Creationist "propaganda" true or false?

[Vertetuesi]

According to Gen. 1, weren't people and animals originall vegetarian, and acc. Gen. 3, didn't man's fall affect the ground, plant and animal kingdoms too?

[KBertsche]

According to Gen. 1, weren't people and animals originall vegetarian, and acc. Gen. 3, didn't man's fall affect the ground, plant and animal kingdoms too?

There are some hints that man and animals were vegetarian in the Garden, but it is not very clear. Man's body seems designed to eat meat (and carnivorous animals even more obviously obviously are so designed). I see no suggestion in Scripture that any of this changed at the Fall. It would seem that this is the original design that God created, preparing them to eat meat after the Fall.

The ground and the serpent were "cursed", but it is not clear that they changed immediately in any way. It may be that the curse would be the result of man not properly caring for them, due to his own sin and disobedience to God.

[KBertsche]

I can understand the terrible science, but enlighten me on the theology?

I already mentioned that the YEC's have a deficient view of the future of Creation. The other glaring theological error is that in practice they have a deistic view of nature. (And not only YEC's; this criticism is true of most of Evangelicalism.)

Creation is viewed by YEC's as running like a clock. God is not needed for its day-to-day operation. In this, the YEC's have capitulated to the philosophical naturalism of folks like Dawkins. So they must find "gaps" in the scientific endeavor. They must insert God in origins (insisting that there is no natural explanation for this), in miracles, etc.

This is a fundamental theological error. The biblical view is that all of nature is contingent on God for its day-to-day operation. Scientific laws are not fundamentally causative, but are merely descriptive. As Donald MacKay wrote in The Clockwork Image, scientific laws are descriptive, not prescriptive. Newton's laws don't cause the heavens to move; God causes them to move minute-by-minute and Newton's laws describe the motion. Or as Richard Bube (a theistic evolutionist) expressed in The Human Quest, if God were to disappear for a split second, the universe would cease to exist.

To a believer, God's presence is evident not only in the miraculous, but just as much in the day-to-day "normal" operation of nature. We don't need gaps for Him in the fabric of nature; He is there in the "warp and woof" of the operation of His universe. In this, the theistic evolutionists (e.g. Richard Bube, Francis Collins) are much more theologically accurate than are the YEC's.

Kirk

[oxmixmudd]

I already mentioned that the YEC's have a deficient view of the future of Creation. The other glaring theological error is that in practice they have a deistic view of nature. (And not only YEC's; this criticism is true of most of Evangelicalism.)

Creation is viewed by YEC's as running like a clock. God is not needed for its day-to-day operation. In this, the YEC's have capitulated to the philosophical naturalism of folks like Dawkins. So they must find "gaps" in the scientific endeavor. They must insert God in origins (insisting that there is no natural explanation for this), in miracles, etc.

This is a fundamental theological error. The biblical view is that all of nature is contingent on God for its day-to-day operation. Scientific laws are not fundamentally causative, but are merely descriptive. As Donald MacKay wrote in The Clockwork Image, scientific laws are descriptive, not prescriptive. Newton's laws don't cause the heavens to move; God causes them to move minute-by-minute and Newton's laws describe the motion. Or as Richard Bube (a theistic evolutionist) expressed in The Human Quest, if God were to disappear for a split second, the universe would cease to exist.

To a believer, God's presence is evident not only in the miraculous, but just as much in the day-to-day "normal" operation of nature. We don't need gaps for Him in the fabric of nature; He is there in the "warp and woof" of the operation of His universe. In this, the theistic evolutionists (e.g. Richard Bube, Francis Collins) are much more theologically accurate than are the YEC's.

Kirk

This expresses my view almost perfectly. Hence however God caused creation to become what it is today, it is all His work. There is no way to remove God from the creation story by simply attempting to discover the sequence of events or fill in the details of the Genesis account. And what we call a miracle is His choice to operate diferently than normal, so as to announce His presence to those who ordinarily ignore it.


Jim

[AngelDragon]

As a former YEC, I believe it is my obligation to tell you that a creationist paper like the ones from IRC are definitley propoganda. While you are correct that it shouldn't be assumed as such off the bat, there are absolutely no YEC papers that have any merit. None at all.

[burgy]

None? I hold no brief for ICR and AIG, and MOST of their stuff is pretty poor science and/or logic. But not all of it.

[Weboh2]

....they have a deistic view of nature. (And not only YEC's; this criticism is true of most of Evangelicalism.)

This contradicted by the later quote.

Creation is viewed by YEC's as running like a clock. God is not needed for its day-to-day operation. In this, the YEC's have capitulated to the philosophical naturalism of folks like Dawkins. So they must find "gaps" in the scientific endeavor. They must insert God in origins (insisting that there is no natural explanation for this), in miracles, etc.

This seems to be the opposite of deism.

This is a fundamental theological error. The biblical view is that all of nature is contingent on God for its day-to-day operation. Scientific laws are not fundamentally causative, but are merely descriptive. As Donald MacKay wrote in The Clockwork Image, scientific laws are descriptive, not prescriptive. Newton's laws don't cause the heavens to move; God causes them to move minute-by-minute and Newton's laws describe the motion. Or as Richard Bube (a theistic evolutionist) expressed in The Human Quest, if God were to disappear for a split second, the universe would cease to exist.

I really don't get your point here. The one theistic evolutionist you quoted is highly dependent on a non-deist god. And theological errors are only in the eye of the beholder.

