Science and the Bible...

[completedbeliever1]

Science, creation, and truth.  We need to reason together, and come to a sound conclusion.  

I would like to have a discussion about why creation is the truth, while evolution is a lie that must be stopped. 

As I said in another post, it is a poison and our youth is its victim.

Please, let us have a rational debate, and come to a truthful resolution...

While I have studied evo vs creation for nearly 10 years, I am by no means an expert in all fields.  With that being said, I do know a thing or two about what is going on.  

I am neither right wing, nor left wing, and I most certainly am not politically correct.  

I am not racist, and I have no agenda.  (Creationists like myself are now called racist because we do not agree with evolutionists, and other...(just type into your browser, 'are creationists racist'?))  I simply see with my eyes, smell with my nose, hear with my ears, taste with my mouth, and feel with my hands.  

Anything said to me beyond this is your opinion, and one that should be kept to yourself. 

This is for anyone who wants to know more about evo vs creation.  

[Tristen]

 

Regarding Definitions

I think it would behove us to define the term ‘evolution’ at the outset of any such conversation. I am personally reluctant to use the term evolution because it is highly equivocal. I have heard it variously defined as the General Theory of Evolution (that all life on earth is related through a series of common ancestors), but also by the suite of concepts that tend to find themselves under the general umbrella of "evolution" (i.e. natural selection, genetic mutations, speciation etc., as well as Common Ancestry), also any heritable change in a population?

I prefer to define the debate as Creation vs Common Ancestry, since Common Ancestry is the only one of these concepts which is necessarily inconsistent with the Genesis model of creation.

 

 

Regarding why this issue is important

* The most obvious concern relates to the reliability of scripture. If the Genesis can’t be trusted to mean what it says, how can we trust anything the Bible teaches? What gives errant humanity the right to pick and choose which parts of the Bible to trust? Such a logically inconsistent approach to Bible interpretation undermines the authority of scripture in its entirety.

* One alternative is to translate the text symbolically or metaphorically. A metaphor is supposed to relate to something similar; an antecedent. If creation is a metaphor, it is definitely not a metaphor for evolution. There should also be some grammatical indicator pointing the reader to a metaphorical interpretation. Without any supporting evidence in the text, we have no legitimate right to interpret/dismiss any scripture as symbolic. No such indicator exists in the Genesis text. In the absence of a clear antecedent, claiming the text is symbolic equates to a dismissal of scripture.

* Evolution at its core is not so difficult to understand. The concept of humans descending from animals is common in many native cultures. Metaphor is unnecessary. Why wouldn’t God have simply told us He used evolution - if he had?

* A common sense rule of interpretation is that the texts should be interpreted according to the grammatical style in which they are written (That is, the grammatical context). The account of origins in Genesis is written as historical account.

- Using the above measures, if the Biblical creation account is not true, then the ultimate author (Who we believe to be God) either didn't know what He was talking about, or He is lying. If any part of scripture is unreliable, then the scripture in its entirety must be considered unreliable. The integrity of the Bible has either been preserved by God or not. If we get to decide which verses are relevant and which verses we can reject, then we make ourselves judges over God's word. Christians are often accused of cherry picking scriptures - if we interpret Genesis as metaphor, then that is exactly what we are doing.

 

* The concepts of evolution and long ages are not evident in the Genesis. It has to be read into the text from external sources. These theories, whilst popular, are scientifically unverifiable/unfalsifiable. They are therefore faith conclusions.

* Human science is intentionally fallible and must be constantly updated and revised. The logic underpinning the Scientific Method makes no provision for certainty (aka “proof”).  Facts (observations & data) are rationally indisputable, but interpretation is subjective. Creationists interpret all of the very same facts used to support evolution, to be consistent with the Biblical model of reality. There is therefore no objective scientific reason for a Christian to doubt the reliability of the Genesis account.

