American culture seems to be most interested in who God isn’t. Many hold that claims made about God put him in a box and because we really can’t know anything about him (so they say) we should avoid claiming any knowledge of or about him. Of course, that argument works for less than 10 seconds because to say we can’t know anything about God requires some knowledge of God—and that is where such claims reduce to silliness.
On The View yesterday, America’s love affair with religious pluralism took the conversation in a direction that deserves further reflection. During the show, Joy Behar and Whoopie Goldberg took issue with Fox’s Bill O’Reilly, stomping off the stage in protest after he explained that 70% of Americans are against the building of the Mosque near Ground Zero because it was Muslims who attacked America on 9/11/2001. In all the clamor, O’Reilly defended his statement with a follow-up rhetorical question, “were they not Muslim?” On his own show last evening, however, he capitulated and said that he assumed the ladies on The View would get that he was referring to the Muslim terrorists who are also extremists, but Muslim nonetheless.
If you ever watch The O’Reilly Factor and have a basic knowledge of Christianity, you probably know that Bill O’Reilly is not a theologian. He proved this recently as he defended Christians in an interview with Bill Maher. O’Reilly explained to Maher that Christians don’t really believe that the story of Noah and the flood is to be taken literally but that Christians still deserve to be heard. This is just one of many uncomfortable moments in the interview that reduced it to the status of train wreck. Certainly the world of politics can not avoid the world of religious ideas, but I would highly recommend that O’Reilly remove himself from theological dialogue at this point…or get a tutor.
But that leads me to this important point. O’Reilly is only one of many engaging in theological dialogue, pretty much unbeknownst to them. Here is what’s going on: the term “extremist” as is being applied Muslims is a theological category. Obviously it is being utilized for political purposes, but it is being used with overtly theological intentions. To say that an individual or a group has gone beyond the doctrines of a particular religion in belief or action—the definition of religious extremism—is to also claim to know something about the content of that religion. In other words, one would have to have detailed knowledge of a religion in order to know what to exclude from its teachings. But this certainly is not the situation of many who make use of the term, for they often do not understand the religion of which they are speaking. But apparently the exclusion of the term “extremist” is tantamount to hate speech.
Some Christians have made use of the category “extremist” because it creates some separation between themselves and those who profess Christianity but do really stupid things. Westboro Baptist Church comes to mind. Are these people Christian extremists? I believe my understanding of Christian theology allows me to make use of the term (as most of you who reading this post) but at the same time, we would have to agree that there’s nothing Christian about certain behaviors and to apply the term “extremist” is to do a disservice to the term “Christian.” As theologians, I believe we need to eliminate the use of the term “extremist” so we can see things for what they really are. But politicians and pundits will continue to engage the use of this word for their own political gain, but a theological category it certainly is.
October 15th, 2010 | 11:49 am | #1
Sarah,
So if I read you correctly, the question to hand is the theological question of apostasy? For example: Westboro Baptists folks are not just taking their Christian views to unwarranted ‘extremes’ but are in fact preaching ‘another gospel’ (Gal. 1.6)? Is what some (many) in the political commentariat call “extremism” in fact apostasy?
And that leads to a question that has been bothering me as a religious “professional” since 9/11. Is it the case that what was done on 9/11 was extremism (within the bounds of the belief system but distorted)? Or was it apostasy (theological/practical error — outside the bounds of the belief system)? Or was it, (and this is the most concerning one to me) in fact a genuine expression of some core tenets of that belief system?
Thanks for a very thought provoking and helpful distinction.
October 15th, 2010 | 11:55 am | #2
Sorry, I committed something of a theological error myself above. I used apostasy (the willful abandonment of the teachings of a faith) when I should have used heresy or heterodoxy… please substitute one of the latter for the former.
October 15th, 2010 | 12:28 pm | #3
Hi David, whether apostasy or heresy (a meaningless distinction to the commentariat), the point I’m driving at is really that the people appealing to the term or category “extremist” are unqualified to do so. They generally know little if anything about Islam and as a result they can’t determine what is beyond the system or a distortion of it. All they know is the soundbite “but its a peaceful religion.” As far as the Christian use of the term “extremist,” i think they are misguided in doing so.
