YEC<--------?Reconciliation?-------->OEC [Archive]

Calvinist4Him

April 7th 2004, 06:25 PM

:hi: to ALL of my fellow Creationists! Grace and peace to you. :smile:

As you may have already noticed, this is my first post in Cosmogony 101. Before I make any points, I would like to give a brief background of beliefs concerning Creationism...

My parents were poor, so both my brother and I attended public school. I attended public school for 13 years (including Kindergarden) without being indoctrinated with non-Creationist "Science" (I dare not say the word here). My mom helped me out in this area, simply by giving me the advice to take what Science teachers say "with a grain of salt", to not place much "stock" in Scientific theories, because theories are not facts.

Even going into College, I remained a YEC, believing the earth was created in six literal days, not that God couldn't have created it all in six minutes if He chose to. One of the first courses in religion I took was a "biblical survey" course, and this also happened to be my introduction to OEC. I continued to resist, but at the same time listened to what my instructor and fellow Christian had to say. I took several other courses in religion, and the first science class I could remember that I actually enjoyed. The title of the course was "changing universe", and it was primarily about the "The Five Biggest Ideas In Science". I thought I wouldn't like the course at all, and the defenses were up, but as it turns out, the instructor was a Christian, and was very open and honest without putting preassure on anyone to buy into any of the ideas. In fact, through this class I learned more about the "philosophy of Science" and the "presuppositions of Science" than I had previously known. To sum up this section, I dropped out of College, with doubts about YEC (-), with less emotivism concerning my beliefs (+), with a better understanding of biblical interpretation and types of literature found in the Bible(+), and learned that the most profitable bible study involves alot of effort (neutral).

After dropping out of college, the next couple of years, I felt the need to take a break from thinking deeply about God, the Bible, etc. It was after all this that God allowed me to sense (feel and observe) my spiritual bankruptcy, and I responded by asking God to make known where He wants me to be in ministry. I thought about it, and realized that of all the courses I took in college, I probably enjoyed the Intro to Philo course more than all the others. I started searching the internet, and God sent me into apologetics. That was about a year ago, and I've learned alot, I've come a long way in a short time, mostly because I've probably had more time to spend than other people do.

Now getting back to the subject at hand, for a year or so, and because I listened to my College instructors, I've played around with the idea of OEC, but I've decided to drop it. I do have sympathy and understanding for OEC, but I've opted to go back to YEC, and for several reasons...

1.) Interpreting "yome" one way in the first chapter of Genesis, and interpreting it in another way throughout the rest of the Pentateuch is interpreting the author inconsistantly.

2.) I see no need to look for a "deeper meaning", where the meaning seems to be as clear as day and night.

3.) I am and always will hold that Science never has and never will contradict the Bible, and I think any attempt to conform the Bible to Science is a fallacy. IOW, consider your sources, science has limitations and is done by fallable men often with (atheist) presuppostions (with an agenda), where God is infallable, and the His word can be trusted. Stated in yet another way, I put God before science. Either science conforms, or it's not science, because God is the creator of everthing we call Science!

4.) I am not a scientist, most of what I know of Science is second (or third, or fourth you get the idea) hand knowledge, and for me to put science before God, would be an error. When it comes to the specifics of Science, I consider myself to be quite ignorant. I have been an ignorant YEC, and I have been an ignorant OEC with the desire to learn, and I am once again an ignorant YEC, but with the desire to learn. I am probably more "open-minded" than some YEC's you'll run into, but as I've mentioned above, God and His Holy word come before science. In the beginning, God created what we call science. And our knowledge of Science is fallable and ever changing, but God never changes, and neither does His word.

Finally, I would like to touch on the title of this post, do you (YEC and OEC) see any room for any reconcilation of the two views? IOW, is there any room for give and take on either side? Please, let's discuss this as mature Christians, loving one another, showing understanding for we are not all at the same point in our "walk" or knowledge. That said, maybe someone with more knowledge than I can help with the following questions...

Is it possible that the earth is old and young? By this, I mean that the earth was "formless" (without shape) and "void" (uninhabitalble) for an unspecified period of time BEFORE the six literal days of creation? Is an old universe incompatible with a young earth?

P.S. - Just because I ask questions from an OEC perspective, please do NOT mistake me for holding to that postion. I am a YEC, still toying with OEC, looking for where the two views might be able to reconcile a difference or two. Maybe I'm a dreamer, maybe this is wishful thinking, at any rate, this is a "hot" topic, and it would be nice if both YEC and OEC would respect one another more, perhaps even with silence. I understand the reasoning behind OEC, and I know that for many people, Science (taught from a certain perspective) becomes a stumbling block to faith in God, to believing the Bible to be the infallable word of God. I think many OEC seek to reconcile "popular" Science with the Bible in an effort to remove the stumbling blocks, and I understand that, I've just come to a point where I disagree with the approach of OEC, in that, God comes before Science, not the other way around. I know, I know, I didn't put Science before God as an OEC, but in a sense, I did, and without having first hand knowledge of the supposed "facts" of popular science. On the other hand, I've also noticed idolotry in YEC, and what I mean by that, is that YEC seems to come before God, and that EVERYTHING hinges on YEC, I think the less knowledgable YEC's, do tend to go overboard in their criticisms of OEC. See, I CAN look at this from both ends of the coin, I can be objective in the discussion of this topic, and in the end, God is true, His word is true, and every man is liar with an agenda!

jason

April 7th 2004, 07:58 PM

trueseeker

April 7th 2004, 08:22 PM

4Him,

It is a hot topic, but one we have to face as a Christian community. I am a YEC. My biggest concern with OEC point of view, is that it has historically considered Creation through the tower of Babel myth or parable. And quite frequently OEers have included Job and Jonah as myth as well. By the time you decide that all these stories and all the references to them in the Bible are myth, the Bible has been changed significantly. There is no original sin, no first destruction of the world, etc.

Personally, I think creation was a literal six days, however if people want to add vast amounts of time there I'm not that concerned. As long as they believe in Adam on as literal. OEC has evolved over the years, and I'm sure there are numerous varying beliefs of the stories of Adam through the tower of Babel. I suspect that most OEers now believe in a literal Noah, but only a local flood, possibly a universal flood in the scope that it killed all the people alive at that time. I'm not sure how most think of Adam and Eve and the fall if they are firmly evolutionists.

Another new OE perspective in PC (progressive creation). One theory is that God created things during various ages, paused for a long time, then created more things, paused for a long period, etc. Eventually, Adam and Eve were created and things went literally from there.

I do think there is at least one thing that YEC, PC and OEC can agree on - ID (Intelligent Design). If not, perhaps we can all at least agree that the universe and/or life could not have come about without God. And come together to point out that a godless naturalistic model of origins is impossible. Another concern I have regarding OEers, is that I don't think many or most of them really understand the signifcant damage the enemy is doing through the godless origins model. OEers seem to be more concerned that YEers are embarressing them in the scientific community, than they are that atheism and agnosticism are growing at alarming rates, and young Christians are falling away because of the propaganda machine which is promoting a godless origins model as fact.

potato sundae

April 7th 2004, 08:38 PM

i posted this article in a different thread, but i think i should post it up again

http://rossolson.org/creation/peace_proposal.html

give it a spin...

dizzle

April 7th 2004, 09:13 PM

Potato can youpost it in full here and then give the link?

Calvinist4Him

April 8th 2004, 01:05 AM

jason, thank you for your response. :smile: Do I know you from another messageboard?

There is plenty of room for OEC's and YEC's to get along. After all we really do agree on an awfully large number of things.

I agree. We probably agree on many statements of faith.

The only real difference is a disagreement over a hermenutic.

And we YEC's should acknowledge the difference as just that, and not jump to conclusions that OEC's believe in macroevolution, I never for one minute as an OEC believed in macroevolution. I would like to see more friendlieness between YEC and those involved in the intellegent design movement, it seems to me that intellegent design is a common ground. Guys like Philip Johnson have done a wonderful job of bringing the truth to non-Scientists, by showing us that macroevolution is a fallacous speculative philosophy, and not Science. I recently purchased William Dembski's new book "The Design Revolution", where he answers his critics.

I take the Bible very seriously and I think genesis to be fact, I just don't think those facts happen to be that the earth is 6000 years old and the universe to have been created in 6 days. God is simply not the author of confusion.

While I agree that God is not the author of confusion, I think that is a misapplication of the verse, because it doesn't really make a case for OEC or YEC. Also considering all the confusion on so many other points of theology, all the different views of this and that, I might be led to the conclusion that surely if God existed, there wouldn't be such widespread and massive confusion among Christians, but then I am reminded of many things that Jesus said...

One think I have noticed in OEC/YEC/TE animosity is that it is the same as the sorts of animosity you get between certian sorts of calvinists and arminians. One call the other a pelagian and the other responds calling them an anti-nomian. Nothing is acheived doing such things really just as all the name calling that goes on the origins debate acheives nothing.

jason, I must confess, I grow extremely tired of all the animostity between calvinists and arminians, and it is a stumbling block to some people, perhaps even non-believers. It can be disheartening to listen to both sides as they hurl insults back and forth. In the midst of it all, I sometimes wonder....where is the love? How does this build up the body of Christ? I may not agree with C.S. Lewis in all his theology, but he had many, many things right, and what's more is that he made an effort to focus on the essentials, and so, he was right when it mattered by not loosing sight of the "big picture".

We should all bury the hatchet (and not in each other), admit out disagreements and work towards building the best cases that we can.

I agree, though I don't have a hatchet to bury, and hopefully will not pick one up. I'm not arrogant enough to think that it can't happen to me, I know that it can, and I want to do what I can to avoid it. We should say and do whatever we say and do, to the glory of God, not to the glory of winning an argument. I want to bring people closer to the Lord, not turn them away with my pride. Maybe if we focus on building on another up, they will be compelled when they see Christ in us.

And lastly, the YEC's should stop implying that non-YEC's are not saved or are "compromised christians" and OEC's and TE's should stop suggesting that YEC's are anti-intellecuals and afraid of data.

I totally agree with you about questioning one's salvation over an interpretation of Genesis. I see where YEC's might say OEC's compromise the word of God, but isn't necessarily the case. I didn't give up the doctrine of biblical inerrancy when I accepted OEC, and it does not follow that one must give up biblical inerrancy to be an OEC. As you stated, it has to do with interpretation. I really appreciate the thoughfulness of the last part of your statement, and as a YEC, I am very pro-intellectual, and I'm not the least bit afraid of data. One cannot have the interest I do in philosophy, and be afraid of data. :wink:

Perhaps some more progress could be made if we all tried to do that.

Amen brother Amen.

jason

April 8th 2004, 02:00 AM

jason, thank you for your response. :smile: Do I know you from another messageboard?Might do.

I recently purchased William Dembski's new book "The Design Revolution", where he answers his critics.I must pick that up and give it a read.

While I agree that God is not the author of confusion, I think that is a misapplication of the verse, because it doesn't really make a case for OEC or YEC.The point was simply that the universe looks old and the simplest explanation that is not entirely ad hoc is that it is old. But that is another debate entirely.

I want to bring people closer to the Lord, not turn them away with my pride. Maybe if we focus on building on another up, they will be compelled when they see Christ in us. Yep. But on a secondary point, while we waste time fighting each other and bickering over incidentals (like the age of the earth for example) the atheists pool their resources put differences aside and go at us with all guns blazing. At least they understand the term "common enemy".

As you stated, it has to do with interpretation.The problem is that it seems no matter how many times I say this their is always the insinutatin that I am compromising with "modern science". But i'm not. I think their are reasons to make the days long, and even some of the ancient christians and jews disagreed with an "In 6 days" approach and they can hardly be thought to be compromising with "science".

I really appreciate the thoughfulness of the last part of your statement, and as a YEC, I am very pro-intellectual, and I'm not the least bit afraid of data. One cannot have the interest I do in philosophy, and be afraid of data. :wink:Glenn Morton might disagree and makes the claim quite regularly. It all seems futile trying to tell him this though. He is well intentioned but might well do more harm than good with his approach.

Amen to you to brother :smile:

Jason

CobraA1

April 8th 2004, 03:04 AM

I'm YEC, and although I've had some doubts, the truth is that science is falliable. The definitions of "theories" and "facts" are different from those used in stronger philosophies, such as mathematics and formal logic. The idea that stuff can be proven beyond a shadow of a reasonable doubt exists in formal logic, but does not in the current form of science, for some odd reason. With what we have right now, very little is truly provable.

Creation of the world is just one of many issues, I'm sure I probably agree with them on most of science - it's just that 99% of the conversation on the science side of this forum seems to focus on the creation/evolution debate. Even if a science thread pops up that doesn't have to do with the debate, it usually devolves into yet another debate thread :(.