* Jesus interpreted Genesis as history. Both Old Testament and New Testament authors interpreted the Genesis account as history. Again we imply that, if all life on earth evolved from a common ancestor, then Jesus and the other authors of scripture (including the divine Inspirer) are ignorant of reality. So yet again we call into question the divine authority and integrity of the whole Bible.

* The Genesis account is necessary to explain the origin of death and suffering. God created the world corruption free. It was through our sin that corruption entered the universe. Long age theories put death and corruption before humanity. How can a loving God create such a cruel concept as evolution which thrives on suffering; the strong prevailing over the weak?

* Death before sin undermines the entire reason for the gospel of Christ - to save humanity from the consequences of our sin. If death and suffering existed before humanity, then it would be unjust of God to hold us accountable. If we are not accountable then why do we need a Savior?

- The Genesis account of history provides the foundation of all Christian doctrine and philosophy. There is no objective logic necessitating adherence to secular models of reality. If Christians compromise their faith in scripture to accommodate secular models, all they are doing is exchanging one belief system for another. Apart from propaganda, there is no logical obligation for anyone to accept secular models.

 

 

I think the best strategy to counter the pervasive impression that secular models are the only legitimate conclusion, is to teach our students how they come to their conclusions. That is, to break down the logic underpinning the secular claims – so that the students are aware that all models suffer logical weakness – and that no model is beyond question. Denying our children education in evolution theory will leave them unequipped to deal with what faces them in the real world. If we are secure in our faith, we should never be scared to engage with Bible detractors.

[Bonky]

To the OP, I'm willing to discuss the topic as long as we're looking to share thoughts, ideas etc.   You refer to evolution as a "lie" and I'm not sure if you mean Satan is behind it or if you think scientists are trying to propagate lies etc.  I did a google search on "are creationists racist" and found an article that talks about the "curse of Ham" and what that might imply for some.  The author actually makes a comment that they don't view creationists as racist by default.   

So what is it that you want to discuss?

 

To Tristen:

It's been a long time, nice to read your comments.  I think you do such a good job of providing an eloquent layout of the modern day creationist worldview.   I would like to look at one statement that you made that caught my eye more than others.  

Quote

If the Genesis can’t be trusted to mean what it says, how can we trust anything the Bible teaches? What gives errant humanity the right to pick and choose which parts of the Bible to trust?

So when we get into science and creation type discussions we often hear about how flawed humanity is.  Based on this we can take secular scientific claims with a grain of salt so to speak.  Why though, does this not seem to apply to humans that have decided that holy scripture should be placed into the infallible category?  How do flawed human beings who can't be trusted to be 100% positive about natural earthly matters...be trusted to examine ancient scripture and declare it infallible?

I just wanted to start with this.  I hope to have a thought provoking discussion.

 

[junobet]

Well, with all due respect for your personal opinions, let it be said that the vast majority of this world’s Christians don’t have the slightest problem to see spiritual truth in Genesis and to also accept the scientific consensus about evolution.

Actually there’s only two kinds of people who think Genesis is to be read literally: atheists à la Dawkins and fundamentalist evangelicals. And the latter are a rather recent phenomenon in the history of Christianity. So you may be interested in this article, that tells us how Genesis has traditionally been read and how these readings and evolution are in no conflict whatsoever:

---

Given the stark difference between evolution and six-day creation, many people assume that Darwin’s theory shook the foundations of the Christian faith. In truth, the literal six-day interpretation of Genesis 1-2 was not the only perspective held by Christians prior to modern science.  St. Augustine (354-430), John Calvin (1509-1564), John Wesley (1703-1791), and others supported the idea of Accommodation.  In the Accommodation view, Genesis 1-2 was written in a simple allegorical fashion to make it easy for people of that time to understand.  In fact, Augustine suggested that the 6 days of Genesis 1 describe a single day of creation.  St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) argued that God did not create things in their final state, but created them to have potential to develop as he intended.  The views of these and other Christian leaders are consistent with God creating life by means of evolution.

