Teilhard de Chardin and compromises on Genesis

[jhappel]

Teilhard de Chardin, a very influential evolutionist of the past, once said:


“Is evolution a theory, a system, or a hypothesis? It is much more-it is a general postulate to which all theories, all hypothesis, all systems must henceforth bow and which they must satisfy in order to be thinkable and true. Evolution is a light which illuminates all facts, a trajectory which all lines of thought must follow-this is what evolution is.”

What many people may find most surprising is de Chardin called himself a Christian and a 'creationist' who claimed God used evolution to create. I think many conservative Christians would agree this kind of thinking is misguided and even heretical. As Christian's our light is the Word of God not the fallible opinions of fallen men. However, their are many Christians who claim to be Bible-centered in their thinking, yet by critical evaluation it is revealed they are on a slippery slope in the direction of de Chardin's philosophy. I'm sure many PC's, day-ager's, etc. will be offended by comparing their thinking to de Chardin who really was a new-age pantheist and not a Christian. I am not claiming they share similar heretical positions that he did. I am only pointing out why I feel Genesis compromises are so dangerous to the Christian faith.

For instance the most famous and out-spoken Christian defender of the secular astronomical evolutionary theory of the origin of the universe is Hugh Ross. He is embraced by many Christians because he claims to be a 'creationist' and says he believes in Bible inerrancy. But by careful reading of his writings shows that his thinking is not entirely Biblically based but is heavily evolution based. Ross loves to tell the story of how he became a Christian. As a teenager in the 60's he 'discovered' that the big bang must be true. It was because of his uncritical acceptance of this theory at such a young age that supposedly lead him to Jesus Christ because he was able to fit the big bang in the Bible and was unsuccessful in fitting it in with other religious writings. I am happy to hear Ross has accepted Jesus as his Savior. I however am very concerned about his dogmatic acceptance about a historical, non-repeatable theory that deals with the origin of the universe. This theory was not originally described by Christians using Genesis as their aid to interpret the observations of the universe. It was in fact originally authored by agnostic scientist’s seeking to develop a model which had no need for a creator. Its because of this origin that Christians should immediately be alarmed about embracing this as God's means of creation. We must also realize the limitations of science in dealing with the past and the finite human mind trying to conceive of God's infinite power at work when he creates. Therefore the biblical text itself is essential in reconstructing what really happened since we don’t have all the data but God does.

The most troubling thing I find of Hugh Ross is that he has staked his whole ministry on the 'fact' of the Big Bang. He has gone so far as saying it was Moses who first discovered the Big Bang. As a result the Big Bang has been elevated to the same authority as scripture. Since Ross is on record as saying the Big Bang is a fact, all interpretations of scripture and history must be dealt with in light of the Big Bang. The Big Bang is Ross's light which illuminates all facts and which all lines of thought must bow. For instance, the flood must be local, not because the Hebrew text teaches it, but because the light of the big bang reveals an ancient cosmos that has no room for a global flood. Animals must have originally been created carnivorous and eating each other for millions of years before humans were created. Not because the Genesis creation account reveals this but because the light of the big bang demonstrates this must be true. Gaps also must be added to the chronologies in Genesis adding tens of thousands of years to the date for Adam. Not because there is hermeneutic support in the text for such a position, but because the light of the big bang requires an extended chronology for humanity. Or any human fossils that are ‘dated’ after 60,000 years must be non-human humanoids not because there is clear scriptural and scientific reasons for taking such a position, but because the light of the big bang demonstrates an ancient cosmos and biblical inerrancy supposedly can’t handle that late of a date but somehow 60,000 is acceptable.

I can go on but I hope you get the point. What ultimately is happening is, Ross and other Christians are unlocking a door in the direction of de Chardin's pantheism where the Bible no longer is our authority in all areas. Man is elevated to a position where he can determine truth without the aid of scripture and can even override scripture if he chooses. I realize there are many highly respected truly sincere Christians who love God and his Word and yet still elevate man’s fallible opinions of the past as authoritative in understanding God’s word. I respect Norman Geisler, Gleason Archer, Walter Kaiser and yes even Hugh Ross. I do feel they believe what they are doing is the best way to evangelize an increasingly skeptical world. It is my hope, however, that they would someday reflect a little bit at the big picture and see how shaky the foundations are for the positions they take.

