"unorthodox" Creation views

[Glenn P]

But I'm not defining "dogmatic" in any kind of way to suggest "good Christian/bad Christian". Rather just that they push their views/beliefs/theories/ideas/arguments/evidences/complaints with just as strong a voice, just as ferocious, just as insulting, just as unchanging, unwavering, and usually utterly unsympathetic to the other side with no hope of changing belief. Both sides act the same. Adding the "you're a bad Christian" is just another argument in the toolbox, nothing more, even if it stings a little to be told that. But one single argument doesn't tip the scales from nondogmatic to dogmatic, that's a bit unfair, even if you don't like the argument.

Eve if you don't like the use of terms, the complaint here is about a certain sort of dogmatism, a dogmatism that goes as far as to undermine the faith of brethren. If you would prefer that this conduct was not called out as dogmatic and deemed inappropriate, then I am unable to share your view, and I hope most other people do not share it.

Besides, on a lighter note, I've never heard a TE tell a YEC they were going against scripture. Sure it may be a useless argument, but the argument is on our side nonetheless, and perhaps that means something.

Obviously, the dispute between YEC and other Christians is about whether or not the argument is on your side.

Actually that reminds me of another feature of YEC that is likely to contribute to its image as dogmatic: while its leading lights might know better, the movement as a whole is incredibly insular. The majority of it's "normal" adherents seem to find it unbelievable that other views even exist in Christianity.

Even still, that's all getting slightly off topic. My point from the start was not to charge anybody with "bad Christian", but merely to point out that a cursory reading of scripture IS YECish, so it seems quite natural most churches would follow that view.

That may be your motive in the thread, but this does nothing to compensate for the unfortunately graceless and dogmatic appropach of so many in the YEC movement.

[franktalk]

If you think that smarts, then become part of the solution: Start campaigning against this behaviour from YEC believers so that the criticism will be made less often.

I don't care how old anyone thinks the world is. But a case can be made for a young earth from scripture.

Now Luke has a genealogy of Christ going back to Adam. If the earth is old how do you read Luke to place long ages into scripture?

Genesis describes life in six days not billions of years. Is it wrong? How do you make scripture say something else?

Jesus says let your answer be yes or no, not much grey in there. If this is the case why would Christ tell Moses to write a grey creation?

Since God knows everything from the beginning do you think He knew that man would believe Lyell about the age of the earth and Darwin about ape to man ascent? Do you think that He told Moses to write Genesis just the way it is so it would be a stumbling block for those of little faith?

Why would Peter write that mockers would deny the flood? Did he know in advance that geology would deny the flood? Are geologist mockers? Are Darwinist Christians?

These are simple questions. They should have simple answers. If your answers are "could be" or "might be" or I read it to say "this", or that word actually means something else. Are you not making Moses and God simple minded? For the God who made man probably knows how to write a verse that can be understood. But if you think that only some men get it and scripture must bend to man's ideas then you are lost.

This argument is tired. I am tired of writing it. The world weighs in against God in many areas. It is so hard to cast it all off. I do not know or care how God made the earth or man, I just know He did. I also know that God had men write scripture under His guidance. He is not a trickster, nor is He simple minded. I think He gave us exactly what we needed. It is our choice to see it or not.

[Glenn P]

I don't care how old anyone thinks the world is. But a case can be made for a young earth from scripture.

This thread is not about how good anyone thinks the case for their view on the age of the earth is.

[technomage]

Thanks Silent Running for your comment.

I think we are talking about the same thing so I don't think I disagree with you. I think I am not making myself clear and I apologize for that.

What I meant was that there are two kinds of argument regarding post-enlightenment science. The first one is the one that I adhere to and the one that you mentioned and also the kind of undertaking by Christian Scientist like e.g. JOhn Polkinhorne, Francis Collins. It is that science is an observation of the natural phenomenon and with no ideological presupposition. So it is an open approach that allows supernatural occurrences like miracles, deity, creation of universe.

