1

For most mortals, it is not that Genesis (like Revelation), is hard to understand; it is hard to believe. It takes faith and diligent
study. Then, and only then, unless you are child, belief comes gradually.

2

For most mortals, it is not that Genesis (like Revelation), is hard to understand, it is hard to believe. It takes faith and diligent
study. Then, and only then, unless you are child, belief comes gradually.

3

But Joe, theistic evolution IS incompatible with scripture. Evolution depends on millions of years of suffering, pain, and death. Nature- red in tooth and claw, so to speak. The Bible teaches that suffering and death entered the world as a result of the Fall. You just can't shoehorn those two together without a lot of hermeneutical gymnastics.

My problem with this - and with Christians who try to fit evolution with the Bible - is that it operates on the assumption that man-made science is superior to God-breathed scripture. God said this - but science says that -so we have to find a way to twist the Bible to fit what science says. And all too often, it seems to me, it's with a view to trying to look reasonable to the world. I don't care if people laugh at me for believing that God created this whole world just as He said He did. We're supposed to be willing to be fools for Christ - aren't we?

4

Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience; . . . Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know. ~ James Barr Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford University in England

WE DENY that Biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes, exclusive of assertions in the fields of history and science. We further deny that scientific hypotheses about earth history may properly be used to overturn the teaching of Scripture on creation and the flood. ~ Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy

It was obvious that both the general theory of evolution and its extension to man in particular must meet from the first with the most determined resistance on the part of the Churches. Both were in flagrant contradiction to the Mosaic story of creation, and other Biblical dogmas that were involved in it, and are still taught in our elementary schools. It is creditable to the shrewdness of the theologians and their associates, the metaphysicians, that they at once rejected Darwinism, and made a particularly energetic resistance in their writings to its chief consequence, the descent of man from ape. ~ Ernst Haeckel

Occasionally, a scientist discouraged by the consistent failure of theories purporting to explain some problem like the first appearance of life will suggest that perhaps supernatural creation is a tenable hypothesis in this one instance. Sophisticated naturalists instantly recoil with horror, because they know that there is no way to tell God when he has to stop. If God created the first organism, then how do we know he didn't do the same thing to produce all those animal groups that appear so suddenly in the Cambrian rocks? Given the existence of a designer ready and willing to do the work, why should we suppose that random mutations and natural selection are responsible for such marvels of engineering as the eye and the wing? ~ Phillip Johnson

5

Blestwithsons-
I'm not sure what you mean by "Evolution depends on millions of years of suffering, pain, and death". A creature which cannot anticipate pain, nor remember it when it has passed, and has no notion of its own mortality is not 'fallen' in the sense that man is.

6

The real problem with theistic evolution, which I used to believe, is theological. When did man Fall? At what point in our long development did redemption become necessary? Or were we "intelligently designed" lost in sin? Without Creation we lose two things, the need for a Redeemer and the sacredness of human life as it differs from the animal kingdom.
As to the world's belief that only the uneducated are Creationists, I have a degree in Biology and a doctorate and one of my friends, the finest Creation apologist I know, is a PhD in comparative vertebrate anatomy.

7

bevets,

Barr is an unbeliever who was setting up a straw man. Note the weasel words: "as far as I know". He needs to expand his reading.

Here is a list of Christian leaders who think Genesis is compatible with an old earth. The list includes some first-rate Bible scholars.

8

A good number of these are not "first-rate" and just because they are respected for their scholarship does not mean they are infallible. God is. And when His word says seven days I do not go on to interpret that as years. These "scholars" are compromising on the foundation of the Bible due to their mistaken assumption that science is divine. Add to that: there is more evidence for a young earth than there is against it. I studied it while in college.

9

Pete, some of them are first-rate scholars --Archer, Geisler, Waltke, Kaiser and Warfield for example. No, they aren't infallible, but neither are those who claim that "day" means 24 hours in chapter 1 when it clearly doesn't in Gen. 2:4. To invoke God for the 24 hour interpretation is begging the question of whether that's what God meant in the first place. For 1900 years of Bible interpretation, before the modern young earth creationist movement, there never was a consensus that the creation days were 24 hours.

I am not a Hebrew scholar. Are you? If not, I would not accuse these godly men of "compromise" from a position of ignorance, nor ascribe to them attitudes about science that they don't hold. Fairness demands that we hear or read them for ourselves rather than uncritically repeating the slanders of the sectarians at Answers in Genesis.