October 15th, 2010 | 12:49 pm | #4
Is it okay to state that the KKK are extremists?
October 15th, 2010 | 12:54 pm | #5
What would they be the extreme of?
October 15th, 2010 | 1:05 pm | #6
Sarah,
Well if ignorance of a thing were a disqualification for commenting on it, where would television talkies or the internet be? You madam are extremist!
On a more serious note, what resource(s) would you recommend as a good starting point for knowledge of Islam? It would be helpful for me to be able to clarify the point I raised above. Is terrorism a legitimate expression of Islam or no?
October 15th, 2010 | 1:16 pm | #7
lol David. My point is they are making a theological designation about something they haven’t a clue of what would be considered orthodox for a given religion. With no sense of orthodoxy how can there be a sense of extremism? there’s no way these commentators and entertainers know this.
http://www.answering-islam.org
October 15th, 2010 | 1:23 pm | #8
Me: “Is it okay to state that the KKK are extremists?”
Sarah J. Flashing: “What would they be the extreme of?”
Me: Racism?
October 15th, 2010 | 1:26 pm | #9
KKK doesn’t really work for my argument. They aren’t a religious entity that might be viewed as having an orthodox set of views which could be distorted by “extremists.” There’s nothing good about racism.
October 15th, 2010 | 1:36 pm | #10
Sarah,
I see your point and agree. Which leads me to a larger question. Are they teachable? It doesn’t take a lot of time or effort to become acquainted the broader points of Christian (or Islamic) orthodoxy. So why not engage in the task? Is it invincible ignorance, or is there something else going on?
I almost wonder if there is a fear that to become better informed would mean having to find nuance, to explain more carefully difference, a diminishing of conviction or passion? Ratings (or site hits) aren’t often driven by carefully reasoned argument…It’s an irony that the class which most often accuses folks of being passionate out of ignorance is so passionately ignorant themselves.
October 15th, 2010 | 1:47 pm | #11
They are well equipped to become better informed. But what I’m fascinated by is the assumptions that are made. The basic soundbite, that Islam is a “religion of peace” is based on what?
October 15th, 2010 | 1:55 pm | #12
George Bush said so?
October 15th, 2010 | 2:09 pm | #13
“They [the KKK] aren’t a religious entity that might be viewed as having an orthodox set of views which could be distorted by “extremists.”
(1) Does the KKK view themselves and hold themselves out to be a religious entity?
(2) Do (some/most) Liberals view and portray the KKK as a religious entity?
October 15th, 2010 | 2:13 pm | #14
Not that I’m aware of.
October 15th, 2010 | 2:20 pm | #15
TUAD,
The answer to (1) is probably no in any meaningful way.
The answer to (2) is, sadly, yes at least some. If you go to about.com for example you will find the KKK linked to the Moral Majority, and Christian Reconstructionists. The site also says that the KKK “consider themselves a Christian organization and base their doctrines upon their own reading of the Bible”.
October 15th, 2010 | 2:46 pm | #16
Thank you David C. for your answer.
It appears proper to designate the KKK as *extremists*.
October 15th, 2010 | 2:52 pm | #17
The KKK isn’t a proper parallel, it misses my point. But ok. lol
October 15th, 2010 | 3:10 pm | #18
TUAD,
If the answer to “does the KKK view themselves and hold themselves out to be a religious entity?” is “no” (and I believe that is correct) then by Sarah’s terms they cannot be said to be extremist Christians.
But here’s where the confusion sets in, I think. If we take the Left/Liberal view that the KKK ~is~ a Christian organization then we would further have to agree (perhaps) that they are Christian extremists.
That doubly confirms Sarah’s point (I think). The liberals who believe that the KKK are Christian extremists are doubly wrong. Wrong in a historico/political context and wrong in a theological context.
See? (heh)
October 15th, 2010 | 3:16 pm | #19
Sarah,
For clarity’s sake: would the Branch Davidians fit your theological designation of “extremist”?
October 15th, 2010 | 3:19 pm | #20
Sarah,
Your point fails.