Introduction

Many people assume that Darwin’s theory must have shaken the foundations of the Christian faith because of the stark difference between evolution and the idea of a six-day creation. In truth, the literal six-day interpretation of Genesis 1–2 was not the only perspective espoused by Christian thinkers prior to the publication of The Origin of Species in 1859. The works of many early Christian theologians and philosophers reveal an interpretation of Genesis compatible with Darwin’s theory.

Early Christian Thought

To understand how Genesis was interpreted during ancient times, see John Walton's Reconciling Science with Scripture and Denis Lamoureux'sThe Ancient Science in the Bible and The Message-Incident Principle from our Science and the Sacred blog.

Origen, a third-century philosopher and theologian from Alexandria, Egypt—one of the great intellectual centers of the ancient world—provides an example of early Christian thought on creation.

Best known for On First Principles and Against Celsus, Origen presented the main doctrines of Christianity and defended them against pagan accusations. Origen opposed the idea that the creation story should be interpreted as a literal and historical account of how God created the world. There were other voices before Origen who advocated more symbolic interpretations of the creation story. Origen’s views were also influential for other early church thinkers who came after him.¹

St. Augustine of Hippo, a bishop in North Africa during the early fifth century, was another central figure of the period. Although he is widely known for Confessions, Augustine authored dozens of other works, several of which focus on Genesis 1–2.² In The Literal Meaning of Genesis, Augustine argues that the first two chapters of Genesis are written to suit the understanding of the people at that time.³

In order to communicate in a way that all people could understand, the creation story was told in a simpler, allegorical fashion. Augustine also believed God created the world with the capacity to develop, a view that is harmonious with biological evolution.⁴

Later Christian Thought

There are many other non-literal interpretations of Genesis 1–2 later in history. St. Thomas Aquinas, a well-known thirteenth-century philosopher and theologian, was particularly interested in the intersection of science and religion and was strongly influenced by Augustine. Aquinas did not fear the possible contradiction between the Genesis creation story and scientific findings.

In Summa Theologica, he responds to the question of whether all six days of creation are actually a description of a single day, a theory Augustine had suggested. Aquinas argues in favor of the view that God created all things to have potential:

"On the day on which God created the heaven and the earth, He created also every plant of the field, not, indeed, actually, but “before it sprung up in the earth,” that is, potentially.…All things were not distinguished and adorned together, not from a want of power on God’s part, as requiring time in which to work, but that due order might be observed in the instituting of the world."⁵

Augustine’s creation perspective can be seen even as late as the eighteenth century—just before Darwin published The Origin of Species—in the works of John Wesley. An Anglican minister and early leader in the Methodist movement, Wesley, like Augustine, thought the scriptures were written in terms suitable for their audience. He writes,

"The inspired penman in this history [Genesis] … [wrote] for the Jews first and, calculating his narratives for the infant state of the church, describes things by their outward sensible appearances, and leaves us, by further discoveries of the divine light, to be led into the understanding of the mysteries couched under them."⁶

Wesley also argues the scriptures “were written not to gratify our curiosity [of the details] but to lead us to God.”⁷

In the nineteenth century, Princeton Theological Seminary was known for its staunch defense of conservative Calvinism and the absolute authority of Scripture. Perhaps the most noted Princeton theologian of that era, B. B. Warfield, accepted evolution as giving the proper scientific account of human origins. He believed that hearing God’s voice in Scripture and the findings of solid scientific work were not at odds. As historian Mark Noll puts it, “B. B. Warfield, the ablest modern defender of the theologically conservative doctrine of the inerrancy of the Bible, was also an evolutionist.”⁸

Conclusion

The history of Christian thought has not been consistently dominated by proponents of a literal interpretation of Genesis. The discoveries of modern science should neither be seen as the instigator of some abandonment of trust in Scripture, nor as contradictory to Scripture, but as guideposts toward a proper understanding of Scripture’s meaning.