However, I do think there is a second school of philosophy of science that is advocated by people like Dawkins, Sagan. Their idea is that science presumed a naturalistic presupposition and so for them, science can never accept the explanation of supernatural intervention no matter how strong the evidences are presented. It is simply unacceptable to their worldview and they will accept any scientific speculations or ideas like multiverse instead of the universe's origin

We do agree, and thank you for the clarification.

As regards to YEC, I cannot comment on that as I do not know enough of YEC to be able to comment. My gut feeling is that they have problem not with science but with the principles of biblical hermeneutics

Unfortunately, I do know many in the YEC community, as I grew up in that sector of Christianity.

[franktalk]

This thread is not about how good anyone thinks the case for their view on the age of the earth is.

One creation view is to use the Bible as a reference and let everything else be subject to the reference. Now I don't know if that view is correct but it does allow for a supernatural history. It is the view that "God did it" and everything else must be seen in this light. So many of the proofs and theories of man would be tossed because they appear to conflict with the reference. So where man assumes a linear past we would look at the trace data of the past and compress it into a nonlinear past with supernatural events which somehow jumble the data. This method of interpreting the past is just as valid as any other view. Since we can not actually return to the past to verify our theory.

I see YEC as a stepping stone for some people. It is a way to ease into being a Christian. But then once someone has faith I see no need for anyone to hold onto any YEC view. The reason is, it should be easy to cast off the world and have faith. But I don't see a lot of this going on. So many people sit on the fence and try and keep a foot in the world and a foot in the spirit world. All that does is give you splinters in the most inappropriate places.

[RCNicholas]

Because we have two sides we have antagonist. Funny how that works out.

You don't think YECs are antagonistic towards those who disagree with them? Vigilante just said in so many words that non-YEC Christians basically don't believe the Bible. To me that's antagonism.

No. Everything in science can be disproven tomorrow. The life expectancy of a theory is short.

But everything isn't disproven. Some theories last longer than others, and those that do are generally said to be supported (not proven) by the evidence.

I study the ideas of YEC and was a big time YEC at one time. I am still labeled as YEC by most, why fight it.

Well there's a pretty easy way to tell...do you believe the Earth and/or the universe is around 10,000 years old?

So you know as a fact that light took 14.5 billion years to get to the earth from the edge of the universe.

No, because again things in science are not "proven." However, we have good reason to think so. In order to deny this you would have to deny that the speed of light is constant, and that at some point it traveled WAY faster than it does now. Now, I'm not an astronomer (enter pithy comment like, "then shut up about things you don't understand" here...), but again, my point goes to a larger philosophical question. It is totally possible that God at some point made light go much much faster than it does now, making it possible that the universe is only 10,000 years old but we can see stars that are 14 billion light years away. God can do whatever He wants. But again, the question non-YECs ask is, WHY would God form the universe in such a way and then leave behind evidence which clearly indicates a method or timeframe of creation that totally contradicts reality?

Now we should list some of the assumptions in that statement. 1) The big bang is true and white hole expansion is false. 2) uniformitarianism applies all the way back 14.5 billion years. 3) The Bible is in error. 4) Hubble's red shift is due to an expanding universe. 5) Arp does not know what he is talking about.

Again, your "assumption" #3 seems to indicate a very close-minded view, which is exactly why non-YECs often feel that their views are "taboo" among YECs. Why would the Bible necessarily be false simply because it took light 14 billion years to get here from a star 14 billion light years away?

Let me tell you something that bugs me about astrophysics. Maybe it will bug you as well. When the red shift was discovered we found that the light from distance sources in spheres around us was the same so it appeared as if we were in the center of the universe. But Hubble and Einstein did not like it that the earth would be in the center of the universe so a new term was added to the cosmos constant which bent space. Then no matter where you are you would see that you are in the center of the universe. This was done for two reasons. The first was it was unlikely we would be in the center unless we were special somehow. That was too close to design and supernatural intervention. The second was the redshift could be explained by travel through space. (way more complex than I am presenting) So the expanding universe came to man. OK then they are telling me that is it just as likely that the earth is really on the creative edge of the universe and not at some young point. So the galaxy next to us could be the oldest in the universe. Or the gas cloud next to us could be the youngest thing in the universe. But why is it that we always here that we look back in time as we view through our telescope. Why are we told that the viewing edge is the oldest? You see that science is saying two different things. One is we are not the center because of some things but we are the center and everything gets progressively older as we look out there. But if we are not the center then we could be the oldest thing in the universe. Or was everything made at the same time? I hope you see the problem.