October 15th, 2010 | 3:50 pm | #21
My problem is, i don’t want us to adopt the “extremist” paradigm at all, but those who are using it for purposes of separating terrorists from peaceful Muslims do not have (my assertion) an understanding of the “peaceful muslim” theology enough to say that there are extremists that go beyond that theology. My bottom line point is that the category of “extremist” is a theological category and Joy Behar and Bill O’Reilly (and others) cannot escape this. Its ultimately useless, but it has theological underpinnings.
I feel like I’m reposting the blog post. :)
So when Christians utilize the category of extremist, I think they are making a mistake because apostate or heretic suffice. By adopting this model they are paving the way for world religions having an acceptable model and then an unacceptable extremist model. I think we’re aiding and abetting religious pluralism in this regard.
October 15th, 2010 | 3:57 pm | #22
Ah, I think I am catching it now. Bad term to begin with, wrongly used, which only exacerbates the problem.
A bit like the term “fundamentalist” in that sense?
October 15th, 2010 | 4:04 pm | #23
Yes, 1) a bad term 2) it presupposes knowledge of the non-extremist version of the religion 3) I’m only addressing the term as it is applied to (a) Christians who claim to be acting on behalf of God or the Church (Westboro Baptists) and (b) Muslims who claim to be doing the work of Allah when flying planes into buildings.
I’m not saying (a) and (b) are not distorting their theological roots, I’m saying that the ability to talk about what it is they are doing [calling them extremists] is entering into the world of theology and there is no escaping this. The people who do this regularly are just not qualified to do so. It’s way above their pay grade. :)
October 15th, 2010 | 11:02 pm | #24
My sense of how the word “extremist” is used is not that it’s taking some legitimate thing and sending it too high up the scale to become extreme. Rather, it’s classifying anyone they consider seriously beyond the pale or so grossly radical as to be anathematized. Any fringe group, even if they can’t be classified as too much of some good thing, would thus be seen as extremist, because they’re on the extremes when it comes to polite, civilized, peaceful, etc. society. They’re less polite, civilized, peaceful, etc. It’s not that they’re more of something that’s good. They’re less of something good.
So I’m not sure people think they’re using it the way you take them to be using it. That’s not how I’ve been thinking of the term’s use, anyway.
October 16th, 2010 | 3:35 am | #25
Sarah, you stated that Bill O’Reilly needs a “tutor”, for his explanation, to Mahr, that Noah and the flood should not be taken literally. Sorry, but most theologians do NOT believe that this story should be taken literally. No offense, but this literalist position, cannot withstand rational scrutiny, and leaves christians prey, to people like Mahr, who really do need a tutor, who will make intellectual mincemeat out of them.
October 16th, 2010 | 12:12 pm | #26
“rational scrutiny.” First of all, O’Reilly was attempting to speak for evangelical/catholic conservatives, and he did poorly because while, as you suggest, most theologians do not believe that story should be taken literally, I’d like to ask what mainline theologians of which you speak. Because these aren’t the theologians representing the community of believers of which O’Reilly and Maher were speaking of.
Most of the miracles of scripture don’t withstand this so-called “rational scrutiny,” and it doesn’t stop with the flood. For some in pulpits, it even includes the basic belief in God! Obviously that’s where “rational scrutiny” fails, and there is nothing rational about it.
October 16th, 2010 | 10:40 pm | #27
Sarah, one of the problems, of biblical exegesis, as I’m sure you know, is determining what particular biblical passages mean: are they best interpreted literally, or metaphorically? And, how does one integrate biblical understanding, with other forms of knowledge, such as philosophical and scientific knowledge? These are difficult issues, but I think that integration, is the key. If we segregate our knowledge too much, into faith or religious knowledge, and scientific knowledge, we may have a real problem bridging the gulf. Obviously, both forms of knowledge, are from God, and if one contradicts the other, we should try and find a way of reconciling them, so that our knowledge remains coherent.
The problem, with accepting certain stories of the bible, such as Noah, and the flood, literally, is that the latter is completely incongruent, with all that we know scientifically, and from a common sense standpoint. Why would God want us to make the cruel decision, of compartmentalizing our knowledge, and accept scientific methodology, in most things, but not when it comes to biblical stories, that completely contradict the findings of science, and reason?