Augustine offers this advice:

"In matters that are so obscure and far beyond our vision, we find in Holy Scripture passages which can be interpreted in very different ways without prejudice to the faith we have received. In such cases, we should not rush in headlong and so firmly take our stand on one side that, if further progress in the search of truth justly undermines this position, we too fall with it. That would be to battle not for the teaching of Holy Scripture but for our own, wishing its teaching to conform to ours, whereas we ought to wish ours to conform to that of Sacred Scripture."⁹

http://biologos.org/common-questions/biblical-interpretation/early-interpretations-of-genesis

 

[Ezra]

1. Creation is by the Creator, who does not need millions and billions of years to accomplish anything. He could have created everything in a moment, but chose 6 creative days, and one day of rest, to give man a pattern for his work-week.

2. Science is also from the Creator, since natural laws are embedded in the universe. Every branch of true science is based on God's natural laws.

3. Therefore true science is never in conflict with the Bible.

4. False science (including evolution) is definitely in conflict with Scripture.

5. The creation account must be taken in its plain, literal, factual, historical, chronological, and spiritual sense. This is confirmed within the Ten Commandments (Exod 20:8-11 KJV):

8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.

9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:

10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger thatis within thy gates:

11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it

[Tristen]

 

Hey Bonky,

 

Regarding taking science with “a grain of salt”

I wouldn’t suggest that scientific claims be questioned/scrutinized on the basis of “flawed humanity”. I would suggest that scientific claims be questioned on the basis that the logic underpinning the scientific method is intentionally designed to be intensely skeptical/critical. The scientific method makes no logical provision for certainty (or absolutist terminology such as “proof”). Therefore all scientific claims remain legitimately subject to scrutiny.

All too often, people in engaging in scientific debates presume that since they have interpretations of the facts, everyone else is logically obligated to accept their interpretations as ultimate truth (and/or otherwise are not permitted to question that interpretation). This unjustified level of confidence is often implied by labelling opponents as anti-science, or ignorant, or scientifically illiterate, or fact/evidence ignorers – or somehow intellectually deficient in some other manner.

It is ironic that many question the intellectual capacity of their opponents, having not considered the logic of their own position – but moreso when you consider that the nature of the claims being made require a departure from the logical robustness of the scientific method – which is only designed to attribute confidence to current, natural phenomena (and so cannot speak with legitimate scientific confidence about the past (or the supernatural)).

 

 

Regarding trusting the Bible

The reliability of scripture is quite a large topic. I’ll endeavor to be as concise as possible.

Given the premise that God exists and has exerted influence over the authorship of scripture, Christians have incorporated certain assumptions into their theology;

a) that the Bible is inerrant in the autographic (original) manuscripts, &

b) that God has preserved all essential doctrine through the copying process

- So that what we have today can be considered to be an eminently reliable resource.

 

These claims invoke certain expectations that can be tested. For example;

* Revelation consistency: Consistent with expectation, over 40 authors from differing cultures, some thousands of years apart have presented a consistent revelation of God and reality.

* Logical self-consistency: For all the hundreds of alleged Bible contradictions I've studied, I have never come across one that could not be logically remedied (thus invaliding the claim of contradiction - regardless of whether or not the remedy is accepted by opponents). Most remedies only require modest research (e.g. reading the context) but some require a bit more study than others. The vast majority that I have encountered don't even qualify as technical contradictions at face value.

* Prophetic Fulfillment: Ranging from the general to the very specific.

* Consistency with Operational science: Even though the Bible is not a science textbook, as the word of God it should not make any errant scientific claims (when considered in obvious context). Whilst subjective interpretations of facts may be inconsistent with the Bible, all of the same objective facts can be alternatively interpreted to be consistent with Biblical revelation.

* Consistency with Historical science: The Bible makes many thousands of temporal, historical clams spanning thousands of years. One would expect the Word of God to be historically accurate. Where the relevant facts exist (e.g. in archaeology), they demonstrate overwhelming consistency with the Biblical account of history.

 

So a Christian has every rational reason to trust that God has preserved His intended message to humanity in the Bible – in spite of the flaws of the human authors (and copiers). Nevertheless, only faith makes provision for certainty.

