What is Creation Science or "Biblical Creation"? Simple words, but how to flesh out?

[klaus54]

Nothing at all.

Of course, I am only a sample of one. I know others for who concerns with deep time has had this effect, but it was a total non-issue in my case.

Generalizations are risky, but from what I have seen in engaging this subject over many years...

It is comparatively common for young earth creationists to have a faith crisis on first encountering an open discussion of the subject in a context not dominated and lead by creationists. This crisis can resolve in a number of ways, such as (and not limited to):

• loss of faith altogether
• reconciliation of faith with knowledge of deep time and biological evolution
• a firming of young earth creationist perspective and enthusiastic engagement with the conflicts over science
• adopting an essentially agnostic approach to deep time or science, and renewed focus on implications of faith for day to day life.

For Christians who were never young earth creationists (like myself) there are plenty of other points over which a faith crisis can arise, and more ways in which it can resolve. Creationism is certainly no way to avoid a faith crisis; in fact it can and does in many instance serve to precipitate crisis. That in itself is no kind of argument for or against anything in particular. Likewise, the idea that creationism will lead to a faith crisis, or that acceptance of science will lead to a faith crisis, just doesn't measure up against the diversity of experiences people have with, through or beyond a Christian faith.

Cheers -- sylas

Thanks for the input! Your experience demolishes Jorge's implication (which turned out to be completely based on faulty memory or outright lying) that YOU lost your faith as a result of the CrEvo issue. That's all I was getting at with respect to this thread.

Oh, and I handled the dissonance via the your fourth bullet point. But at that time I didn't realize the absolute richness of the evidence for DT and the Evos. And in my case I think learning more actually helped my faith. Learning differing interpretations by considering ANE culture and the possible purposes of the Genesis stories in their historical and theological contexts really aided me as well.

Thanks again!

K54

[oxmixmudd]

Nothing at all.

Of course, I am only a sample of one. I know others for who concerns with deep time has had this effect, but it was a total non-issue in my case.

Generalizations are risky, but from what I have seen in engaging this subject over many years...

It is comparatively common for young earth creationists to have a faith crisis on first encountering an open discussion of the subject in a context not dominated and lead by creationists. This crisis can resolve in a number of ways, such as (and not limited to):

• loss of faith altogether
• reconciliation of faith with knowledge of deep time and biological evolution
• a firming of young earth creationist perspective and enthusiastic engagement with the conflicts over science
• adopting an essentially agnostic approach to deep time or science, and renewed focus on implications of faith for day to day life.

For Christians who were never young earth creationists (like myself) there are plenty of other points over which a faith crisis can arise, and more ways in which it can resolve. Creationism is certainly no way to avoid a faith crisis; in fact it can and does in many instance serve to precipitate crisis. That in itself is no kind of argument for or against anything in particular. Likewise, the idea that creationism will lead to a faith crisis, or that acceptance of science will lead to a faith crisis, just doesn't measure up against the diversity of experiences people have with, through or beyond a Christian faith.

Cheers -- sylas

On you last statement I highlighted sylas, I'm not sure there is equal probability here. And the reason is this: Christian faith is about, among other things, the truth. There is a very high value on honesty and truth. So theological systems that rely in some way on ignorance or hidden (for a time) deception (I use this word carefully - YEC's that teach YEC on a local level are almost always NOT purposefully deceiving anyone) - it would seem to me - have a higher likelihood of producing a crisis in faith in that eventually most people uncover the 'deception' if you will. This is what I've observed in those that do have trouble over these issues. There is a sense of betrayal, that those that taught knew there were issues and hid the uncomfortable parts of the story from them.


Jim

[sylas]

On you last statement I highlighted sylas, I'm not sure there is equal probability here.

I don't mean to imply anything about comparisons or probabilities.

If I did, I'd be guessing; which only muddies the water.

Be that as it may, from my perspective, of course, the whole basis of Christianity, from start to finish, is not true. So your distinction loses me from the outset. Sorting that out truth of various propositions is a common factor in faith crisis -- almost by definition! It was most definitely front and center in my case. So there's no useful distinction there in saying Christian faith is about truth. Caring about truth is precisely what lead me to drop Christianity. And as you know, I do not equate Christian with biblical literalism or young earth creationism. There are other and more fundamental ways in which Christianity may be false.

One can find linkage with creationism here, I think. Many folks have had a crisis of faith over questions like "is creation true"? The question shows up when one has a perspective on "creation" as a proposition with a truth value. One common resolution (as I see it) is for "creation" to become something other than a proposition about events in time; and become rather a perspective on theological meanings or underpinning of the events in time as discovered independent of faith or religion.

For me, the critical question that brought me to drop Christianity (though not theism, at first) was "is Jesus' resurrection true"? I know of Christians and theologians who take "resurrection" as something other than a proposition about events in history, but I did not find them at all satisfactory. I can certainly empathize with a creationist who has the same experience sorting out "creation" -- even though in my case the crisis was over a different issue.