Of course, God does not force us to do so. Christianity has a strong rational basis. But we must read the bible the way it should be read. Depending on context, among other factors, we must read some passages literally, and some metaphorically.
We must not be afraid of reason, or science. Their findings, are completely congruent with Christian faith, as long as we read the bible properly.
October 17th, 2010 | 12:30 am | #28
Brett,
I understand your point, but consider the following substitution in your sentence: “The problem, with accepting certain stories of the bible, such as the resurrection of Jesus, literally, is that it is completely incongruent, with all that we know scientifically, and from a common sense standpoint.”
Make rationality and scientific probability the ultimate authority and well, pretty soon, there’s not much left but the Jefferson Bible – some nice words and interesting epigrams.
October 17th, 2010 | 1:07 am | #29
david c : I see what you’re saying, but actually the resurrection of Jesus stands up very well before the bar of reason. One cannot say that science “proves” the resurrection, but there’s nothing in scientific methodology, or in the fruit derived, from that methodology, that is inconsistent with the resurrection. Science doesn’t deal with singular events. It deals with many events, of the same kind, that can be observed, and manipulated experimentally. The resurrection, of course, is a singular event, and therefore cannot be verified scientifically. But unless one is an advocate of some form of positivism, one cannot argue, legitimately, that science is the only form of knowledge. Historical events, and personal experiences, cannot be established scientifically, but are every bit as real, perhaps more justifiable epistimologically, than scientific assertions.
The resurrection is believable, unless one believes in positivism, in which case one could not consistently accept any historical event as real, or one has an a priori commitment to a naturalistic metaphysics, which cannot allow for supernatural events, such as resurrections to occur, hardly an open minded view, considering that science, in principle, has to be open to any possibility, that can be empirically verified, and we cannot know that prior to fully investigating something.
So, why not allow the Noah story? For the same reason, we cannot allow the 6,000 year old earth view, to be accepted: they both contradict well established scientific discoveries. (e.g., too many animals to fit in an ark, carbon dating, and its well established basis, shows bones a lot older than 6,000 years, and so forth).
October 17th, 2010 | 9:22 am | #30
Bret,
We agree on the 6000 year old earth. I have heard young earth creationists say “well God has given the earth the ~appearance~ of great age as a test of faith.
A world view that makes the God at one and the same time Creator and Deceiver is not one I would wish to endorse.
Noah and the Flood, however, is a different case. It does not read like, say Jonah — which could be understood as a kind of extended parable. I am (frankly) agnostic about the Flood but there are more than the two ways you have offered to read the story. A third option is the “local flood” theory, which seems to have at least some geological and extra-Biblical (the Gilgamesh epic and other “great flood” stories) support.
As I said, I am not going to let my faith stand or fall on the the flood story. I like what a pastor of mine (Don Williams) used to say. “The question is, ultimately, not about the credibility of Moses, or the edibility of Jonah, it is: ‘who do you say I am?’. It’s about Jesus.” On Him, at least, we appear to agree.
One last thing here. While you and Sarah may disagree about the aptness of the Flood story to illustrate her point, I think her larger point still stands. When both antagonist (Maher) and the protagonist (O’Reilly) claim to speak authoritatively from what seems pretty clearly a place of significant ignorance, it does a disservice to all.
This circles back to what I think was Sarah’s original point. Although she does not care for the term period, Sarah particularly objects to the label “extremist” in public/media conversations about religious groups. Her objection has to do with the fact that the word has a explicit, theological, galaxy of meaning, in the context of the discussion of religion.
For instance, I think I know enough about Christian faith and practice that I might label the Branch Davidians “extremists” and maybe even heretics. I don’t know enough about Islam to make the same determination about the 9/11 hijackers.
As Jeremy has said (If I am reading him right) for O’Reilly and Maher and many others across the media extremists really means “someone who’s views I don’t like and want to put beyond the pale….”
October 17th, 2010 | 9:26 am | #31
^^sorry about the typos, it’s Sunday morning and I am rushing because I really should be doing something else (preparing to lead my little flock in worship)…
October 17th, 2010 | 6:25 pm | #32
Thanks, david c., you make some great points. And please don’t worry about the typo’s, I do that quite a bit!
