth's history apart from God. But why should the Church, if it believes God is who the Bible says He is, have to throw out Creation as described by the Bible?
As for the age of the earth, it isn't a stretch for Creationists to believe in a young earth. God created a mature earth (Adam and Eve were adults, for example). If one believes in a God capable of creating the universe, it isn't hard to believe that God supernaturally caused the light from the stars to already be present at earth at Creation.
All that being said, I am in no way questioning anyone's faith. I'm just saying that if my faith in Creation was destroyed, my faith in the Bible itself would probably be destroyed as well.
33. BDB said the following at 10:06 PM on Jan 25:
#33. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. writes:
>>evolution is hardly important for biology<<
I'm sorry, but why is a Chemist telling me that a Biologist is wrong about Biology?
You don't see me complaining that hydrogen bonding isn't part of God's plan to make ice float so fish live through the winter...
I've spent enough time doing Biology to know that Biologists are often asking the question, "What is the evolutionary advantage to this thing we're observing here?" But evolution theory depends on DNA, so physical phenomena, such as hydrogen bonding, could never be explained by evolution...that's why evolution can't speak to the overall creation: there's lots of stuff that needs to be explained that cannot rely on DNA.
34. Leisha said the following at 10:12 PM on Jan 25:
I've always found this debate to be fascinating. I've always believed in the biblical creation story, but was interested to find out more about the evolution theory and see the evidence from evolutionist's point of view. So, I went to my 1st year evolution lectures in my premed year ready to learn but was completely diappointed. The lecturer spent a great deal of time mocking anyone, especially historical Christians, who believe in creation. I learned a lot about micro evolution which is just common sense but failed to see how that related to macro evolution as that was kind of skipped over. Why does this often happen? Obviously scientists will have biases and will begin arguing from those but why do we have to criticize the people instead of just sticking to the debate?
Sorry this post has been purely experience based!
And great to read an article from a fellow Kiwi! (I'll ignore the born in Aussie bit :P)
35. Naomi said the following at 10:19 PM on Jan 25:
Ok before this argument over whether Christians can or should not be evolutionists, I think terminology should be drawn first.
What I do understand is that "evolution" meant here to be the answer on the beginning of things. Meaning, man's origins = ape or dust (molded by God?)
If dust, that's the Biblical view.
If ape, that's the original evolutionist view. This requires time in billions of years to do.
Now, I don't think those can't exactly be merged. The Bible is clear that man did not start from ape. It's as simple as that.
Now, if we're talking "evolution" as what most modern post-Darwin evolutionists argue, where genetic mutation can result to certain abilities and NOT JUST A NEW SPECIES, then that can be merged with being a Christian. Simply because this is real science -- science that can be measured, tested, and seen by all five senses and under a microscope.
The original evolutionist theory of beginnings is in scientific terms STILL A THEORY. NOT A LAW. (i.e. Laws of Gravity, etc.)
People, be aware of THEORY vs. LAW. As long as something is called a THEORY in scientific terms, that means it is still not yet a ... LAW! A theory is still subject to dispute because science is science because it is exact.
When the original evolution theory becomes a LAW, then let's start talking about merging Bible and evolution.
In the meantime, for Christians who believe in evolution, then I think it's possible. Your spirit is at peace, then so be it! I reckon though that it would take more faith to believe in a THEORY than Bible.
36. Alison said the following at 10:36 PM on Jan 25:
Whew! A lot of questions, Tom. I've done my best--please communicate further if we need to. Though I am submitting a paper for publication and exceptionally busy until Feb. 1st, so please don't take a delayed reply personally.
No one takes the bible completely literally. To do so would be dishonouring the mind that God gave them.
I don't think you take Paul's suggestion literally in Gal. 5:12 that he genuinely desires "for those agitators" to "emasculate themselves!" You, as commanded, love the Lord your God with your, in this case, mind, and realize that this is not to be taken literally--but still has weight and value because it is included in the bible. Paul can communicate with words (symbols by very nature) to help us understand something that God wants us to know. Also, I don't take a passage out of context because it's possible to distort God's message. I must constantly hold things up to what I know to be true combining the Bible, the Holy Spirit and prayer with my Father.
It's by this worldview that I read the Bible.
All in all, it's not a salvation issue and one can be just as much of a servant for Christ while not being a Creationist, so Creationists must remember to not imply it is necessary to those asking questions about Christ.
TOM: Alison, to what salvation are your referring?
I am referring to my sins that take me away from the holiness which God desires from me, and the need to reconcile them with my heavenly Father that becomes necessary as soon as I acknowledge His sovereignty.
Please explain to me, using Scripture as your source how man came to need a Savior if Genesis 1-11 is not literal?
How often do you sin a day? A week? A year? Once is enough to separate us from His holiness—Christ is the only one to walk the earth and remain holy. This is foundational to Christianity—we need to address our sin before we are able to join our heavenly Father. Nothing is more foundational to our faith--I am baffled to even begin to choose only one passage of scripture. I have sinned. Christ washes this sin away. He makes me holy again.
Did man evolve as a sinful being?
This is a free-will/determinism question in disguise. Do you believe we’re all puppets? I don’t. I believe God created us in love to have choice. I have chosen sin time and time again—“the devil made me do it” is not correct terminology. I have never been possessed. I have chosen sin, and I need to reconcile this through Christ, God’s son, who was sent for us in love for this very reason. This is a salvation issue. A literal interpretation of Creation is not.
To what do you assign the evolution of metaphysical concepts of sin and salvation? Did the need for a Savior evolve?
I believe I’ve answered this—if not, please elaborate and I will attempt to do so.
Do you give special significance to the rainbow or do you believe it is only a natural occurring phenomenon?
(I’m going to answer this how I read the tone of your question—if I’m not talking about the same ideas, let me know.) God created us as symbol-users—this is one of the huge distinctions between humans and animals. I believe God uses my physical reality every moment to remind me of his awesome wonder and power. I’m sure Jonathan can agree with me—the more I understood about biochemistry, the more I felt a deep acknowledgement of the awesomeness of my Creator. It is far beyond anything a human could possibly imagine. If science turns you away from Christ then it has done you a severe injustice, but you are old enough to ask God to let him show you the endless depth of his power and beauty. I believe the rainbow is a naturally occurring phenomenon—and (not “or,” but, “and”) God wants this to be a symbol of great significance to our soulful relationship with Him.
I'm sure people will pick out a zillion flaws with this on-the-fly analogy, but hopefully it communicates my perspective more effectively, which is my sole intent for its use.
Foreplay doesn't take away from sex. In fact, it's necessary for it (at least for the female) and enhances it. A husband who eyes his wife to communicate his attraction for her across the breakfast table above a young child's notice is building up to what they both know the end goal is later that evening--sex. This doesn't take away from the goal--it makes it more complex and enhances it.
Similarly, I think it's disheartening to suggest that God is not big enough to have humans as the end goal but have built up there in the process (which I believe because of all the clues he left us in this world). Music is more beautiful and reflective of God when it crescendos and pauses, builds and grows.
To not believe in evolution when I have taken years of science classes at university, seen the gorgeous complexity that is required for even a single-celled organism to exist... this, from my personal perspective, is to dishonour the mind that God gave me.
I do not impose this upon others--I am commanded to let God judge my fellow Christians and only to exhort and help others keep the path toward Christ. But belief in a literal 6-day creation is not necessary to understanding the nature of our faith.
37. J. said the following at 10:56 PM on Jan 25:
Texas Craig (#21) wrote:
"You read into the passage something that is not there. You read "light" to mean that the moon has to produce its own light."
Nowhere in my comment above do I state that I am expressing my personal opinion. I had simply heard that argument before (beginning with an intelligent, learned, theologically conservative pastor I might add) and was interested in Dr. Sarfati's response to it. You read into my comment something that is not there.
.j (#32) wrote:
"I really never understood people's issue with this. It's just arguing semantics. IMO, the sun is the big light of the day, the moon at night: it's not rocket science."
I shall respectfully say that making a remark like "It's not rocket science" to someone whose interpretation differs from yours is not edifying.
38. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 11:19 PM on Jan 25:
Thanx Thomas (#26).
All the same, when Peter and Paul addressed Jews, they could move straight to the Cross, since they already had the background of God's creation, sin and messianic prophecies—all these start in Genesis! But when Paul talked to the Athenians on Mars Hill, when he mentioned the Resurrection, they accused him of babbling. So Paul pointed to the "Unknown God" who had made us all, and then pointed to the fact that He now commands us to repent, and that He would judge the world by His Appointed One, whose credentials were proven by raising from the dead.
Our culture is even worse than the Athenians, because at least they were willing to hear Paul out. But our establishment will often censor or fire those who dissent from materialism. See Expelled, the documentary evolutionists love to hate because it exposes their anti-christian and intolerant agenda.
Yes, Genesis points to the Cross, but the Good News is rootless without the foundation of Creation and the Fall, the bad news.
See Preaching the Gospel in today’s society, by Russell Grigg, a former missionary who also has a masters degree in Chemistry. Of course, there is the great Gospel/Resurrection chapter by Paul himself, 1 Cor. 15, where Paul unashamedly and explicitly links the resurrection of the Last Adam with the death brought by the First Adam.
Yes, 'If I were to say something like "if you do not believe in 6 day creationism and throw off evolution as false, you can't be a Christian" no one would even listen to me.' And anyone who says this hasn't listened to me as per #12 ;)
39. BDB said the following at 12:03 AM on Jan 26:
Question: does the young-earth theory hold that the whole universe is 6000 years old, or just the Earth?