[completedbeliever1]

On 1/13/2016 at 9:41 PM, Tristen said:

 

Regarding Definitions

I think it would behove us to define the term ‘evolution’ at the outset of any such conversation. I am personally reluctant to use the term evolution because it is highly equivocal. I have heard it variously defined as the General Theory of Evolution (that all life on earth is related through a series of common ancestors), but also by the suite of concepts that tend to find themselves under the general umbrella of "evolution" (i.e. natural selection, genetic mutations, speciation etc., as well as Common Ancestry), also any heritable change in a population?

I prefer to define the debate as Creation vs Common Ancestry, since Common Ancestry is the only one of these concepts which is necessarily inconsistent with the Genesis model of creation.

 

 

Regarding why this issue is important

* The most obvious concern relates to the reliability of scripture. If the Genesis can’t be trusted to mean what it says, how can we trust anything the Bible teaches? What gives errant humanity the right to pick and choose which parts of the Bible to trust? Such a logically inconsistent approach to Bible interpretation undermines the authority of scripture in its entirety.

* One alternative is to translate the text symbolically or metaphorically. A metaphor is supposed to relate to something similar; an antecedent. If creation is a metaphor, it is definitely not a metaphor for evolution. There should also be some grammatical indicator pointing the reader to a metaphorical interpretation. Without any supporting evidence in the text, we have no legitimate right to interpret/dismiss any scripture as symbolic. No such indicator exists in the Genesis text. In the absence of a clear antecedent, claiming the text is symbolic equates to a dismissal of scripture.

* Evolution at its core is not so difficult to understand. The concept of humans descending from animals is common in many native cultures. Metaphor is unnecessary. Why wouldn’t God have simply told us He used evolution - if he had?

* A common sense rule of interpretation is that the texts should be interpreted according to the grammatical style in which they are written (That is, the grammatical context). The account of origins in Genesis is written as historical account.

- Using the above measures, if the Biblical creation account is not true, then the ultimate author (Who we believe to be God) either didn't know what He was talking about, or He is lying. If any part of scripture is unreliable, then the scripture in its entirety must be considered unreliable. The integrity of the Bible has either been preserved by God or not. If we get to decide which verses are relevant and which verses we can reject, then we make ourselves judges over God's word. Christians are often accused of cherry picking scriptures - if we interpret Genesis as metaphor, then that is exactly what we are doing.

 

* The concepts of evolution and long ages are not evident in the Genesis. It has to be read into the text from external sources. These theories, whilst popular, are scientifically unverifiable/unfalsifiable. They are therefore faith conclusions.

* Human science is intentionally fallible and must be constantly updated and revised. The logic underpinning the Scientific Method makes no provision for certainty (aka “proof”).  Facts (observations & data) are rationally indisputable, but interpretation is subjective. Creationists interpret all of the very same facts used to support evolution, to be consistent with the Biblical model of reality. There is therefore no objective scientific reason for a Christian to doubt the reliability of the Genesis account.

* Jesus interpreted Genesis as history. Both Old Testament and New Testament authors interpreted the Genesis account as history. Again we imply that, if all life on earth evolved from a common ancestor, then Jesus and the other authors of scripture (including the divine Inspirer) are ignorant of reality. So yet again we call into question the divine authority and integrity of the whole Bible.

* The Genesis account is necessary to explain the origin of death and suffering. God created the world corruption free. It was through our sin that corruption entered the universe. Long age theories put death and corruption before humanity. How can a loving God create such a cruel concept as evolution which thrives on suffering; the strong prevailing over the weak?

* Death before sin undermines the entire reason for the gospel of Christ - to save humanity from the consequences of our sin. If death and suffering existed before humanity, then it would be unjust of God to hold us accountable. If we are not accountable then why do we need a Savior?