10

Terry

Even if the pain of animals didn't count... under theistic evolution those animals would be part of the ancestral chain leading to humans - which would mean that pain and death were part of humanity for millions of years before the Fall. I think it would be silly to say that this pair of pre-human monkey creatures, well their pain and death doesn't count. But their kids - Adam and Eve - now their pain and death counts. Not to mention that an evolutionary model posits a world with many carnivores...the Bible says everything ate plants before the Fall. And God looked on all that He had made and said it was very good. Do you think all that pain suffering and death for millions of years - plus disease (they've found cancer in dinosaur bones) - would be considered very good? I can not accept that view of God. The Bible tells us that creation groans because of the corruption brought about by sin...not because God set it up that way from the very beginning.

11

Just observing the brouhaha which erupted after Bush made his now “infamous” remark about intelligent design being taught in schools as an alternative to evolution gives us some idea of how fiercely the Darwinist crowd reacts to any mention of a creator. According to several of them it would be the end of science and the death of biology. They naturally fail to recognize the great scientists in the past who were very much creationist, such as Gregor Mendel or Louis Pasteur.

Darwinist would like nothing better than having Christians reinterpret Genesis to accommodate their theory. They would then want us to reinterpret Matthew - Mark - Luke - John - etc. to do away with a miracle working Jesus. Why not just throw out the Bible altogether? We’ll blindly follow current scientific thought instead.

12

Blestwithsons -- The Bible teaches that suffering and death entered the world as a result of the Fall. You just can't shoehorn those two together without a lot of hermeneutical gymnastics.

Likewise, I’m not sure how you can say that suffering and death did not occur before the Fall. Did plants not die? If not then what did Adam, Eve, and the animals eat? Or what about bacteria? Was bacteria created after the Fall? If bacteria didn’t die off then within weeks they would have overrun the earth.

Also, the Bible says that Adam named the animals. Did the Hebrews go and change the names afterward? If not, then why do their words for “lion” ("in the sense of violence”) and “hawk” ("unclean bird of prey") use terms that imply violent death?

My problem with this - and with Christians who try to fit evolution with the Bible - is that it operates on the assumption that man-made science is superior to God-breathed scripture. God said this - but science says that -so we have to find a way to twist the Bible to fit what science says.

I don’t think that science is superior to “God-breathed scripture.” But I do think that all of creation was “God-breathed” and that we should not ignore what that “text” has to teach. When there is a direct conflict between what the Bible says and the claims made by science then I will trust scripture. In order to do so, however, I must first be sure that I have interpreted the Word correctly. To imply that some people have the only true and right interpretation on an issue that has never been considered settled appears to me to be rather presumptuous.

Pete -- And when His word says seven days I do not go on to interpret that as years.

I take it that you believe that “day” can only be interpreted in Genesis to mean a 24-hour period. But if that were the case, then wouldn’t it imply that God lied when he told Adam and Eve they would die the day they ate from the tree of knowledge? “But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.” -- Gen 2:17 (KJV)

13

What Clouser does not understand is that the meanings of words and phrases, while requiring interpretation in the context of the ultimate aim of the author of the text, still must be examined. No reputable creationist disputes the idea that the *primary* purpose of Genesis is to reveal God's character, but that does not mean that the words used do not have implications beyond that goal.

14

Also, the Bible says that Adam named the animals. Did the Hebrews go and change the names afterward?

Joe--You are assuming that the ancient Hebrews and Adam spoke the same language. Wouldn't Genesis 11:1-9 (Tower of Babel) likely preclude that?

then wouldn’t it imply that God lied when he told Adam and Eve they would die the day they ate from the tree of knowledge?

This assumes only one definition of death, the cessation of bodily processes. What about spiritual death? When we talk about the wages of sin being death, we don't mean that you die the moment you commit sin, but that sin separates you from God, i.e. spiritual death.

15

The Bible teaches that suffering and death entered the world as a result of the Fall.

No it doesn't. This is a YEC myth. See Death Before Adam.

there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience;

Also untrue. Off the top of my head I can think of Walter C. Kaiser, Jr. President, Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, respected defender of the literal Bible. There are more: OECs. RTB also has a list.

Why young-earthism is not biblical and not scientific: Why YECism is Wrong

16

Kevin and Joe,

First, let me make it clear that I am an "old earth" sort, who takes Genesis 1 seriously. But to be candid, the most common ways of attempting to show that "day" in Genesis 1 need not mean 24-hour day are confused.