I'm not an expert on these things, but I believe the quandry you seem to be struggling with is explained by the theory of general relativity. You seem to imply that Einstein created this theory to deny God or the supernatural, but Einstein seems to have believed in a God of some sort. He just wasn't YEC or geocentric. So again, you seem to have this idea stuck in your head that abandoning YEC is somehow "anti-God." What OECs and TEs are trying to tell you is, it isn't.

[franktalk]

You don't think YECs are antagonistic towards those who disagree with them? Vigilante just said in so many words that non-YEC Christians basically don't believe the Bible. To me that's antagonism.

Both groups act like people with all of the faults of people. Some YEC cast doubts on people being Christian. Science types typically think the rest of the world is stupid if they don't go along with the program. These are both misguided attitudes. Both groups think they can prove theories of the past. They can't. I know enough about science and YEC to know that both sides don't prove and can't prove what they say. Both groups says that they study the universe to honor God and show how it works. They say by studying nature they uncover the real way the universe was made. But they exclude God in their study and force all of the data into naturalistic explanations. The YEC force the data into Biblical explanations, but they still use the naturalistic limitations. If God made the world as He said and then said we need to come to Him though faith then there is no evidence of God to find. At the same time there will be no evidence to disprove God either. How man interprets data with all of his biases is interesting but does little to clear up the past.

But everything isn't disproven. Some theories last longer than others, and those that do are generally said to be supported (not proven) by the evidence.

OK

Well there's a pretty easy way to tell...do you believe the Earth and/or the universe is around 10,000 years old?

It is probably around 7800 years old but it may be 14.5 billion years old or older. No matter how I feel about how old it is it is what it is. With a white hole explanation of the universe the earth experienced six days while the rest of the universe experienced 14.5 billion years. Since the earth and Jerusalem are the center and the attention spot then six days on the earth matters, not what happens outside. So maybe if we focus on Jerusalem like God does we do well. But this explanation uses naturalistic methods as well. I tend to think God did it by miracles. Since we have no idea what if any evidence they leave behind then our sorting through all of the past data could be worthless.

No, because again things in science are not "proven." However, we have good reason to think so. In order to deny this you would have to deny that the speed of light is constant, and that at some point it traveled WAY faster than it does now. Now, I'm not an astronomer (enter pithy comment like, "then shut up about things you don't understand" here...), but again, my point goes to a larger philosophical question. It is totally possible that God at some point made light go much much faster than it does now, making it possible that the universe is only 10,000 years old but we can see stars that are 14 billion light years away. God can do whatever He wants. But again, the question non-YECs ask is, WHY would God form the universe in such a way and then leave behind evidence which clearly indicates a method or timeframe of creation that totally contradicts reality?

Light, space, matter, and time are all related. Man has interpreted what we see. We of course could be totally wrong. I spent two years studying this light issue and believe it to be a stumbling block for many people. Have faith and do not let light or some man's opinion rule over you. It is just not that important. The Gospel is stranger than some expansion model.

Again, your "assumption" #3 seems to indicate a very close-minded view, which is exactly why non-YECs often feel that their views are "taboo" among YECs. Why would the Bible necessarily be false simply because it took light 14 billion years to get here from a star 14 billion light years away?

Again if a theory that explains the light is important to you then study white holes. You seem to think in a mechanistic mode. Our past may be nonlinear and everything we see as traces of the past could be all jumbled up. There are things in science that don't add up, there are many anomalies which science can't explain. If you really need to know that science has huge holes in it then study anomalies. I have it is great. Also look up the opinions of scientist that disagree with accepted theory. (non-YEC) Great reading by the way.