I'm thinking here of what the Hubble Space Telescope is seeing. Is the argument that all galaxies were formed at the same time? Because astronomers calculate the distance mathematically, and the speed of light is theoretically constant, making those galaxies we can see apparently much older than 6000 years because, given their size, it took billions of years for the light to reach us.
Is there an analysis somewhere of how the astronomers math is wrong?
40. Craig M. said the following at 12:20 AM on Jan 26:
Allison (#30)--yes, I meant Old Testament. Thanks for correcting me, and sorry for the mistake.
Jonathan (#33)--looks like you may have me on St. Augustine and age of the earth, just from reviewing the link (though I note that not even in your apparent citation does Augustine believe in a 6-day creation per the specifications of Genesis.) I'll go check my sources on that and see whether there's still more to the story. I also note that there's no dispute about C.S. Lewis--do we not acknowledge him as a Christian with a pretty well-formed understanding of theology and the place of scientific understanding therein?
Kyle (#34)--I highly recommend that you spend some time with C.S. Lewis. We make judgments about God's intent in various elements of Scripture with the tools of tradition, textual and historical analysis, archeology, and common sense (among many others). There is NO serious historical dispute that Jesus Christ existed, as he is referenced not just in books of scripture now decisively determined to have been written within 30 years of His death and resurrection, but also in contemporaneous or near-contemporaneously written secular historical account (Josephus, etc.). We know King David's Jerusalem really existed because archeology supports the fundamentals described in the biblical account. God always does provide what we need to be able to reliably rest in the essentials of the faith. But God's intent may not have been the same with respect to every book of scripture. You actually already know this. Do you believe that that Revelation describes the literal events of the end times (7-headed beast ridden by a woman, etc.) or do you think those descriptions are allegorical? Do you think Job was a real man that God invited Satan to heaven to discuss, or is this a story delivered to us by God to teach us about suffering and trust in Him? The vast majority of Christian scholars through time would say both are essentially metaphorical, but this doesn't undermine the fact that they're both inspired by God for our benefit and instruction. At the VERY least, Genesis makes it clear to us that man rejected God and is therefore corrupt in nature. If the precise mechanism of that rejection is hidden in biblical metaphor, I don't see that as a very significant stumbling block--I can certainly SEE the fact of man's resulting corrupt nature every day, and know that the essence of the story is true. Certainly it's less difficult to believe in a metaphorical analysis of the specific mechanism of the Fall than having to assert that God deceived humanity by needlessly creating the universe to appear billions of years older than it really is, as you seem to suggest. Likewise, am I to believe that God created only one man and one woman, and that Cain then wandered off after his murder of Abel in search of a sister to marry? That God was essentially fine with incest until some time later? How is that consonant with our understanding of God's unchanging standard of righteousness?
I say again--our faith must rise and fall with the historicity of Christ and His incarnation and resurrection. The resurrection is one of the most historically unassailable events ever recorded for anyone not already predisposed to reject the supernatural. Certainly the onus is on those who have to explain how 11 cowering ex-disciples suddenly became unstoppable witnesses of a risen Christ, willing to rush into torture and martyrdom on account of what they themselves had seen. While civil discussions about competing perspectives on creation are interesting, we should not let them divide us or be the source of unnecessary rancor.
Did you know, while we're discussing interesting related items, that it was ATHEIST scientists who were most distraught when the big bang theory was promulgated and then proved correct? Philosophical atheists had for centuries believed that the universe was ageless--that it had always existed, and therefore required no moment of creation and no creator. The establishment of a "big bang"--a moment at a specific point in the past at which all matter CAME INTO BEING, and before which there was nothing, devastated atheistic science. They have been scrambling ever since, and even today are desperately trying to concoct theories that get around the serious theistic implications of the universe having a distinct moment of creation. The Big Bang is a serious and substantial argument for an ultimate creator.
Ultimately, we need to remember to try to be charitable. I can't make sense of a literal six-day account in light of what we know about the world. But I could be wrong, and I'm sure God will be pointing out many, many things I've been wrong about when I meet Him, so one more is okay. I know that those of you who believe differently than me on this issue are faithful and determined Christians doing as you think best. Please extend the same presumption of good faith to the rest of us. I assure you that we can, indeed, believe with all our hearts--and all our minds--in Christ, and in the historicity and the necessity of His redemptive action on earth, without believing that the creation and the Fall proceeded according to the literal words of Genesis.
41. Pedro said the following at 12:32 AM on Jan 26:
Ah yes, look at all of these Christians fighting amongst themselves. What a joy :/
The point of Genesis 1-2 is not HOW God made the world, but the fact THAT he made the world. Everything else is speculative, and not really worth our time fighting over.
But for those YECs...explain to me how gravity could have existed without the possibility of death.
42. Dani said the following at 6:43 AM on Jan 26:
Samaria/daydream11 (#27):
"... and that this world is way too complex to have just popped up in six days (way to use a creationist argument, hmm?).
Six days, I conclude, is not miraculous."
Samaria, everything about this argument undermines the omnipotence of God. Is anything "way too complex" for God? Your argument shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the power of God.
A scriptural example to refute your argument. In the first miracle of Jesus, at the wedding in Cana, Jesus miraculously turns water to wine. Isn't wine "too complex" to just have "popped up" out of nowhere? By your argument, wouldn't it have been more miraculous for Jesus to find the grapes, mash them, drain the juice, let it ferment for x number of years, and then serve it at the party?
If theistic evolution is one of the few things holding you on to Christianity, I'm worried for you. Not specifically because you're holding to that (un-biblical) belief, but because you do not understand the power of God. Yes, if evolution had happened, it would have been a miracle, but scripture says otherwise.
43. Naomi said the following at 7:52 AM on Jan 26:
@BDB: Question: does the young-earth theory hold that the whole universe is 6000 years old, or just the Earth?
In Genesis, did God create Adam as a baby or as an old man?
Why can't God create the world as a relatively mature Earth?
@Pedro: The point of Genesis 1-2 is not HOW God made the world, but the fact THAT he made the world. Everything else is speculative, and not really worth our time fighting over.
I am sure that you mean very well, brother.
But if Genesis 1-2 isn't HOW God made the world, then why put all the other details?
We as Christians all agree that everything in the Bible has a purpose... albeit that NOT everything should be literally interpreted. Thank goodness for that.
But Genesis 1-2 had all these details as to HOW God created the world. No other Christian scholar has interpreted the details of even the single, "Let there be ____" speech as something metaphorical.
@CraigM: I assure you that we can, indeed, believe with all our hearts--and all our minds--in Christ, and in the historicity and the necessity of His redemptive action on earth, without believing that the creation and the Fall proceeded according to the literal words of Genesis.
Whoever is pushing you to change your mind on what you think about the creation is indeed wrong. But I think we are all just in a friendly debate where we can all agree to disagree, just to see what others see. (I hope.)
But I hope it's ok that I answer some of your points.
For one: there's a scientific study that stated that all of mankind descended from one woman BUT they do not believe that she was the only woman at that time. The first fact was said to be proven by genetics but the latter was simply by belief.
All I am saying, Craig, is that science and faith can mix. Science can verify faith, provided that science is science.
Science means that everything can be measured, exacted, proven by studies, senses, actual experiments, etc. That is why science differentiates a LAW from a THEORY.
Evolution falls into a THEORY. And given that, even scientists need faith to believe in something that isn't even 100% proven yet.
Until the time that scientists have found the real missing link, constructed the complete map of evolution, and proven the genetics of evolution (billion years in the making), then even scientists have yet to resolve the FAITH that they have to believe in a THEORY that is not yet completely science.
You are entitled to believe in an evolution that is still a theory. I am sure and will stand by you that your salvation will never ever fall on that.
But it is my hope that like other scientists, you would also take time to understand that the Creationist side of things also has a science to it.
44. Kate said the following at 8:27 AM on Jan 26:
The way I see it, science (and all other human-inspired attempts at exploring/understanding the world) is kind of like a team of blindfolded climbers exploring and making observations about the Statue of Liberty by climbing it and touching it. They make a lot of observations, how tall it is, what it feels like, maybe some chemical analyses of its material and all kinds of other measurements and observations. They can, in fact, if they are good observers make accurate statements about this structure, like it's height and other basic features. Would they ever be able to piece together the observations about size and dimensions enough to make a model small enough in scale for a human mind to understand through touch that this structure depicts woman in a draping robe with a crown, holding a book and torch standing on a large pedestal... which are indeed even familiar concepts to people? Even if they could, then so what... what does ultimately mean? Without prior knowledge about the structure and the history that occurred when it was made and so on, how would they ever figure out what it truly "means" to people in terms of the symbolism it represents and the countless personal memories and family or cultural legends it evokes? (especially when these are not familiar concepts)
What I mean is that we can make observations and measurements and should we strive for their accuracy. I love science and the philosophical and spiritual quest for truth but I do not believe that humans are capable of truly "figuring it out" because we lack the vision, so to speak, of the "big picture" or omniscience that God has. We can get some hints and it's good to look for those and seek understanding of God and His creation. The hints we get from the Bible should be much more trusted than any observations and conjectures about the meanings of those observations... since the Bible is what God decides to directly tell us directly.