Kevin suggests a problem with the claim that "day" means 24 hours in chapter 1 when it clearly doesn't in Gen. 2:4

You correctly understand "IN the day that" as having the sense "at the time that" or "when" (which is how many modern translations render it). In fact, the English expression works the same way in this case.

But note that you are not simply translating an isolated word here -- it is the whole EXPRESSION that has this meaning. And that sort of expression is NOT what appears in Genesis 1. Thus you cannot simply turn around and apply this "use of the word" to chapter 1.

As for Joe's reference to Gen 2:17 -"in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die"

The expression is the same as in v.4, but that has caused some conern. "At the time that" would, in this context, seem to suggest a certain immediacy of the consequence.

This leads some to jump to the "spiritual death" interpretation (which is fine as a theological truth, but not the point of God's words here).

I think we are helped by looking at how the legal formula God uses here 'works'. In 1 King 2:37 Solomon binds Shimei by an oath, saying, "on the day you go out and cross the brook Kidron, know for certain that you shall die". In v. 42, after Shimei violates the oath, Solomon rehearses it, "Did I not make you swear by the LORD and solemnly warn you, saying, 'Know for certain that on the day you go out and go to any place whatever, you shall die'?"

Now, there was a certain immediacy of sentence here, though it was not at the exact time of the violation, rather it happened as soon as Solomon discovered the offense and was able to have Shimei summoned. The point is that the SENTENCE/judgment was in effect as soon as the offense took place... there was no escaping it.

In any case, the basic point still stands, that it is not enough to find any old EXPRESSION which includes the WORD "day" and apply it to a DIFFERENT expression and context in which the word appears. I'm afraid that's what appeals to Gen 2:4 and 17 have done.

17

bruhaha,

I think that your critique also begs the question, namely that "day" means "in the time" in Gen. 2:4 and that this has no bearing on the use of the word in ch. 1. Personally, I see 2:4 as a tip-off that we shouldn't make any hasty conclusions about the meaning in chapter 1, inasmuch as the two creation accounts complement one another.

Also, I don't think that the usage by Solomon should be determinative. The Bible truthfully records his words, but it doesn't follow that his words were truthful or inerrant. Gen. 1 by contrast tells us of God's acts, not a man's words.

Of course, the point of all this is that the semantic range of yom precludes any arbitrary limiting of the duration of the creation days, as people like Archer and Geisler point out. Exegesis over the centuries confirms that the duration cannot be nailed down with certainty.

18

But Joe, theistic evolution IS incompatible with scripture. Evolution depends on millions of years of suffering, pain, and death. Nature- red in tooth and claw, so to speak. The Bible teaches that suffering and death entered the world as a result of the Fall. You just can't shoehorn those two together without a lot of hermeneutical gymnastics.

does it say that? or does it say that humans had to suffer pain and death as a result of the Fall? In the Garden humans could eat all the plants but one yet we know even restricting yourself to a vegitarian diet results in the death of the plant cells of the plants that you eat. You view, therefore, makes no sense unless we view the things Genesis is talking about in a way that is different from its everyday meaning.

Even if the pain of animals didn't count... under theistic evolution those animals would be part of the ancestral chain leading to humans - which would mean that pain and death were part of humanity for millions of years before the Fall. I think it would be silly to say that this pair of pre-human monkey creatures, well their pain and death doesn't count. But their kids - Adam and Eve - now their pain and death counts. Not to mention that an evolutionary model posits a world with many carnivores...the Bible says everything ate plants before the Fall. And God looked on all that He had made and said it was very good. Do you think all that pain suffering and death for millions of years - plus disease (they've found cancer in dinosaur bones) - would be considered very good? I can not accept that view of God. The Bible tells us that creation groans because of the corruption brought about by sin...not because God set it up that way from the very beginning.

I guess this is where Job would come in. Even if no animals suffered before the fall why would it be good for God to make them suffer after the fall for the sins of just one animal, humans, overwhich all the other animals had no control and no responsibility?

Likewise, I’m not sure how you can say that suffering and death did not occur before the Fall. Did plants not die? If not then what did Adam, Eve, and the animals eat? Or what about bacteria? Was bacteria created after the Fall? If bacteria didn’t die off then within weeks they would have overrun the earth.

Indeed, how did they digest their food if bacteria didn't exist in their gut?