The position I take and the one I feel all Christian’s should take is to start with the Bible. If the creator of the universe really inspired the Bible its truths should override any man’s opinion. All models of the past must be tested with the biblical text themselves. Any model that contradicts any biblical dated must be discarded. To do otherwise would negate the claimed nature of the Bible itself. A revelation from a perfect, all-knowing source cannot be wrong on the origin of the universe in any area. It can’t be 70% correct. It can’t be 85% correct. It can’t be 99% correct. It must be 100% correct or it’s not what it claims to be. Compromises on the plain meaning of the text solve nothing. When the rest of the world sees that we Christians don’t even believe the very book that is the basis for our faith how do you expect them to?

[Socratism]

I feel we should not be totally critical of the Big Bang, because part of it may be true, despite having some shortcomings.

I feel the part that is true, which incidentally is the part which is claimed to be supported by evidence, is that the universe expanded over time from an initially tiny space.

This part of the theory was verified by God when He stated 11 times in scripture that He "stretched out the heavens".

But is the universe still expanding, or was this process completed sometime during Creation Week? This is a stickier question, because currently there is no way of scientifically determining whether the expansion is continuing or not.

Interestingly, according to one of the authors of Big Bang "inflation", the very early universe expanding hugely (100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 times) in less than a picosecond, and then slowed to its current slow rate of expansion. If that huge expansion rate had continued for only one more picosecond it would have yielded a universe of its present size, and then stopped.

Aren't we supposed to choose the simpler alternative whenever two theories yield the same result and are supported by the same evidence?

[romepunk]

Hi jhappel,

I agree that it is a dangerous game when we start sifting through scripture, trying to decide which passages to take literalistically and which not. Such methods, when gone unchecked, can indeed lead to heresy. But might this game be, dangerous as it, one we have to carefully play. Hugh Ross is a sincere Christian. His goal is to reconcile his earnest faith in Christ with those facts he believes to be empiracally proven. I don't see anything inherently wrong with this. What is wrong is when, in the pursuit of such a reconciliation, dogmatic truths, such as original sin, are denied. That's when we encounter problems.

Teilhard, and I've read much of him, was a troubled soul. Indeed, a heretic (though perhaps the most Christocentric heretic to ever trouble the Church.) He was silenced, and banished to China for his writings (in particular a slim volume by the name of Christianity and Evolution, in which he radically and heretically reinterpreted the Christian dogma of the Fall and original sin.) And merely calling him a newager isn't the half of it. He gave birth the New Age movement, his fusion of pantheism, evolutionary theory and mysical theology concerning the body of Christ, is the foundation of many New Age trends (though they often change the name of his Christ-centered terms.) His work heavily influenced Lovelock's Gaia theory. Teilhard, in other words, did a naughty thing. It was, like Ross however, born out of sincere desire to reconcile faith and science. A big problem that drove Teilhard nuts was his inability to accept animal death before the fall. It was not so much borne out of scripture, as a near pagan/pantheistic adoration of nature, the conclusions from which he read back into scripture. This forced him ultimately to deny the Fall as it has always been understood by the Church. Teilhard represents the extreme of what can go wrong. His legacy should serve as a caution, but not a roadblock.

That the Bible is 100% true is something that no orthodox Christian may deny. But does this mean we must take a literalistic approach to every passage in scripture. I don't agree with Ross' method, probably for the exact opposite reason you disagree with it. I think Ross' method is too literalistic, which leads to as many problems as it solves. But is it not possible, that when we study the literary genres of portions of the Bible such as Gen 1-11, we find ourselves in a position of not needing to take such a literalistic approach. St. Augustine, who we can hardly fault for caving into theories created in modern times, took an aliteralistic approach to the six days of creation. He also believed animal death and predation to be part of the natural order, and not the conseqence of the Fall. He believed these things on theological, not scientific, grounds.

True, we must avoid a slippery slope leading to heresy when we take such an approach to scripture. But isn't this path, perlilous though it may be, neccessary given the data provided by objective scientific methods? Isn't the greater sin to ignore the data, or obfuscate, or pretend it doesn't exist? This does us no good when we try to spread the Gospel to modern men, which is our first calling as Christians.

[edit: Oops. Just realized I shouldn't of posted in this forum. My bad. Sorry.]

[A Beautiful Truth]

Hi jhappel,

I agree that it is a dangerous game when we start sifting through scripture, trying to decide which passages to take literalistically and which not. Such methods, when gone unchecked, can indeed lead to heresy. But might this game be, dangerous as it, one we have to carefully play. Hugh Ross is a sincere Christian. His goal is to reconcile his earnest faith in Christ with those facts he believes to be empiracally proven. I don't see anything inherently wrong with this. What is wrong is when, in the pursuit of such a reconciliation, dogmatic truths, such as original sin, are denied. That's when we encounter problems.