Sure God also gave us reason and the ability to observe and understand the world. Sure, carbon dating, genetic measurements, fossils, etc. may be accurate measurements, but even human measurement is always open to fault. Even if the observations are "accurate," human interpretation of their meaning is always also extremely open to fault and fleeting bias. It's funny how much you see this when looking at the history of science! (I will admit my exposure is more to social sciences than the physical ones)
I always think with the evolution debate that it's just such a good example of what we don't know and can't know, but what we will claim with such authority that we do know about the origin of the world and then make even more wild and wide ranging conclusions about the implications of our "knowledge." (I am referring to all sides involved in this debate)
We are staring in a fog, in a mirror and seeing with our "childish" human ways. We can only see in part today. It's fine to think about it and work on it and try to figure out the blanks in what we don't know, but it's also important to remember that these are conjectures and accept that we will have a continuously limited ability to understand, in spite of any truth we may actually come across.
45. Christina (in green) said the following at 8:31 AM on Jan 26:
YEC or Evolution...
I think that with a belief in a supernatural God that has no limits, anything can be possible.
Who knows, perhaps the world WAS created in 6 days, Adam and Eve could sky dive with no threat of death, and saying the moon is a great light was left as a remnant to all us following God where being a true reflection of God's light makes US a great light in today's dark world =p
And who knows, perhaps when creation fell, it went into hyperdrive aging suddenly.
Honestly, it doesn't bug me. It is not possible for us to know exactly what happened at creation. As someone said, science is observable and testable. It's kinda hard to observe or test the creation of the world, be it by God or Macro Evolution or some kind of combination (my nod at theist evolution).
However, how many limits are you willing to put on God? It really isn't that hard to accept that he's capable of this. That maybe, his own laws that he created didn't pertain to his creation of them.
It's really not that hard to accept that we don't really know what his intentions were (or are) and whether he did (or didn't).
Blessed are those who have not seen, and yet believe...
Anyway, that's my incredibly UN-scientific impression of this pseudo-scientific subject.
46. IMO said the following at 8:36 AM on Jan 26:
Pedro, "Ah yes, look at all of these Christians fighting amongst themselves. What a joy :/"
Um this isn't fighting. It's serious discussion with no personal attacks.
Check out other posts for fighting.
This isn't one of them.
47. Alison said the following at 8:50 AM on Jan 26:
Naomi (#37),
Who said that humans originated from apes?!
You won't find anyone on this board who believes that.
48. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 9:12 AM on Jan 26:
Pedro (#43): ah yes, the atheists could say, look how many Christians don't really believe their own book. "See," they gloat, "Pedro claims 'The point of Genesis 1-2 is not HOW God made the world, but the fact THAT he made the world.' But Blind Freddie's deaf guide dog could tell that Genesis teaches plenty of 'hows', like Adam being made from the dust (not ape) and Eve being made from Adam's rib. Genesis also teaches a particular order of creation events and time frame that's diametrically opposed to the evolutionary order. And the New Testament affirms these teachings: the people, the events and even the sequence of events. Maybe we could get the christians to doubt the NT as well."
BDB: my Ph.D. biologist colleagues affirm that evolution has no practical benefit. And what you call "evolutionary advantage" is actually selective advantage. As I've pointed out, natural selection is an important part of the creation model, and was discovered by creationists.
Distant starlight problem: see answer.
49. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 9:15 AM on Jan 26:
Alison asks Naomi, "Who said that humans originated from apes?!" Yes, we know evolutionists believe that humans and apes share a common ancestor. However, a leading atheistic evolutionary paleontologist, the late G.G. Simpson, called this sort of pedantry ‘pussyfooting.’ He wrote: ‘In fact, that earlier ancestor would certainly be called an ape or monkey in popular speech by anyone who saw it. Since the terms ape and monkey are defined by popular usage, man's ancestors were apes or monkeys (or successively both). It is pusillanimous [mean-spirited] if not dishonest for an informed investigator to say otherwise.’
50. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 9:20 AM on Jan 26:
Craig M., stop being so judgmental with this talk about "incest" with all its connotations of abuse. Something is wrong because God declares it so, not because you get all weeny about it. Clearly God didn't have a problem with brother-sister intermarriage before He explicitly forbade it in the Law of Moses, because He blessed the union of Abraham and his half-sister Sarah.
For more, see Who was Cain's wife?
51. Craig M., Esq. said the following at 9:32 AM on Jan 26:
Jonathan wrote: "JB, who evidently places biblical teaching on a lower level than circumstantial evidence from "science", raises nothing new." Ted, is this ad hominem commentary an example of the civil and respectful tone you asked for last week, or does it veer into sarcasm and personal invective directed at the sincerity of JB's faith?
52. farmer Tom said the following at 11:29 AM on Jan 26:
54. Craig M., Esq.,
Ted, is this ad hominem commentary an example of the civil and respectful tone you asked for last week,
Quit whining. Your personal attitude toward Dr. Sarfati has been less the respectful.
JB said and I quote,
Dr. Sarfati response,
I gotta believe that Dr. Sarfati's response is in fact truthful and factually correct. By reading JB's own words one can see that he puts more faith in science than his does the Scriptural account in Genesis. No one questioned JB's salvation or his mental acuity, rather commenting on his/her? statement of belief.
53. Craig M. said the following at 11:59 AM on Jan 26:
Tom--the point is that the comment is a personal and content-less slur. This entire debate is about the meaning of scripture. Many orthodox Christian churches (that teach the resurrection/etc. in uncompromising fashion) teach scripture according to the way JB understands it (Catholic, Anglican...). JB is not disputing that scripture is authoratative, but rather disagreeing with Jonathan about its meaning. Jonathan then tries to end the debate about the meaning of scripture by declaring that only his understanding has any merit, and that since JB doesn't "value" THAT, he therefore doesn't value scripture. But again--the entire debate is about what the Genesis story in scipture means. So this is a colossal cheat, and an attempt to read JB out of upstanding Christian society by declaring that he places "worldly" knowledge above the Bible. That simply isn't true--JB's (or, again, C.S. Lewis') devotion to scripture is not compromised by a metaphorical understanding of certain passages.
I'm not trying to be disrespectful to anyone. Sorry if I've come off that way to you--I'm not sure what you're referring to. And I'm not "whining"; the comment wasn't directed towards me anyway. I just find this sort of argumentation-by-ostracism pretty low.
54. DP said the following at 12:05 PM on Jan 26:
#5:
"But really, if the Bible doesn't mean what it says in Genesis, where does it start to mean what it says?"
Hmmm. Awfully simplistic here, no? We are just skipping over what kind of literary genre Genesis 1-2 is?
"Maybe the Resurrection accounts need "re-interpretation" too, since science shows that men don't rise from the dead ... ?"
No one is saying that interpreting Genesis 1-11 is easy (except the Young Earthers it seems), but how that passage is interpreted does nothing to diminish our understanding of who Jesus is, or what he did. So don't throw the 'slippery slope' argument at everyone who doesn't agree with you. It doesn't help.
This thread didn't get off to a good start (who would have guessed), but I guess I didn't expect straw men from the Ph.D. in his first post.
55. BDB said the following at 12:17 PM on Jan 26:
#46 Naomi wrote:
>>Why can't God create the world as a relatively mature Earth?<<
I'm not saying He can't do that. I'm wondering about the theories that put the universe at 8ish billion years, and the Earth at 4ish billion years.
Is the Hebrew word for "day" 24-hours on a quartz watch, or is it one rotation of the Earth on its axis? What measurement of time is used before the Earth was rotating?
See, the "Big Bang" would make sense if God Spoke and the universe exploded. But astronomers calculate that it is still expanding and it took billions of years to get how it is now. If the YEC theory is that the whole universe was created mature, then why can we see galaxies that appear to be more than 6,000 light years away? It would seem to be a problem with the speed of light.
If the speed of light is involved with the creation of atomic weapons, why are physicists correct enough to invent atomic weapons but wrong about their measurements of the universe?
56. Adam said the following at 1:01 PM on Jan 26:
In his teaching "Everything is Spiritual" Rob Bell makes the assertion that Genesis 1 is actually an intricately crafted poem.
If this is the case, should it have any effect of how we read and understand it?
57. BDB said the following at 1:10 PM on Jan 26:
#51. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. wrote:
>>my Ph.D. biologist colleagues affirm that evolution has no practical benefit. <<
And how do they advise undergraduates who seek to do advanced degrees in Biology? How do they encourage more precise communication if their dissertation topic requires addressing existing references to evolution uncovered in their literature review?
58. BDB said the following at 1:29 PM on Jan 26:
# Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D.
>>Distant starlight problem: see answer.<<
Interesting article. It does get at my point. It also brings up more questions.
EXAMPLE: When I was in Cambodia, I got a sunburn. One of the translators was trying to explain to some other Cambodians what happened to my skin. It seems that there is no word in Khmer for "sunburn." The closest he could get was "it turn red." I asked why he couldn't just combine the words for "sun" and "burn," and he said they'd just laugh - it doesn't work that way.
Bible translators face the same problem. The classic case is trying to explain the "Lamb of God" to Eskimos who don't know what sheep are. The closest they got was "looks like a baby caribou." (I recognize that it may be hard for someone in New Zealand to believe that not everyone is familiar with sheep.)
Anyway, the article you referenced focuses on general relativity and how massive gravity affects the flow of time itself. This seems plausible.
Does ancient Hebrew have words that accurately capture General Relativity? Are there ancient Hebrew terms for gravitational time dilation? What is the ancient Hebrew term for thermonuclear detonation? Do atomic weapons not exist because there is no ancient Hebrew word that accurately describes them? Or is it possible that Moses was limited to using the Hebrew word for 24-hour "day" because that's the closest word he had available to describe God's revealation of the Creation process?