19

My largest problem with the debate over the word "day," contrasting its meanings in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2:4, is the phrase that accompanied the word in Genesis 1: "And the evening and the morning were the first (second, third, etc.) day." This seems to solidly establish the meaning of "day" in Genesis 1.

Furthermore, if one accepts an ex nihilo creation, there is no problem with God creating an "old" universe in an instant, one that would truly be old. I couldn't agree more with Terrence in that the problem is not with understanding, but rather with what our finite mortal minds have the ability to believe.

I encourage Christians to resist the temptation to somehow reconcile the Bible's account of creation to modern science. Why would you, on the one hand, reject a supernatural creation, while on the other rest your eternal fate upon a supernatural resurrection?

20

It would seem to me that all the arguments being tossed around about when "The Fall" took place are a perfect example of what Joe is talking about. What is important is that mankind DID fall, not when it happened. But I'm just a heathen so what do I know?

The more I see of this stuff the more I get the impression of being at a Star Trek convention listening to a bunch of geeks argue about in which episode Mr. Spock had is ears on backward.

Darwinist would like nothing better than having Christians reinterpret Genesis to accommodate their theory. They would then want us to reinterpret Matthew - Mark - Luke - John - etc. to do away with a miracle working Jesus. Why not just throw out the Bible altogether? We’ll blindly follow current scientific thought instead.

So instead you want people to blindly follow what you think the Bible says?

You treat Science as if it's the enemy of your religion. But I think that the real culprit that you have a problem with is not Evolution, Darwinism, or Science. It's the people that dare to disagree with what the Bible says. Or more accurately, what you think the Bible says.

I put to you that it is not faith in God you are seeking, it is security. If you can go to a book and find every answer to every question that you ever have then it gives you a nice sense of order and comfort amid chaos. But you cannot permit someone to question the accuracy of the book, because if the book is wrong then you think everything must be wrong and your security and your world falls apart.

The fact that someone can question what the Bible says, and make quite a good case that in some instances it is open to interpretation, or SIMPLY WRONG, shakes the foundations of your world. Well that isn't faith, it's fear. It's the terrified and desperate clinging of a someone to the edge of a cliff. And the questions being asked are the cracks in the cliff where it is starting to crumble. If you truly had faith in God you would just let go.

21

Bo,

There is a third option: a supernatural creation that began billions of years ago. If you think that creation 10,000 years ago is "the Bible", perhaps you would like to take my challenge.

There is no reason why "morning and evening" necessitates a 24 hour interpretation. Not only is this a rule of interpretation developed by fallible men (just as fallible as scientists in fact) but it's objectively not true. It is used in Dan. 8:26 in reference to a much longer period.

22

It does appear that some good elements have been put forth, by none other than the "Non-Christians." As an innerrant believer, I believe that at certain periods in our history, in our quest for solutions to great mysteries, we shortcut the blessing of the Holy Spirit, and form opinions based upon our fallible and as yet unrevealed assumptions. It would be anti-Christian, in my humble opinion, to assume that any physical or spiritual question will be revealed to those who don't seek that answer.(Science not to be excluded from the seeking) What I admire about the Intelligent Design debate, is not so much that it refutes the evolutionary theory, but that it reveals that science can be revalatory. It is my fear that we as believers may have a tendency to become like the Pharisees, in the belief and interpretation, that if it isn't in the Bible then it didn't occur, or that it is not truth. The fault of Neo-Darwanism, inasmuch as my meager understanding of the theory stands, is that the one and ultimate truth for Christians is absent, that Human life was created by God, for the Greater glory of God, has no home. By what means human life was created, has yet to be revealed, however the faithful to be faithful must truly believe that God created them.

23

if one accepts an ex nihilo creation, there is no problem with God creating an "old" universe in an instant, one that would truly be old.

Yes there is. It's a logical impossibility for something to be newly created at the same time it's "truly ... old," as you say. That's akin to saying God could create a square circle or 4-sided triangle. These are all logical impossiblities and therefore violate God's nature.

24

That's all well and good, but if you don't think Adam had a bellybutton, and that it was an innie, then you're a heretic.

25

"Why would you, on the one hand, reject a supernatural creation, while on the other rest your eternal fate upon a supernatural resurrection?"

Good point.

Maybe we should start teaching "resurrection theory" and "reincarnation theory" in public school science classes as "alternative explanations" for the seemingly finite life spans of living organisms.

I swear, this fly buzzing around my office looks exactly like the one I splatted against the window last week. And now the splat is gone!