Acanthostega

April 8th 2004, 04:57 AM

:hi: to ALL of my fellow Creationists! Grace and peace to you. :smile:

And to you too. Here are just a few comments on your post - which I hope you'll find helpful.

Is it possible that the earth is old and young? By this, I mean that the earth was "formless" (without shape) and "void" (uninhabitalble) for an unspecified period of time BEFORE the six literal days of creation? Is an old universe incompatible with a young earth?

This is essentially the view taken by the young-age creationists at the Geoscience Research Institute, Loma Linda University (a Seventh Day Adventist institution):

www.grisda.org

Their view can be summed up as "old universe, young life". They think the universe and the earth might have existed for billions of years prior to the events of Genesis 1:3 - but they interpret the creation of life as a relatively recent event taking place in six normal days. Their interpretation of the fossil record is that it is primarily a record of the global Flood of Noah.

I have a great deal of respect for the GRI group, although I don't share their "old universe" view. It seems to me that the creation of the Sun, Moon, and stars on Day Four is problematic for their position. To maintain the "old universe" view it would have to be argued that Genesis 1:14-19 is not a description of the creation of the Sun, Moon, and stars - but rather their appearance. But that doesn't seem to be the most natural interpretation of the verses in question.

My advice as you think through the issues is to obtain and read the very best of the YEC literature. I've listed some titles that I've found particularly helpful in another thread:
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=23169&page=2

Calvinist4Him

April 8th 2004, 03:47 PM

It is a hot topic, but one we have to face as a Christian community. I am a YEC.

Yes, I agree, and I too am a YEC. :smile:

My biggest concern with OEC point of view, is that it has historically considered Creation through the tower of Babel myth or parable. And quite frequently OEers have included Job and Jonah as myth as well. By the time you decide that all these stories and all the references to them in the Bible are myth, the Bible has been changed significantly. There is no original sin, no first destruction of the world, etc.

Even as an OEC, I didn't interprete creation (the tower of babel, Job, or Johnah) as myth or parable. While it's true that Jesus spoke in parables, I've never considered any of the Bible to be myth. When I was an OEC, I viewed the creation account as poetry, and for good reason. Poetry has rythem and contains repetition, and the creation account has rythem and contains much repetition. However, this wouldn't be ordinary poetry, on the contrary, being that nobody was there to witness creation before man, this revelation from God, would also be poetry from God! Even though I've come back to YEC, I'm still somewhat uncertain as to the proper hermenutic for interpreting the creation - fall. For as long as I've been a Christain, I have believed a man the first man Adam existed, and a woman, the first woman Eve existed. For as long as I've been a Christian, I have believed that satan exists. It should be noted that throughout the Bible satan has different "titles". I do not believe satan is literally a serpent. I believe he's a fallan angel who is cursed. I believe the creation account is historical, but written poetically, and therefore has figurative elements. Just because I think it has figurative elements, does not mean I don't believe X to be true. The Bible in many places is figurative. To expound on that point, there are many places in the Bible where a literal interpretation would lead the reader to very wrong conclusions. Take for example, where Jesus say's if your eye offends you, "pluck" it out. Here is another example: Ruth 2:12 "May the LORD reward your work, and your wages be full from the LORD, the God of Israel, under whose wings you have come to seek refuge." Based on that verse, does the Lord have wings? Hmm...although written long after Ruth 2:12, the readers interpretation of Ruth 2:12 could benifit from reading Matthew 23:37.

In short, the OEers to be most concerned about, are the OEers who are also errantists. Ones who are inerrantists, should especially be spoken to gently, in love. Just to be clear, OEC does not lead to errancy, and we would do well to listen carefully to both sides and not jump to conclusions. I think the reason I didn't come back to YEC sooner, is because so many YEers are anti-intellectual, zealous, dogmatic, and so erroneous in speech and writing that people like me are turned off. The KJV-onlyism commonly found in YEC is another big turn off for people like me who know better. I refuse to purchase a J. Morris book because he also pushes KJV-onlyism. I'm interested in YEC scholarship, not YEC bumper-stickership. It's time we get on our knees and ask the Lord for guidence and wisdom, and ask the Lord to sharpen our minds, to help us discern truth from error, and to guide us into truth. It's time we ask the Lord to help us become students of not just the Bible, but all areas of study, and I am learning as C.S. Lewis wrote, that Christianity is an education in and of itself.

Personally, I think creation was a literal six days, however if people want to add vast amounts of time there I'm not that concerned. As long as they believe in Adam on as literal. OEC has evolved over the years, and I'm sure there are numerous varying beliefs of the stories of Adam through the tower of Babel. I suspect that most OEers now believe in a literal Noah, but only a local flood, possibly a universal flood in the scope that it killed all the people alive at that time. I'm not sure how most think of Adam and Eve and the fall if they are firmly evolutionists.

One way in which I would describe the Bible, is a history of the relationship between God and man, especially the Israelites. IOW, the Bible is a collection of historical books containing accounts of actual persons, places, and events in history. I also think the creation days are literal...and historical. However, OEers would be correct in pointing out that the biblical geneology record is incomplete, but that doesn't rule out a young earth. Thanks to my biblical survey college professor, I've went back and forth on the flood "issue". Of course it has to do with a hermenutic of the word "world" and what the word "world" would mean in the mind of Moses. Perhaps Moses had "land" in mind, but that still doesn't rule out a global flood. I've been ridiculed by Atheists for it, but I believe in a global catastrofic flood, and from what little I've learned, there is evidence for such a flood. One of those evidences is caves, and water, and pressure. I think the Grand Canyon is one of the most visible evidences of a global flood.

Another new OE perspective in PC (progressive creation). One theory is that God created things during various ages, paused for a long time, then created more things, paused for a long period, etc. Eventually, Adam and Eve were created and things went literally from there.

I would have been best decribed as a "progressive creationist". I think God could have created everthing with a snap of His fingers, He could have created it all in 6 minutes, 6 hours, 6 years, 6 thousand years, in other words, He could have created everything in the lengh of time of His choosing. The text say's 6 days, and to interprete "day" conistantly, there we have it. Oh, and before I forget, thanks for the explaination(s), is the theory you described above known as the "gap theory"?

I do think there is at least one thing that YEC, PC and OEC can agree on - ID (Intelligent Design). If not, perhaps we can all at least agree that the universe and/or life could not have come about without God. And come together to point out that a godless naturalistic model of origins is impossible. Another concern I have regarding OEers, is that I don't think many or most of them really understand the signifcant damage the enemy is doing through the godless origins model. OEers seem to be more concerned that YEers are embarressing them in the scientific community, than they are that atheism and agnosticism are growing at alarming rates, and young Christians are falling away because of the propaganda machine which is promoting a godless origins model as fact.

I am glad you brought up intelligent design. I've had somewhat of an interest in intelligent design for some time now. Hopefully, intelligent design will bring TE to either the YEC camp, or the OEC camp. If the intelligent design movement can work it's way into school textbooks, then I think fewer Christians will be enticed by evolution. As a whole, the university fears men like Phillip Johnson, who are shaking the foundations of naturalism to the core. I was listening to a lecuture by Van Til last night, and he said something which 'rang true with me'. I cannot remember exactly what he said, but to give the gist, he said that Science does not solve the question of origins, (at some point) both the Christian and the non-Christian must exercise faith when explaining the origins of the earth and the universe.

kuboes1831

April 8th 2004, 04:19 PM

Apologist for him makes an excellent request for reconciliation between YECa nd OEC and also TEs as well.

There are several types of reconciliation - where one admits fault and forgiveness and reconciliation follow, and appeasement wherby one simply appeases the other like Chamberlain in Munich in 1938. And then there is the take no prisoners appraoch.

I have been involved in this issue for well over 30 yrs. I was converted through the Christian union at Oxford Univ in 68 just before graduating in geology. No evangelical mentioned anything about the age of the earth and I cant think of anyone who even suggested YEC. It simply was not an issue and we were all unaware of it, as it was a resolved issue from the past when Ussher ruled.

Two years later I read a hostile review of the Genesis Flood by an evangelical scientist. I just roared with laughter as I was then working as an exploaration geologist in South Africa mapping a large expanse of precambrian sediments. I devised my own geological column as very little work had been done before and this is now the standard one for that area of S africa. I even assigned ages to all strata from the relatively few radiometric dates then available, these too have stood the test of time. The worst is that I must have walked past Precambrian fossils as I wasnt loooking for them.

I forgot GF and YEC until having been accepted for the anlcian ministry I went to L'Abri for pre seminary study under Francis Schaeeffer. I discussed my studies with FS's son in law Udo Middelman, who suggested I read all the YEC books available - GF, and books by Morris, Whitcomb, Davidheiser, Wilder Smith and others. I had never even considered that the earth was not 4.6 billion years old before so it was a shock and for much of the first day I was disorientated.

I slowly worked out what M and W were doing. The key passage on p130-136 alleging the circular argument of the geological column from the asumption of evolution was, in fact , false. The column was worked out by geologists before Darwin and did not accept evolution and one can make a column without fossils and thus with no reference to evolution which geologists have to do for the Pre-cambrian. This key argument was in the other books and has been repeated ever since by most YECs. What I could not understand was how such distortion and misrepresentation could have happened.

Another serious problem was the section on Radiometric age-dating p332-43. I had an advantage as my geology dept was the leading dept on radiometric age work in the 60s and 70s. Again misrepresentation and distortion.

And then the section on overthrusts p180-200 which was more distortion and misrepresentation along with sufficient misquotes and quotes out of context wof which I found many in TGF.

By then I realsied that the whole of YEC was nonsense based on sheer misrepresentation etc. As I went into it I found that evangelical scientists from the USA had said the same thing soon after TGF was published, but Morris et al would not listen.

This illustrates why there can be no reconciliation between YEC and any other scientists whether OEC, TE or atheist. The book that started YEC in 1961 TGF was full of misquote etc etc, and this type of misquote, distrotion etc etc has now been carried out by these devout and holy evangelicals for 43 years with no diminution of the distortion. You find it in every YEC group and writer and there is a stubborn unwilligness to listen to criticism which started fairly gentle and because errors have not been corrected bad relationships has resulted. This is why I have no respect for YEC literature and have read a very wide range published between 1963 and today, American, British and Australian and have read much of their technical literature eg CRSQ.

CONSEQUENTLY THE FIRST THING NEED FOR RECONCILIATION IS FOR YECS TO CORRECT ALL THE MISQUOTES ETC IN THEIR BOOKS AND REPUBLSIH CORRECTED VERSIONS. THEN WE COULD GET TALKING REASONABLY.

Also too many YECs immediately imply or charge with varying degrees of unchrsitian hate that those who do not accept YEC are compromisers (AIG standard fare), liberals, or apostates. That should stop forthwith and the likes of Socrates/ism and AIG should repent and apologise.

Finally remember that YEC has never been the dominant view of the church or even just evangelicals at any time in the last 2000years, and don't forget that most evangelicals from 1800 when the vast age of the earth became well-known most evangelicals have been either OEC or since 1870 many have accepted some kind of evolution.

Why should we accept false arguements?

potato sundae

April 8th 2004, 06:07 PM

Potato can youpost it in full here and then give the link?
sure can...

Peace Proposal Between Old Age and Young Age Christian Creationists

Recognizing that a believer in Jesus Christ may be wrong about certain points of doctrine and other facts about reality and still be a believer,

And recognizing that God has chosen to do his work through fallible and weak human beings, such that He is often found to be using people who are imperfect and subject to human foibles, (for example, Jonah and Peter),

And further recognizing that it is possible to agree on certain points and cooperate in certain tasks with those who may disagree with us on other points, even though the points of disagreement may be quite substantial,

And in view of the Scriptural admonitions to love one another, speak the truth in love and come humbly to a brother overtaken in a fault,

We consider it important that a peace be made between the old and young age Creationists, which does not minimize the differences and does not stifle dialogue but acknowledges points of agreement and establishes Scripturally sound principles for interaction.

In view of all this, we prayerfully ask YOUNG AGE CREATIONISTS to commend and pray for the courageous old age creationists who are standing up in the secular marketplace, pointing their colleagues and other seekers to the hope beyond the material world and clearly owning their own allegiance to the Creator. The Lord uses many methods and avenues to draw precious souls to Himself and Jesus said that those who were not against Him were for Him when the disciples questioned the qualifications of others claiming to work in His name.

