Announcement

Collapse

Deeper Waters Forum Guidelines

Notice – The ministries featured in this section of TheologyWeb are guests of this site and in some cases not bargaining for the rough and tumble world of debate forums, though sometimes they are. Additionally, this area is frequented and highlighted for guests who also very often are not acclimated to debate fora. As such, the rules of conduct here will be more strict than in the general forum. This will be something within the discretion of the Moderators and the Ministry Representative, but we simply ask that you conduct yourselves in a manner considerate of the fact that these ministries are our invited guests. You can always feel free to start a related thread in general forum without such extra restrictions. Thank you.

Deeper Waters is founded on the belief that the Christian community has long been in the shallow end of Christianity while there are treasures of the deep waiting to be discovered. Too many in the shallow end are not prepared when they go out beyond those waters and are quickly devoured by sharks. We wish to aid Christians to equip them to navigate the deeper waters of the ocean of truth and come up with treasure in the end.

We also wish to give special aid to those often neglected, that is, the disabled community. This is especially so since our founders are both on the autism spectrum and have a special desire to reach those on that spectrum. While they are a special emphasis, we seek to help others with any disability realize that God can use them and that they are as the Psalmist says, fearfully and wonderfully made.

General TheologyWeb forum rules: here.
See more
See less

Why I Don't Debate Evolution

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Why I Don't Debate Evolution

    Should I debate everything?

    Link.

    ----

    Is it wise to take up every battle? Let's plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

    Sometimes I get asked why I don't debate evolution. Do I just accept the reigning paradigm and that's it? It's a good question and one that deserves an answer.

    Let's start with something. I don't accept purely naturalistic evolution. That is the idea that there is no God and all that we see came about by chance. I find that position untenable. Fortunately, that is not a scientific position. That is philosophical since science cannot prove or disprove naturalism.

    I can also read books written by evolutionists and see criticisms that I think are good criticisms of the theory. However, in light of all of this, I realize that I am a novice in the area and do not know how to debate the topic. I do not understand the terminology that is used and if I was pressed, I could say nothing more on the issues than what I read.

    That last part is an exception. If you're a Christian who reads science and wants to do this, then I have no real problem. I simply ask that you make your argument scientific. It should never be the Bible vs. science. If we do that with our unbelieving friends, then we know which way they will go.

    One aspect that brought the problem of this home to me was reading the New Atheists. Just look at the arguments they make against God and Christianity. Now there are informed atheists who can make good arguments. The New Atheists were not those atheists. Those arguments sounded convincing to other atheists who did not study the issues. As someone who does study them, I saw them as embarrassing.

    What if I was doing the same?

    It was worse that by arguing science I did not understand, I was embarrassing myself. I was also embarrassing Christianity. I was giving the impression that being a Christian would mean that I knew everything and I would believe it even if my opinion was uninformed.

    Hence, I came to do some more study. I also decided that my theistic arguments didn't need to be built on grounds other than science. That's fine. After all, science is not the final arbiter on if God exists or not or if miracles are true or not. I find the five ways of Aquinas do that for me.

    I also have an interpretation of Genesis that doesn't rely on science as well, which is that of John Walton. I think we in a scientific culture have too often assumed the Bible is speaking science because that is our culture, not realizing that it was not their culture. We need to try to understand the text the way that they would.

    Again, I am not saying that you cannot debate evolution. If you are a scientist and can make the case, then by all means go for it. Maybe you're right. I don't know. I just know that I don't want to go against a reigning paradigm in an area I am ignorant of, much like mythicists go after the reigning paradigm of history in an area they're ignorant of. If you're not trained in science, I invite you to join me on that. You don't have to debate everything.

    In Christ,
    Nick Peters

  • #2
    Nick,

    I fully agree with your reasoning here. You've described here the kind of academic or intellectual humility that I think is a hallmark, not only of a good Christian, but also of any good Socratic thinker. It is entirely fair to say to a person who disagrees with you that you do not know; Furthermore, what we are really saying is that we don't understand how to interpret evidence that a debate/discussion partner is presenting.

    For example, suppose I read a sophisticated argument from a neuroscientist about functions of the brain which seemingly indicate a form of biological determinism. Truthfully, as a layman, I have no ability to falsify the presented argument. It therefore behooves all apologetes to parse their arguments in such a way that a hearer can meaningfully interact and question; otherwise, our words are merely noise.

    That is, there's no point to trying to ask someone to drink from a firehose.