You can't prove that it wasn't re-animated. Teach the controversy!!!!!

Seriously, the answer to your question is that the story of the resurrection of Jesus is recited much more articulately than the story of "creation". As to why that should be the case, the answer is obvious: God got better at divinely inspiring his favorite authors as he got older.

If you don't understand what I'm talking about, let me know and I'll find someone to translate my posts into ancient Greek or Hebrew -- that seems to be important for some of you.

26

"Darwinist would like nothing better than having Christians reinterpret Genesis to accommodate their theory. They would then want us to reinterpret Matthew - Mark - Luke - John - etc. to do away with a miracle working Jesus. Why not just throw out the Bible altogether? We’ll blindly follow current scientific thought instead."

That seems like a reasonable approach to take when you are studying science at the introductory level.

But what do I know? I'm just one of those guys who took science seriously and contributed to humankind's knowledge and understanding of proteins and nucleic acids.

If I had to do it all over, surely I would want to educate everyone in my class by interupting my teacher's lectures and point out the communist trappings of methodological naturalism, in addition to the Bible's astounding scientific "predictions."

27

"The more I see of this stuff the more I get the impression of being at a Star Trek convention listening to a bunch of geeks argue about in which episode Mr. Spock had is ears on backward."

Is there such an episode?

My all-time favorite episode is "Return to Tomorrow," where Kirk allows a god-like being to inhabit his body.

28

Anybody know what the purpose of the tree of life (Gen. 2:9 and 3:22) was in the garden? If Adam and Eve didn't die before the Fall, why did they need a tree of life?

Also, if Satan fell a considerable time before A & E did, were death and pain already in existence before they arrived?

And, finally, if evil didn't exist before A & E chose to sin, where did that bad snake come from?

29

It's very diverting to get bogged down in arguments about Genesis and evolution, but I think the original post raised a broader point: what's a truly pro-Scripture way to approach Scripture?

As one who was guilty of this myself, I find the verse-chopping of Scripture appalling. No one who claims to revere Scripture as the Word of God should tolerate it. And yet, how many sincere, Scripture-loving Christians not only do so, but are encouraged to do so, by their ministers, by the books they read, and the Bibles they purchase?

I have a Thompson "Chain-Reference" Bible -- and it is very interesting, and useful -- yet this is exactly what it promotes: verse-chopping. Never mind the books of the Bible weren't composed by verse; never mind the versification was done by printers, and end up distorting the sense of Scripture...

I was in a Christian bookstore, and I was amused, and saddened, by yet another chopping of of God's Word: the "chronological Bible." I can't recall who was responsible for it, but here's how it worked: all the books of the Bible were chopped to pieces -- shredded, basically -- and rewoven together, in what the editors supposed to be the proper chronological order. Setting to one side the glaringly obvious question -- How do they know? -- the even more fundamental problem remains: um, gentlemen, this happens NOT to be the way in which God, in his providence, chose to have his Word come to us. Even if the order of books isn't all that important to us, shouldn't at least the integrity of each book itself be respected?

This is an extreme example, I admit -- but it is an extreme version of an approach to Scripture that ought not to be tolerated, but it is all too common.

30

BR: Given that the Tree of Life was actually in the center of the garden (2:9), not the Tree of Knowledge, which the woman claims in 3:3 (question: why do we assume her viewpoint is accurate? she's obviously over-fascinated with the Tree of Knowledge), then the reason for the Tree of Life is clear -- this is what God wants the couple to focus on. However, Eve's conversation with the serpent reveals she's become fascinated with it. She claims she was told not to touch it. We know God didn't say this to Adam; so either Adam added this, when he relayed God's instructions, or Eve inferred this on her own.

Genesis tells us nothing about Satan. Yes, I know Christian interpretation (and perhaps Jewish, but I can't speak for Jews) sees Satan acting in the serpent; but the text of Genesis says nothing about this. This is an interpretation brought to the text, for excellent reasons, but not part of the text.

Your point about the Tree of Life seems a non sequitur, if I don't misunderstand you; why should they need to be doomed to death before they benefit from the Tree of Life?

I don't see the text of Genesis claiming no evil existed prior to Adam and Eve's sin. After all, the writer of Genesis could hardly be so stupid as not to notice he had written a story in which the serpent acting malevolently prior to the fall!