An old universe, even if it is considered by young agers to be a "worst case scenario," still points to a creator and this fact can be used by the Holy Spirit to lead some people to surrender their lives to the Lord Jesus Christ. Starting a conversation with an unbeliever who accepts the "Big Bang" and showing that it logically leads to a beginning and also to the need for an external cause may break down some barriers and be sufficient to provoke some individuals to move in the direction of intellectual honesty and openness to spiritual realities.

In view of all this, we prayerfully ask OLD AGE CREATIONISTS to commend and pray for the courageous young age creationists who stand not only against philosophic materialism but also against scientific orthodoxy. Understanding the history of science to be filled with the rise and fall of theories and occasional reversals of what was once accepted as unquestionably true, it is prudent to not dismiss heterodox interpretations as automatically false, even if they provoke scorn from the establishment. One example being the switch from nearly universal dismissal of "continental drift" to the nearly universal acceptance of "plate tectonics."

A young Universe needs to be acknowledged as, at the very least, compatible with the language of Scripture if not the only possible explanation. It needs to be acknowledged as well that the Scriptural and doctrinal concerns of the young agers are genuine and need to be addressed within those disciplines.

Calling for a humility that comes only from a walk of obedience and trust in our Creator and Redeemer, we prayerfully ask both sides to vow before the Lord a willingness to lay aside personal pride and past hurts in order to further the Kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ. We call for a willingness to truly listen and genuinely love, and beyond that, the courage to change opinions and positions if the facts warrant.

Submitted by,

Ross S.Olson MD

5/22/97

Socratism

April 8th 2004, 06:20 PM

A very excellent statement I would judge.

trueseeker

April 8th 2004, 07:15 PM

Even as an OEC, I didn't interprete creation (the tower of babel, Job, or Johnah) as myth or parable. While it's true that Jesus spoke in parables, I've never considered any of the Bible to be myth.

Apologist4Him,

I did not mean to push any buttons using the terms myth or parable. Poetry would have the same meaning for me. I just meant the stories were not being accepted literally as historical events. I am willing to accept OEers statement that they still believe the sections to be scripture, that they believe them to be true in that sense. I did not mean OEers want to remove any sections of scripture. I just meant there are many important doctrinal issues tied to these events through out the Bible.

...many YEers are anti-intellectual, zealous, dogmatic, and so erroneous in speech and writing that people like me are turned off. The KJV-onlyism commonly found in YEC is another big turn off for people like me who know better.

Sad, but true.

OEers would be correct in pointing out that the biblical geneology record is incomplete, but that doesn't rule out a young earth.

The geneologies in Genesis, which help build the time line, besides names include ages. Adam was 130 when he had Seth, Seth was 105 when he had Enosh, etc. This is different than some of the geneology lists of names only, where they may only mention their important ancestors, or leave out a disgraced one. However, even if you accept the gaps in geneologies argument, it doesn't really help OEers much. There is only about 2000 years based on the geneologies. If you double or triple it for left out names, you only push the earth's age from 6,000 to 8,000 or 10,000, still YEC.

I believe in a global catastrofic flood,

As do I, and many ancient civilizations who wrote of it.

I would have been best decribed as a "progressive creationist". I think God could have created everthing with a snap of His fingers, He could have created it all in 6 minutes, 6 hours, 6 years, 6 thousand years, in other words, He could have created everything in the lengh of time of His choosing. The text say's 6 days, and to interprete "day" conistantly, there we have it. Oh, and before I forget, thanks for the explaination(s), is the theory you described above known as the "gap theory"?

The gap theory is actually older and a little different. It goes something like, the reason the earth was formless and void, was that God just destroyed everything on it and was starting over. So all the fossil record, etc. was laid down at or before that time.

both the Christian and the non-Christian must exercise faith when explaining the origins of the earth and the universe.

Agreed.

Calvinist4Him

April 8th 2004, 11:03 PM

i posted this article in a different thread, but i think i should post it up again

http://rossolson.org/creation/peace_proposal.html

give it a spin...

Thank you for the link to the article! :smile: I enjoyed reading what I percieved as a thoughtful well written article. :yes:

Peace of Christ to you. :cheers:

potato sundae

April 8th 2004, 11:07 PM

Finally remember that YEC has never been the dominant view of the church or even just evangelicals at any time in the last 2000years, and don't forget that most evangelicals from 1800 when the vast age of the earth became well-known most evangelicals have been either OEC or since 1870 many have accepted some kind of evolution.

hmm...i find this statement just a little hard to swallow. perhaps the reason why there is so much controversy on this subject is because a literal 6 day creation is what really was accepted by the church. and until the uniformitarian geology and evolution theories were introduced, this was the position generally held by most christians and, by-and-large, the church. a bomb was essentially set off with long-age theories and evolution in the church and society, thus leading to the re-interpretation of the genesis accounts. heres a question. if we could read billions of years into genesis, would there really be this much controversy?

just a thought...

Calvinist4Him

April 9th 2004, 12:01 AM

I'm YEC, and although I've had some doubts, the truth is that science is falliable.

:yes: True that.

The definitions of "theories" and "facts" are different from those used in stronger philosophies, such as mathematics and formal logic. The idea that stuff can be proven beyond a shadow of a reasonable doubt exists in formal logic, but does not in the current form of science, for some odd reason. With what we have right now, very little is truly provable.

Hmm...I'm not certain how I want to respond. We must work with what we have, and go from there. I'm not sure what you mean by "truly provable". I think it's wise to be somewhat skeptical as a Christian, it is better to error on the side of caution. That said, as you probably know, legal systems work with evidence, and although not perfect, the goal is to present a compelling case to the judge and jury based on evidence. Both sides present their case, with the intention of "proving" their case. Ideally, the side with the most compelling evidence, has proven their case "beyond a reasonable doubt". I suppose what I'm getting at is that we need to have balance. Too much skepticism can be disheartening and depressing, and full blown skepticism is absurd. When a skeptic makes statements like "we cannot be sure about anything", the skeptic is asserting that they are sure that we cannot be sure... :hehe: Observe the absurdity of self-defeating statements such as "we cannot know anything". How do you know we cannot know anything? :lol: *ahem* Sorry, maybe I enjoy writing these responses a litte too much? I think the problem isn't with the proof, but whether or not the proof is convincing. This is also where presuppositions come into play, and interpretation of proof. Perhaps, we should ask, what is proof? How much proof must one have for their belief to be justified?

Creation of the world is just one of many issues, I'm sure I probably agree with them on most of science - it's just that 99% of the conversation on the science side of this forum seems to focus on the creation/evolution debate. Even if a science thread pops up that doesn't have to do with the debate, it usually devolves into yet another debate thread :(.

Don't look at things so positively! :tongue: j/k I don't need to have all the answers, and I don't expect to have all the answers in this lifetime. Cheer up brother, Jesus loves you and I, and 1He is still the answer to the world today, 'above Him there is no other, cause Jesus is the way'.

1. last part of the last sentence is a paraphrase of an old Andre Crouch song "Jesus is the Answer"

kuboes1831

April 9th 2004, 02:32 AM

Potato

The controversy was started by Ellen White in the 1870s and then taken up by McCready Price in the 1900s and then by Morris in 1961. The talk of so-called uniformitarian geology is a myth

Acanthostega

April 9th 2004, 08:16 AM

The controversy was started by Ellen White in the 1870s and then taken up by McCready Price in the 1900s and then by Morris in 1961. The talk of so-called uniformitarian geology is a myth

I'm sorry, but this is a ludicrous claim. Are you seriously suggesting that Christians throughout the ages believed in an old earth until Ellen White came along in the 1870s? That belief in a young earth is a modern aberration? That the Church Fathers, Reformers, Calvin, Luther, Ussher, Lightfoot, and all the rest were actually old-earthers?

jason

April 9th 2004, 09:17 AM

I'm sorry, but this is a ludicrous claim. Are you seriously suggesting that Christians throughout the ages believed in an old earth until Ellen White came along in the 1870s? That belief in a young earth is a modern aberration? That the Church Fathers, Reformers, Calvin, Luther, Ussher, Lightfoot, and all the rest were actually old-earthers?No not necessarily.

But nobody thought their was a conflict until these guys that are mentioned.

And the SDA's only need it to be read that way because of their understanding of the sabbath.

The early old earth geoligists were all christians !

Jason

Acanthostega

April 9th 2004, 10:05 AM

No not necessarily.

But nobody thought their was a conflict until these guys that are mentioned.

Of course not - the controversy started only when the biblical teaching on the age of the earth began to be challenged! Before the 1700s there was virtual unanimity among Christians that the earth was young:

“It cannot be denied, in spite of frequent interpretations of Genesis 1 that departed from the rigidly literal, that the almost universal view of the Christian world until the eighteenth century was that the Earth was only a few thousand years old.” Davis A. Young, Christianity and the Age of the Earth, Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1982, p. 25.

And the SDA's only need it to be read that way because of their understanding of the sabbath.

But essentially the whole Christian church has been reading it that way too - at least until the eighteenth century as Young points out. Why? Because it is the most obvious and most natural reading of Scripture.

The early old earth geoligists were all christians !

Not strictly true. Hutton, Werner, Cuvier, Smith, and Lyell were all deists or only vague theists.

kuboes1831

April 9th 2004, 03:13 PM

Of course not - the controversy started only when the biblical teaching on the age of the earth began to be challenged! Before the 1700s there was virtual unanimity among Christians that the earth was young:

“It cannot be denied, in spite of frequent interpretations of Genesis 1 that departed from the rigidly literal, that the almost universal view of the Christian world until the eighteenth century was that the Earth was only a few thousand years old.” Davis A. Young, Christianity and the Age of the Earth, Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1982, p. 25.

Davis Young published that excellent book in 1982, when I bought a copy then and used it as a basis for my research. He is a great scholar and a real evangelical whom Mortenson of AIG described Mortenson as ‘the professing evangelical old–Earth geologist at Calvin’. An uncalled for and bigotted comment. There has been much research since and he is revising his book. I would have said that Young was right until 1993 when I started to realise that many more did not hold a strict 6 day creation from 1600 to 1800. On p25 Young quoted Bishop Simon Patrick who held a proto-gap theory which was the majority view of all those I have stuidied in that period (see firstfruits in the Evangelical Quarterly in April 2002 and John Lynch's introduction to the Thoemmes Press reprints of "Scriptural Geology and Creationism" Website for Thoemmes press). The main time when people held a strict 6 day creation was from 1500 to 1600 and by the time Ussher wrote it was a minority view.

Thus by 1700 the way was open for an older earth and these views were supported by many Christians. By 1780 i.e. before Hutton published anything OE views were becoming fairly common and over the next few decade the discussion was whether the earth was millions of years old or tens of thousands. By 1800 millions was accepted by most educated Chrsitians.

Obviously you could not be an old-earther with millions of years until 1780 or so but before that few were strict YEC - Ussher a minority. Before 1600 many took Genesis non-literally.

"Not strictly true. Hutton, Werner, Cuvier, Smith, and Lyell were all deists or only vague theists.

This is not entirely true. Hutton was a deist, I pass on Werner, Cuvier was a protestant, Smith was vaguely Anglican and was encouraged in his geology by Joseph townsend an evangelical anglican vicar, an old earther and brother of Thomas Haweis. Lyell was a unitarian and a strong theist

From 1800 onwards most evangelicals have been YEC and after 1870 many TE though a minority held YEC views in the 1820s to 1850s and then disappeared.
From 1900 to 1970 a tiny minority of evangelicals were YEC but things changed with the advent of YEC following TGF in 1961. Thus YECs should see that history is not on their side (nor is science or the bible ot the 9th commandment). Since about 1800 YEC has been an aberation.

Jason, too be accurate many early geologists were Christians but many werent. Christians include de Luc, Sedgwick, Buckland, Henslow Conybeare, Miller, Fleming among others. Except for the last these were catastrophists

Acanthostega

April 9th 2004, 03:55 PM

So to summarise, YEC has been the majority view throughout most of church history. There have always been those who took non-literal views of the creation days – but even they were predominantly young earth. Only since the 1700s has the concept of a young earth been seriously questioned – and even then there were those who kept the YEC flame burning. The old earth interpretation is a relatively modern innovation, and its popularity can largely be attributed to extrabiblical considerations.

By the way - Kuboes1831 - you need to use the quote commands to separate out the posts you're quoting from your comments on them.

kuboes1831

April 9th 2004, 05:11 PM

$cirisme

April 9th 2004, 05:13 PM

Kuboes,

Check and resond to the Private Message I sent you:

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/private.php?

Acanthostega

April 10th 2004, 05:38 AM

If you read my post YEC has never been a majority view in the history of the church. More correctly what we see as YEC today is something introduced by the SDA on other churches who had largely resolved the issue.