I'm not an expert on these things, but I believe the quandry you seem to be struggling with is explained by the theory of general relativity. You seem to imply that Einstein created this theory to deny God or the supernatural, but Einstein seems to have believed in a God of some sort. He just wasn't YEC or geocentric. So again, you seem to have this idea stuck in your head that abandoning YEC is somehow "anti-God." What OECs and TEs are trying to tell you is, it isn't.

Anyone who deny miracles or refuses to allow them in the explanation of the universe could be described as anti-god. But the Gospel does not say how the universe was crerated so I don't think it is required for salvation. But it still could be a stumbling block that prevents faith or promotes doubt.

You did not understand what I was saying. It is not worth describing it in more detail.

Everyone has agendas, we can't help it. I have some, we all do. Scientist think like scientist. Stay in the culture long enough and some of it rubs off. This is why it is so important for fellowship.

[Vigilante]

Eve if you don't like the use of terms, the complaint here is about a certain sort of dogmatism, a dogmatism that goes as far as to undermine the faith of brethren. If you would prefer that this conduct was not called out as dogmatic and deemed inappropriate, then I am unable to share your view, and I hope most other people do not share it.
Obviously, the dispute between YEC and other Christians is about whether or not the argument is on your side.

I just think you're taking the term WAY too far. A basic definition of "dogmatic" is "Characterized by an authoritative, arrogant assertion of unproved or unprovable principles."
And who would deny the arrogance displayed by just about ANY Darwinian thinker? YEC is too small and underpowered to presume any kind of arrogance, even if they try.

I think that can easily be applied to both sides in almost any debate I've ever witnessed. I just don't like it when the non-YECers fling it out like an insult, obviously implying that they, in their lofty views, are not dogmatic in the least, then there seems to be a further implication that by extensions of being dogmatic, that somehow also makes them more wrong in their arguments or conclusions. I.e.:
- You're being dogmatic!
- Therefore: WE are NOT at all acting like that!
- Therefore: OUR arguments are more true and yours invalid or dismissible.

Dogmatism, I think, has about zero influence on the truth value of a claim, and so that makes it more of an ad hom than anything, just a way to fling a dirty "image" on your opponent, to make them seem less believable or worthy of thought to the audience. The word is used more like a tactic than anything else.
I just happen to think the term is flung around flippantly, falsely, and used in the wrong way, not to mention an air of hypocritical irony. So we may just agree to disagree.

Actually that reminds me of another feature of YEC that is likely to contribute to its image as dogmatic: while its leading lights might know better, the movement as a whole is incredibly insular. The majority of it's "normal" adherents seem to find it unbelievable that other views even exist in Christianity.
That may be your motive in the thread, but this does nothing to compensate for the unfortunately graceless and dogmatic appropach of so many in the YEC movement.

And I think EVERYBODY in the debate has just as much a dogmatic approach to it. My "image" of my opposition is just as dogmatic as their image of me I'm sure.

Also I am not surprised "other views" exist on this issue, as other views exist on just about every Biblical doctrine and historical reference.


Peace

[aegis]

I enjoyed reading this thread as everyone is being respectful and restrained but also firmly arguing their convictions.

To FrankTalk: thank you for you conviction on faith and the gospel. It is the most important. I agree totally with you that the creation debate is not crucial to salvation and faith. Whether it is YEC's view or TE or OEC, people can still believe in God.

I agree that one cannot be a Christian if one does not believe in miracle or supernatural intervention ( read: God's hand in creation).

However, I do disagree that YEC is the only way God can intervene in the Cosmos or in creation. It is my argument that OEC and TE is compatible with the Biblical Genesis account of creation.

One can argue on that and one can debate on the biblical text and exegesis and it is a great thing to do.

However, one thing that caused an emotional response and antagonistic stance is the accusation that if one does not believe in YEC then that person is not a bible believing Christian; then that person is anti-God and that that person is only a materialistic atheist. I do not say that you are like that but I do met a few YEC who are like that.

I think it is this kind of accusation and dogmatic stance that led to the discussion by Dr. Jack and Vigilante.