(This is as good a place as any to offer my "they weren't morons" rule for reading Scripture: any time an interpretation of Scripture requires the writer to be a moron for writing such a thing -- or the original readers to be morons for not thinking it absurd, that interpretation should be set aside. An example would be supposing the writer of Genesis didn't notice the serpent was acting evilly prior to the fall. Another would be the Gospel writers repeating the story of the feeding of many thousands, as if they didn't remember telling the story a chapter or two prior.)

On a point made earlier, about the KJV quoting God as saying they'd die the DAY they ate the fruit...the Catholic NAB translation has it, "on the day...you will be DOOMED to die," which completely avoids the problem. Not having any Hebrew, I have no idea how good either translation is -- but the NAB translation clearly solves the problem -- isn't it just possible the KJV is less than clear?

31

BR: my point about Eve's fascination was unclear: I meant to say, Eve became fascinated with the Tree of Knowledge, hence she claims its in the center; whether it actually is, we don't know; we do know the Tree of Life *is* in the center; and I think what's being conveyed here is that this is the author's way of showing how Eve's focus gets off-track, such that she re-centers the garden around the object of her fascination. Note in the conversation with the serpent, how many ways the truth is distorted.

32

One more comment: I recently surprised some people when I referred, oh-by-the-way, to the famous TWO trees in the garden, in Genesis. They were surprised, because they didn't know what the other tree was, to which I was referring. Of course, it was the Tree of Life.

Isn't that fascinating? To this day, so many of us, like Eve, get so focused on the one tree -- the one, for all we know, was really off to one side, and miss the really important tree God placed "in the middle."

33

Regarding your "7th day" hint, Joe, Paul Davies has a very satisfactory religio-scientific take on time.

34

Furthermore, if one accepts an ex nihilo creation, there is no problem with God creating an "old" universe in an instant, one that would truly be old. I couldn't agree more with Terrence in that the problem is not with understanding, but rather with what our finite mortal minds have the ability to believe.

Then scientifically the best model would be an old universe. Trying to find evidence of a young universe would assume God is imperfect and he 'forgot' some details that we can trip him up on and call him out. But failure to understand this is not because of finite mortal minds....you're basically arguing that God created a lie and he is good enough to pull it off perfectly. You're arguing that God created an 'old looking' universe for no other purpose than to fool us.

If I buried a fake dinosaur fossil in your back yard the reason you think you found one when you dig in your garden isn't because your 'finite mind' cannot comprehend my power. It's because I set you up. This is why I'm skeptical of making a young 'old' universe a part of Christian theology.

Yes there is. It's a logical impossibility for something to be newly created at the same time it's "truly ... old," as you say. That's akin to saying God could create a square circle or 4-sided triangle. These are all logical impossiblities and therefore violate God's nature.

The author of Harry Potter created an old wizard character who is in his 80's. The character is old despite the fact it was created, what?, 10 years ago?

35

FWIW, a story in today's NY Times has a some quotes from Francis Collins regarding his religious beliefs and how he became a Christian (C.S. Lewis strikes again). From what I have seen previously, he is pretty clearly in the "theistic evolution" category.

http://www.nytimes.com
See "Scientists speak up on mix of God and Science."

36

Boonton, I think you misunderstood my point slightly, or perhaps it was stated incorrectly. I'll elaborate a bit in the name of clarity.

God did not orchestrate a "perfect lie" of cosmic proportions. Rather he perfectly created a world. Science interjects its findings that seem to indicate that this world could not have come into existence as recently as scripture indicates, and Christians start scurrying about in attempts to reconcile the scriptures to science. This places science as infallible truth, and relegates the Bible to a document that must be thoroughly vetted to "prove" its accuracy.

The problem is in the presupposition.

If Christians would, on the other hand, accept fully that the Bible as given by God and preserved by His power is truly infallible and authoritative, then our view of science must change slightly. God endowed us with a thirst for knowledge about our world, so by no means should we forsake scientific pursuits. We should always be mindful, however, that as imperfect creatures we are subject to flaws in our observations and conclusions (consider how many models of atomic structure have been put forth, only to be later discarded).

Again, science, though a worthy and noble discipline, is unable by its own definition to explain things that cannot be observed or measured. This leads to another flaw--the use of the word "logical" to mean "scientifically feasible." I repeat my assertation that the Resurrection is no more feasible or likely according to scientific data than is the Creation.

Also, I feel compelled to answer Kevin and his "YEC Challenge."