59. Jenny said the following at 1:42 PM on Jan 26:
Some comments have been made that this is not a salvation issue, so why make a big deal about it. I would say it is a salvation issue.
The first thing God tells us in His Word is, “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” If you can’t believe the first verse in the Bible, how can you believe the rest of it? If you don’t believe God created the earth, then how can you believe He has any right to make up the rules for how earth dwellers should live or how they should prepare for the next life? If you don’t believe that God created the world the way He says He did, how can you believe His offer of salvation is everything He says it is? If you don’t believe He created the earth as our home, how can you believe He is preparing a home for us in heaven? How can you even believe that He created heaven, since He says so in the same breath as He says He created the earth? How can you trust Him with your eternity if you can’t trust His account of the beginning of time?
If the beginning of the story is a poetic myth, then why shouldn’t the end of the story be? If that were the case, then God really isn’t going to destroy the earth as a final punishment, a final call to follow Him. God really isn’t going to send Satan and his followers to eternal torture. Also, God really isn’t building a beautiful New Jerusalem and a new earth where we will live with Him in glory. And there really isn’t any need to share the gospel with others and warn them of impending doom.
Please think about it. How can you care about God saving you if creation and the Garden of Eden and Adam’s sin and the whole need for salvation never happened in the first place?
Heed the solemn warning of the Apostle John. “I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book.”
60. DP said the following at 2:43 PM on Jan 26:
"How can you care about God saving you if creation and the Garden of Eden and Adam’s sin and the whole need for salvation never happened in the first place?"
That's not what anyone is saying...poetry and stories do convery truth, even if they aren't literal.
No one (by no one, i mean the people posting in this thread )doubts that humans aren't sinful, and no one doubts their need for salvation by grace through faith through our Saviour Jesus Christ. So please, please, stop questioning people's salvation.
61. IMO said the following at 3:00 PM on Jan 26:
"So please, please, stop questioning people's salvation."
Agreed. On the same token though, maybe each of us should make sure we are saved. People can talk the talk and know the walk...
You'd be surprised that those who walk like a duck and talk like a duck aren't ducks!
Does what I say make sense? I can bring up Scripture to support me. And I'm definitely not saying that you can lose your salvation. It's about making sure you have it!
62. Craig M. said the following at 3:11 PM on Jan 26:
Jenny (#62)-- Your words: "If you don’t believe God created the earth, then how can you believe He has any right to make up the rules for how earth dwellers should live or how they should prepare for the next life?" This IS a "salvation issue," you say.
See, this is the problem. No one in this entire thread denies that God created the earth, and more fundamentally the universe. The discussion is about mechanism. And no one denies the Fall. That discussion too is about how it happened--whether the Genesis story is fact or allegory. Once again, if you're declaring that those who don't believe in young earth creationism are unsaved sinners, I'd like you to back that up please, because it's offensive. Which portion of the Nicene Creed do such lost souls as myself deny? (Keeping in mind that we DO believe God is the maker of Heaven and Earth). And are you truly comfortable declaring that giants of Christian faith like C.S. Lewis and men of great principle like Francis Collins (who is mocked by elite secularist scientists daily for his defense of scientific theism) are damned? In two days of discussion, I've dropped Lewis' name at least four times, and no one has had word one to say about it. Are people afraid to declare him a lost pagan or something, just because he wrote "Mere Christianity"? Because, again, the man was emphatically clear that he regarded early Genesis as (his word) "fantastical." Please, if you really believe Lewis is in hell for his "apostasy," step up and say so. It will give everyone a stronger sense of where you're coming from, in any case.
63. DP said the following at 4:03 PM on Jan 26:
#64:
Of course that makes sense. It's a tension that exists in the Bible. The entire book of 1 John is about just that.
But that's way off topic :)
64. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 4:32 PM on Jan 26:
BDB, there are plenty of ways that God could have taught millions of years or goo-to-you evolution, if that's what He had intended to teach. See How long were the days of Genesis 1? What did God intend us to understand from the words He used? and Genesis according to evolution: If evolution over millions of years was the way God created, He could easily have said so in simple words..
65. Thomas said the following at 4:45 PM on Jan 26:
This has been quite an interesting debate, good viewpoints on both sides. I've stated that I do respect the YEC viewpoint, and I think Jonathan gives many good points for his argument. And we fully know that our God can do anything He wants, so that YEC is in no way not-possible.
However, I think all of us on the other end that are not YEC (which includes me, Craig, BDB, many more) feel that Genesis describes more the who and why, and perhaps not so much the how. I think of God giving his revelation to Moses, who probably couldn't have comprehended the physical realities that we have just discovered the past hundred years, and certainly wouldn't be able to write it down with the Hebrew language. As was above mentioned, perhaps there was just no way in the language to convey the actual mechanisms of the beginning.
All of us on this side of the fence believe in no uncertain terms that God created the Earth and all the universe. If He did it in a literal 6 days or 6 billion really isn't relevant IMO, all points to His glory and He is outside time anyway. Moses perhaps wanted to convey the story in a way his people (who were not very bright, as the idol worshiping attests) could understand, because is it really important what the time line is? And yes I do believe that there was sin thanks to Adam/Eve but perhaps that was not how we picture it today.
Bottom line in my opinion is that we simply do not know. To those who say that to not take everything literally is to not have salvation (Jenny), you really are inviting alot of disunity and I think it is very dangerous the route you go.
God created everything yes, but how He did it will be something that science gets to deal with until the end of this world. Every property of this universe - from the Plank constants to chemical bonding to the neurons firing in our brains to the speed of light to the fundamental forces to CMOS transistors to the laws of logic to the mathematical foundations - everything is part of His glory, and yet none of it is really important. The more we discover, the more we realize how awesome He is to create a universe so grand and intricate. But I don't think such knowledge of "how" is needed for salvation.
The Bible often times goes into allegory to convey the truth behind the matter. Jesus taught almost exclusively with parables. The creation was God creating everything and man falling. The exact methods of that are things God left to us to discover in our due time (through science).
If we fail to see this, then we risk basing our faith on things "seen" and not "unseen." We risk becoming the church that condemned men of science and faith who asserted that the sun did not in fact revolve around the earth. We risk being a church of legalistic mindsets rather than one of love, and miss focusing on the one thing IMO that really matters above all else - the Cross.
66. Sara said the following at 4:49 PM on Jan 26:
Jenny wrote,
"If the beginning of the story is a poetic myth, then why shouldn’t the end of the story be?"
The simple answer is 'genre': Not all genres are meant to be taken literally: the meaning of the sentence "Penguins kill Lions" is determined by genre (whether it's the National Geographic or a sports report), not by the words themselves.
Similarly, some people believe that the New Testament Gospels fit in with the 'Greco-Roman biography' genre, which was characterized not by a Western ideal of journalistic accuracy, but by their writers crafting/making up stories that they thought neatly illustrated the essence of their subjects' character. Again similarly, CS Lewis happened to believe that Genesis fit in with contemporaneous creation myths, and that it was right to read it as such.
67. Samaria/daydream11 said the following at 5:30 PM on Jan 26:
I, for one, am not saying that God didn't create the world. Jenny 62, the first verse is literal either way you look at it. It says that God created the world. Cool. I agree with that. Find a Christian who doesn't. Even the rest of it, I guess, is also literal, but I'm like the kindergartener who, after her teacher tells her class that God spoke the world into existence, I'm still asking, "Yes, I know that, but how?" I'm looking for specifics here - the details, the process involved, etc. - not just the story.
And as a response to Dani's response to me:
Samaria/daydream11 (#27):
"... and that this world is way too complex to have just popped up in six days (way to use a creationist argument, hmm?).
Six days, I conclude, is not miraculous."
Samaria, everything about this argument undermines the omnipotence of God. Is anything "way too complex" for God? Your argument shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the power of God.
A scriptural example to refute your argument. In the first miracle of Jesus, at the wedding in Cana, Jesus miraculously turns water to wine. Isn't wine "too complex" to just have "popped up" out of nowhere? By your argument, wouldn't it have been more miraculous for Jesus to find the grapes, mash them, drain the juice, let it ferment for x number of years, and then serve it at the party?
If theistic evolution is one of the few things holding you on to Christianity, I'm worried for you. Not specifically because you're holding to that (un-biblical) belief, but because you do not understand the power of God. Yes, if evolution had happened, it would have been a miracle, but scripture says otherwise.
Scripture isn't a science nor a history book. If it happens to be scientifically or historically accurate, then that is a coincidence. Therefore, if something in this world contradicts with heavy accuracy that a Biblical event is not literal, then I will believe the science. You know what convinced me of evolution? Definitely not the science, but history. History told me that people existed in this world not only 10k years ago (the maximum age of Earth YECers accept), but also 250k (and beyond!). What do YECers say to that? I've yet to receive a decent answer.
And please, note that I did not say that the world is way too complex for God to create. God can create anything; I've not denied that. I just said that the world is too complex to be created in six days. If the world looks old, acts old, and is dated to be old, then it's old. *shrug* I would believe God a liar if he said one thing ("The Earth is young!") and the Earth speaks another ("I'm old!). Well, who's telling the truth? Looking at this from a secular perspective, I'd believe the tangible Earth before I believe a mystical Supreme Being. Just saying. Fortunately, I take the Genesis interpretation to be a condensed version of evolution, sorta like how kids are given "My First Bibles" and their parents give them the full, deep story when they mature. God gave to Moses what the ancients could understand - that is still true, albeit not in a literal way - knowing we'd figure the details out later as our science matured.