This is nonsense. There is no doubt that mainstream Christianity accepted a young age of the earth for most of its history. The idea that the earth was more than 6,000 years old (or thereabouts) simply wasn't questioned by most Christian believers until the 18th century. The idea that belief in a young earth originated with the SDA is just not true.

What did you make of my comments on Morris's serious errors in TGF? Please deal with them.

By all means. To take each of your comments in turn:

1) W&M claimed that the geological column was constructed using circular reasoning. I agree that this is an erroneous view – as do many other contemporary YECs. The authors of all the books I recommended in my earlier post accept the geological column as a genuine reflection of what geologists find in the field.

2) W&M misrepresented and distorted radiometric dating techniques. You haven't spelled out your specific complaints here – so it is impossible to offer a specific response. However, have you read anything more recent by YECs on radioisotopes (e.g. the RATE work)? See the papers available at:

http://www.icr.org/research/

3) W&M denied large-scale overthrusting. Again, many contemporary YECs do not share this position. Indeed, denying large-scale overthrusting is counter-productive, for it is an excellent example of a non-uniformitarian process. See: Wise, K.P. The way geologists date! In: Proceedings of the First International Conference on Creationism. Volume I: Basic and Educational Sessions, Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, 1986, pp.135-138.

Two morals:

1) YEC is not a single, monolithic belief structure - the fact that valid criticisms can be made of some creationist views does not mean that YEC per se must be wrong.

2) It is dangerous to rely on a 40-year-old text to understand the views of contemporary YECs.

jason

April 10th 2004, 07:02 AM

This is nonsense. There is no doubt that mainstream Christianity accepted a young age of the earth for most of its history. The idea that the earth was more than 6,000 years old (or thereabouts) simply wasn't questioned by most Christian believers until the 18th century. The idea that belief in a young earth originated with the SDA is just not true.The problem for YEC's (as I was thinking about this today) is that you could make exactly the same argument for Geo-centrism a couple of hundred years ago.

All of the early christians belived that the earth was in the middle of the universe, and the bible clearly teaches this.

But it is evil satan worshiping bible compromisers that are coming up with this whole "heliocentrism" thing in direct contradiction of the clear, simplest reading of scripture.

If you think the arguement sounds absurd, then how do you think YEC sounds to an OEC ?

It is not a surprise that the early christians thought that geocentrism was true it was the common understanding of the time. It is not a surprise that the early christians and the reformers (although this is not completely true anyway) thought that the earth was 6000 years old they had not data that would make them reconsider their position.

That genesis is compatible with an OEC or TE view is true even if it is not the absolute most straightforward reading of the text.

But this is not an argument against an OEC or TE understanding anymore than "Geocentrism is the most straightforward reading of the text" is any reason to dismiss heliocentrism.

More data means reason to reconsider the existing understanding. There cannot be a conflict between God's 2 revelations after all.

So are you going to abandon heliocentrism because it is not the "most plain reading of the text" ? If not, Why not ?. It is the exact same argument that is being employed by young earthers.

Jason

kuboes1831

April 10th 2004, 07:09 AM

To follow from Jason the plain and simple reading of the Bible is to accept a flat earth.

On history read
home.entouch.net/dmd/mortensonresp2.htm -

and also on his site look for a paer on Geology and Genesis

Acanthostega

April 10th 2004, 07:16 AM

The problem for YEC's (as I was thinking about this today) is that you could make exactly the same argument for Geo-centrism a couple of hundred years ago.

All of the early christians belived that the earth was in the middle of the universe, and the bible clearly teaches this...

...So are you going to abandon heliocentrism because it is not the "most plain reading of the text" ? If not, Why not ?. It is the exact same argument that is being employed by young earthers.

No, this is a false analogy for several reasons:

1) The biblical statements about the movement of the sun and earth are phenomenological - and consistent with either a geocentric or heliocentric view.

2) Most of these "geocentric" statements are incidental, brief, and poetic - whereas the biblical accounts dealing with creation and the flood are detailed, lengthy, and historical.

3) The "geocentric" issue has no impact on other Christian doctrine - unlike Genesis 1-11 which is foundational to NT teaching including the Gospel message itself.

Acanthostega

April 10th 2004, 07:22 AM

To follow from Jason the plain and simple reading of the Bible is to accept a flat earth.

This is desperate. The passages that seem to suggest a "flat earth" are in prophetic and apocalyptic literature where figurative language is used. The church never interpreted these statements as teaching a flat earth. The notion that belief in a flat earth was ever widespread is a myth - as demonstrated by the historian Jeffrey Burton Russell in his book 'Inventing the Flat Earth'.

kuboes1831

April 10th 2004, 04:03 PM

Calvinist4Him

April 10th 2004, 04:08 PM

And to you too. Here are just a few comments on your post - which I hope you'll find helpful.

Thanks. :smile:

This is essentially the view taken by the young-age creationists at the Geoscience Research Institute, Loma Linda University (a Seventh Day Adventist institution):

www.grisda.org

Their view can be summed up as "old universe, young life". They think the universe and the earth might have existed for billions of years prior to the events of Genesis 1:3 - but they interpret the creation of life as a relatively recent event taking place in six normal days. Their interpretation of the fossil record is that it is primarily a record of the global Flood of Noah.

I have a great deal of respect for the GRI group, although I don't share their "old universe" view. It seems to me that the creation of the Sun, Moon, and stars on Day Four is problematic for their position. To maintain the "old universe" view it would have to be argued that Genesis 1:14-19 is not a description of the creation of the Sun, Moon, and stars - but rather their appearance. But that doesn't seem to be the most natural interpretation of the verses in question.

Thank you for providing a brief history behind the idea. I would like to bring attention to the fact that I'm not a SDA, and I've never been a SDA. Also, I kinda doubt they hold the copyrights (tm) to the view. :wink: I think you have a valid point about day four, obviously, I hadn't given that enough thought. However, I don't think that would rule out the possibility that other galaxies may have existed...

My advice as you think through the issues is to obtain and read the very best of the YEC literature. I've listed some titles that I've found particularly helpful in another thread:
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=23169&page=2

Thank you for the good advice and the link! :smile:

Calvinist4Him

April 10th 2004, 05:46 PM

Apologist for him makes an excellent request for reconciliation between YECa nd OEC and also TEs as well.

Thank you, but I didn't have TEs in mind. Have you read the rules for this forum? "Deistic notions or even theistic evolutionary notions in which God set up the laws of the universe which then operated to produce life and the universe as such is practially indistinguishable from sheer materialistic naturalism for purposes of the discussions are excluded from this forum." - posted by Dee Dee

There are several types of reconciliation - where one admits fault and forgiveness and reconciliation follow, and appeasement wherby one simply appeases the other like Chamberlain in Munich in 1938. And then there is the take no prisoners appraoch.

The most important reconciliation any of us could make is with the Scriptures. I believe God is the Creator of science, and I believe the Scriptures in their original autographs, which we do not have, are the infallable word of God. Now let's talk about your interpretation verus my intended meaning...I'm referring to a reconciliation on BOTH sides, not where one admits fault, where BOTH admit fault, and I am not referring to a badgering someone into admitting fault either. I'm referring to a reconciliation where not one forgives, but where BOTH forgive. Reconcilation could also mean making a conscience decison to work together as Creationists for the "common good". Which might involve making an effort to tread lightly on the known points of disagreement in our views, and to show restraint and respect when addressing a different view of creationism. Taking no prisoners...I am NO advocate of compromising the Scriptures for science sake! The people that do compromise the Scriptures NEED to be "put in their place". As you may have already guessed, I have litte patience for Theists who are errantists because of the area of study we call science.

I have been involved in this issue for well over 30 yrs. I was converted through the Christian union at Oxford Univ in 68 just before graduating in geology. No evangelical mentioned anything about the age of the earth and I cant think of anyone who even suggested YEC. It simply was not an issue and we were all unaware of it, as it was a resolved issue from the past when Ussher ruled.

Exactly, one need not be a Bible scholar or have a Phd in a branch of science, to be a Christian. I am NOT a YEer who believes that a specific interpretation of the Genesis account is essential to salvation. A belief in inerrancy, may not be essential at first, but it probably will become essential at some point. I wasn't very knowledgable as a young Christian, I had very little understanding, but spending time with the "Light of the world", is illuminating. :yes:

Two years later I read a hostile review of the Genesis Flood by an evangelical scientist. I just roared with laughter as I was then working as an exploaration geologist in South Africa mapping a large expanse of precambrian sediments. I devised my own geological column as very little work had been done before and this is now the standard one for that area of S africa. I even assigned ages to all strata from the relatively few radiometric dates then available, these too have stood the test of time. The worst is that I must have walked past Precambrian fossils as I wasnt loooking for them.

Btw, before I forget (I'm terribley forgetful), thank you for sharing your experiences and story. :smile: I mean you NO disrespect whatsoever, but I do have serious doubts concerning dating methods.

Now, I would like to venture into something else, which I think applies to many scientists and many more non-scientists, and that something is "intellectual elitism" or intellectual pride. I would take nothing away from a scientist who has spents years studying to become a scientist, and many more years in his branch of choice. However, (and ironically for biblical errantists) scientists are fallable, the equipment and methods are limited and or fallable. What can science prove? Science is an ever changing field where hypothesis' and theories are revised and revised as new information is discovered. It has been said that Science is ever seeking, but unable to come to a knowledge of the truth. I say all this because science and scientists are often put on high, high pedastal, and ANYONE who dares question science or a scientist is an ignoramous deserving to be laughed at.

I forgot GF and YEC until having been accepted for the anlcian ministry I went to L'Abri for pre seminary study under Francis Schaeeffer. I discussed my studies with FS's son in law Udo Middelman, who suggested I read all the YEC books available - GF, and books by Morris, Whitcomb, Davidheiser, Wilder Smith and others. I had never even considered that the earth was not 4.6 billion years old before so it was a shock and for much of the first day I was disorientated.

You studied under Francis Schaeffer, the Van Tilian rebel? :cool: From what little I've read and know, I think Francis Schaeffer ahered to the ideal approach to apologetics, an integrated combination of the methods approach, which is also probably also the most difficult to master. I probably wouldn't not have been in agreement with him 100% on theology though. :hehe:

I slowly worked out what M and W were doing. The key passage on p130-136 alleging the circular argument of the geological column from the asumption of evolution was, in fact , false. The column was worked out by geologists before Darwin and did not accept evolution and one can make a column without fossils and thus with no reference to evolution which geologists have to do for the Pre-cambrian. This key argument was in the other books and has been repeated ever since by most YECs. What I could not understand was how such distortion and misrepresentation could have happened.

Sometimes, I am an ignoramous. :teeth: For example, I havn't a clue what the "geological column" is. :doh: It seems to me that one of the major geologic problems for evolution is the lack of transitionary fossils, in the fossil record, and to suggest the adding of information to DNA and evolution of species (whatever a "species" is :wink: ) is to make an extrapolation based not on "brute facts" and evidence, but on a presuppostion.

Another serious problem was the section on Radiometric age-dating p332-43. I had an advantage as my geology dept was the leading dept on radiometric age work in the 60s and 70s. Again misrepresentation and distortion.

You studied under Francis Schaeffer and you studied at a leading geology dept? Wow! Hmm...unlike me, it sounds like your a "somebody". I don't doubt the misrepresentations and distortions by YEC, but I doubt the accuracy and infallabilty and scope of scientific methods of dating. A problem which is common to man, occurs when we start to think that we really are sombody and we really know something, when in fact, we are like the grass that withers away, and we know very little, especially when compared to the exhaustive, comprehensive, infinite knowledge of God. My primary goal in life, is to know the One who knows. :yes:

I am Sorry, but I have to <snip> the rest of your post, because I am a slow thinker, and I might be here tomorrow at the same time still responding.

jason

April 10th 2004, 07:56 PM

1) The biblical statements about the movement of the sun and earth are phenomenological - and consistent with either a geocentric or heliocentric view.Yes.

2) Most of these "geocentric" statements are incidental, brief, and poetic - whereas the biblical accounts dealing with creation and the flood are detailed, lengthy, and historical.Which is not the relevant point of comparison.

3) The "geocentric" issue has no impact on other Christian doctrine - unlike Genesis 1-11 which is foundational to NT teaching including the Gospel message itself.But of course the age of the earth is not a relevant part of the question.

If an OEC or TE was to deny the accuracy of genesis then you might have an argument, but I do not deny the accuracy of genesis, I simply quibble with your way of reading the text.

Which means my analogy is valid.