You make the statement that only a scripture quote would suffice to answer any of these points, yet you feel a need to expound at length in order make a passage not mean what it literally says. You also bring up Daniel 8:26 as a passage bringing the phrase "evening and morning" into question, but you neglect the passage to which the angel was referring. That's scriptural dishonesty of the sort I'd expect from a Darwinian evolutionist to "prove" the errancy of the Bible. Although I know you'll take similar measures to dodge the obvious meanings of the two passages, Genesis 2:1 pretty much answers question 4, and Romans 5:12 addresses question 10. Further, the flaws in questions 6, 9, and 15 are exposed in Genesis 2:6,19, & 20.

37

"This I would ask of you, Joe: How much scientific evidence would be required to overthrow your belief in the resurrection of Christ?"

http://wheatchaff.blogspot.com/2005/08/encyclopedic-assumption-canard-of.html

38

All the biblical passages that say there was no death before Adam's fall are referring very specifically to *human* death. To see this you have to read the passages in context; if you rip out one verse here and one verse there you can make it look like the Bible rules out animal death before the fall when in fact it does not.

39

Great thread, argued civilly and intelligently. Kudos to Kevin and even Patrick, with whom I sometimes disagree.

When faced with two possible and historically acceptable interpretations of scripture, one of which agrees with the world I experience around me and virtually all of the scientific data (which is being constantly fine-tuned), and one which demands that I reject my God-given intellect (God keep me from pride), I cannot but conclude that the one which lines up with the world I see around me has the highest likelihood of being true. This is not placing science in an inerrant position and/or denigrating scripture. It's harmonizing the two. Otherwise, I must live life as a schizophrenic, compartmentalizing my life and never allowing overlaps in some areas lest my whole worldview is thrown into crisis. I was able to do that as an ignorant young believer, but no more.

40

God did not orchestrate a "perfect lie" of cosmic proportions. Rather he perfectly created a world. Science interjects its findings that seem to indicate that this world could not have come into existence as recently as scripture indicates, and Christians start scurrying about in attempts to reconcile the scriptures to science. This places science as infallible truth, and relegates the Bible to a document that must be thoroughly vetted to "prove" its accuracy.

Let's think about furniture. My mother-in-law recently purchased a new kitchen table and the fashion nowadays is 'distressed'. This means that the table has little marks on it....a little like it is an old table. A bit like stone washed jeans that, while being brand new, have a sort of 'well worn' fit built into them. Nonetheless, the table is not a perfect replica of a used beat up table. Rather it is a new table that has some of the 'charming' beat up elements built into it but not the uncharming ones. I can tell I'm sitting at a new table.

If Ikea can pull it off then certainly God could have created a 'perfect' world that suits his needs but does not deceptively appear to be billions of years old.

If Christians would, on the other hand, accept fully that the Bible as given by God and preserved by His power is truly infallible and authoritative, then our view of science must change slightly. God endowed us with a thirst for knowledge about our world, so by no means should we forsake scientific pursuits. We should always be mindful, however, that as imperfect creatures we are subject to flaws in our observations and conclusions (consider how many models of atomic structure have been put forth, only to be later discarded).

In the end, even though he was a bit snippy about it, Jesus showed Thomas his hands to prove scientifically (if you will) that he was who he said he was. While stunning God, doesn't demand that we believe a lot of Matrix like paradoxes. I'll grant you there are a few like the mystery of the trinity but I see no reason why God does not want us to believe that 1+1=2 and if the Bible seems to say it equals 3 then we are reading it wrong. If we dig up a skeleton that is one million years old it is because the owner of that skeleton died one million years ago. No I cannot prove God didn't create a perfect copy of a million year old skeleton back in 1963 and bury it in someone's back yard. Nor can I prove that L Ron Hubbard's theology if false. But both strike me as so absurd that they should be discarded.

41

I have been wrestling (off and on) with the whole creation/creationism/evolution hydra since the first week I became a Christian. Ok, I am exaggerating, it was a month.

Out of 25+ years of wrestling, and from the thread above, I have one question. How much, by my assumptions, arguments, and ideas do I short-change an infinite, all-powerful God? Could the problem be due to my failure of imagination?

I am a creature limited by having to live in space and time. I am trying to figure out what God, in His eternal now. did and how He did it. There is a presumption in the wrestling that I can know, understand, and, ultimately, judge God and His creation.

I have come to no conclusions that I can settle into, other than the one that Job came to: who am I to argue with God? I repent in dust and ashes. (Job 42:1-6).