October 21st, 2010 | 8:01 pm | #33
Bret,
You said, “For the same reason, we cannot allow the 6,000 year old earth view, to be accepted: they both contradict well established scientific discoveries.”
Who is “we”? I believe both that the whole earth was flooded and that the earth is young. Should I and the rest of the young earther Luddites expect a phone call from you non-Bible believers?…
Of course, that last sentence was for effect. It is as offensive to you as your silly dismissal of our faith and literal understanding of the Bible.
October 22nd, 2010 | 4:28 am | #34
Brad: It’s hard for me to know how to argue with someone who believes that the earth is 6,000 years old. Where did you learn this from? Not in the bible. At least the flood story comes from a literal interpretation of the bible.
I believe in being as respectful, as I can, of others beliefs. And you certainly have every right to believe as you wish. But my question, I guess, is of motivation. Since this notion, of a 6,000 year old earth, is not in the bible, and all credible scientific evidence indicates that the earth is 4.1 billion years old, why do you believe this?
Why would God play such games? In other words, why would He make scientific evidence so overwhelming (I’m not overstating this: the evidence for an old earth is as good as it gets, in science), only to be false? Are the scientists making it up, or what? I’m curious as to your motivation.
October 22nd, 2010 | 11:37 am | #35
Bret,
The problem is that science cannot tell you how old the universe is, or how old the earth is. The only way that can work is if we have a universe closed to miracles. If we allow that God can do the miraculous, and that he speaks clearly in the Bible, then the universe, or at least the earth, is very much younger than you believe.
Science cannot tell you how old the universe is because the universe was created ex nihilo. Do you believe this? If God created something out of nothing, then to presume to date it is futile. You would have to presuppose that God made it look “new”, which really means what you think it ought to look like as new. It would be like Harry Potter conjuring a mouse from thin air, and then you insisting on aging it by natural observation, even if the wizard is sitting there telling you he just made it out of nothing.
The idea that God is playing a game is as confusing to me as is your matter-of-fact statement that the Bible does not indicate a young earth. The plainest reading of Genesis 1 is not metaphor, and the Bible clearly states that God made all things in 6 days. If you reject this, I have to wonder if you also then reject the historical Adam?
Further, I find your idea that the difference between creation and the resurrection is that the resurrection is a “singular event.” Brother! How many universes has God created? I am only aware of one.
Your idea that science can accurately age a universe made from nothing is puzzling. You have a philosophical problem, not a scientific one. Do you believe the universe is conjured by God from nothing? Or do you believe that matter is eternal? If the former, then why would you reject a young earth out of hand? Deception by God seems the only reason, and it is not deception because he plainly tells us so. If you believe that matter is eternal, then I wonder how you would go about proving that? Or aging it?
Why would God make the universe look “old”? Simply put, he was not concerned with the age of something that never existed before. He just made it how it pleased him, and he likes a big, functioning universe. Just like he wanted a mature, functioning Adam made out of dirt. (Do you believe he made Adam from dirt?)
So that is why I believe in a young earth. Genesis 1 teaches that God created in six days. It teaches us of a literal Adam and Eve made from the dust. I believe in miracles and not a closed naturalist system.
Finally, I didn’t explicitly say that the earth is 6,000 years old. I just quoted from you. Actually, I am generous enough to allow that it may be up to 11,000 or so. Not quite meeting you halfway, I know. But still, tis progress.
October 22nd, 2010 | 12:09 pm | #36
Brad: sorry, but I have to disagree. Science, by means of examining the red shift, emitted by galaxies that are receding, from us, has enabled scientists to extrapolate the age of the universe to be about 15 billion years old.
Do you interpret everything in the bible literally? When God is called a rock, for example, you don’t think He’s a large hard substance. So therefore there’s nothing inherently wrong with interpreting the bible metaphorically.
I must respectfully ask you, how you know that God was unconcerned about age, and only did what pleased him? It would seem extremely odd for him to try and deceive us, or allow for that possibility.