The YEC is claiming that the text must be read in a certian way, just as the geocentrists did. And both appealed to "obvious interpretations of the text".

I'm not disputing the accuracy of genesis i dispute the YEC's understanding of the text.

Jason

Acanthostega

April 11th 2004, 09:03 AM

For Cirisime, I am OE by conviction and not because I was taught it. I am a creationist in the proper sense of the word and not as it has been devalued by YEC so as to denigrate "compromisers" and I am also theist and anti-naturalist in the proper understanding of those terms.

For one, I’m concerned about your continued evasiveness on this. The Cosmogony forum is for creationists – old earth and young earth. When you say that you are a creationist “in the proper sense of the word”, I get the feeling you’re playing with words. Let me cut to the chase: are you an evolutionist? Do you believe that God’s method of creating was the evolutionary process? In which case, you’re in the wrong forum.

The flat earth is the clear meaning of Genesis 1 vs 6-8 (see calvin's interpretation of it ) and Exod 20 vs 4 as well as Is40vs32. These are not in the prophetic books. These simply refer to the astronomical thought of the day as sphericity was unknown until c500BC in Greece.

As I pointed out to Jason, the verses that can be interpreted in a geocentric fashion do not demand that interpretation – none of the passages you cite are conclusive. They are also incidental and rare. There is simply no comparison with the lengthy and detailed passages dealing with creation, the curse, the flood, and early history (e.g. the genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11).

In his book ‘Faith, Form, and Time’, Kurt Wise helpfully takes us through what is potentially a minefield – can extra-biblical data ever be properly used to interpret the Bible? He suggests there are two ways in which it can:

1) If several interpretations are possible within the natural reading, extra-biblical data can be used to help us decide between the options.

2) Extra-biblical data might suggest an interpretation of a text that had not previously been thought of, but which fits within a natural reading of the text.

However – and this is crucial – extra-biblical data must not be used to force a contrived or unnatural meaning upon the biblical text which is contrary to the text’s perspicuity, grammar, or genre. In such a case, we ought to re-interpret the extra-biblical data, not the Bible.

The issue of a geocentric versus heliocentric reading, or a flat versus spherical earth, are cases where either meaning is allowed within the natural reading – so extra-biblical information can help us decide between them. But the champions of an old earth are imposing an unnatural and contrived meaning upon the biblical texts. That is the difference – and why the analogies proposed by Kubes1831 and Jason are false ones.

Russell's book refers to the Christian era and is quite correct to say that flatearthers were a rarity in the church from the early centuries. Paul and Luke were not flatearthers despite Bultmann.

Absolutely. Any suggestion that Scripture demands a flat earth – or that the church ever taught that the earth was flat – is false.

I am afraid you are desperate to retain the Bible as a textbook of science and not god's Word accomodated to the thoughtforms of the day a la Calvin and the vast majority of commentators before YEC came along in the last few years.

No. This is a strawman argument. I do not claim – and have never claimed – that the Bible is “a textbook of science”. But I do contend that Genesis 1-11 is real history.

I wish Acanthostega would do some research into what Christians actually held about the age of the eartha nd then he would see that YEC as 6 24 days was a minority view and most until 1780 or so thought the time was short but indefinite - I call them Middle aged earthers - there are all the Theorists of the earth in the late 17th century and Mersenne, Bacon and Grotius in the early 17th century.

As you acknowledge, most Christians until about 1780 thought the earth was relatively young. However, you quibble over words again. You want to deny these Christians the appellation of “young earth creationists” because some of them didn’t hold to a “literal six day” position. But note: The “six days” is not the crucial issue – and never has been. The two crucial issues at the heart of YEC are these:

1) The authority of Scripture – does the Bible speak clearly and authoritatively in Genesis 1-11? Should science sit in judgement on Scripture – or the other way round?
2) Did death and bloodshed come into the world because of Adam’s sin – or was it part of the world that God declared “very good”? This is foundational to the Gospel message.

A large number of YEC writers stillaccept the circular argument and ICR has never retracted it.

Let me reiterate: “YEC is not a single, monolithic belief structure - the fact that valid criticisms can be made of some creationist views does not mean that YEC per se must be wrong.”

I have come across RATE and find it absurd, like Woodmarappe's misreprsentations. I wish YECs would listen to reasoned criticisms.

Woodmorappe’s approach to radioisotope dating is fundamentally different to that of the RATE Group. Your conflation of them suggests to me that you haven’t carefully read either.

On overthrusting you simply do a parody of uniformitarian geology. This is no better than Austin on Mt st helens and the Grand Canyon where they out-lyell Lyell's uniformitarianism.

I’ve no idea what you mean by this. You often post these “knockabout” lines which lack substance. What precisely is your problem with YECs accepting overthrusting in a catastrophic framework?

I long to see YEC geology worthy of the name, but then YECs on Tweb never respond to Glenn Morton and his objections.

Most of us have limited resources – of time and expertise! Trying to reply to everything that’s posted on the web would be impossible – and we must judge whether it is a responsible use of our resources.

How many people have you put off our Lord Jesus Christ by your YEC views? By arguing the way you do and as AIG and ICR do you give no option for the rest of us to challenge you, attempt to correct your errors and hope that the Gospel is not hindered.

I’m not going to get into some sterile debate about whether particular views “put people off” – although I’m persuaded that great damage has been done to Christianity by the accommodation of old earth/evolutionary thinking into the church. My prime concern is whether we're being faithful to Scripture – fashionable or not.

kuboes1831

April 12th 2004, 04:01 PM

For one, I’m concerned about your continued evasiveness on this. The Cosmogony forum is for creationists – old earth and young earth. When you say that you are a creationist “in the proper sense of the word”, I get the feeling you’re playing with words. Let me cut to the chase: are you an evolutionist? Do you believe that God’s method of creating was the evolutionary process? In which case, you’re in the wrong forum.

As I pointed out to Jason, the verses that can be interpreted in a geocentric fashion do not demand that interpretation – none of the passages you cite are conclusive. They are also incidental and rare. There is simply no comparison with the lengthy and detailed passages dealing with creation, the curse, the flood, and early history (e.g. the genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11).

In his book ‘Faith, Form, and Time’, Kurt Wise helpfully takes us through what is potentially a minefield – can extra-biblical data ever be properly used to interpret the Bible? He suggests there are two ways in which it can:

1) If several interpretations are possible within the natural reading, extra-biblical data can be used to help us decide between the options.

2) Extra-biblical data might suggest an interpretation of a text that had not previously been thought of, but which fits within a natural reading of the text.

However – and this is crucial – extra-biblical data must not be used to force a contrived or unnatural meaning upon the biblical text which is contrary to the text’s perspicuity, grammar, or genre. In such a case, we ought to re-interpret the extra-biblical data, not the Bible.

The issue of a geocentric versus heliocentric reading, or a flat versus spherical earth, are cases where either meaning is allowed within the natural reading – so extra-biblical information can help us decide between them. But the champions of an old earth are imposing an unnatural and contrived meaning upon the biblical texts. That is the difference – and why the analogies proposed by Kubes1831 and Jason are false ones.

Absolutely. Any suggestion that Scripture demands a flat earth – or that the church ever taught that the earth was flat – is false.

No. This is a strawman argument. I do not claim – and have never claimed – that the Bible is “a textbook of science”. But I do contend that Genesis 1-11 is real history.

As you acknowledge, most Christians until about 1780 thought the earth was relatively young. However, you quibble over words again. You want to deny these Christians the appellation of “young earth creationists” because some of them didn’t hold to a “literal six day” position. But note: The “six days” is not the crucial issue – and never has been. The two crucial issues at the heart of YEC are these:

1) The authority of Scripture – does the Bible speak clearly and authoritatively in Genesis 1-11? Should science sit in judgement on Scripture – or the other way round?
2) Did death and bloodshed come into the world because of Adam’s sin – or was it part of the world that God declared “very good”? This is foundational to the Gospel message.

Let me reiterate: “YEC is not a single, monolithic belief structure - the fact that valid criticisms can be made of some creationist views does not mean that YEC per se must be wrong.”

Woodmorappe’s approach to radioisotope dating is fundamentally different to that of the RATE Group. Your conflation of them suggests to me that you haven’t carefully read either.

I’ve no idea what you mean by this. You often post these “knockabout” lines which lack substance. What precisely is your problem with YECs accepting overthrusting in a catastrophic framework?

I’m not going to get into some sterile debate about whether particular views “put people off” – although I’m persuaded that great damage has been done to Christianity by the accommodation of old earth/evolutionary thinking into the church. My prime concern is whether we're being faithful to Scripture – fashionable or not.

It is very difficult to answer your comments as I have found YECs like you and ICR and aIG redefine so many words so that they can exclude non-YECs as aberrant Christians. Just take the way "uniformitarian-evolutionary geology" is bandied about. That term is meaningless. I dont think any of us know what God's method of creation is as we can only go back to the Big Bang and creation preceeded that. The only people who reject the Big Bang so if that is evolutionary than no OE types should be on this forum.

If you think that the natural reading of Gen 1. 6-8 is not a flat earth then you reject natural readings. Waht is the natural reading of 1 Cor 15 vs 36? Surely it is that seeds die when they are put in the ground. Paul's botany was wrong at this point so where is your inerrancy? (But thank God for Calvin and accomodation.)

I don't Kurt Wise helps us at all as it is a selective approach to science and has a bizarre notion of a natural reading.

I am sorry if you cannot understand what Russell is saying in his book. The fact is that that church has never sanctioned a flat earth, but the OT speaks of it - unless you read scripture in an unnatural way.

Waht do you mena by real history? Exactly what happened - which is impossible for any historian. Or some kind of literalism. Are Psalms 105-6 real history or not? They are very poetic. I would say they are as is Gen 1 -11.

On the two crucial issues of YEC I agree with the first, but we must also decide whether our interpretation of scripture is sound.

On the second there is no biblical argument that death and bloodshed and sickness in the animal world was not in existence befrore Adam. The bible is silent.

I am aware that YEC is not totally monolithic but they only reject false ideas when non YECs convince them of them and that takes decades as few are open to criticism.

However there are other crucial issues of YECs eg literalism, no consideration of accomodation (long live Calvin and his true successors), not to mention their systemic distortion of others' work. If the literal 6 days is not the crucial issue why does every YEC writing I have ever read insist on them? You are playing with words and are disingenuous.

Finally I do wish YECs would realise the damage they are doing to the spread of the gospel and to the Church. Also they should quit rubbishing fellow christians simply because they are not willing to accept the false arguments of YEC. If YEC is the true basis of Christianity then we all ought to atheists. But thank goodness I can be a Chrsitian in the line of Calvin, Wesley, Edwards, Chalmers, Sumner, Sedgwick, Hodge, Warfield, Moule, Stott, B Graham and thousands of others. I am tempted to include Ussher as well!

potato sundae

April 12th 2004, 04:21 PM

dizzle

April 12th 2004, 04:21 PM

Kuboes, the question really is not that difficult. Are you a theistic evolutionist? Do you believe that evolution played a big part of the "creation" of animals? No one is doubting you are a theist or the sincerity of your beliefs, but that particular question is not that difficult. Do you believe that God created fully formed animals ex nihilo?

kuboes1831

April 12th 2004, 06:06 PM

Excuse me? Genesis 1:6-8 naturally teaches a flat earth??? All I can get from these verses is an expanse.

6And God said, "Let there be an expanse[1 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?passage=Genesis+1%3A6-8&ESV_version=yes&language=english&x=11&y=8#footnote_882130860_1)] in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters." 7And God made the expanse and separated the waters that were under the expanse from the waters that were above the expanse. And it was so. 8And God called the expanse Heaven.[2 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?passage=Genesis+1%3A6-8&ESV_version=yes&language=english&x=11&y=8#footnote_882130860_2)] And there was evening and there was morning, the second day.

I suggest you read the Bible carefully and see that it ties in with Ancient Near eAstern astronomy which was flat earth and not heliocentricty.
You are trying to prove that the Bible says something it does not.

potato sundae

April 12th 2004, 10:12 PM

I suggest you read the Bible carefully and see that it ties in with Ancient Near eAstern astronomy which was flat earth and not heliocentricty.
You are trying to prove that the Bible says something it does not.

i might not be up on my ANE studies, but Genesis 1:6-8 does in no way teach a flat earth. all it describes is God's act of making the earth a habitable place for creatures to live; it in no way describes the total shape of the earth.

Acanthostega

April 13th 2004, 06:32 AM

If you think that the natural reading of Gen 1. 6-8 is not a flat earth then you reject natural readings. Waht is the natural reading of 1 Cor 15 vs 36? Surely it is that seeds die when they are put in the ground. Paul's botany was wrong at this point so where is your inerrancy? (But thank God for Calvin and accomodation.)...