And the reason is this: Christian faith is about, among other things, the truth. There is a very high value on honesty and truth. So theological systems that rely in some way on ignorance or hidden (for a time) deception (I use this word carefully - YEC's that teach YEC on a local level are almost always NOT purposefully deceiving anyone) - it would seem to me - have a higher likelihood of producing a crisis in faith in that eventually most people uncover the 'deception' if you will. This is what I've observed in those that do have trouble over these issues. There is a sense of betrayal, that those that taught knew there were issues and hid the uncomfortable parts of the story from them.

I see no useful distinction there. As soon as you acknowledge creationists are not purposefully deceiving anyone, you have precisely the same issue with teaching of just about any aspect of Christian doctrine. Atonement, Resurrection, Eschatology, Salvation, Sin, etc etc... in ALL cases the teaching of falsehood is part and parcel of Christianity. You do it also. Not out of any dishonesty; but because you're also hooked into a a world view which just is not true. And people look into what it taught, and get uncomfortable for precisely that reason. It isn't true.

Of course; we don't any of us have direct access to "truth". So anything I say is my own opinion on the matter and it doesn't bother me that your opinion is different.

But you cannot simply take your position and offer as a basis for discussion that your faith is about truth, or that your faith is free of troubling questions that others who are focused upon truth will struggle with and honestly arrive at personally satisfactory resolutions in which the questions and answered otherwise than in your own faith.

Cheers -- sylas

[klaus54]

On you last statement I highlighted sylas, I'm not sure there is equal probability here. And the reason is this: Christian faith is about, among other things, the truth. There is a very high value on honesty and truth. So theological systems that rely in some way on ignorance or hidden (for a time) deception (I use this word carefully - YEC's that teach YEC on a local level are almost always NOT purposefully deceiving anyone) - it would seem to me - have a higher likelihood of producing a crisis in faith in that eventually most people uncover the 'deception' if you will. This is what I've observed in those that do have trouble over these issues. There is a sense of betrayal, that those that taught knew there were issues and hid the uncomfortable parts of the story from them.


Jim

I agree, Jim. Being taught non-essentials as essentials or outright untruths about one's religion, whether intentionally or through ignorance, is much damaging more to one's faith.

Like you said, it's all about truth. At least as much as we can humanly understand truth.

K54

P.S. Now Jorge, back to the "Let there be light" thingy... One single unambiguous literal physical interpr... I mean "reading", por favor.

[Jorge]

Which article was that?

See my recent posts ............

Jorge

[Jorge]

Could you link to that? As i said, as far as i'm aware, the upper limit for stellar formation is 150 solar masses. If someone's saying it's significantly different from that, i'd be interested in hearing why.

I had previously replied:

"I will try right now (26 April, 5:51 PM ET USA) to find what I'm talking about. BTW, I did NOT say that 8 solar masses was the upper limit. What I DID say is that stellar formation above 8 solar masses was not predicted by models yet clearly we observe thousands of stars well above that mass. I also stated that I was going on recollection - thus, I may be off.

I don't have much time as I'm getting ready for a 3-week business trip beginning tomorrow early morning. I'll try ... if not, then when I return. Kindly remind me."

A correction on that - perhaps the 8 solar masses that I mentioned may be interpreted as an "upper limit". In any event, I won't quibble about the small picture. Whether 8 or 150 M_s, many stars appear to have masses far beyond any of those two numbers - a conundrum for all existing models of natural star formation.

I did look but could not find it and I'm out of time. I do recall that it was fairly recent - within the last 18 months or so. I also recall writing a post or two about it on the old TWeb. If any of that material survived then perhaps one of the people here can locate it : the general topic was about the natural formation of stars. BTW, and for the record, my position isn't to dogmatically deny the possibility that stars can form naturally. My position is that (1) there is only circumstantial evidence to support a whole lot'ta speculation; (2) natural star formation is absolutely necessary in the Materialistic worldview/ideology and; (3) tried-and-proven physics presents obstacles to natural star formation (the article that I've referred to discusses some of this even though the author of that article believes that stars formed naturally - of course since he's a member of Club Materialism).

Any further searching will have to wait until late May.

Jorge

[Jorge]

This is what I found:

http://www.universetoday.com/10247/u...-on-star-mass/

And: http://www.space.com/858-study-stars-size-limit.html

And, see page 3, column 2: http://www.astro.caltech.edu/~george...llarmasses.pdf

K54

P.S. Jorge, now PLEASE get back to answering my question "What does it mean when Elohim says 'let there be light'" from a Biblical Scientific Creation perspective.

Thank you!

Thanks for the effort.

None of those rings a bell concerning the article that I read. The guy (a PhD astrophysicist if memory serves me) discussed natural star formation and some of the paradoxes that observations presented. One of these was that stars of far more mass than what should be possible were regularly being observed. In recent posts here I wrote a bit more but that's as far as I can go for now.

As to the "light" thing - you appear obsessed with this. The direct answer (so that you can sleep at night) from me (others may not agree) is that I don't know if this is the "light" that we call light (namely, photons in the visible range of the spectrum) or "light" in the entire physical spectrum or "light" of a different kind - something having physical and/or spiritual attributes that we are unaware of. I do not know (and I don't think that anyone else does, either).