Teilhard, and I've read much of him, was a troubled soul. Indeed, a heretic (though perhaps the most Christocentric heretic to ever trouble the Church.) He was silenced, and banished to China for his writings (in particular a slim volume by the name of Christianity and Evolution, in which he radically and heretically reinterpreted the Christian dogma of the Fall and original sin.) And merely calling him a newager isn't the half of it. He gave birth the New Age movement, his fusion of pantheism, evolutionary theory and mysical theology concerning the body of Christ, is the foundation of many New Age trends (though they often change the name of his Christ-centered terms.) His work heavily influenced Lovelock's Gaia theory. Teilhard, in other words, did a naughty thing. It was, like Ross however, born out of sincere desire to reconcile faith and science. A big problem that drove Teilhard nuts was his inability to accept animal death before the fall. It was not so much borne out of scripture, as a near pagan/pantheistic adoration of nature, the conclusions from which he read back into scripture. This forced him ultimately to deny the Fall as it has always been understood by the Church. Teilhard represents the extreme of what can go wrong. His legacy should serve as a caution, but not a roadblock.

That the Bible is 100% true is something that no orthodox Christian may deny. But does this mean we must take a literalistic approach to every passage in scripture. I don't agree with Ross' method, probably for the exact opposite reason you disagree with it. I think Ross' method is too literalistic, which leads to as many problems as it solves. But is it not possible, that when we study the literary genres of portions of the Bible such as Gen 1-11, we find ourselves in a position of not needing to take such a literalistic approach. St. Augustine, who we can hardly fault for caving into theories created in modern times, took an aliteralistic approach to the six days of creation. He also believed animal death and predation to be part of the natural order, and not the conseqence of the Fall. He believed these things on theological, not scientific, grounds.

True, we must avoid a slippery slope leading to heresy when we take such an approach to scripture. But isn't this path, perlilous though it may be, neccessary given the data provided by objective scientific methods? Isn't the greater sin to ignore the data, or obfuscate, or pretend it doesn't exist? This does us no good when we try to spread the Gospel to modern men, which is our first calling as Christians.

[edit: Oops. Just realized I shouldn't of posted in this forum. My bad. Sorry.]

I like your post, romepunk. In case it is edited out because you are not to post on Cosmogony, I thought I would reply to it and maybe people can still read it.

Good point about Augustine believing in pre-fall animal death, I forgot about that.

~Charleen

[Socratism]

Augustine also believed that creation occurred instantaneously, not in 6 "days", whatever their duration.

As far as deChardin is concerned I have several of his books in my library and would agree that he was what one might call "New Age".


The "flavor" of his writings can be gained by reading this short sample from his book, "Christianity and Evolution" , pp 91-92 :


Here again, if we are to remain faithful to the gospel, we have to adjust its spiritual code to the new shape of the universe. Henceforth the universe assumes an additional dimension for our experience. It has ceased to be the formal garden from which we are temporarily banned by a whim of the Creator. It has become the great work in process of completion which we have to save by saving ourselves.

[kofh2u]

Teilhard de Chardin, a very influential evolutionist of the past, once said:



What many people may find most surprising is de Chardin called himself a Christian and a 'creationist' who claimed God used evolution to create. I think many conservative Christians would agree this kind of thinking is misguided and even heretical. As Christian's our light is the Word of God not the fallible opinions of fallen men. However, their are many Christians who claim to be Bible-centered in their thinking, yet by critical evaluation it is revealed they are on a slippery slope in the direction of de Chardin's philosophy. I'm sure many PC's, day-ager's, etc. will be offended by comparing their thinking to de Chardin who really was a new-age pantheist and not a Christian. I am not claiming they share similar heretical positions that he did. I am only pointing out why I feel Genesis compromises are so dangerous to the Christian faith.

For instance the most famous and out-spoken Christian defender of the secular astronomical evolutionary theory of the origin of the universe is Hugh Ross. He is embraced by many Christians because he claims to be a 'creationist' and says he believes in Bible inerrancy. But by careful reading of his writings shows that his thinking is not entirely Biblically based but is heavily evolution based. Ross loves to tell the story of how he became a Christian. As a teenager in the 60's he 'discovered' that the big bang must be true. It was because of his uncritical acceptance of this theory at such a young age that supposedly lead him to Jesus Christ because he was able to fit the big bang in the Bible and was unsuccessful in fitting it in with other religious writings. I am happy to hear Ross has accepted Jesus as his Savior. I however am very concerned about his dogmatic acceptance about a historical, non-repeatable theory that deals with the origin of the universe. This theory was not originally described by Christians using Genesis as their aid to interpret the observations of the universe. It was in fact originally authored by agnostic scientist’s seeking to develop a model which had no need for a creator. Its because of this origin that Christians should immediately be alarmed about embracing this as God's means of creation. We must also realize the limitations of science in dealing with the past and the finite human mind trying to conceive of God's infinite power at work when he creates. Therefore the biblical text itself is essential in reconstructing what really happened since we don’t have all the data but God does.