Do you also reject the science behind medicine? Why or why not? Do you think that doctors are legitimate, or do you believe that Jesus will heal all, for those with enough faith, thereby rendering medicine superfluous?
October 22nd, 2010 | 12:29 pm | #37
“If we allow that God can do the miraculous, and that he speaks clearly in the Bible, then the universe, or at least the earth, is very much younger than you believe.”
I don’t think this follows. All it means is that God performed a miracle 6,000 years ago that created an earth 4 billion years old. The universe is not young at all. It is old, because that is what the miracle did. It made an old universe.
October 22nd, 2010 | 12:40 pm | #38
Bret,
You disagree because you can’t see without science.
And I’m not going to get into answering your questions if you can’t be bothered with mine. The discussion can’t move forward that way. Plus, you ignored the answers I did give, specifically the “deception” red herring. Do you believe matter is eternal? Do you believe in creation from nothing? Do you believe in a literal Adam? How much are you willing to chuck in the name of science? Everything but the resurrection?
Adam,
Well now, that’s a weird comment. I sort of agree with it, if I follow what you are saying. I think the words “young” and “old” are not very helpful though for anyone. Its like saying the sun is big.
But briefly, I will say that I got my first degree in English Literature. I can tell the difference between metaphor, allegory, poetry, and etc.
October 22nd, 2010 | 12:41 pm | #39
Sorry, those last two lines got bumped down and were for Bret, not Adam.
October 22nd, 2010 | 12:46 pm | #40
Adam,
I am not 100% with what you have said, but I’m thinking about it. I think it is possible that there were actual dinosaurs who did actually perish and get preserved in the great flood that actually did cover the planet. But other than those things, I think I’m saying pretty much what you said. Though I would not have said it that way.
October 22nd, 2010 | 12:57 pm | #41
Brad, I believe, that, yes, God created the universe from nothing. but, as far as a literal Adam, I’m unsure. I think that it might be possible to have a fall without having a literal Adam and Eve. On another Post, First thoughts, the issue of “polygenism” is being discussed. And, currently, I’m “agnostic” on it.
October 22nd, 2010 | 1:15 pm | #42
Brad,
You are right. It is weird. Miracles are like that… they are not subject to scientific analysis. I think this is the only way to hold to the YEC interpretations and not completely jettison scientific knowledge. Just some food for thought.
October 22nd, 2010 | 1:31 pm | #43
I am a little confused as to what is being advocated by whom here, so forgive me if this is a mis-attribution: Adam you say “All it means is that God performed a miracle 6,000 years ago that created an earth 4 billion years old….” What I want to ask is why? Why would God create a universe with the appearance of great age? As a test of our faith? The doctrine of creation ex nihilo certainly does not demand it. Nor does a faithful reading of Scripture.
The confusion is compounded for me by Brad’s statement that “If God created something out of nothing, then to presume to date it is futile.” Why is it futile? Presumably from the moment of creation things “aged” did they not? That is to say that they changed through time…and that said change was (and is still, measurable). Or is it your argument that God created some sort of steady state universe that was only corrupted by sin?
The assertion that to measure the age of something is to posit a universe “closed to miracles” is just that — a mere assertion. I believe we live in a universe created and sustained by God and that God can in fact intervene in that universe (what we call ‘miracle’) but none of that demands that I must render the concept of measuring change as moot as far as I can tell.
I will answer the questions you pose to Bret. Do I believe God created the universe ex nihilo. Yes.
Do I believe that Adam was created by God out of the “dust of the earth” yes (but I am not sure what that means exactly – you will tell me that the plain sense of Scripture demands treating Genesis 1 as a “just so” story and I am not sure I agree.)
Finally you (Brad) say that the nature of miracles is that they are not “subject to scientific analysis”…. I can’t agree. For example, when Jesus appears to the disciples after the resurrection, he does some basic science to demonstrate to them the corporeal nature of his resurrected body. He eats a piece of fish, he invites the disciple: “Put your hand here..” etc. The nature of miracle is that it rests causation with God, on that we all agree. But where we seemingly disagree is on whether what has been caused through miracle is then subject to empirical observation. You seem to be saying ‘no’ and for the life of me I can’t understand why.