To a believer, God's presence is evident not only in the miraculous, but just as much in the day-to-day "normal" operation of nature. We don't need gaps for Him in the fabric of nature; He is there in the "warp and woof" of the operation of His universe. In this, the theistic evolutionists (e.g. Richard Bube, Francis Collins) are much more theologically accurate than are the YEC's.

Are you admitting that both YECs and TEs have a non-deist view of the God?

Kirk[/QUOTE]

[KBertsche]

This contradicted by the later quote.


This seems to be the opposite of deism.


I really don't get your point here. The one theistic evolutionist you quoted is highly dependent on a non-deist god. And theological errors are only in the eye of the beholder.


Are you admitting that both YECs and TEs have a non-deist view of the God?

I don't think you understand the meaning of deism, so you don't understand what I wrote in response to it. Take a look at some theological dictionaries or encyclopedias and then re-read my post again.

Kirk

[Weboh2]

I don't think you understand the meaning of deism, so you don't understand what I wrote in response to it. Take a look at some theological dictionaries or encyclopedias and then re-read my post again.

de·ism /ˈdiɪzəm/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[dee-iz-uhm] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. belief in the existence of a God on the evidence of reason and nature only, with rejection of supernatural revelation (distinguished from theism).
2. belief in a God who created the world but has since remained indifferent to it.

And as it stands your post is gibberish.

[KBertsche]

de·ism /?di?z?m/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[dee-iz-uhm] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. belief in the existence of a God on the evidence of reason and nature only, with rejection of supernatural revelation (distinguished from theism).
2. belief in a God who created the world but has since remained indifferent to it.

Yes. Deism views nature as self-sustaining. God created it, but it now runs on its own like a clock, without needing Him. This "self-sustaining" view of nature is held by the militant atheists like Dawkins, who claim that God is unnecessary. It has also been unwittingly accepted by many evangelicals (especially YEC's). Rather than seeing God as imminent in His universe, controlling its normal day-to-day operation, they view Him as only transcendent, only involved in the miracles. The day-to-day operation is seen as the universe running by itself, with no involvement of God. They have lost the biblical balance of God as both transcendent and imminent.

And as it stands your post is gibberish.

This statement says more about your maturity and comprehension ability than it does about my post.

Kirk

[Weboh2]

Kirk, I apologize for my misunderstanding of your post. You object to deism in YECs. I thought you worded that YECs believed that God is needed in the everday operations of nature, and your parochial school theology just turns me off. Further, I disagree with your belief that this is the working premise of the christian scriptures.

Secondly, how is a unitarian deist god any less transcendent than "the trinitarian theist god"?

[KBertsche]

... your parochial school theology just turns me off.

What do you mean by this?? (Since I have never attended a parochial school, I don't have any idea what you're getting at.)

Further, I disagree with your belief that this is the working premise of the christian scriptures.

Then take a look at Colossians 1:17, Psalm 104, and Job 38-42. God is the one who "does" the normal things in nature, according to the Bible. He has not given nature the power to do these things, He does them Himself.

Secondly, how is a unitarian deist god any less transcendent than "the trinitarian theist god"?

I don't know if He is. The issue is not transcendence, but imminence.

[Weboh2]

Then take a look at Colossians 1:17, Psalm 104, and Job 38-42. God is the one who "does" the normal things in nature, according to the Bible. He has not given nature the power to do these things, He does them Himself.

Colossians 1:17 is an interesting example to start with, how it is mistranslated to give diety to christ; and Psalm 104 is also interesting in that the qal active particle is translated as being the action of Yahweh rather then result of the action in the preceding verb; and much of Job 38-42 is certainly poor translation. These are interesting examples of anti-deist bias in the translation of scriptures. I am glad you pointed them out though, because I should refute them.

I don't know if He is. The issue is not transcendence, but imminence.

I think lack of imminence is a sign that the human race is seperated from the God. No matter how much you pray or make offers to the God, it doesn't care. It seems to only to care about the dead.

The concept of the God having imminence seems nothing more than a religious scam used to deceive people out of deistic thinking. I prefer claims of sovereignty over claims of imminence. It's more satisfying.

[Thedonhopeless]

Well, this is odd, a TE saying YECs are deists lol.

It would seem to me, that an evolutionary perspective, would have God creating a self sustaining system ( a horrible one at that) in which God isn't even needed whatsoever. How can God be imminent in a system that is all about death, decay and the strong ruling the weak? These are all thigns caused by the fall of man, not by God. Sin does these things, so evolution, a very sinful paradigm, is logically absent of a non sinning God.

Yec's perspective is more logical, since it is a self sustaining system yes, however, while in evolution, creation is creating itself, creating "new" species (or so they claim), in a YEc paradigm, all the species ( as to their kind) were created by God and God alone. For instance, God created a dog, while the world created a poodle, but its still a dog. The world will work off of God's creation but it will not be God to create. In this way, God is imminent in all things in the YEC presupposition.

[KBertsche]

Well, this is odd, a TE saying YECs are deists lol.

I don't know who you are responding to; there shouldn't be any TE's in this forum.

It would seem to me, that an evolutionary perspective, would have God creating a self sustaining system ( a horrible one at that) in which God isn't even needed whatsoever.

This is a good description of an atheistic or deistic worldview. However, a theistic worldview says that nature is not self-sustaining. (Such a theistic wordview is shared by theologically-astute TE's, BTW.) I think you may be confusing evolution as a science with atheistic evolutionism as a worldview.

How can God be imminent in a system that is all about death, decay and the strong ruling the weak?

Why not? According to Scripture, God is imminent in such a system. Psalm 104:21 says that God feeds prey (=live animals) to lions.

These are all thigns caused by the fall of man, not by God.

I disagree.