...If YEC is the true basis of Christianity then we all ought to atheists. But thank goodness I can be a Chrsitian in the line of Calvin, Wesley, Edwards, Chalmers, Sumner, Sedgwick, Hodge, Warfield, Moule, Stott, B Graham and thousands of others. I am tempted to include Ussher as well!

I’m almost lost for words at a post that is so confused. It’s difficult to know where to begin unpicking the mess – and, in view of Kuboes’ apparent imperviousness to reason, probably pointless. I’ll limit myself to some comments on Calvin, whom Kuboes seriously misrepresents.

On two occasions, Kuboes appeals to Calvin’s concept of accommodation as if it supports his own version. Let’s be clear: Kuboes believes that the Bible teaches error (i.e. a flat earth) and that this was an accommodation to the cosmology of the day. This is not only incorrect – but it is also profoundly dangerous. It opens the floodgates to those who want to claim that the Bible’s spiritual and moral teachings were also accommodations to prevailing wisdom. (We are confronted with this kind of thinking in the contemporary debate about homosexuality). Calvin’s concept of accommodation was entirely different. He believed that Scripture accommodated human finitude – using a “homely style” for example – but he most certainly did not believe that it accommodated human error. Kuboes can find no ally in Calvin.

Indeed, Kuboes’ theistic evolutionary position finds no echo at all in Calvin’s writings. It is beyond question that Calvin regarded Genesis 1-11 as a reliable historical record of actual events. For instance, Calvin believed the following:

1) The world is young – “little more than five thousand years have passed since the creation of the universe”.
2) God created in six normal days – “six days were employed in the formation of the world; not that God, to whom one moment is as a thousand years, had need of this succession of time, but that he might engage us in the contemplation of his works”.
3) The Sun was not created until Day Four – “Therefore the Lord, by the very order of the creation, bears witness that he holds in his hand the light, which he is able to impart to us without the sun and the moon.”
4) Physical death is the result of sin – “And therefore some understand what was before said. ‘Thou shalt die’ , in a spiritual sense; thinking that, even if Adam had not sinned, his body must still have been separated from his soul. But since the declaration of Paul is clear, that ‘all die in Adam, as they shall rise again in Christ’ (1 Cor. xv. 22), this wound was inflicted by sin. …Truly the first man would have passed to a better life, had he remained upright; but there would have been no separation of the soul from the body, no corruption, no kind of destruction, and, in short, no violent change.”
5) God created Adam and Eve directly and supernaturally – “…God had brought them into life by a singular method, whereas others had sprung from previous stock, and had been born of parents.”
6) The Flood was global – “And the flood was forty days, &c. Moses copiously insists on this fact, in order to show that the whole world was immersed in the waters.”

Whatever theological line Kuboes may stand in, it is not Calvin’s.

dizzle

April 13th 2004, 06:58 AM

suffer for joy

April 13th 2004, 11:05 AM

I don't think there is much need for reconciliation between YECs and OECs.

The real problem IMO is TheoEvo's who begin to disregard Noah's Flood and God's "6 Day" Creation (i.e. - compromisers).

sfj

Avatar_of_evil

April 13th 2004, 12:16 PM

dizzle

April 13th 2004, 01:38 PM

There are meds to control these overpowering urges you know.

Calvinist4Him

April 13th 2004, 02:24 PM

I think this forum is hopelessly confused with respect to who is allowed to post and who is not. Heck, even the title of the forum is a misnomer.

Ummm.....NO. :no:

Perhaps instead of stating who is not allowed to post there should be a who is allowed to post list.

Anyone who can read my reply to you should be able to read the conditions to post in this forum and know whether or not they meet the requirements. But there will always be those dishonest people, who MUST stir up the pot....

It seems from Dee Dee's comments above that to post here means NO evolution at all. Is that true?

It's really simple AoE, you must be a Theist, and a YEC or OEC.

Do people have to support the 'kinds' fiasco of YEC?

So I take it your either OEC, or dishonest, which is it?

Perhaps instead of further clarification of who is and who is not allowed, just change the name of the forum from Cosmogony (a term from secular cosmology) and replace it with the title Biblical Creationists.

:lol: Why? So as to loose credibility with people like you? Good grief, and I thought YEers were supposed to be the ignorant ones. :lmbo:

dizzle

April 16th 2004, 07:44 PM

I am re-asking the question.

I am re-asking the question once again.

grmorton

April 22nd 2004, 12:00 PM

I think this forum is hopelessly confused with respect to who is allowed to post and who is not. Heck, even the title of the forum is a misnomer.

Perhaps instead of stating who is not allowed to post there should be a who is allowed to post list.

It seems from Dee Dee's comments above that to post here means NO evolution at all. Is that true?

Do people have to support the 'kinds' fiasco of YEC?

I will get whacked for this, but I believe the six days are literal, I believe in Noahs flood, I believe that God created man miraculously (which is clearly distinguishable from evolutoin) by God fixing up in a miraculous fashion a still born ape, and then miraculously removing the rib from the man God created and creating Eve, yet I have been told that I don't fit here. Shoot, what exactly does it take to distinguish oneself from evolution? If you think any evolutionist believes the above, ask them and you will be corrected quickly. So I agree with Avatar of Evil, the rules don't say NO evolution yet that is what Dee Dee is trying to make of this place. I feel I belong here as well. My views in relation to the origin of man are clearly different.

I also believe that God created the first life form (another view most evolutionists wouldn't hold to. I find the enforcement arbitrary and capricious.

kuboes1831

April 22nd 2004, 05:36 PM

That was a good post Glenn

Socrates

May 8th 2004, 11:59 AM

The problem is that it seems no matter how many times I say this their is always the insinutatin that I am compromising with "modern science". But i'm not. I think their are reasons to make the days long, and even some of the ancient christians and jews disagreed with an "In 6 days" approach and they can hardly be thought to be compromising with "science".Names please? Find an ancient Christian commentator who believed that the creation days were long ages. Also, those from the Alexandrian school who wanted to make the days non-literal (in fact an instant, the opposite to what OECs need) were compromising with Greek philosophy (neo-Platonism).

Glenn Morton might disagree and makes the claim quite regularly. It all seems futile trying to tell him this though. Which is why we shouldn't waste any more time with him. His scientific qualifications are mediocre and his Hebrew eisegesis is laughable.
He is well intentionedYoking with antitheists, e.g. on the Infidels board, against any sort of creationists, is hardly well intentioned.
but might well do more harm than good with his approach.Atheists wouldn't agree -- they love the way Morton helps strengthen their anti-intellectual faith.

Socrates

May 8th 2004, 12:12 PM

If you think that the natural reading of Gen 1. 6-8 is not a flat earth then you reject natural readings.
Prove it.

Waht is the natural reading of 1 Cor 15 vs 36? Surely it is that seeds die when they are put in the ground. Paul's botany was wrong at this point so where is your inerrancy?
Why? Just because the Biblical writers didn't use life and death the way modern biologists do doesn't make it wrong. But I thought Cosmogony was for biblical inerrantists.

I don't Kurt Wise helps us at all as it is a selective approach to science and has a bizarre notion of a natural reading.
Why? It's perfectly reasonable. And Refuting Compromise says similar things, but calls it ministerial v magisterial approaches of science.

I am sorry if you cannot understand what Russell is saying in his book. The fact is that that church has never sanctioned a flat earth, but the OT speaks of it - unless you read scripture in an unnatural way.
Twaddle. JPHolding splatters such antibiblical nonsense at What Shape is the Earth In? An Evaluation of Biblical Cosmology (http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_03_03_01.html) Is the ’erets (earth) flat? Equivocal language in the geography of Genesis 1 and the Old Testament: a response to Paul H. Seely (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/tjv14n3flat_earth.asp)

Waht do you mena by real history? Exactly what happened - which is impossible for any historian. Or some kind of literalism. Are Psalms 105-6 real history or not? They are very poetic. I would say they are as is Gen 1 -11.
Then you know nothing. They have totally different literary structures.

On the second there is no biblical argument that death and bloodshed and sickness in the animal world was not in existence befrore Adam. The bible is silent.
Rubbish -- it teaches that both humans and animals were originally vegetarian.

I am aware that YEC is not totally monolithic but they only reject false ideas when non YECs convince them of them and that takes decades as few are open to criticism.
Lovely ipse dixits.

Finally I do wish YECs would realise the damage they are doing to the spread of the gospel and to the Church.
What do you care, since you damage the Gospel by undermining the Book it's in by telling Christians they should trust "scientists" over Scripture.

Also they should quit rubbishing fellow christians
Oh, but it's OK for you to do so, you embittered hypocrite?

Socrates

May 8th 2004, 12:23 PM

On history read
home.entouch.net/dmd/mortensonresp2.htm -

and also on his site look for a paer on Geology and Genesis
Oh right, for history of geology, Kuboes relies on a B.S. physicist rather than someone who earned his Ph.D. in the history of geology from Coventry University. See for example his papers on Scriptural Geologists, including the introduction that summarises the view of the church throughout the ages
www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/TJv11n2_scrip_geol.asp

We are not playing the "argument by credentials" game. It is way too disruptive to this forum.

Socrates

May 8th 2004, 12:29 PM

The problem for YEC's (as I was thinking about this today) is that you could make exactly the same argument for Geo-centrism a couple of hundred years ago.
This boring canard, when made by a compromising home-school supplier, was totally demolished at www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/0322holzmann.asp in the section "Does It Make Sense for Us to At Least Look at Scientific Data when Interpreting Scripture?" There is just no comparison.

For one thing, critics should learn what a reference frame is. For another, they should realise that the problem with the Church at the time of Galileo was letting current scientific fashions (Ptolemaic cosmology taught by the Aristotelian scientists at the universities) govern their scriptural hermeneutics.

kuboes1831

May 8th 2004, 02:48 PM

Socrates. if you beleive in Jesus Christ as your Savior then you must realise that this faith would make you want to love rather than hate. Your lack of love apalls not only myself but most who read your bigotted twaddle.

If this is censored then I want to know why you are allowed to post. You may bleive in innerancy but not in love.

What evidence do you have that I do not beleive in inerrancy?

This forum is meant to be available for civil debate. Please keep it so. If you want to swap insults, take it to the Locker Room. This goes for you too, Soc.

Socratism

May 8th 2004, 03:15 PM

Socrates. if you beleive in Jesus Christ as your Savior then you must realise that this faith would make you want to love rather than hate. Your lack of love apalls not only myself but most who read your bigotted twaddle.

If this is censored then I want to know why you are allowed to post. You may bleive in innerancy but not in love.

...

Jesus apparently practiced "tough love". Should we do otherwise?

What evidence do you have that I do not beleive in inerrancy?

You do not accept the plain reading of scripture, i.e. "and the evening and the morning were the fifth day".

Are you one of those "Nature is the 67th book of scripture" people?

kuboes1831

May 8th 2004, 05:43 PM

Jesus apparently practiced "tough love". Should we do otherwise?

You do not accept the plain reading of scripture, i.e. "and the evening and the morning were the fifth day".

Are you one of those "Nature is the 67th book of scripture" people?

This is wonderful! So BBWarfield and Hodge Fand S were not inrerrantists, nor John Stoott or the present Archbishop of Sydney?

Socratism

May 8th 2004, 06:15 PM

This is wonderful! So BBWarfield and Hodge Fand S were not inrerrantists, nor John Stoott or the present Archbishop of Sydney?

Not having read the works of these men I cannot say exactly where they have erred, but it is probably related to the problem that for the past 100 years people have been intimidated by the supposed "scientific facts" of evolution and long ages.

So was I until I looked into it myself and discovered that the "scientific facts" were merely assumptions by fallible human beings. And not very good assumptions at that.

burgy

May 8th 2004, 06:31 PM

Apoligist4Him began this thread with these words:

"Now getting back to the subject at hand, for a year or so, and because I listened to my College instructors, I've played around with the idea of OEC, but I've decided to drop it. I do have sympathy and understanding for OEC, but I've opted to go back to YEC, and for several reasons...

1.) Interpreting "yome" one way in the first chapter of Genesis, and interpreting it in another way throughout the rest of the Pentateuch is interpreting the author inconsistantly.

2.) I see no need to look for a "deeper meaning", where the meaning seems to be as clear as day and night.

3.) I am and always will hold that Science never has and never will contradict the Bible, and I think any attempt to conform the Bible to Science is a fallacy. IOW, consider your sources, science has limitations and is done by fallable men often with (atheist) presuppostions (with an agenda), where God is infallable, and the His word can be trusted. Stated in yet another way, I put God before science. Either science conforms, or it's not science, because God is the creator of everthing we call Science!