Finally, I think that Bret and I are also concerned (though perhaps for different reasons) that you both seem to be making the issue of the age of the earth some sort of test of orthodoxy.
October 22nd, 2010 | 3:39 pm | #44
David, I don’t know why God would make it that way, and I am not advocating such a view (I hold to the standard geological dating of an old earth). But as I see it, that is the best way to make it work for YEC.
October 22nd, 2010 | 4:04 pm | #45
Adam,
Thanks for the clarification. As I said I was somewhat confused as to who was advocating what — in fact in re-reading I see that I attributed to Brad your statement that “miracles are not subject to scientific analysis”. My apologies for the confusion…(though my point still stands there — I believe that the ~product~ of miracle is as subject to scientific analysis as any other material thing…I realize, however, that you are probably making a different point — to wit: miracles are termed miracles precisely because the are unique, non repeatable events outside the natural order of things…)
October 22nd, 2010 | 5:23 pm | #46
Hey all, this is an great discussion for me, and I owe you some answers, if you are interested. So thanks for those answeres, Bret.
Unfortunately, today is slammed. I’ll get back to it as soon as I can. Thanks for the conversation thus far.
October 22nd, 2010 | 5:58 pm | #47
There seems to be a number of misconceptions here about what Young Earth Creationists believe. If you would like to learn what they actually believe and why they believe it, a good source would be http://www.answersingenesis.com
Another good source would be Three Views on Creation and Evolution, edited by J. P. Moreland and John Mark Reynolds ( http://www.amazon.com/Three-Creation-Evolution-Porter-Moreland/dp/0310220173 ) in which Reynolds, along with Paul Nelson, defends the Young Earth Position.
October 22nd, 2010 | 6:06 pm | #48
If I might join in here, albeit somewhat late.
Adam said:
“I don’t think this follows. All it means is that God performed a miracle 6,000 years ago that created an earth 4 billion years old. The universe is not young at all. It is old, because that is what the miracle did. It made an old universe.”
Steve Drake: from Adam O. …”God performed a miracle 6000 years ago that created an earth 4 billion years old.”
Yes, only if you accept modern uniformitarian dating methods. I think in reading the posts in this thread, especially from Brad Williams, this is the question in debate, isn’t it? One assumes that there are no ‘assumptions’ in how geologists extrapolate present rates of decay into an unseen past. This is taken as an absolute given. But this is exactly the axiom that needs to be challenged and discussed.
Bret Lythgoe also mentions red shift and the ‘interpretation’ that this is similar to the Doppler effect as a absolute measure of distance and thus age. But has no one heard of Halton Arp and his work on quasars? Again, one must challenge the interpretation that red shift equals distance and age, for this is coming from ‘secular’ astronomers who are challenging the current understanding of big bang cosmology.
When one acquiesces to science for truth on beginnings, one must be prepared to change one axiom of truth for another rather frequently as scientific paradigms go in and out of favor.
October 22nd, 2010 | 8:12 pm | #49
Steve, if the principle of uniformity doesn’t hold, then why assume that the days of creation were 24 hours long? A minimal definition of the principle claims that the present is like the past. If we discard that, long-day interpretations of “day” are game. Right?
October 22nd, 2010 | 8:34 pm | #50
Adam,
If the ‘uniformitarian’ understanding of geology is not correct based on assumptions about the present rate of decay extrapolated into the unseen past, then what are we left with? Is that your question?
The uniformitarian axiom that the ‘present is key to the past’, is exactly what needs to be challenged, debated and discussed in my opinion. This is an unwarranted assumption that originally relied only upon that principle to interpret the geologic data, although in recent years more and more geologists are admitting and writing about a neo-catastrophist view of geology. This wasn’t always the case in geology and goes against the uniformitarian view held for many years that the present is key to the past.
If you discard the axiom that the present is key to the past, then one is open to catastrophes that shape and inform our understanding of geology, e.g., the worldwide flood of Noah.
All that said, we have not even discussed what the Scriptures say, which speak authoritatively and self-attestingly about just such a flood as judgment on a wicked and perverse world in the time of Noah.
October 22nd, 2010 | 9:51 pm | #51
“The uniformitarian axiom that the ‘present is key to the past’, is exactly what needs to be challenged, debated and discussed in my opinion.”