If it's "unbiblical," so be it. I don't apologize for saying this: the real and tangible takes priority over the trancendent (sp?), because at least the tangible is something I can hold onto here on Earth. The Bible is only without error as a spiritual and moral guide. I don't take the creation story literally (other than, as I said before, as a condensed version of the full event), and yes, I do believe that some of the stories are simply that - fictional stories - but am I any less of a Christian? No.
Jesus is a different story. With the exception of Revelations, I take the entire NT to be literal. Why? Because there were eyewitnesses. And because Jesus is Jesus, and He and His actions are total matters of faith. It's different from science, because His action if water ---> wine was really to show people that He was who He said He was... not to prove how He is above science.
Um, excuse me. Thanks for the Christian love, but I do understand God. It isn't God or His power I doubt (both, clearly, are real). Why is it hard for you to accept that, just maybe, instead of speaking the world into existence in six days, He decided to work through evolution? As complex, precise, and detailed as evolution is, wouldn't it speak more to the power of God to use the most minute of details (genetic drifts, natural selection, mutations) to bring about this world? Why couldn't it be a Creator to jumpstart abiogenesis (sp?)?
68. TINA said the following at 6:21 PM on Jan 26:
Jesus said,"you will know the truth and the truth will set you free"(John 8:32),Beware of false prophets,(Matt 7:15),Test the spirit (1John 4:1),watch for the doctrine of demons (1 Tim 4:1)In Genesis God is very clear he created animals then man.Man was created from the dust and HE breathed life into US...SO how can someone not understand that?it seems to be one of the simpler scriptures...If we were from apes God would not need to breathe life into our nostrils...The irony of Darwin he new that..he went to a college that very name meant JESUS CHRIST...so where did this man fall into the idea of evolution?He is the accredited father of it all though not the first..Deception at its finest..look at the Greek word Apologist-meaning defending of the truth,defending the faith Phil 1:7,1Peter 3:15,Jude3. The very origin of what that word means from Greek,Italy,roman catholic religion etc.has been so watered down to thus todays English meaning-APOLOGY...The true meaning is lost in translation...people like Darwin lost the translation they turned the doctrine of creation which is the corner stone of christian faith and distorted "lost" its true meaning...
69. Scotty G (Australia) said the following at 6:24 PM on Jan 26:
BDB #42 - With regards to the travel of light from distant galaxies.
I don't believe the maths of the astronomers is wrong. I believe God created the Universe 'in mid motion' (best words I can come up with at work). That is he created all the far off galaxies and stars, visible through the fantastic Hubble Telescope, with their light already flowing so that we could see them in all their glory.
No one paints a painting or creates a magnificent building, hides it away and then tells everyone that they have this wonderful creation but you can't see it for another 1000 years. But trust me it's there!!
God wanted us to see the magnificence of his creation from the word 'go' and let us marvel at it.
After all is it not written 'The heavens declare the glory of God' Psalm 19:1 Be tough for them to declare his glory if we couldn't see them.
BTW, this is my first post so G'day everyone and I look forward to joining the discussion on the Boundlessline
70. Scotty G (Australia) said the following at 6:30 PM on Jan 26:
Ahh.. with regards to my own post Re: distant starlight.
I posted that before reading the link the good doctor posted with a more scientific explantion.
So feel free to disregard my post in favor of the more learned persons.
I stand by the Psalm I quoted however.
Not a great start to my Boundlessline contributing 'career' I'm afraid!
71. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 6:42 PM on Jan 26:
DP (#57): "We are just skipping over what kind of literary genre Genesis 1-2 is? "
Did you bother to read my article, which provides good evidence that the literary genre of Genesis 1–2 is historical narrative, not poetry? I also documented that the rest of the Bible treats Genesis as history, and Ted showed that so did Jesus.
It's evident that many other evolutionist posters have not bothered to read the article in question or Ted's links.
72. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 6:55 PM on Jan 26:
Thanx Thomas (#68).
You say: "Jesus taught almost exclusively with parables." But then, a comparison with these shows that Genesis is NOT a parable. As can be seen from the Gospel records of Jesus’ parables, parabolic literature is of the form: ‘there was a man with two sons’, ‘a farmer went out to sow his seed’, ‘suppose a woman has ten silver coins and loses one’... Note that the parables don’t name actual people, and they are clearly stated to be parables.
And Matt. 13:10 ff., Mark 4:11–12 and Luke 8:10 explain why Jesus spoke in parables—to hide the truth from the unbelieving masses. Jesus spoke in parables after the religious leaders accused him of casting out demons by the power of Beelzebub (Matt. 12, Mark 3). But these passages also explain that Jesus spoke plainly to His disciples.
Conversely, Genesis has the literary structure of Hebrew historical narrative, as explained in my article, and the rest of Scripture treats it as history.
The Scripture is God’s Word to man, designed to teach us (2 Timothy 3:15–17), so He wants us to understand Him, as also explained in 2 Corinthians 4:2 and Proverbs 8:8–9. Indeed, the vast majority of Jewish and Christian commentators throughout the last two millennia have understood Genesis as history.
73. Dani said the following at 7:00 PM on Jan 26:
Thomas (#68): "his people (who were not very bright, as the idol worshiping attests)"
That statement sums up all that is wrong with theistic evolution. The fundamental mindset of evolution is that we as the human race are continually improving: stronger bodies, healthier lives, bigger brains. And that is wrong.
Adam and Eve were perfect. Let me say that again: *perfect*. When God created them, it was very good. They were the culmination of all that is good in mankind.
Since the fall, the human race has only gotten worse. God's people were not very bright because they worshiped idols? On the contrary, they were brilliant compared to the idiocy in the American church. At least they erected Asherah poles in honor of some supernatural power; we spend billions of dollars on books and DVDs and seminars, worshiping the (very human) mega-pastors of our day.
Thomas, brother, the problem with evolution is that it allows us to sneer at those foolish Israelites, blinded to the idols we worship every day.
74. TINA said the following at 7:33 PM on Jan 26:
SOOO explain how scientist are even puzzled at the very fact that the human cells were designed to rejuvenate themselves?Did a ape do that? maybe in Hollywood cuz ya have to admit those planet of the apes were pretty smart!!!
75. Leah said the following at 7:36 PM on Jan 26:
We need to keep in mind Genesis is not a science textbook. While this does not mean we can't take it literally, it does mean that we can't claim it holds all the scientific answers.
BDB asked does the young-earth theory hold that the whole universe is 6000 years old, or just the Earth?, referencing images the Hubble Telescope is sending us.
A young-earth theorist must believe the universe is also young, as the Genesis account includes the creation of stars, moon, and sun. There is no point in believing those parts of creation are millions of years old, while other parts are only 6000-10,000 years old. Otherwise you've taken a step in the theistic evolutionists' direction.
People wonder how we can see the light from stars millions of lightyears away if the earth is only 6000 years old.
If God could create all of creation, why could he not create a beam of light already projecting from the stars to earth?
Craig M also discusses the different ways of reading different parts of the bible; allegory, etc. It's quite obvious how to read the different books of the bible. Psalms is obviously poetry and songs; it says so. Revelation is seen in a vision, and discussion is made about what the various visions stand for, indicating it is allegorical. There is no such evidence that Genesis is anything other than literal fact. In fact, it goes in the opposite direction, specifically stating that the days of creation were "sun-up-sun-down" days, not metaphorical periods of time possibly thousands of years long.
Naomi (37) - if you're going to get specific about definitions, you should get your own sorted out. Evolutionists do not believe humans descended from apes- they believe humans and apes have a common ancestor (which would look more like today's ape than today's human). Moreover, that is not the original point evolutionists believe we came from; originally, they claim we evolved from, essentially, pond scum. That's not too far off "dust".
The fact that creationists believe humans came from dust is peripheral in this argument; it does not affect our development. God simply decided to use *something* to form Adam, and chose dust.
.j (32) is spot-on in saying It is a shame to see some "hardcore Christians" utterly vilify science, as I believe science is our way of viewing and discovering God's universe. It's evolved (heh) from just ignoring the "E word" to some people all-out pointing up their nose at the whole of science: which makes them look like total imbeciles.
Natural selection, micro-evolution etc are rock-hard fact. Those are processes we can actually observe. Macro-evolution? Not a chance.
76. Leah said the following at 7:49 PM on Jan 26:
Jenny (62) says Some comments have been made that this is not a salvation issue, so why make a big deal about it. I would say it is a salvation issue.
The first thing God tells us in His Word is, “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” If you can’t believe the first verse in the Bible, how can you believe the rest of it? If you don’t believe God created the earth, then how can you believe He has any right to make up the rules for how earth dwellers should live or how they should prepare for the next life?
I think you're mixing up the different camps here.
Camp 1: Atheistic or non-Christian evolutionists. They do not believe in God, or Jesus as saviour, and believe in evolution.
Camp 2: Theistic evolutionists or Christian evolutionists. They believe in God, they believe in his son Jesus as saviour, and also believe in evolution. A common opinion is that God used evolution to form creation.
Camp 3: Creationists. They are Christians who believe in Jesus as saviour and believe that God created the world as in a literal reading of Genesis.
Camp 1, obviously, is not saved. Camp 2 and 3, in my opinion, are. I feel Camp 2 is seriously mislead and misunderstands some important things when it comes to reading the bible, but they believe what is important to salvation: that we are sinners and Jesus has died as atonement for those sins. It's not a matter of them not believing God created the world; it's a matter of them believing God created the world differently. They would still call it God's creation and would still acknowledge God as king.