Okay, out of time ... got'ta run. My next stop is in Mobile, Alabama - tonight. 6:04 AM, Sunday.

Jorge

[oxmixmudd]

I had previously replied:

"I will try right now (26 April, 5:51 PM ET USA) to find what I'm talking about. BTW, I did NOT say that 8 solar masses was the upper limit. What I DID say is that stellar formation above 8 solar masses was not predicted by models yet clearly we observe thousands of stars well above that mass. I also stated that I was going on recollection - thus, I may be off.

I don't have much time as I'm getting ready for a 3-week business trip beginning tomorrow early morning. I'll try ... if not, then when I return. Kindly remind me."

A correction on that - perhaps the 8 solar masses that I mentioned may be interpreted as an "upper limit". In any event, I won't quibble about the small picture. Whether 8 or 150 M_s, many stars appear to have masses far beyond any of those two numbers - a conundrum for all existing models of natural star formation.

Not 150 Jorge. According ti wikipedia, there are 3 thought to be above that and another three about that.

I did look but could not find it and I'm out of time. I do recall that it was fairly recent - within the last 18 months or so. I also recall writing a post or two about it on the old TWeb. If any of that material survived then perhaps one of the people here can locate it : the general topic was about the natural formation of stars. BTW, and for the record, my position isn't to dogmatically deny the possibility that stars can form naturally. My position is that (1) there is only circumstantial evidence to support a whole lot'ta speculation; (2) natural star formation is absolutely necessary in the Materialistic worldview/ideology and; (3) tried-and-proven physics presents obstacles to natural star formation (the article that I've referred to discusses some of this even though the author of that article believes that stars formed naturally - of course since he's a member of Club Materialism).

Any further searching will have to wait until late May.

Jorge

Again, there is no reason to doubt natural star formation. We observe all expected phases, sometimes in the same nebula. Your doubt is ideological and contray to the implications of physics and observation.


Jim

[klaus54]

Not 150 Jorge. According ti wikipedia, there are 3 thought to be above that and another three about that.

...


Jim

IIRC, one of the links I posted posited up to 440 Solar Masses.

I see Jorge hasn't yet responded the "Let there be light" question. This should have been a softball were it so obvious and clear.

K54

[Roy]

I see Jorge hasn't yet responded the "Let there be light" question. This should have been a softball were it so obvious and clear.

He did respond - #217. His response can be summarised as "I dunno", and for some reason he thinks others might disagree

Roy

[klaus54]

He did respond - #217. His response can be summarised as "I dunno", and for some reason he thinks other might disagree

Roy

Oops! Sorry I miss that. Thanks for pointing it out.

So much for a plain, straightforward, simple, unambiguous, "literal" reading of the first Genesis story.

I will try to get an answer about the next few verses in another post.

K54

As to the "light" thing - you appear obsessed with this. The direct answer (so that you can sleep at night) from me (others may not agree) is that I don't know if this is the "light" that we call light (namely, photons in the visible range of the spectrum) or "light" in the entire physical spectrum or "light" of a different kind - something having physical and/or spiritual attributes that we are unaware of. I do not know (and I don't think that anyone else does, either).

[rwatts]

Oops! Sorry I miss that. Thanks for pointing it out.

So much for a plain, straightforward, simple, unambiguous, "literal" reading of the first Genesis story.

I will try to get an answer about the next few verses in another post.

K54

So we know that Creation Science, in the Jorgian paradigm, is defined by:-

1) You're drunk / high on drugs
2) You're too stupid / ignorant / dishonest to understand
3) Explaining is a waste of time / someone is paying you to waste my time.
4) This assertion is true because I said so
5) This assertion is even truer because I said so twice
6) I already provided evidence (in huge detail) but I won't repeat it or link to it,

- and

"I don't know".

[Jorge]

Speaking of drunken buffoons, aren't you the author of this YEC article claiming that all the major Earth impactor craters like Barringer Crater in Arizona aren't really impact craters but are, what, giant gopher holes?

Impact craters - alleged challenge to YEC

Why yes, I believe you were that drunken buffoon.

It would be sooooooo much nicer if you knew what you're talking about.
Alas, you haven't a CLUE.
So why should anyone pay attention to Inspector Clueless - aka Mr. Beagle?

Jorge

[klaus54]

So we know that Creation Science, in the Jorgian paradigm, is defined by:-

1) You're drunk / high on drugs
2) You're too stupid / ignorant / dishonest to understand
3) Explaining is a waste of time / someone is paying you to waste my time.
4) This assertion is true because I said so
5) This assertion is even truer because I said so twice
6) I already provided evidence (in huge detail) but I won't repeat it or link to it,

- and

"I don't know".

Interesting. If Jorge's best answer is paraphrased by "I don't know", then why is he so strident about his (so far opaque) view of origins?

K54

[Jorge]

Okay ... so aside from calling me a liar, you've also appointed yourself as a mind reader. Yeah, got it!

Jorge