    We have an obligation to educate ourselves, and we likewise have an obligation to Socratic (and I would argue, Christian) humility,--a humility that reminds us to talk to people on their level, without even a whiff of condescension.

    thanks for your writing,
    Guac.
    "Down in the lowlands, where the water is deep,
    Hear my cry, hear my shout,
    Save me, save me"

    Comment


    • #3
      That's been pretty much my position since a number of years ago when I spent a weekend with Ox and Gmorton and others.....

      "always go back to the Cross...."
      The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
        Should I debate everything?

        Link.

        ----

        Is it wise to take up every battle? Let's plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

        Sometimes I get asked why I don't debate evolution. Do I just accept the reigning paradigm and that's it? It's a good question and one that deserves an answer.

        Let's start with something. I don't accept purely naturalistic evolution. That is the idea that there is no God and all that we see came about by chance. I find that position untenable. Fortunately, that is not a scientific position. That is philosophical since science cannot prove or disprove naturalism.

        I can also read books written by evolutionists and see criticisms that I think are good criticisms of the theory. However, in light of all of this, I realize that I am a novice in the area and do not know how to debate the topic. I do not understand the terminology that is used and if I was pressed, I could say nothing more on the issues than what I read.

        That last part is an exception. If you're a Christian who reads science and wants to do this, then I have no real problem. I simply ask that you make your argument scientific. It should never be the Bible vs. science. If we do that with our unbelieving friends, then we know which way they will go.

        One aspect that brought the problem of this home to me was reading the New Atheists. Just look at the arguments they make against God and Christianity. Now there are informed atheists who can make good arguments. The New Atheists were not those atheists. Those arguments sounded convincing to other atheists who did not study the issues. As someone who does study them, I saw them as embarrassing.

        What if I was doing the same?

        It was worse that by arguing science I did not understand, I was embarrassing myself. I was also embarrassing Christianity. I was giving the impression that being a Christian would mean that I knew everything and I would believe it even if my opinion was uninformed.

        Hence, I came to do some more study. I also decided that my theistic arguments didn't need to be built on grounds other than science. That's fine. After all, science is not the final arbiter on if God exists or not or if miracles are true or not. I find the five ways of Aquinas do that for me.

        I also have an interpretation of Genesis that doesn't rely on science as well, which is that of John Walton. I think we in a scientific culture have too often assumed the Bible is speaking science because that is our culture, not realizing that it was not their culture. We need to try to understand the text the way that they would.

        Again, I am not saying that you cannot debate evolution. If you are a scientist and can make the case, then by all means go for it. Maybe you're right. I don't know. I just know that I don't want to go against a reigning paradigm in an area I am ignorant of, much like mythicists go after the reigning paradigm of history in an area they're ignorant of. If you're not trained in science, I invite you to join me on that. You don't have to debate everything.

        In Christ,
        Nick Peters
        I have debated with people who knew far more than I on the topic of evolution and been embarrassed. I actively reject evolution because of people like Hugh Ross. I have to admit that my belief on the subject are not too far, in appearance, from Theistic Evolution.
        Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

        Comment


        • #5
          I think Christians should be free to interpret Genesis according to the dictates of their conscience. The most important questions about Genesis isn't whether it implies a 6000 years old Earth. Its rather God, who Adam and Eve were, the Fall, the promise that Eve's progeny shall defeat the Serpent and God's plan of salvation.

          I have a respect for Christians who, out of sincere humbly respect for the Scriptures, adhere to a certain interpretation of them.

          I admit though that I have little respect for creationists (whether biblical or intelligent design), who try to make their case scientific. That's doomed to fail. If you're a creationist, I think the best approach is just to accept the paradox that the Bible says one thing, while Science says something else and live with it.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
            That's been pretty much my position since a number of years ago when I spent a weekend with Ox and Gmorton and others.....

            "always go back to the Cross...."
            As I have repeatedly expressed:
            Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
            I've always been a supporter of the sentiment expressed in the oft quoted maxim that is usually, although incorrectly, attributed to St. Augustine: In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas ("In essentials, unity; in nonessentials, diversity [some times "liberty" or "charity"]").

            While it does indeed appear to have been a view that Augustine held[1] it seems to actually originate with the Catholic Archbishop of Spalato, Croatia (on the eastern shore of the Adriatic Sea), Marco Antonio Dominis in 1617. Shortly thereafter the Lutheran theologian Rupertus Meldenius (a.k.a. Peter Meiderlin) said essentially the same thing.

            Too often we get all hung up over the unessentials -- the things on which our salvation doesn't rest upon.