Samaria (70)- who says there has to be a scientific answer to "Yes, I know that, but how?" What about Jesus' resurrection: picture, if you will, kindergarten class with teacher saying Jesus rose from the dead, and child saying "Yes, I know that, but how?"
There is no HOW. God is not constrained by science or our understanding of it. Just because it cannot be explained by science does not mean God didn't do it. It's just a demonstration of man's limited capacity to understand God.
77. JB said the following at 7:54 PM on Jan 26:
Dr. Sarfati,
I read your article about cytochrome c evolution, and I have to say that I think you fundamentally misunderstand this evidence for evolution.
Cytochrome c is a protein which is necessary for oxidative metabolism and is present in organisms ranging from Euglena to yeast to petunias to you. While the DNA coding for cytochrome c is quite variable between species, the function of the protein is fairly constant. For example, while yeast DNA for cytochrome c is significantly different from human DNA, if the human gene is engineered into a yeast cell, the yeast functions without a problem. What we see here is that cytochrome DNA differences between species have virtually nothing to do with different function in different organisms. There is no reason from a design perspective to use a different DNA sequence in a human and in a petunia. If there are differences, and there are, they need to be explained by reference to some other principle entirely. Biologists explain this difference by evolution from common ancestors. Creationists, I assume, have to resort to the whimsy of the Designer, a whimsy which I would argue is essentially misleading.
I note that in your discussion of this argument you essentially concede the evidence that more primitive organisms diverge in their cytochrome c sequences from more complex species. You attempt to explain this away by vaguely suggesting that, say, yeast sequences differ by a similar amount from all vertebrates. What you fail to see, though, is that this is exactly what one would expect from evolution, taking into account that yeast is a very dissimilar organism from all vertebrates, such that in comparison to yeast all vertebrates appear similar. In fact, if you compare yeast cytochrome c to vertebrate animals, you find precisely the pattern of dissimilarity one would expect from evolutionary theory.
I find this *scientific* evidence more convincing that your *scientific* arguments. To be clear, I reject your theological arguments on entirely different grounds which I did not choose to get into here. I do not, however, reject your theological arguments on the strength of scientific evidence alone. I do not hold scientific evidence to be of superior authority to scripture. Craig M reads me correctly on that point (and thanks!).
78. Sara said the following at 8:05 PM on Jan 26:
Mr. Safarti, I don't see the point of showing whether or not the rest of the Bible treats Genesis as history...a person could just reply that maybe the rest of the Bible is wrong, too. Then in your next comment you note that many people for the last two thousand years have treated Genesis as history too. Again, that's not an argument any more than my listing the names of atheists is an argument for atheism, or--to be cheeky in pointing out a way you for some reason differ from most of the other posters on here--any more than my including some letters after my name makes what I say more weighty.
79. Chris said the following at 8:10 PM on Jan 26:
Jonathan Sarfati writes in #51:
Distant starlight problem: see answer.
Some counter-arguments for those interested:
http://tinyurl.com/a9hey5
http://tinyurl.com/bemda
The last is run by a group you could hardly call non-believers....of course, one needs a good grounding in relatively, cosmology, physics, and mathematics to determine whether or not their claims have merit.
Personally, from my limited understanding of things, there's yet to be a good theory proposed that can reconcile a young earth position with what we observe in the universe. I'd be highly skeptical, too, since previous attempts (e.g., c not being constant and the like) have all suffered the same fate.
Still, I'm open to any new claims.
80. Craig M. said the following at 8:59 PM on Jan 26:
I finally had a little time to actually track through one of Jonathan's references/citations--specifically the above-cited article regarding starlight, referencing the theory of a Dr. Russell Humphreys. To recap, the issue Humphreys is attempting to address is the obvious problem caused for young earth folks by the fact that we can see the stars, which are (in many cases) hundreds of thousands of light years away or more. The obvious implication of this in physics is that the light of those stars, in order to be seen by human eyes today, has been traveling for hundreds of thousands of years or more.
As I said, I reviewed the article Jonathan cites. The first thing to note is, again, the quality of the author's citations. There are NO citations in the article that are not to either the "Journal of Creation," the "Creation Research Society Quarterly," a single Creation Science conference, or Humphreys' own book. The text is filled with lines like this: "Believers in an old universe and the ‘big bang’ have vigorously opposed the new cosmology and claim to have found flaws in it. (5) However, Humphreys has been able to defend his model, as well as develop it further. (6,7). Surprise--citations 5, 6 and 7 are all to Creation Science Journal articles. If you can't see through the transparent pretensions to academic and scholarly discipline and review in this writing, it's going to be hard to have a productive conversation. Real scientists don't cite exclusively to a single journal or organization under their own control, ever, period.
More fundamentally. I took an hour and popped Dr. Humphreys' name into Google and looked at three results. By all accounts the man is a fine Christian--but not much of a physicist. The first result on Google is from "Reasons to Believe." The organization's tagline is "Providing Powerful New Reasons From Science to Believe in Jesus Christ." Those interested in hearing the other side of Jonathan's proposed solution to the starlight issue in its fullness can find the full article at: http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/unravelling.shtml
The article begins:
In 1994 a physicist who is prominent in the young-earth movement, Dr. D. Russell Humphreys, unveiled a proposed alternative cosmology1 which, it was claimed, resolved a long-standing problem for the young-earth movement --- how light could travel billions of light years from distant galaxies during the passage of only a few thousand years of Earth time. This new cosmology was widely hailed in the young-earth movement and has been widely distributed in book form2. The author, Dr. Humphreys, is not formally trained in general relativity or cosmology theory, and his initial article and book acknowledged the tentative character and possible falsity of the new proposal. He also solicited, publicly and privately, feedback from Christian physicists who did have formal training in these disciplines. Starting even before the appearance of Starlight and Time and continuing to the present, such feedback has been forthcoming, and, to our knowledge, it has been uniformly critical of the theory. In fact, Starlight and Time and related writings by Humphreys exhibit profound misunderstandings of relativity theory and cosmology. Humphreys’ theory is irremediably flawed. It is very unfortunate that these writings have been so widely distributed in the young-earth community and have misled so many Christians.
Before proceeding with our discussion of the present state of the Starlight and Time hypothesis, we wish to make it clear that our observations about Dr. Humphreys' cosmological writings are not intended to cast aspersion on the sincerity of his Christian faith or the quality of his Christian testimony. The errors and defects in Humphreys' ideas are not moral errors, but scientific ones, and our pointing out of Humphreys' errors in these scientific areas does not imply criticism of his moral integrity. The one moral criticism which we would make of Dr. Humphreys' advocacy of his model, is his failure to heed the counsel of skilled Christian physicists in this matter. This is not a small criticism, for Humphreys' overconfidence in this matter has led to the widespread dissemination of a false theory. The inevitable collapse of this theory may damage the faith of many Christians who have leaned on it to reinforce their faith. The responsibility for such damage will rest with Dr. Humphreys and those of his associates who have promoted his theory, disregarding the expert counsel which God has made available to them. It is also possible that the widespread distribution and acceptance of his theory will have negative consequences for the credibility of Christian testimony to unbelievers. Again, responsibility for this will lie with Dr. Humphreys and his associates.
To our knowledge, not one person competent in general relativity and cosmology theory who has examined Starlight and Time has given a "pass" to this theory.
The article continues at length, and makes what appears to me to be an unassailable case that the reference Jonathan cites as the solution to the starlight problem is utterly baseless. Of course, everyone seriously interested in the question should visit both articles themselves and make a personally informed and educated judgment.
I don't have the time or inclination to track down every link that Jonathan puts up in the forum. But just because someone throws a link up doesn't mean there's convincing substance behind it. That goes for me too, of course, so again, everyone should read the sources themselves if time allows. Sorry for the length of the post, but there was no shorter way to make the point. Again, none of this is or should be personal. We are all Christian brothers and sisters, and are all fundamentally interested in and motivated by truth. I happen to agree with the authors I cited that the widespread promulgation of a false theory of physics amongst Christians, embraced first for its helpfulness in propping up young earth creationism rather than on its evaluated merit as physics, will finally do damage to the overall witness of the Christian Church and result in scorn from intelligent souls that might otherwise be open the gospel. I think that's the truth. But I obviously understand that many of you do NOT think that's the truth, and this disagreement doesn't undermine the love and recognition we should have for each other as Christians.
81. BDB said the following at 9:10 PM on Jan 26:
Speaking of literal verses in the Bible, has anyone here dated anyone who looked like this:
1 Behold, you are fair, my love!Behold, you are fair! You have dove’s eyes behind your veil. Your hair is like a flock of goats, Going down from Mount Gilead.
2 Your teeth are like a flock of shorn sheep Which have come up from the washing, Every one of which bears twins, And none is barren among them.
I suppose that God COULD put a flock of tiny goats on someone's head, and running around in their mouth. It would kind of be the sheep version of Medusa, right?
(Quote from Song of Solomon 4:1-2)
82. Lukas said the following at 9:32 PM on Jan 26:
Dr. Sarfati:
I have to admit I am still a little unclear on your definition of "information" in the genetic sense. Your first article linked back to some boundless blogs, and your second one was a rudimentary explanation of the evolution of bear species in the genus Ursus. Are you referring to genetic variety in a population, genetic material, or novel genetic material?