4.) I am not a scientist, most of what I know of Science is second (or third, or fourth you get the idea) hand knowledge, and for me to put science before God, would be an error. When it comes to the specifics of Science, I consider myself to be quite ignorant. I have been an ignorant YEC, and I have been an ignorant OEC with the desire to learn, and I am once again an ignorant YEC, but with the desire to learn. I am probably more "open-minded" than some YEC's you'll run into, but as I've mentioned above, God and His Holy word come before science. In the beginning, God created what we call science. And our knowledge of Science is fallable and ever changing, but God never changes, and neither does His word.

Finally, I would like to touch on the title of this post, do you (YEC and OEC) see any room for any reconcilation of the two views?"

As an OEC who has been in this game 30 years, and as a physicist who thinks he understands that science and Christianity need not be seen as being in conflict, I do not presently see any reconciliation possible. YECs and OECs simply have substantially divergent views, and only Phillip Gosse's theory, spurnned by both sides (generally) has ever been put forward to reconcile the two.

Having studied Gosse's theory in some detail, I would not reject it out of hand. It does marry the two views in an absolutely irrefutable manner.

I published in PERSPECTIVES a review of Gosse's book a few years ago -- that review and other notes on the theory are on my website if anyone is interested.

www.burgy.50megs.com

Click on page 2, then on section 4. The links are at the end of that section.

But we need to be talking here of reconcilation of PERSONS, not ideas. YECs and OECs are just not going to find a reconciling process (of ideas), but they (we) can of persons. Duane Gish, a prominent YEC who lectures for the Institute of Creation Research, and I, an often overzealous anti-YEC, are still friends. Likewise with Ross Olson, whose peace proposal I published elsewhere on TW (with his permission, of course) a few months ago.

We need out IDEAS to strive together, giving no quarter. That has nothing to do with personal relationships.

I happen to firmly think, as does my friend Glenn Morton, that YECism does grave harm to the Christian faith. Perhaps that is because I have a good friend, one of over a half century, who was once a YEC and, when convinced it was fraudulent, became an atheist. Richard, a learned person, retired from a vice presidency at Pitney -Bowles three years ago. He is still my good friend; he has classified Christianity with supermarket tabloids and newspaper horoscopes and I have not ever been able to break through his defenses to have a profitable discussion. I'm sad about that.

Glenn has similar stories. Many of them.

OTOH, I know a YEC who tells a similar story with the moral that a deviation from strict biblical inerrancy and literalism caused the same sad action.

As a scientist, I do not put science in the place of God. But I do take its findings seriously. There is no scientific doubt that the universe is 10 to 20 billion years old, that the earth is 3 to 5 billion years old, that evolution has happened and is happening, and that human-like creatures roamed this earth hundreds of thousands -- perhaps even millions -- of years ago. And that data MUST inform our understanding of God, of scripture, of our place in this material world.

The YEC must deny this data, and, of course, that is his right to do so. But unless he embraces Gosse's theory, he must also deny any validity to modern science at all. And that, too, is his right. If so, it is his responsibility to work toward a "better" set of theories of science. So far, that has proven to be a losing cause.

Ubi caritas, my friend.

Burgy

Burgy please review the forum guidelines for posting here which is a sticky thread in this area.

Socratism

May 8th 2004, 08:38 PM

As a scientist, I do not put science in the place of God. But I do take its findings seriously. There is no scientific doubt that the universe is 10 to 20 billion years old, that the earth is 3 to 5 billion years old, that evolution has happened and is happening, and that human-like creatures roamed this earth hundreds of thousands -- perhaps even millions -- of years ago. And that data MUST inform our understanding of God, of scripture, of our place in this material world.

Burgy,
The things that you say are data are not data: they are inferences, however reasonable or compelling they seem to you, that some people have drawn from actual data.

kuboes1831

May 9th 2004, 02:31 AM

Not having read the works of these men I cannot say exactly where they have erred, but it is probably related to the problem that for the past 100 years people have been intimidated by the supposed "scientific facts" of evolution and long ages.

So was I until I looked into it myself and discovered that the "scientific facts" were merely assumptions by fallible human beings. And not very good assumptions at that.

Simply an admission of invincivle ignorance,

Calvinist4Him

May 9th 2004, 03:32 AM

Yoking with antitheists, e.g. on the Infidels board, against any sort of creationists, is hardly well intentioned.

Hmm...that's an interesting bit of information, thank you for the "heads up". :thumb:

Atheists wouldn't agree -- they love the way Morton helps strengthen their anti-intellectual faith.

:frown: That is a sad calling. To have such negative feelings for YECists so as to go to those extremes, which create further division in the body of Christ, and to give ammunition to non-believers...even if he's giving them blanks.

Socrates

May 9th 2004, 04:43 AM

This is wonderful! So BBWarfield and Hodge Fand S were not inrerrantists, nor John Stoott or the present Archbishop of Sydney?
Here's a good case in point. Stott accepts theistic evolution because he's intimidated by "science", and he accepts annihilation because he's intimidated by the argument from outrage.

And this present archbishop squirmed when a journo asked him to explain why a loving God would allow 11/9. He can't explain that it was because of Adam's sin ultimately, because he believes that God used death and suffering to create things.

In another instance, he rightly pointed out that the Bible forbids homosexual behaviour, then squirmed when a journo pointed out that he lacked credibility because he didn't believe the Bible on 6-day creation.

In yet another case, he rebuked the liberal Primate for denying the physical Rez, because the latter argued that "science" had proven that dead men don't rise. I.e. in this case, the archbishop was arguing that the eye-witness record of Scripture trumps the claims of scientists who weren't there. Sadly, he failed to realise that the Primate was just being consistent -- treating the Rez narratives in the same way the archbishop approves of treating the creation narrative.

However, the Archbishop of Sydney is a genuine Christian who does much good. It's a marked contrast to the former Archbishop of Brisbane who wrote a forward to a book by an Australian Humanist of the Year that told lies about creationists and mocked the Bible. This Archbishop was later appointed Governor General, then his former mates in the humanist media turned on him and found evidence that he acted disgracefully about child abuse in the church, and had to resign. Although the motivation of the humanist media is unworthy, it wouldn't be the first time God has used unbelievers to punish treachery in His people (cf. Assyrians and Babylonians punishing Israel and Judah).

jason

May 9th 2004, 10:26 PM

This boring canard
All I can say is :ahem:

Jason

burgy

May 11th 2004, 10:52 AM

To Dee Dee

I cannot figure out how to send you a private message.

I read the moderator notice. I do not understand why you removed my post. In what way do I not qualify?

Burgy

dizzle

May 11th 2004, 11:13 AM

My email is DDW@theologyweb.com

We can have a discussion that way. I look forward tohearing from you.

jason

May 19th 2004, 08:27 PM

You do not accept the plain reading of scripture, i.e. "and the evening and the morning were the fifth day".

Are you one of those "Nature is the 67th book of scripture" people?
To claim the disagreeing with you about your interpretation of genesis means that someone then is not an inerrantist is begging the question.

As noted the original forumulators of an explicit doctrine of inerrancy were themselves theistic evolutionists.

Are you, by being an inerrantist, yoking yourself with unbelievers ? :lol:

Jason

Socrates

May 19th 2004, 10:47 PM

As noted the original forumulators of an explicit doctrine of inerrancy were themselves theistic evolutionists.
That's strange, I thought the original formulators of inerrancy were Jesus (John 10:35) and Paul (2 Tim. 3:15-17). The Church Fathers and Reformers also affirmed inerrancy, and they were YECs!

Are you, by being an inerrantist, yoking yourself with unbelievers ? :lol:
Learn some history, as novel as this idea would be for a Ross supporter.

jason

May 24th 2004, 07:53 PM

Learn some history, as novel as this idea would be for a Ross supporter.
I feel so dirty for defending you in the other thread now.

I'm going to take a shower.

Jason

Socratism

May 24th 2004, 08:56 PM

Are you, by being an inerrantist, yoking yourself with unbelievers ?

It appears that you started it with the above "crack", Jason.

Sinai

June 3rd 2004, 01:27 PM

There is plenty of room for OEC's and YEC's to get along.

After all we really do agree on an awfully large number of things.

The only real difference is a disagreement over a hermenutic.

I take the Bible very seriously and I think genesis to be fact, I just don't think those facts happen to be that the earth is 6000 years old and the universe to have been created in 6 days. God is simply not the author of confusion.

One think I have noticed in OEC/YEC/TE animosity is that it is the same as the sorts of animosity you get between certian sorts of calvinists and arminians. One call the other a pelagian and the other responds calling them an anti-nomian. Nothing is acheived doing such things really just as all the name calling that goes on the origins debate acheives nothing.

We should all bury the hatchet (and not in each other), admit out disagreements and work towards building the best cases that we can.

And lastly, the YEC's should stop implying that non-YEC's are not saved or are "compromised christians" and OEC's and TE's should stop suggesting that YEC's are anti-intellecuals and afraid of data.

Perhaps some more progress could be made if we all tried to do that.

Jason

Excellent post, Jason.

If God's word is true (as I believe it is), then we can believe the Bible when it tells us that God is the truth and does not lie, nor is He deceitful or false. Thus, both His word and His world should give consistent and true accounts of His creation. If a person thinks they are inconsistent and contradictory, he or she may find it helpful to make a closer study of both.

A study of physics, astronomy, biology and other sciences at a good accredited university--including Christian universities like Notre Dame, Baylor, SMU and Wake Forest--would probably be a good place to start, and there are many excellent scientific journals and books that cover the tremendous scientific discoveries that have been made over the past 70 or so years that are giving us a much clearer picture of the creative process.

Similarly, it is probably a good idea to get into the actual meanings of what the Bible says by studying the original languages of the Bible--Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek--and ancient commentaries on the scriptures in question. Even if a word-for-word translation were possible, it would still not really be fully "literal" and true to the original meanings, since it would not express all the nuances of the original language.

Since Hebrew is a rather primitive language that lacks the large vocabulary available in English, the same word or phrase may have many different possible meanings. The person or persons translating Hebrew into English generally use the most common meaning that is possible within the context--but that may cause what appears to be a conflict with a different verse or with a scientific or archelogical discovery.

However, most such apparent conflicts disappear upon a closer inspection of the range of meanings and the full context of the passage in question. When dealing with scripture that has scientific implications, in order to avoid reading a meaning into a passage that it probably should not have, I like to cross reference it with analysis and commetary from outstanding biblical scholars who wrote more than 700 years ago (well before modern scientfic discoveries).

May God lead all of us as we study His word and seek to do His will......

jason

June 3rd 2004, 05:17 PM

It appears that you started it with the above "crack", Jason.
It wasn't a crack. Hodge, Warfield et al, were all TE's and defenders of inerrancy. Itwas simply designed to hilight absurdity of Soc's position.

Jason

CobraA1

June 5th 2004, 03:03 AM

Since Hebrew is a rather primitive language that lacks the large vocabulary available in English, the same word or phrase may have many different possible meanings.

"primitive"? Tell me you are a Hebrew scholar, otherwise you shouldn't be making such sweeping generalizations. How much do you know about the extent of the vocabulary, and where did you get such information? Or are you just making it up?

I may not exactly be a scholar, but I know better than to take such claims at face value. It's been my understanding that many of the older languages are in fact less primitive than ours in some respects.

Tell me this is an educated claim, or I'll kindly ask you to withdraw it.

Sinai

June 5th 2004, 08:50 PM

"primitive"? Tell me you are a Hebrew scholar, otherwise you shouldn't be making such sweeping generalizations. How much do you know about the extent of the vocabulary, and where did you get such information? Or are you just making it up?

I may not exactly be a scholar, but I know better than to take such claims at face value. It's been my understanding that many of the older languages are in fact less primitive than ours in some respects.

Tell me this is an educated claim, or I'll kindly ask you to withdraw it.
Sorry. I should have thought through all the various meanings before using a term that can in certain contexts be considered to be an emotionally charged word. It probably would have been preferable to say that Hebrew is an ancient language that tends to have far fewer synonyms than English or Greek, for example.

By nature of the language, a Hebrew word seldom carries only a single English meaning. Thus, Hebrew scholars generally refer to the "semantic range" of a given Hebrew word or phrase.

CobraA1

June 7th 2004, 02:37 AM

. . . and it's been my understanding that the converse is also true sometimes: They may have several words with more specific meanings, where we have one. I forget what language it is, but there's an ancient language that has several words for "love" (brotherly love, lust, God's love).