The most troubling thing I find of Hugh Ross is that he has staked his whole ministry on the 'fact' of the Big Bang. He has gone so far as saying it was Moses who first discovered the Big Bang. As a result the Big Bang has been elevated to the same authority as scripture. Since Ross is on record as saying the Big Bang is a fact, all interpretations of scripture and history must be dealt with in light of the Big Bang. The Big Bang is Ross's light which illuminates all facts and which all lines of thought must bow. For instance, the flood must be local, not because the Hebrew text teaches it, but because the light of the big bang reveals an ancient cosmos that has no room for a global flood. Animals must have originally been created carnivorous and eating each other for millions of years before humans were created. Not because the Genesis creation account reveals this but because the light of the big bang demonstrates this must be true. Gaps also must be added to the chronologies in Genesis adding tens of thousands of years to the date for Adam. Not because there is hermeneutic support in the text for such a position, but because the light of the big bang requires an extended chronology for humanity. Or any human fossils that are ‘dated’ after 60,000 years must be non-human humanoids not because there is clear scriptural and scientific reasons for taking such a position, but because the light of the big bang demonstrates an ancient cosmos and biblical inerrancy supposedly can’t handle that late of a date but somehow 60,000 is acceptable.

I can go on but I hope you get the point. What ultimately is happening is, Ross and other Christians are unlocking a door in the direction of de Chardin's pantheism where the Bible no longer is our authority in all areas. Man is elevated to a position where he can determine truth without the aid of scripture and can even override scripture if he chooses. I realize there are many highly respected truly sincere Christians who love God and his Word and yet still elevate man’s fallible opinions of the past as authoritative in understanding God’s word. I respect Norman Geisler, Gleason Archer, Walter Kaiser and yes even Hugh Ross. I do feel they believe what they are doing is the best way to evangelize an increasingly skeptical world. It is my hope, however, that they would someday reflect a little bit at the big picture and see how shaky the foundations are for the positions they take.

The position I take and the one I feel all Christian’s should take is to start with the Bible. If the creator of the universe really inspired the Bible its truths should override any man’s opinion. All models of the past must be tested with the biblical text themselves. Any model that contradicts any biblical dated must be discarded. To do otherwise would negate the claimed nature of the Bible itself. A revelation from a perfect, all-knowing source cannot be wrong on the origin of the universe in any area. It can’t be 70% correct. It can’t be 85% correct. It can’t be 99% correct. It must be 100% correct or it’s not what it claims to be. Compromises on the plain meaning of the text solve nothing. When the rest of the world sees that we Christians don’t even believe the very book that is the basis for our faith how do you expect them to?


1) Teilhart WAS a Roman Catholic Priest.

2) "Omega Point" his book, seems to confirm St Paul's idea that a tremendous change is coming in that we "will ALL be changed in a twinkling." In this I see confirmation of the next evolution, a psychic one, in us, Modern Homo Sapiens. That change will be total, to include an new name for us, Homoiousian Man.

3) It is thenon-evolutionist, bible thumping, Creationistic fundamentalist who lies by omission. He ignors that the seven "days" really could be any duration of time. Even a duration of millions of years, seven Eras, could be the interpretation of "yom" in the Hebrew.

4) The fundamentalist misrepresents Genesis without noting that his interpretation IS his. He lies to say directly, "God said it."

5) And, as far as before the Big Bang, whatever entity pre-existed, that seems to be God of Creation.
6) According to Einstein, what preceeds material universe, the sudden appearance of matter, must have been pure Absolute Energy.

7) According to the FreudianBible Translation and Interpretation:

Gen. 1:1 In the beginning God, (The Universal Force) created the heaven and the earth.

Gen. 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the spirit of God (the Natural Laws) moved upon the face of the waters.

[A Beautiful Truth]

And the spirit of God (the Natural Laws) moved upon the face of the waters.

So you do not believe that the "spirit of God" is actually God but Natural Laws? Or you believe that God's spirit is "Natural Laws"?

That is certainly not a Christian perspective, perhaps I misunderstood what you really meant??

~Charleen

[kuboes1831]

Yes deChardin was way off beam and his views are not orthodox Christian, but he is no more off-beam and heretical than all these YEC activists we have to put up with with all their misrepresentation, distortions and bigotry to those they call Churchians and compromisers

[Abigail]

and heretic is not a derogatory term? Now who's the bigot?