To Vigilante:

Thank you for clarification on your view of dogmatism. I do agree with your point. Dogmatism is taken in a negative way but actually everyone has a bias, a starting point and context and that is fine. That is the basis for a good sharing and discussion. Dogma used to be a good word in Church history in the old days as the foundation and truth of our belief.

One thing that the postmodern times brought us is that no one person is likely to have a monopoly on the truth. ( A big disclaimer:: I do think that there is truth and one can know the truth, but because of the limitation of humankind, no one person can know all the truth, there is a diversity and vastness in knowledge). We can compare our 'dogma's and learn from each other.

[franktalk]

I agree that one cannot be a Christian if one does not believe in miracle or supernatural intervention ( read: God's hand in creation).

However, I do disagree that YEC is the only way God can intervene in the Cosmos or in creation. It is my argument that OEC and TE is compatible with the Biblical Genesis account of creation.

Science can be used as a tool to destroy someone's faith in God. I have seen it myself and I used to do it as well in days gone by. I think that is what the YEC are fighting. I think they are trying to get people to open their eyes and see an alternate explanation of scientific data. Yes, emotions run high on both sides and personal attacks are frequent.

If you read 2Peter he describes mockers that deny the flood. He then states that the reason they do is because they believe in uniformitarianism. They deny the miracle of the flood. This is exactly what science teaches today. Now can people be mockers and believe in Christ? Apparently so, I have come across many. But I ask myself, do I want to be in this class of people? The answer is no. So my faith rest in past miracles and not trace evidence interpreted by naturalistic means. It is a choice I have made. And of course I am mocked by science types all of the time. They say I am ignoring the data. To which I say I am just adding more data. Then they respond with, "but I can't see or touch your data". I respond with it is the data of faith.

[Chaotic Void]

Does anyone else feel like it's taboo to speak of anything other than YEC, when in church? Maybe it's just the area where I live... at least I hope so.
To make even more fun we're watching AiG videos in my sunday school class, and I don't know whether I should shoot through it's fallacious reasoning in the discussion, or just sit down and shut up.

Yeah, it's like that in my area too. You ain't YEC, you be of teh debal! Well, almost. You're usually met with some degree of hostility, depending on the group you're with.

We actually had a CMI guy come and do a piece at a local church about Noah's Ark (his name escapes me at the moment). And when I say that, I mean he briefly touched on what Noah's ark might have looked like, then proceeded to poke fun at the alleged problems of an Old Earth and Evolution whilst scarcely bolstering the Young Earth case with non-sequitors. Though to be fair, it wasn't all bad. The presentation was easy to follow, plus the model of the ark was rather interesting.

[RCNicholas]

Both groups act like people with all of the faults of people. Some YEC cast doubts on people being Christian. Science types typically think the rest of the world is stupid if they don't go along with the program. These are both misguided attitudes.

Agreed.

Both groups think they can prove theories of the past. They can't. I know enough about science and YEC to know that both sides don't prove and can't prove what they say.

And neither side, properly understood, should really be trying to do so.

Both groups says that they study the universe to honor God and show how it works. They say by studying nature they uncover the real way the universe was made. But they exclude God in their study and force all of the data into naturalistic explanations.

If you're referring to scientists, then this is perfectly normal and expected. Science does not (or should not) delve into areas about purpose, spirituality, etc. We can point to some scientific evidence and say, "Hey, this seems to imply divine intention/intervention," but that's really not the POINT of science. Science deals with the natural, not the supernatural. Faulting it for abiding by its own rules seems rather odd.

If God made the world as He said and then said we need to come to Him though faith then there is no evidence of God to find. At the same time there will be no evidence to disprove God either. How man interprets data with all of his biases is interesting but does little to clear up the past.

The point is, asking a person "if God made the world as He said," is really a loaded question. One does not have to believe that everything in Genesis is literal to believe it's inspired any more than one has to do so with Revelation.

It is probably around 7800 years old but it may be 14.5 billion years old or older. No matter how I feel about how old it is it is what it is.

Obviously. We could all be in the Matrix for all we know. I was just asking what you personally thought.