I also find it odd that in your boundless article you dismissed genetic mutation as simply a "typo" in the genetic code. Mutations can occur as insertions, deletions, or substitutions, all of which can drastically alter how genes are expressed. To be sure, most mutations are deleterious to the organism, but they can confer advantages as well. Bacterial colonies started by one individual with a single chromosome multiply to form colonies with genetic variation including beneficial mutations, featuers that MUST be the product of mutation. In fact, mutation is THE driver of genetic variation in all populations.
Also, since you brought up some quotes; what do you make of this quote: "Nothing makes sense in biology except in the light of evolution" by Theodosius Dobzhansky?
83. BDB said the following at 9:54 PM on Jan 26:
>>there are plenty of ways that God could have taught millions of years or goo-to-you evolution,<<
I'm sorry, but I don't believe I said anywhere that I believe evolution works.
What I asked is whether ancient Hebrew had limitations in the words available. This is important because the YEC theory relies on the translaton of the ancient Hebrew word for "day" only meaning 24-hours.
The article you linked to suggested that the reasons we could see all the galaxies relied on General Relativity and and gravitational time dilution. OK - what are the ancient Hebrew terms for GR and time dilation?
Or, are you conceding that ancient Hebrew had limited word choice?
In comment #33 you express concern because another poster "hadn't bothered to interact with your arguments." At the time I'm writing this, it looks like you haven't bothered to interact with mine.
Put another way, did you choose not to repond because I have you in check?
84. Lukas said the following at 11:41 PM on Jan 26:
Regarding the proposed resolution to the starlight and time problem. I am no cosmologist (and neither, incidentally is the founder of the theory, Dr. Russell Humphreys), but here are some comments from a Christian who is, Dr. Hugh Ross from Reasons to Believe.
"The author, Dr. Humphreys, is not formally trained in general relativity or cosmology theory, and his initial article and book acknowledged the tentative character and possible falsity of the new proposal. He also solicited, publicly and privately, feedback from Christian physicists who did have formal training in these disciplines. Starting even before the appearance of Starlight and Time and continuing to the present, such feedback has been forthcoming, and, to our knowledge, it has been uniformly critical of the theory. In fact, Starlight and Time and related writings by Humphreys exhibit profound misunderstandings of relativity theory and cosmology. Humphreys’ theory is irremediably flawed. It is very unfortunate that these writings have been so widely distributed in the young-earth community and have misled so many Christians."
"To our knowledge, not one person competent in general relativity and cosmology theory who has examined Starlight and Time has given a "pass" to this theory12. Despite the lack of expert corroboration of his work, Humphreys continues to insist on the validity of his demonstrably false theory. Unfortunately, most of the major young-earth organizations13 are continuing to follow Humphreys and are ignoring the demonstrations of the falsity of his theory which have arisen from both inside and outside the young-earth movement."
http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/unravelling.shtml?main
85. Mark said the following at 12:24 AM on Jan 27:
Interesting discussion going on here. Jonathan, I must say you've done an excellent job of keeping up with all the posts and providing some very astute replies.
I myself am currently working on a PhD in Chemical Biology within the University of California system (though I won't say where for my own safety). I think we can all agree that the creation/evolution debate is definitely about as hot-button of an issue as you can get. Among scientists, and especially biologists, evolution is sort of a sacred cow that no one is willing to touch.
An interesting observation I have made while actually studying deeply into the intricacies of biochemistry, and being around scientists every day, is that the theory of evolution itself does not deny the existence of God. Where scientists go wrong, I believe, is to assume that the driving force behind evolution is a random, meaningless process. Literally, one takes a "leap of faith," so to speak, when they say, "Hey, this thing can work on its own. Therefore, there must be no God!"
Science has shown quite conclusively that microevolution is a fact (I don't think anyone here has disputed that), and science has also provided evidence that macroevolution may happen, although certainly this is not without a shadow of a doubt. However, scientists' (and academics, for that matter) hostility to religion, and to Christianity in particular, is not explainable by the theory of evolution alone. No, I believe this hostility is explainable in light of Ephesians 4:12 - "For our struggle is not against flesh and blood but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms."
The problem, as I see it, is not simply the theory of evolution, but that people have turned science into a god. That is to say, people assume that science deals in "fact" and everything else, including religion is unprovable because it's not scientifically testable. This is a huge fallacy. The truth is that as human beings, the way that we operate is by gathering information and weighing the evidence, and then making a decision based on that evidence. Very rarely can we know without a doubt what the outcome will be. Thus, we were designed to exercise faith, not just in God, but in many things. Ultimately, though, it all goes back to Him, because he is the most solid thing we can put our faith in. This is effectively how scientists like Galileo, Pascal, and Newton reasoned. Thus, both scripture and science are ways in which God can reveal himself to us.
Now, as for the matter of the creation account according to Genesis: It is quite explicit when it says that God is the Creator, and it explains what happened. However, it doesn't explain how everything works. I think God left that for us to figure out so that we could appreciate him more.
One thing that we as scientists must be very careful about is that the formation of the earth and the universe was a unique and singular event. There's really no experiment that can be done that can recap exactly what happened. Since we weren't there in the beginning, we need to be humble and acknowledge how little we really know about it. However, one thing seems certain to me: God works through processes. I sometimes wonder whether if I were actually there in the beginning when the earth was being formed, if it would have really appeared strangely "natural" or if it would have suddenly just appeared out of nowhere. Genesis isn't exactly clear on this.
The biggest problem for evolution, and one that scientists have a hard time admitting, is how we deal with biological information. By information, I mean DNA, RNA, and protein. Jonathan alluded to it in his article, but I'll be a little more detailed here. Basically, DNA contains a 4 base code that has all the information necessary for life. The amazing thing is that you can actually discipher this code and find that its readout is protein. The arrangement of the peptide polymer dictates how a protein folds, and a protein's fold determines its function. It is strangely analogous to computer programming. I do not know of any source of real, discernable information other than an intelligent being. While science does not overtly prove God's existence, I think it certainly does point to him.
Why then is it so hard for scientists to come to believe in God? I think Scripture has two good explanations:
Romans 1:20-22 For since the beginning of the world God's invisible qualities - his eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so men are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools...
Additionally, check out the story of the rich young ruler in Mark 10:17-31. While this man's hindrance to inheriting the kingdom of God was his material wealth, I believe scientists' and other academic intellectual wealth is also a barrier. They simply cannot allow their pride to be dethroned to make Jesus King. As for myself, I can only say that I'm incredibly grateful that God convinced me that it's better to love him than to receive the praises of man for having a great intellect. Quite honestly, I sometimes still have a hard time surrendering this area to God, but he is helping me to win this struggle, and I can honestly say that I'd rather have Jesus than a mind that understands a heap of interesting stuff only to find that it is ultimately worthless in light of eternity.
86. TINA said the following at 12:34 AM on Jan 27:
Luke was a doctor of his time.Many Christians even in my own family dont believe in going to the DR. I'm sorry that's just nuts.God created doctors for a purpose and yes we know Jesus is the ultimate healer however God makes a point to let us know Luke was a Dr. right?so God created scientist/biologist/chemist for a reason..there has to be a purpose to glorify him..Well science/biology/chemistry, works hand and hand with discovering cures for diseases,or explaining cosmic wonders,taking us to the moon was cool.So where does the creation fit in?I find it hard to believe Genesis 1 was a poem,i find it hard to believe what Darwin says,i find it hard to believe we came from apes because of similar DNA patterns or cells,dust you came from to dust you will return that really should solve all the questions...Ecclesiastics 4:4-8-vanity of selfish toil could really be the answer for the people who dont believe that God created us designed by his hand shaped and molded took his own breath and put it in us...I would not go to the extreme of saying they are not Gods though even if a man is atheist he still belongs to our father in heaven..so that's one reason God has people such as Dr. Sarfati, these interest are in- breaded in them. To study, research and inform, the confused so the truth is available to all man..not everyone wants to be a doctor however thank God we have them and christian doctors whatever their doctrine is in are hand pick by God to teach us....if you are sadly atheist or any other religion that does not line up with the word of God he has made sure you were given the opportunity to hear and hopes you will choose him so the angels can rejoice in heaven the day you except his son into your heart as your Lord and savior we know before Jesus returns every ear across the earth will be given this chance...If evolution and these other things were correct God would have explained it that way.We did not come to existence by a unfolding process of development or change...
87. Jethro said the following at 12:53 AM on Jan 27:
Here's a really simple question: why is it that all of the people who have examined the evidence and come to believe in creationism are also Christians? Just a bizarre coincidence?
88. Naomi said the following at 2:57 AM on Jan 27:
@Alison#50:Who said that humans originated from apes?!
You won't find anyone on this board who believes that.
Umm... then what are we talking about then? Aren't we talking about the origin of our species and not the evolutionary nature of our physical attributes?
Also, I was talking about the original Darwinist and traditional view of evolution for the origin of our species versus Creation.
And yes, that means by evolution as the origin, we originated from apes.
@Samaria#70:Scripture isn't a science nor a history book.
By the accounts of Numbers having a census of the early Jews, the records in 1st and 2nd Kings and Chronicles, along with the fact that even contemporary historians use especially the Old Testament to either verify or refute the histories of the civilizations in Mesopotamia, Phoenicia, Lebanon and Egypt, I would say... Scripture has history books.
Not all Scripture though is history because the Bible is a collection of books.
But if historians actually coincide the reigns of Pharaohs and other rulers like Sennacherib whose origins of history are in cuneiform and in stone, why not a book whose original manuscripts and texts remain original even during A.D.??
So now, another fact remains of course: the acceptance of the Bible as a good reference text for anything!
While I'm sure that the Bible is good reference for salvation, why can't it be a reference for history?