[jhappel]

I feel we should not be totally critical of the Big Bang, because part of it may be true, despite having some shortcomings.

I feel the part that is true, which incidentally is the part which is claimed to be supported by evidence, is that the universe expanded over time from an initially tiny space.


The problem I have with Ross and others like him is his embracing the big bang to such an extent that it is part of his theology. The big bang is to Ross like evolution is to Teilhard de Chardin. It is more than just a theory. It is a postulate that all other views must bow to in order to be thinkable and true. Ross overlooks all problems with the Big bang, grossly overstates the case for the big bang and is unwilling to consider any other possible interpretations. This is shown by his claim that the Bible 'teaches' the big bang. YEC's never claim their models are air tight established facts. YEC's only say its the biblical record that is non-negotiable. Sure they are willing to hear arguments that the YEC biblical interpretation is wrong. Its just that noone has been able to refute the YEC biblical model on purely exegetical grounds.


I agree that there is nothing unbiblical about an expanding universe. This however doesn't require a big bang. The big bang is nothing more than an evolutionary interpretation of an expanding universe. There many other possible interpretations when you allow God's omnipotence into the equations that atheists would never consider.


This part of the theory was verified by God when He stated 11 times in scripture that He "stretched out the heavens".

But is the universe still expanding, or was this process completed sometime during Creation Week? This is a stickier question, because currently there is no way of scientifically determining whether the expansion is continuing or not.

I agree.



Interestingly, according to one of the authors of Big Bang "inflation", the very early universe expanding hugely (100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 times) in less than a picosecond, and then slowed to its current slow rate of expansion. If that huge expansion rate had continued for only one more picosecond it would have yielded a universe of its present size, and then stopped.

Aren't we supposed to choose the simpler alternative whenever two theories yield the same result and are supported by the same evidence?

These are only educated quesses. Mainly theoretical and certainly fallible. They should not be regarded as facts. And most importantly they should all be checked with scripture since thats the final authority.

[kofh2u]

So you do not believe that the "spirit of God" is actually God but Natural Laws? Or you believe that God's spirit is "Natural Laws"?

That is certainly not a Christian perspective, perhaps I misunderstood what you really meant??

~Charleen

No way.
The spirit of life! The flowers, the singing of birds, the mystery of biological clockings that open and unzip chromosomes in the process of protein manufacturing, the awe of birth, of growth, of development, and of maturation,...

... and, to this, the enormity of the universe and infinitesimality of the quantum world, all, the whole ball of wax in existing,... inexplicitable and in some divine way, all interconnected in ONE amazing integration of harmonious relationship of each smallest element with the largest picture of an observable REALITY. This is the spirit of God.

And, the culmination and Omega Point of the most amazing truth, that the seemingly inanimate inorganic world has manifested in us,...
.... living creatures, mankind, which can commune with this Universal Reality, interact in the genetic process of creationing new life forms, and relate with and through laws, those mechanisms which are the hidden strihgs this Almighty pulls in His choreography of butterfly wings flapping, and seas raging, and Spring returning.

These natural laws, because they can, and are, being understood represent the groom we, men, are marrying.

Gen. 1:26 And God, (The Universal Force, the Macrocosmos), said, "Let us, (the Natural Laws), make man, (a conscious mind, to model us, the Universe, as in a Microcosmos of his mind, in order that our image might be modeled after our own orderly organization): and let him (that conscious mind,) have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."

Gen. 1:27 So God (The Universal Force) created man (an abstract mind in his own image, enabled to image The Universal Force, abstractly and mathematically), so created God (The Universal Force) him; male and female created he them.

[Socrates]

But is it not possible, that when we study the literary genres of portions of the Bible such as Gen 1-11,

Oh do tell. If you're right, this must be the only passage with all the earmarks of historical narrative which is not. Whenever the Bible uses a verb sequence beginning with a whenever the Bible uses a verb sequence beginning with a qatal (historic perfect) continuing with a wayyiqtol (waw consecutive), followed, if need be, by other wayyiqtols which advance the account forward, then it is a historical narrative -- we find that in Genesis 1. OT scholar Gray Pilgrim has pointed out that the verb forms and syntactical markers of Genesis 1-11 are no different percentage wise from Genesis 12-23. So on formal, statistical grounds there is no difference in the syntax of these two segments. Genesis 1–11 also has several other trademarks of historical narrative, such as ‘accusative particles’ (’eth) that mark the objects of verbs, and many terms that are carefully defined.