Light, space, matter, and time are all related. Man has interpreted what we see. We of course could be totally wrong. I spent two years studying this light issue and believe it to be a stumbling block for many people. Have faith and do not let light or some man's opinion rule over you. It is just not that important. The Gospel is stranger than some expansion model.

I don't really see it as a stumbling block, because I've come to realize that the Christian faith is not compromised by abandoning YEC. The Gospel can still remain true even if evolution is true.

Again if a theory that explains the light is important to you then study white holes.

That's really not what I asked you. You said that one of the "assumptions" I had is that the Bible is false. I asked you to substantiate this claim.

Anyone who deny miracles or refuses to allow them in the explanation of the universe could be described as anti-god.

There are still creative miracles outside the YEC framework. That's what you seem to have a hard time accepting.

[franktalk]

RCNicholas ,

The issue is not how we organize our thoughts on the world but how we prioritize our thoughts. If I say the earth is 7800 years old I could be wrong, if I say it is 14.5 billon years old I could be wrong also. The reality is I don't know how old it is. But how do I prioritize my thinking about the past. If I use the Bible as my reference and look at the world through that lense then I will not stumble as much as I would if I use science and naturalism as my guide. Yes, I think we should study the creation and to invent things is in our blood. But that study is not the lense we should examine the past with. Now if someone thinks science has the answers and they bend scripture to fit what science says then they have their priorities wrong. But we all know that the Bible is not a science book. But that does not mean we give science authority. How one walks that line is up to the individual.

[RCNicholas]

RCNicholas ,

The issue is not how we organize our thoughts on the world but how we prioritize our thoughts. If I say the earth is 7800 years old I could be wrong, if I say it is 14.5 billon years old I could be wrong also. The reality is I don't know how old it is. But how do I prioritize my thinking about the past. If I use the Bible as my reference and look at the world through that lense then I will not stumble as much as I would if I use science and naturalism as my guide. Yes, I think we should study the creation and to invent things is in our blood. But that study is not the lense we should examine the past with. Now if someone thinks science has the answers and they bend scripture to fit what science says then they have their priorities wrong. But we all know that the Bible is not a science book. But that does not mean we give science authority. How one walks that line is up to the individual.

Frank, you're acknowledging a general truth (that the Bible is not a science book), but I don't think you're really taking that principle to its logical conclusion. The Bible does not tell us how old the Earth or the universe is. It doesn't even TRY to tell us how old those things are. If we're acknowledging that as true, then it should not scare us or cause us to "stumble" in our faith when we accept science as it tries to answer the questions that it is meant to answer. There is no need to "bend" either the Bible or science. Let each of them speak, loud and clear, but understand the distinct purposes of them both. Science SHOULD be given authority, to answer SCIENTIFIC questions. The Bible SHOULD be given authority, to answer BIBLICAL questions. You say that "walking the line" between the two is up to the individual, which is fine. But the point of this thread is that many YECs, even from the pulpit, do not WANT the individual to walk that line. They want to make it very clear that YEC is the ONLY way to properly walk that line. Being Catholic, I am used to criticism about my Church being too authoritative, demanding ridiculous things of its adherents, etc. But on this issue, Catholics even have more "freedom" of thought in their parishes than many Protestants do in their local churches. And I think that's what the heart of the OP was getting at.

[franktalk]

Frank, you're acknowledging a general truth (that the Bible is not a science book), but I don't think you're really taking that principle to its logical conclusion. The Bible does not tell us how old the Earth or the universe is. It doesn't even TRY to tell us how old those things are.

You are of course kidding. When Luke wrote the genealogy of Christ from Adam it is pretty clear that someone could add up the ages of each father before the birth of their son and come to an age of the earth and then add six days for the universe. Using the Septuagint it comes to around 7800 years old. And I am sure that I did not miss six decimal places. Now some people say that there are gaps in there. But that is added in as an interpretation. Tell me how God in inspiring the writers of scripture could be so off in the plain text understanding of the age of the universe? Now I allow people to have their own opinion as to the age of the universe but don't tell me the Bible does not indicate the age of the earth and the universe. Now I allow for a 7800 year old universe but I also allow others to have their own opinion. But don't tell me you know the age because you do not.