Historians have already used it for that purpose.
And I have the Discovery Channel DVDs to prove it.
I think the problem here is whether the Bible is a good enough reference. If one accords that everything about the New Testament is true that "ALL SCRIPTURE IS GOD BREATHED..." then is that good enough to prove itself as a reference versus say... cuneiform, old papyrus scrolls, modern scientific white papers and books?
89. Samaria/daydream11 said the following at 5:36 AM on Jan 27:
Leah 79: When it comes to Jesus, I don't need to know how, I just need to know that it happened. Jesus is the one thing of this world that I believe wasn't constrained by the limits of science, before Him or after Him. Of course, I am sure some scientist out there could tell me how it would work, but all in all I am content knowing that Jesus rose bodily from the grave. That part is a matter of faith and is integral to mine, not whether this world is 6k or a few billion years old. One is important to faith; one isn't. One is a matter of faith; one belongs totally in the realm of science. Do you understand the difference? Does everyone?
Response to Jesus treating Genesis as history:
Who said that God gave Jesus unlimited scientific knowledge as a human being? There was no reason for Him to, as it wasn't Jesus' job to be a scholar, but to be a spiritual guide. For some reason, I only remember God sending His Son for one purpose only: to lead the world to Light and to save them from Death. I believe that God gave the Lord unlimited spiritual knowledge and wisdom, and leaving Jesus to learn everything of the physical world (walking, talking, science, etc.) the way every other human being did. That ignorance of science would have made Him more human anyway, and more accessible to the people.
90. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 7:00 AM on Jan 27:
Chris (#82): Dr Humphreys refuted that Connor/Ross junk at http://www.trueorigin.org/ca_rh_03.asp The misotheistic Talk.Obnoxious site isn's worth wasting time with.
Sara (#81): my arguments about the rest of the Bible's understanding of the Bible were meant for Christians, i.e. those who follow the One who said "Scripture cannot be broken" and "it is written".
JB (#80): what evidence for evolution. I see evidence that there are similarities, as would be expected from a single designer, but in patterns (including widespread homoplasies) that thwart evolutionary explanations.
Not surprising that you didn't address my theological arguments. If you relied on biblical authority, rather than circumstantial "science", there's no way you'd come up with billions of years of goo-to-you evolution.
91. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 7:09 AM on Jan 27:
BDB (#84): as should be clear from my article, I am not a literalist but an originalist. I.e. what did the Bible mean to its original audience, as per the grammatical-historical hermeneutic. Stop raising straw man with poetic passages, as I've explained why Genesis is NOT poetic but historical narrative genre.
(#86) is just crass. It's easy to show that yom in Genesis 1 means day. There was no need to explain GR, but there were plenty of ways to explain long ages if that's what God intended to teach.
My article is the lead one here. It is the duty of posters to read it before spruiking forth here. It's common courtesy.
Lukas (#85): your screed presupposes goo-to-you evolution. If true, then mutations must somehow be the source of new information. But real mutations, even the beneficial ones, are neutral or harmful, as amply explained.
As for Dobzhansky, he was talking propagandistic nonsense. In reality, most branches of biology need not even pay lip service to evolution, especially as many of them pre-date Darwin. So rather, I'd say that nothing makes sense in biology except in the light of design
92. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 7:13 AM on Jan 27:
Hugh Ross? Yawn, stretch, my book Refuting Compromise was a thorough refutation of his attempts to add millions of years to the Bible, emasculate the Flood to a local one, and relegate certain humans to soul-less creatures. Ch. 5 deals with the big bang and distant starlight problem.
93. Dani said the following at 8:02 AM on Jan 27:
BDB (#84): Now you're just being silly. Observe the word "like" in the verses you cited, denoting that the words of the lover are a simile (a comparison using "like" or "as"). Yes, you should take those literally. Literally, the lover is saying that his beloved's hair is *like* a flock of goats. Well, we should ask, what about her hair is *like* a flock of goats?
BDB, I know from other posts of yours that you're not a fool, so that post must have been either facetious or a silly way to distract from the real issue under discussion. And honestly, I've come to expect more worthwhile responses from you.
Samaria (#70): Let's define our terms. You said "this world is way too complex to have just popped up in six days." But it didn't "just [pop] up in six days." *God created* it in six days. So, what you're saying is "this world is way too complex [for God to have created it] in six days."
Since you obviously don't believe that God created in 6 days, I can understand why you thought I misread your statement. But I didn't. You are undermining the power of God to do what he will. You're right, we do well when we compare what God says to what creation says. But what would have stopped God from creating an "old" earth? He created Adam and Eve fully grown and mature. He created trees mature and able to bear fruit. Why is hard to believe that he created a mature earth?
Even though you sarcastically rebuffed my loving Christian worry before, I am not deterred. You say that you believe the Bible to be a moral and spiritual guide. John 17:17 says, "Sanctify them by the truth, *your word is truth*" (emphasis mine). Not just a moral guide, but truth.
The readers and writers of scripture through the ages have interpreted Genesis as literal. It is arrogance to think that we (such highly evolved creatures) have *finally* figured out what God actually meant in Genesis. So thousands of years of God's people were blind to the truth? Solomon said in Ecclesiastes that there is nothing new under the sun. Evolution is, in one respect, yet another tool to make us feel superior to those who came before us.
May God have mercy on our souls.
94. Alison said the following at 8:25 AM on Jan 27:
@Naomi(#91): And yes, that means by evolution as the origin, we originated from apes.
No. Not in the slightest, actually.
I really get the impression that some people are fearful of evolution because they have not ever understood what it is.
95. TINA said the following at 8:35 AM on Jan 27:
I have one question for the world here.....do we not always say animals have no spirit? If the thought of any of this is possible that means we what have no soul??????? ummm dont think so, we know we are of a spirit for he has told us so...
96. Naomi said the following at 8:41 AM on Jan 27:
I was supposed to say a lot of things re: apes vs. humans... but anyway.
It doesn't matter.
Evolution needs billions of years for it to materialize. Not only does it need time, it also needs mutation and specific environmental conditions for it to thrive over a billion number of time!
Now, if it's hard to believe that humans were formed to life out of the simple word of God, then why is it easier to believe for really specific and exact conditions over billions years of time for a human to form!
For a human to go all through that trouble -- billions of years, exact genetic mutation, environmental conditions, psychological conditioning, overlapping to the next species.... whew!!
That's takes a whole lot of miracles!
All I'm saying is basically the reverse of it all. Nowadays, people don't give the Creationist theory a shot, thinking it's all 'myth' and 'poetry' all because it lacks a "scientific" basis.
I would like to ask what is science to you. Science is science because it is measurable, verifiable not only by circumstantial evidence but by actual specimens, and CAN ACTUALLY BE REPLICATED!
That is why the LAW of gravity is a scientific law along with the LAWS of Planetary Motion while evolution is still a THEORY!
I would like to simply say, that if you want to be scientific about it, then give both -- Creationist and Evolutionist -- both stated as theories by science, a chance.
97. Dp said the following at 9:14 AM on Jan 27:
#74:
I read your article. You are reaching if you think that what you wrote in any way answers my question. Poetry does convey truth (6 days work + 1 day rest, man + woman = marriage, etc.), just like parables do. Jesus conveyed that truth being taught (marriage, sabbath), not that 6000 years ago there wasn't anything, and God created it all in 7 literal days.
"But ‘Work for 6 billion years and rest for one billion years’ doesn’t quite have the same ring to it (from your article)"
Of course it doesn't. That's why it wouldn't have made sense for God to tell them that, even if the universe was created in 7 billion years.
98. TINA said the following at 9:16 AM on Jan 27:
The Bible is our father in heavens gift to us of how to live a good and prosperous life,his very design to help us through the adversaries of life,an application to be (all though sometimes difficult when hurt feelings are involved)applied to our lives,of coarse it is history how could one say it is not? then generational curses and blessings would not exist...for something to be passed down it has to have history..Its not just a how to book,its a go to book for daily living...any question we wonder if we open our spiritual eyes can be answered...seek first the kingdom...
99. Craig M. said the following at 9:25 AM on Jan 27:
Jonathan's (#93, #95) claim that he and Dr. Humphreys have "refuted" the criticisms of Dr. Humphreys' starlight theory is straightforwardly farcical. I've read the relevant articles. Go to a search engiene, type in the titles he lists, and read the results. Or go here: http://www.csharp.com/starlight.html for yet another detailed scientific debunking of this pseudoscience by yet another group of believing Christians fluent in the sciences. I note that Jonathan dismisses ANY scientist who disagrees with him immediately ("not worth my time"). He claims to have already "debunked" serious scientific criticism that cuts hard against him, but never gets into the details--he wants you to just take his word for it. Well, a genuine evaluation of truth is worth your time. Read the sources yourself. Otherwise you're falling for scientific charlatanism, plain and simple.
100. (The Canadian) Andrew R said the following at 9:32 AM on Jan 27:
My understanding of science is limited, but I guess I have a few questions:
Who wrote Genesis? Moses? If so, why does the language differ so greatly from chapter to chapter?
How'd they know the way that God created the world the way they wrote?
Why did the all-powerful Lord have to rest after creating the world in six days? Why couldn't he have done it in a split second?
Is the earth flat because the Bible explicity says it so? (Jon Sarf., if we rely on Biblical authority, aren't we saying that the Earth really is flat?)
Why are there so many stories of intelligent Christians studying biology and chemistry and then losing their belief in God? (I have several friends whose scientific studies have led them from theism to agnosticism and atheism)