Jesus took Genesis as history as I showed at http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?action=showthread&postid=257782#post257782 and The rest of the Bible treats Genesis 1-11 as straightforward history, not allegory (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?action=showthread&postid=247545#post247545).


we find ourselves in a position of not needing to take such a literalistic approach.
Oh, you mean the approach of such great saints like Basil the Great, Cyril of Jerusalem, Ambrose of Milan, ....?


St. Augustine, who we can hardly fault for caving into theories created in modern times, took an aliteralistic approach to the six days of creation. He also believed animal death and predation to be part of the natural order, and not the conseqence of the Fall. He believed these things on theological, not scientific, grounds.
Prove it. Augustine explicitly believed the earth was <6000 years old when he wrote. But he allegorised the six days to an instant, because he caved into outside influence -- neo-Platonic philosophy. Anyway, why should I believe Augustine -- my knowledge of Hebrew is far better than his was, yet is nowhere near Gray Pilgrim's class.


True, we must avoid a slippery slope leading to heresy when we take such an approach to scripture. But isn't this path, perlilous though it may be, neccessary given the data provided by objective scientific methods?
What's objective about the naturalistic bias behind evolution and uniformitarianism?

[romepunk]

Okay, okay. I know I shouldn't post here again. But I thought I'd give a brief reply (since the side I'm taking in this discussion falls well within the parameters of this forum's guidelines.)


Oh do tell. If you're right, this must be the only passage with all the earmarks of historical narrative which is not. Whenever the Bible uses a verb sequence beginning with a whenever the Bible uses a verb sequence beginning with a qatal (historic perfect) continuing with a wayyiqtol (waw consecutive), followed, if need be, by other wayyiqtols which advance the account forward, then it is a historical narrative -- we find that in Genesis 1. OT scholar Gray Pilgrim has pointed out that the verb forms and syntactical markers of Genesis 1-11 are no different percentage wise from Genesis 12-23. So on formal, statistical grounds there is no difference in the syntax of these two segments. Genesis 1–11 also has several other trademarks of historical narrative, such as ‘accusative particles’ (’eth) that mark the objects of verbs, and many terms that are carefully defined.

Jesus took Genesis as history as I showed at http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?action=showthread&postid=257782#post257782 and The rest of the Bible treats Genesis 1-11 as straightforward history, not allegory (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?action=showthread&postid=247545#post247545).
I don't deny the historicity of Genesis. It is history. I just question whether it is history told in a context that must be taken 100% literalistically. When I speak of the literary genre, I don't mean to get into issues of syntax but content. I can't help but see that the content of Gen 1-11 is fundamentally different from 12 on. I also must admit that my thoughts are also influenced by JEPD theory, which I do accept. And the probablility that Gen 1-11 relied on preexistent mesoptamian myth as a source for much imagery (although I understand that that particular discussion is beyond the scope of this thread.)


Oh, you mean the approach of such great saints like Basil the Great, Cyril of Jerusalem, Ambrose of Milan, ....?
I have nothing but respect for these great minds. But there was a diversity opinion on the subject even in the early church. If there was unanimity among the Church Fathers on this issue, then I, as a Catholic would be bound to their collective opinion. But as evidenced by St. Augustine, there was diversity.


Prove it. Augustine explicitly believed the earth was <6000 years old when he wrote. But he allegorised the six days to an instant, because he caved into outside influence -- neo-Platonic philosophy. Anyway, why should I believe Augustine -- my knowledge of Hebrew is far better than his was, yet is nowhere near Gray Pilgrim's class.
Quite true. Augustine did believe that the earth was 6,000 years old. But he didn't allegorize the 6 days in the proper sense of the term. He took them literally, just not literalistically. That is, the 6 day describe a real historical event: creation. He just say "6 day" as a literary method of giving the elements of creation a topological order. He denied a literalistic 6 days because he couldn't fathom why an omnipotent God would take six whole days to create the universe, rather than instantaneously.

That being said, obviously I don't agree with many of Augustine's conclusions on the subject. I don't believe the earth to be 6,000 years old or creation to be an instantaneous event. But Augustine did give us an exegetical method. One that allows for OEC's and TE's to take Gen 1-11 as literal history, yet not be bound to a literalistic interp of the elements therein.


What's objective about the naturalistic bias behind evolution and uniformitarianism?
Can't help you there. There certainly is a lot of bias. But just because an atheist discovered something doesn't mean it isn't true. Many, many good Christian scientists attest to the truth of the discoveries in question. I don't think all of them can be accused of caving into pressure from secular academia.