Note: this is not meant to stop the conversation. I would dearly love to see an "elegant" teaching/argument on this subject, to use a word scientists love to use about their theories.

42

"But I’ve also noticed some Christian advocates of intelligent design claim that theistic evolution is incompatible with an orthodox interpretation of scripture. "

Some?

Name three that haven't.

Phillip E "HIV" Johnson calls theistic evolutionists "accomodationists."

That is the ID position.

43

Quite intresting article posting.I enjoyed reading this.
Paul

44

Good post, Joe. I have some similar thoughts on my site, here and here. One very serious philosophical problem with the YEC view that allows for "apparent age" is that it undercuts our ability to know anything. If God made the earth only "appear" billions of years old, maybe he also only made it "appear" as though Jesus rose from the dead. What you end up with is not Christianity, which is based on historical events, but something like Buddhism, which holds that "reality" is just an illusion.

But regardless of one's views on this question, it shouldn't be a matter that divides us.

45

Boonton:

Here's the concept again, because you're running just to the outside of the mark on every comment. The world doesn't appear to be old, it is old. It's not a trick, it's not a deception. The question is not whether the earth is "really" old--it's about when God created it. I firmly believe that it would have been an imperfect creation if all the things in the world could be proven to have "appeared" 10,000 years ago. Would that not have minimized man's capacity to either believe or deny God's existence? So long as man seeks to deny God, there will be "evidence" that supports his assertation. Along those lines, wouldn't these evidences fall into God's universal grace extended towards all creation, to comfort those who will not believe, even in their disbelief?

Ah, it will all be clear in eternity. Maybe in a few million years we can find one another and laugh about how short-sighted we all were, eh?

46

Joe and others

As an agnostic on this issue of hermeneutics, I look forward to seeing how the two sides will justify their conclusions, not only at professional level but also at the level of ordinary believers who have to live in the real life day to day world and answer credibly for the reason for the hope we have.

Grace to all

Gordon

PS: here are my own thoughts on Bible interpretation and study [ http://www.angelfire.com/pro/kairosfocus/resources/Leading_Cells/Bible_Study_Skills.htm ] and on evolutionary materialism [ http://www.angelfire.com/pro/kairosfocus/resources/Mars_Hill_Web/evolutionism.htm ], both at a first level leadership training level. Joe has taken on a biggie.

47

Ah, it will all be clear in eternity. Maybe in a few million years we can find one another and laugh about how short-sighted we all were, eh?

Perhaps, I'll try to look up your EO handle in a million years so we can catch up! My thought is that it is not about denying God but controlling God. The scientist who starts digging trying to understand the different geological layers is not seeking out evidence to disprove God nor does an old universe disprove God. IMO, the creationist who seeks to insist on a 10,000 yr old earth is trying to control God. Trying to assert that God must have operated according to the way he thinks God did things based on a few vague phrases in Genesis. The more we learn about the universe the more it becomes clear how difficult it is to comprehend. IMO, much of creationism is unintentionally guilty of putting God in a bottle.

48

Errr, sorry about the triple trackback...the pinger said it failed the first couple of times.....

49

| best enlarge penis pill | best enlargement market penis pill | best enlargement penis pill review | best enlargment penis pill | best penis enlargement | best penis enlargement pill | best penis enlargement pill | best penis pill | big cock | big long penis | big penis | bigger penis pill | cheap penis enlargement pill | cheap penis pill | enlargement lengthening natural penis | guide to penis enlargement | herbal penis enlargement | herbal penis enlargement pill | herbal penis pill | larger penis pill | male penis enlargement | male penis enlargement pill | medical penis enlargement | natural free penis enlargement | natural penis enlargement | natural penis enlargement pill | penis | penis enhancement pills | penis enhancing pills | penis enlargement | penis enlagement pill | penis enlagement pills | penis enlargement capsule | penis enlargement drug | penis enlargement fact | penis enlargement info | penis enlargement patch | penis enlargement pill research | penis enlargement pill review | penis enlargement pill safe | penis enlargement pill that work | penis enlargement product | penis enlargement program | penis enlargement review | penis enlargement supplement | penis enlargement technique | penis growth pills | penis pills | penis pills enlargement | penis pills review | penis pills store | penis pills top | pill to enlarge penis | pill to increase penis size | real penis enlargement | safe penis enlargement | tip for penis enlargement |