            1. As can be seen by the following remark by Thomas Aquinas in his brilliant unfinished masterpiece, Summa Theologica (1274):
            "In discussing questions of this kind two rules are to be observed, as Augustine teaches. The first is, to hold to the truth of the Scripture without wavering. The second is that since Holy Scripture can be explained in a multiplicity of senses, one should adhere to a particular explanation only in such measure as to be ready to abandon it if it be proved with certainty to be false, lest Holy Scripture be exposed to the ridicule of unbelievers, and obstacles be placed to their believing."

            Unfortunately there are some prominent leaders of the YEC camp who don't want to base their faith on our trust upon Christ's message and promise of redemption and salvation but rather on how they read and interpret the first couple of chapters of Genesis, specifically the creation account. For them seem to treat the first part of the Genesis as being the Bible with everything else that comes after as being unnecessary footnotes or an appendix.

            For example, the current grand poobah of the YEC movement, Ken Ham, has pretty much come straight out and said so -- at least the part about basing his belief on a literal interpretation of Genesis. In an article in The Christian Post[1] entitled “Ken Ham Accuses Evolution-Supporting Christians of 'Undermining the Bible'” we can read the following in the opening (bolding added by rogue06):


            Source: Ken Ham Accuses Evolution-Supporting Christians of 'Undermining the Bible'


            Creationist Ken Ham has argued that the foundation of Christian faith rests in a literal interpretation of the Creation account in the Bible, as found in Genesis 1-11, stating that Christian leaders who do not interpret it literally are leading people astray.

            "Genesis 1-11 is like the foundation to a house. The whole structure stands upon it — all of our major doctrines like sin, salvation, the coming consummation, marriage, and more are grounded in Genesis," Ham wrote Wednesday on Facebook.



            Source

            © Copyright Original Source



            On the aforementioned Facebook page Ham even concludes, "They no longer have a foundation to base their thinking on!" rejecting Christ as his foundation in favor of the beginning of Genesis.

            Sorry Ken but that is, as the great theoretical physicist Wolfgang Pauli put it when he said "Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch" ("It is not only not right, it is not even wrong") --or as Asimov's axiom describes it, wronger than wrong.

            The foundation of Christianity is built upon Christ and his finished work on the cross, and definitely not upon how we should understand the creation accounts in Genesis. As Jesus plainly says about those who base their faith on something other than Him in Matthew 7:24-27:

            "Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock. And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on the rock. And everyone who hears these words of mine and does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell, and great was the fall of it."


            YECs in the mold of Ham seek to shift the focus from Christ and onto such things as the age of the earth and evolution. But our faith isn't built upon such things, rather it is built upon the resurrection of Jesus. For me this is precisely the sort of false message that Paul repeatedly cautioned against when he warned about those preaching "another gospel" (II Corinthians 11:4; Galatians 1:8).

            Moreover, Ham is entirely in error in thinking that if you don't accept the YEC version of Genesis, including that the earth is only a couple thousand years old, that you'll start rejecting "all of our major doctrines like sin, salvation, the coming consummation, marriage." That is utterly false and nothing but a red herring of the worst sort, designed solely to distract attention from the fact that even a cursory examination of the evidence provided by God's creation reveals that the YEC interpretation is in error. Those making such a claim hope to instill fear so as to frighten people away from such an examination.

            I should note that while I think that the YEC approach is wrong, just because Ham is seeking to lead folks astray (and is held in low esteem by many in the YEC community for a number of reasons), that does not automatically discredit YEC or other YECs in general. It doesn't make what they believe evil and blasphemous.








            1. the largest Christian newspaper in the world and writes from an evangelical point-of-view
            Last edited by rogue06; 10-03-2018, 02:10 PM.

            I'm always still in trouble again

            "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
            "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
            "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

            Comment

            Related Threads

            Collapse

            Topics Statistics Last Post
            Started by Apologiaphoenix, 03-15-2024, 10:19 PM
            14 responses
            74 views
            1 like
            Last Post rogue06
            by rogue06
             
            Started by Apologiaphoenix, 03-13-2024, 10:13 PM
            6 responses
            60 views
            0 likes
            Last Post Apologiaphoenix  
            Started by Apologiaphoenix, 03-12-2024, 09:36 PM
            1 response
            23 views
            0 likes
            Last Post rogue06
            by rogue06
             
            Started by Apologiaphoenix, 03-11-2024, 10:19 PM
            0 responses
            22 views
            2 likes
            Last Post Apologiaphoenix  
            Started by Apologiaphoenix, 03-08-2024, 11:59 AM
            3 responses
            43 views
            0 likes
            Last Post whag
            by whag
             
            Working...
            X