[Ungoliant]

This is my first ever post on Theology Web, though I have spent a few days navigating around and reading the debates. I just had to make a statement about the original post on this thread.

What a load of nonsense, phew I feel better now.

Teilhard du Chardin was a Jesuit. What part of Christian do you not get about that? You may not like his philosophy but to call him a pantheist is ridiculous.

The pro-fundamentalist anti anything else rhetoric on here is sickening.

[Socratism]

This is my first ever post on Theology Web, though I have spent a few days navigating around and reading the debates. I just had to make a statement about the original post on this thread.

What a load of nonsense, phew I feel better now.

Teilhard du Chardin was a Jesuit. What part of Christian do you not get about that? You may not like his philosophy but to call him a pantheist is ridiculous.

The pro-fundamentalist anti anything else rhetoric on here is sickening.

Apparently you have never read his books. I have, and there is no resemblance between his views and those of Christian theology. The fact that he started out as a priest and a Jesuit is no support for the views he expressed in his books later in his life. Many people started out as Christians, but later gradually adopted views in direct opposition to their earlier beliefs and training. Bishop Spong is a good example.

[romepunk]

This is my first ever post on Theology Web, though I have spent a few days navigating around and reading the debates. I just had to make a statement about the original post on this thread.

What a load of nonsense, phew I feel better now.

Teilhard du Chardin was a Jesuit. What part of Christian do you not get about that? You may not like his philosophy but to call him a pantheist is ridiculous.

The pro-fundamentalist anti anything else rhetoric on here is sickening.Teilhard described himself as having pantheistic leanings in a number of his writings. His theological supporters don't flinch in using this term either.

I don't like denying folks the dignity of being called a Christian if they have a sincere belief in salvation through Christ. That being said, Teilhard's writings were well outside the pale of orthodox Christianity. If he is a Christian, then he is a heretical Christian.

[Socrates]

Teilhard described himself as having pantheistic leanings in a number of his writings. His theological supporters don't flinch in using this term either.

I don't like denying folks the dignity of being called a Christian if they have a sincere belief in salvation through Christ. That being said, Teilhard's writings were well outside the pale of orthodox Christianity. If he is a Christian, then he is a heretical Christian.
Absolutely correct. He denied all essential Christian doctrines, and instead taught that all humanity is gradually evolving towards a mystical, pantheistic union with God, "omega". Teilhard even believed that Christ was "saved by evolution", as if He needed to be saved from anything! See also David Lane, The Phenomenon of Teilhard; Prophet for a New Age, Mercer University Press, 1996.

:lol: Teilhard = "Father Piltdown" :rofl:

[brett]

I feel we should not be totally critical of the Big Bang, because part of it may be true, despite having some shortcomings.

I feel the part that is true, which incidentally is the part which is claimed to be supported by evidence, is that the universe expanded over time from an initially tiny space.

Actually Socratism, I'm wondering if you're misunderstanding the BBT. I recently found out that I was totally wrong about it. Did you know that, according to the theory, even at the time everything was compacted and infinitly small there was actually no centerpoint? In other words, it's not like all matter was crushed into a little ball with a surface and a centerpoint. Rather, everything was evenly distributed just as it is today, just more dense. It was actually space itelf that was smaller (which also has no centerpoint). This is quite different from Humphreys White Hole Cosmology which is actually much closer to what many people (and apparently even many scientists) mistakenly believe the Big Bang is.



This part of the theory was verified by God when He stated 11 times in scripture that He "stretched out the heavens".

The stretching out of space and matter isn't really the main pillar of the theory. The absence of a centerpoint is. That's why I just reject the theory altogether.

[Socratism]

Actually Socratism, I'm wondering if you're misunderstanding the BBT. I recently found out that I was totally wrong about it. Did you know that, according to the theory, even at the time everything was compacted and infinitly small there was actually no centerpoint? In other words, it's not like all matter was crushed into a little ball with a surface and a centerpoint. Rather, everything was evenly distributed just as it is today, just more dense. It was actually space itelf that was smaller (which also has no centerpoint). This is quite different from Humphreys White Hole Cosmology which is actually much closer to what many people (and apparently even many scientists) mistakenly believe the Big Bang is.

Yes, I understand that the Big Bang expansion was in the coordinates of space itself. Whether this is what is meant by the verses in scripture is a matter of conjecture.

My point was only that the evidence for the Big Bang is the same as for any expansion, whether it was of the coordinates of space or not, or whether it is still continuing today or not.


The stretching out of space and matter isn't really the main pillar of the theory. The absence of a centerpoint is. That's why I just reject the theory altogether.