- The Genesis account of history provides the foundation of all Christian doctrine and philosophy. There is no objective logic necessitating adherence to secular models of reality. If Christians compromise their faith in scripture to accommodate secular models, all they are doing is exchanging one belief system for another. Apart from propaganda, there is no logical obligation for anyone to accept secular models.

 

 

I think the best strategy to counter the pervasive impression that secular models are the only legitimate conclusion, is to teach our students how they come to their conclusions. That is, to break down the logic underpinning the secular claims – so that the students are aware that all models suffer logical weakness – and that no model is beyond question. Denying our children education in evolution theory will leave them unequipped to deal with what faces them in the real world. If we are secure in our faith, we should never be scared to engage with Bible detractors.

This is a great post...

I agree on most everything, except "Denying our children education in evolution theory will leave them unequipped to deal with what faces them in the real world."

I am reminded of how the FBI can spot fake US currency.  

They study the real currency.  It is that simple.  

We too need to know the real from the fake by knowing the real so well, we can spot a fake from a mile away.

[junobet]

15 hours ago, Ezra said:

1. Creation is by the Creator, who does not need millions and billions of years to accomplish anything. He could have created everything in a moment, but chose 6 creative days, and one day of rest, to give man a pattern for his work-week.

2. Science is also from the Creator, since natural laws are embedded in the universe. Every branch of true science is based on God's natural laws.

3. Therefore true science is never in conflict with the Bible.

4. False science (including evolution) is definitely in conflict with Scripture.

5. The creation account must be taken in its plain, literal, factual, historical, chronological, and spiritual sense. This is confirmed within the Ten Commandments (Exod 20:8-11 KJV):

8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.

 

9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:

 

10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger thatis within thy gates:

 

11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it

Dear Ezra,

please don’t take this personally, but anybody can see that the “chronology” and “facts” in Genesis 1:1-2:3 (Priestly source) differ from those in Genesis 2:4-2:24 (Jahwist source). That should suffice to see that chronology and facts weren’t a concern of the text’s authors and editors. So the Bible itself points us to it, that this is not how it wants to be read here.

And when you read poetry as if you were reading a cookbook, the end result is lost poetry and quite probably a bad dinner.

Not that I’m an expert on OT-Studies and the documentary hypothesis, but I do know that the first step of any sound exegesis is to discern the genre and historical context of the literature you are dealing with.

As far as I remember Genesis 1-2  is dated at around the time of Babylonian exile and was intended as a polemic that plays on the themes of other creation narratives of its time, the Epic of Gilgamesh and Enuma Elish, which were well known to the text's original audience. Here’s a small insignificant people boldly telling the super-powers of its day “Our God created your Gods (the moon/the sun), He’s the only God there is!”

In doing so the Biblical creation narrative makes the theological step to ethical monotheism with an uncreated creator and presents a new view on the relationship between humankind and God and human dignity. (For ex. the Babylonian God Marduk suggested that the Gods should make humans as slaves, so that they could rest on the seventh day and be brought food. Genesis has it, that God provides food for us  … ).

It’s a wonderful spiritual message in there that may well get lost if you press Genesis in a corset it doesn’t belong in rather than taking it for what it is. Juxtaposing it to 21th century science does it a disservice and drives 21th century people away from faith in hordes.

[Guest Teditis]

[Ezra]

1 minute ago, junobet said:

Dear Ezra,

please don’t take this personally, but anybody can see that the “chronology” and “facts” in Genesis 1:1-2:3 (Priestly source) differ from those in Genesis 2:4-2:24 (Jahwist source). That should suffice to see that chronology and facts weren’t a concern of the text’s authors and editors. So the Bible itself points us to it, that this is not how it wants to be read here.

First of all Higher Criticism (priestly source, Jahwist source, etc.) has been thoroughly debunked, and secondly it is really a stretch to call Genesis 1 and 2 "poetry".  So if you wish to put your faith in the broken reed of the so-called *assured results of modern biblical scholarship* that's your choice.  For those of us who don't accept that nonsense, Moses personally wrote the Torah under Divine inspiration, and the Jews have always adhered to that position.