The word "primitive" carries the baggage of being associated with "lesser" or "worse". I'm sure their language was suited for their culture and knowledge at the time.

Even today, you never really have a word-for-word translation between our languages.

I agree with your assesment: Studying language is very important to understanding the Bible.

Sinai

June 9th 2004, 04:46 PM

. . . and it's been my understanding that the converse is also true sometimes: They may have several words with more specific meanings, where we have one. I forget what language it is, but there's an ancient language that has several words for "love" (brotherly love, lust, God's love).
You're probably referring to Greek, which has five major words for love (thelo, storge, eros, philos, and agape). Of course, English also has quite a few words and phrases that depict varying shades or affections or emotions associated with love. Both Greek and English have larger vocabularies than does Hebrew.

Even today, you never really have a word-for-word translation between our languages.

I agree with your assesment: Studying language is very important to understanding the Bible.
Quite true....

Socrates

June 9th 2004, 11:18 PM

Sorry. I should have thought through all the various meanings before using a term that can in certain contexts be considered to be an emotionally charged word. It probably would have been preferable to say that Hebrew is an ancient language that tends to have far fewer synonyms than English or Greek, for example.
Actually, ancient languages are more complex -- they often have a far more elaborate system of cases and verb inflections. English hardly has any.

By nature of the language, a Hebrew word seldom carries only a single English meaning. Thus, Hebrew scholars generally refer to the "semantic range" of a given Hebrew word or phrase.
Name a single English word which has only one meaning.

It's linguistically naive anyway -- there is no concept at all that can't be expressed in any language.

Sinai

June 11th 2004, 08:23 PM

Actually, ancient languages are more complex -- they often have a far more elaborate system of cases and verb inflections. English hardly has any.
I did not say that ancient languages were not complex or that they were simple or easy to read. I was merely noting that Hebrew has a much smaller vocabulary than English, and that one generally has a much larger choice of synonyms in English or Greek, for example. You raise a good point regarding the cases and verb inflections. The lack of punctuation also makes many passages in ancient languages especially difficult to determine the precise meaning.

cbro

June 22nd 2004, 10:14 PM

This thread is a better idea then switching sides, because it may be like particle physics needing to be like Astrophysics, even though now we don't understand how that is possible.

cbro

June 24th 2004, 12:45 AM

Is reconciliation not possible for some people, because it is not a matter of science but of faith as Big Split said.

c0bra

June 25th 2004, 02:28 PM

I've never posted in this forum before, and I'm not sure if this has been brought up before, but I thought this would be a good place as it's related to the topic of the thread.

This is a quote from an article on creationism and ID that talks about Phillip E. Johnson and his attempts to get the YECs and OECs to set aside their differences for the next 10 years or so. I have heard Johnson speak on this specifically and I would tend to agree, despite my lack of experience in this area:

The ID Movement was singled out by the AAAS board resolution as the new player in the creation/evolution controversy. It coalesced in the late 1980s and early 1990s under the leadership of Philip Johnson, then a law professor at University of California, Berkeley, and now is unofficially led by members of the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture. The key feature of ID creationism is its attempt to unite various creationist factions against their common enemy under a banner of “mere creation” or “design” by temporarily setting aside internal differences. As Johnson told Christianity Today, “People of differing theological views should learn who’s close to them, form alliances, and put aside divisive issues ‘til later.” Aiming to quell the battle between young- and oldearthers to redirect their energies in tandem against evolutionists, he continued, “I say after we’ve settled the issue of a Creator, we’ll have a wonderful time arguing about the age of the Earth” (90). The ID Movement calls its strategy for defeating evolution “the Wedge.” Its target is not just evolution, but also the materialist philosophy it believes props up science and is the de facto “established religion” of the West. The organization hopes to affect a renewal in our culture of Judeo-Christian theism, in which man is again understood as created in God’s image.

Link: http://www.msu.edu/~pennock5/research/papers/Pennock*Creationism+ID.pdf

It seems like a good idea to me. Stop focusing on the differences between factions on our side and start focusing on the differences between factions on their side. We need to drive a wedge between where the evidence is pointing us and where the materialistic devotion has chained us.

Thoughts?

jason

June 25th 2004, 04:17 PM

Socratism

June 26th 2004, 10:21 AM

Perhaps you should direct your reconciliation comments to people like Ungoliant as well as YECers.

Sinai

June 26th 2004, 06:37 PM

It seems like a good idea to me. Stop focusing on the differences between factions on our side and start focusing on the differences between factions on their side. We need to drive a wedge between where the evidence is pointing us and where the materialistic devotion has chained us.

Thoughts?

Over the past 80 or so years, numerous scientific discoveries have greatly advanced our understanding of the universe that surrounds us. Some of these discoveries--such as the red shift, expanding universe, nuclear theory, cosmic background radiation, and star formation--have caused scientists to abandon the concept that the universe has always existed (which Aristotle had advocated over 2000 years ago, and held sway a century ago as the steady state theory) and instead adopt the big bang theory (which atheists complain is too similar to Genesis 1:1). Many scientists are more willing than ever before to seriously examine the Bible to learn more about the Eternal One who created the universe, all matter and time as we know it.

On another front, the fossil record has not produced the verification for evolution via random mutation that many scientists had anticipated. Even if the world is 4.3-4.5 billion years old (as most scientists believe it is), there is not sufficient time for random mutation to explain the development of life on Earth--even if all the mutations were favorable, which evidence shows is not the case. And the fossil record reveals such events as the Cambrian explosion of life forms in which the evidence speaks even more dramaticly against random mutation. Thus, many scientists are more willing than ever before to consider the possibility of intelligent design and a Creator who was guiding the process.

Thus, there appears to be a viable window of opportunity for witnessing to scientists and other scientifically-oriented persons about our Creator and God, about His love for us, and about His redemptive plan for mankind. However, I have some doubts as to whether young Earth creationists will feel comfortable within the ID mantra unless ID carefully avoids any mention of the age of either the Earth or the universe. Although OECs have no problem with a universe that is 11-20 billion years old (since they think it is easily supported by the Bible), such an age would conflict with YECs' interpretations of scriptures.

Cephas

July 5th 2004, 01:58 PM

I agree wholeheartedly.

Unfortunately you'll never get Socrates and his AiG kin to agree to such a thing.

We need to put theological differences aside and fight the real enemy.

JasonWho, then, is the real enemy?

Cephas

July 5th 2004, 02:04 PM

Socratism

July 6th 2004, 01:15 PM

[b]Over the past 80 or so years, numerous scientific discoveries have greatly advanced our understanding of the universe that surrounds us. Some of these discoveries--such as the red shift, expanding universe, nuclear theory, cosmic background radiation, and star formation--have caused scientists to abandon the concept that the universe has always existed (which Aristotle had advocated over 2000 years ago, and held sway a century ago as the steady state theory) and instead adopt the big bang theory (which atheists complain is too similar to Genesis 1:1). Many scientists are more willing than ever before to seriously examine the Bible to learn more about the Eternal One who created the universe, all matter and time as we know it.

I would disagree that the "discoveries" you mentioned above have been major factors in abandoning the previous concept of an eternal cosmos. The major factors that works against that concept are the well accepted Laws of Thermodynamics that introduced the concepts of Entropy and that matter/energy could not be created or destroyed. Thus, the universe could not be eternal because it is "running down".

In addition, what you call "discoveries" are merely hypotheses that were introduced to support the new concept of the naturalistic origin of the universe, a cponcept that did not so obviously conflict with the Laws of Thermodynamics.

People in the field of cosmology, like those in the fields of biology, historical geology, etc. are probably the least likely candidates to accept the truth in scripture, because they have been taught and fervently believe an alternative scenario, one supposedly based on the high and mighty source of absolute truth, Science.

The real battleground is for the hearts and minds of the youth, and here the battle is being lost, because the public school teaching is that science is the sole source of absolute truth, and as many science textbooks claim, has superceded the superstitions of religions.

jason

July 6th 2004, 04:49 PM

Who, then, is the real enemy?
The Naturalists and the Atheists.

Jason

Sinai

July 7th 2004, 11:33 PM

Over the past 80 or so years, numerous scientific discoveries have greatly advanced our understanding of the universe that surrounds us. Some of these discoveries--such as the red shift, expanding universe, nuclear theory, cosmic background radiation, and star formation--have caused scientists to abandon the concept that the universe has always existed (which Aristotle had advocated over 2000 years ago, and held sway a century ago as the steady state theory) and instead adopt the big bang theory (which atheists complain is too similar to Genesis 1:1). Many scientists are more willing than ever before to seriously examine the Bible to learn more about the Eternal One who created the universe, all matter and time as we know it.

On another front, the fossil record has not produced the verification for evolution via random mutation that many scientists had anticipated. Even if the world is 4.3-4.5 billion years old (as most scientists believe it is), there is not sufficient time for random mutation to explain the development of life on Earth--even if all the mutations were favorable, which evidence shows is not the case. And the fossil record reveals such events as the Cambrian explosion of life forms in which the evidence speaks even more dramaticly against random mutation. Thus, many scientists are more willing than ever before to consider the possibility of intelligent design and a Creator who was guiding the process.

Thus, there appears to be a viable window of opportunity for witnessing to scientists and other scientifically-oriented persons about our Creator and God, about His love for us, and about His redemptive plan for mankind. However, I have some doubts as to whether young Earth creationists will feel comfortable within the ID mantra unless ID carefully avoids any mention of the age of either the Earth or the universe. Although OECs have no problem with a universe that is 11-20 billion years old (since they think it is easily supported by the Bible), such an age would conflict with YECs' interpretations of scriptures.

I would disagree that the "discoveries" you mentioned above have been major factors in abandoning the previous concept of an eternal cosmos. The major factors that works against that concept are the well accepted Laws of Thermodynamics that introduced the concepts of Entropy and that matter/energy could not be created or destroyed. Thus, the universe could not be eternal because it is "running down".

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. While I do not necessarily disagree with your thesis that the laws of thermodynamics may argue against the concept of an eternal universe, it should still be noted that the steady state theory was still the dominant theory (despite the laws of thermodynamics) until the scientific discoveries I mentioned in my earlier post.

The discovery of the red shift by Edwin Hubble and Milton Humason led directly to the primeval atom theory proposed in the 1920s by physicist (and Jesuit priest) Georges Lemaitre, who suggested that the universe began when a primeval atom of virtually infinite density began a sudden expansion or possibly an explosion. The scientific community was largely divided between advocates of the two theories until Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discovered the existence of an isotropic radiation background (i.e., a radiation background that is constant and equal in all directions of the universe) in 1964. After that, even athiests (who object to the big bang theory because it is too similar to biblical scripture) and opponents like Fred Hoyle (a leading proponent of the steady state theory who used the expression “big bang” as a derisive term for his opponents’ position--and the name stuck) no longer are able to effectively beat the drums for a steady state universe.

In addition, what you call "discoveries" are merely hypotheses that were introduced to support the new concept of the naturalistic origin of the universe, a cponcept that did not so obviously conflict with the Laws of Thermodynamics.Interesting theory, Socratism. Do you classify all observed data as being "merely hypotheses"?

Socratism

July 8th 2004, 08:10 PM

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. While I do not necessarily disagree with your thesis that the laws of thermodynamics may argue against the concept of an eternal universe, it should still be noted that the steady state theory was still the dominant theory (despite the laws of thermodynamics) until the scientific discoveries I mentioned in my earlier post.

You seem to be trying to rewrite history here. The steady-state theory never gained very many adherents and the idea that it was the "dominant" theory is ludicrous.

The discovery of the red shift by Edwin Hubble and Milton Humason led directly to the primeval atom theory proposed in the 1920s by physicist (and Jesuit priest) Georges Lemaitre, who suggested that the universe began when a primeval atom of virtually infinite density began a sudden expansion or possibly an explosion. The scientific community was largely divided between advocates of the two theories until Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discovered the existence of an isotropic radiation background (i.e., a radiation background that is constant and equal in all directions of the universe) in 1964. After that, even athiests (who object to the big bang theory because it is too similar to biblical scripture) and opponents like Fred Hoyle (a leading proponent of the steady state theory who used the expression “big bang” as a derisive term for his opponents’ position--and the name stuck) no longer are able to effectively beat the drums for a steady state universe.

That was true up until a few years ago when the steady-state adherents found a way to explain the CMB. That doesn't mean I agree with them. I never cared much for the theory when I first heard about it many years ago.

Interesting theory, Socratism. Do you classify all observed data as being "merely hypotheses"?

No, I actually classify all observed data as "observed data".

Hypotheses and theories are not the same thing as "observed data".