I don't blame you. The "absence of a centerpoint" idea is apparently because its proponents do not want to believe that the Earth is so special in the universe, and by implication human beings as well.

[Ungoliant]

The absence of a centrepoint is based upon observation. To claim it is because some group do not want the Earth to be special is conspiracy theory nonsense. This is one of the reasons why Young Earth Creationists are given short shrift by scientists - they come across as uneducated whiners.

[brett]

The absence of a centrepoint is based upon observation. To claim it is because some group do not want the Earth to be special is conspiracy theory nonsense. This is one of the reasons why Young Earth Creationists are given short shrift by scientists - they come across as uneducated whiners.

Of course it's based on observation. But is it proven by observation? The expansion we observe is also compatable with there being a centerpoint in the universe. But that would necessitate our galaxy being near the center. Why is that such an odious concept to you?

[Socrates]

The absence of a centrepoint is based upon observation.
You're wrong. It's based on philosophy.


To claim it is because some group do not want the Earth to be special is conspiracy theory nonsense.
Piffle -- it's straight from the horses' mouth. Edwin Hubble himself admitted:

‘Such a condition [these red shifts] would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe, ... But the unwelcome supposition of a favored location must be avoided at all costs ... is intolerable ... moreover, it represents a discrepancy with the theory because the theory postulates homogeneity.’ [The Observational Approach to Cosmology, pp. 50–59, Clarendon, Oxford, 1937]

One of Hawking's buddies George Ellis honestly made it clear that philosophy was involved:

‘People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations … For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations. … You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.’ [Cited in Wayt Gibbs, Profile of George F.R. Ellis: Thinking Globally, Acting Universally, Scientific American 273(4):28, 29, 1995]

The quantized red shifts are best explained by concentric shells of galaxies centred on or near our own galaxy. See Our galaxy is the centre of the universe, ‘quantized’ red shifts show (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/v16n2_centre.asp)


This is one of the reasons why Young Earth Creationists are given short shrift by scientists - they come across as uneducated whiners.
I am a scientist as well as a YEC, so it is highly improper for you to make a false contrast. And I'm obviously far better educated than you in this matter as shown by your ignorance of the philosophical presuppositions of leading cosmogonists.

[Ungoliant]

You're wrong. It's based on philosophy.


Piffle -- it's straight from the horses' mouth. Edwin Hubble himself admitted:

‘Such a condition [these red shifts] would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe, ... But the unwelcome supposition of a favored location must be avoided at all costs ... is intolerable ... moreover, it represents a discrepancy with the theory because the theory postulates homogeneity.’ [The Observational Approach to Cosmology, pp. 50–59, Clarendon, Oxford, 1937]

One of Hawking's buddies George Ellis honestly made it clear that philosophy was involved:

‘People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations … For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations. … You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.’ [Cited in Wayt Gibbs, Profile of George F.R. Ellis: Thinking Globally, Acting Universally, Scientific American 273(4):28, 29, 1995]

The quantized red shifts are best explained by concentric shells of galaxies centred on or near our own galaxy. See Our galaxy is the centre of the universe, ‘quantized’ red shifts show (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/v16n2_centre.asp)


I am a scientist as well as a YEC, so it is highly improper for you to make a false contrast. And I'm obviously far better educated than you in this matter as shown by your ignorance of the philosophical presuppositions of leading cosmogonists.


My we are uppity and full of oneself. Ans what is more - clueless about modern cosmology.

Nice of you to doctor the Hubble quotation with many ellipsises so as to perhaps take out of context. Is this your natural tendency so as to buttress your biases?

Quantised redshifts have been pretty much discarded by the 2Df survey and now the Sloan survey.

Are you a scientist? May I enquire what discipline because it sure as heck is not physics or astronomy.

[Socrates]

My we are uppity and full of oneself. Ans what is more - clueless about modern cosmology.
Oh right, right, I quote two cosmological leaders admitting that a no-center view is philosophical, and this is all you can come up with?


Nice of you to doctor the Hubble quotation with many ellipsises so as to perhaps take out of context. Is this your natural tendency so as to buttress your biases?
It's up to you to prove that it is out of context.


Quantised redshifts have been pretty much discarded by the 2Df survey and now the Sloan survey.
Not at all. A shell structure of the universe is consistent with the most recent observations.


Are you a scientist?
Yes. Are you? Are you a creationist of some description because if not you shouldn't be posting here.


May I enquire what discipline because it sure as heck is not physics or astronomy.
Prove it. I cited authorities; all you produce is bluff and bluster, showing your unawareness of the presuppositional bias behind big bang cosmogony.