But what I am saying is that if it is discarded, then one is free to reject the view that days of creation are 24 hours long. We get such a measurement of time based on sense perceptions we access in the present and then read onto the past. There is nothing in the Bible that says “morning and evening” came within the time frame of 24 hours. Rather, we infer that must have been the case back then as it is today.
The point I am trying to make is that discarding uniformity saws the branch we sit on clean off. This by no means makes catastrophism false–just that regularity is necessary for scientific claims.
October 22nd, 2010 | 10:14 pm | #52
Adam,
I think you are confusing the principle of uniformity in nature and the uniformitarianism of geology. The two are not the same. We need to be clear on our definitions here.
The principle of uniformity in nature are the uniform laws that govern our universe, set up by God providentially as secondary causes that operate ‘uniformly’.
The principle of ‘uniformitarianism’ in geology is based on present processes (radiometric dating is one of them) operating as they do presently, extrapolated back into an unseen past, or that present rates of flow and erosion and weathering as seen today has always been the case. There are several assumptions in this that need to be challenged, debated and discussed. To determine the present rates of decay (in radiometric dating) and extrapolate them into the unseen past without discussing and debating the assumptions that are behind this is what is at debate here.
Adam said: “discarding uniformity saws the branch we sit on clean off…regularity is necessary for scientific claims.”
Steve Drake: Again, I am not discarding the principle of uniformity in nature as an axiom that science must use to make claims about anything (the origin of which in terms of naturalism or materialism is another debate), but we must not equivocate here and confuse the principle of uniformity in nature with ‘uniformitarianism’ in geology.
October 23rd, 2010 | 2:03 am | #53
I don’t think I am equivocating here, and I don’t see the distinction you are making. What is it for something to operate “uniformly” that does not cover a time span from the “unseen” past to the present?
Since you are skeptical about geology, lets move to astronomy. Present processes observed in astronomy show the rotation of the earth on its axis takes 24 hours (23 hours, 56 minutes and 4.1 seconds to be exact). Can this be extrapolated back into an unseen past?
At the present rate, rotation days are increasing 1.4 milliseconds per century as gravitational forces from the moon slow the earth down. Are we warranted in doing the math that shows that 6,000 years ago the day was 840 milliseconds shorter? You seem to deny this.
Now here is my point: if you deny this, then you undercut the principle that yields a 24 hour day in the interpretation of Genesis 1, namely that “days” as they occur today were like they were then in the past history of Genesis 1.
October 23rd, 2010 | 2:28 am | #54
Steve,
If I am reading you correctly, you are arguing that the rates of erosion, or radioactive decay are not (or may not be) uniform — an argument I have heard before from the YEC folk. Even if I were to stipulate that as a possible explanation for the earth having merely the appearance of great age, it fails to explain in my view the vast differences in the numbers we’re talking about. The difference in the numbers between 4.4 billion and 11,000 represents an error factor of over 400,000 times! That simply stretches credulity (mine at least) beyond the breaking point. Or am I missing something here?
October 23rd, 2010 | 3:27 am | #55
what’s disturbing to me, frankly, is this insistence, on the part of some, that the findings of modern science are somewho at odds with a Christian interpretation of, at least some aspects of reality. We have those questioning, not only the time period that dinasaurs lived (there’s no credible evidence that they lived after about 66 million years ago) but even their existence! There’s this assumption, that the only way to properly read the Bible, is by concluding that all events described, occurred in a six thousand year period.
Now, if one wishes to believe this, fine. But, as David C. pointed out, there seems to be a possible implication made, that these beliefs should be criteria for Christian orthodoxy.
If the latter happens, it would be an intellectual disaster for Christianity. It would give added confidence to Sam Harris, Dan Dennett, Richard Dawkins, and all the other atheists out there, that Christianity is the intellectual enemy of science, and rational thought. And, frankly, the sad truth is, they would be right.
To be crystal clear: the empirical and rational support for a 16 billion year universe, a 4.5 billion year earth, that evolution occurred, and humans are a result of that process, is clearly overwhelming.
Does this conflict with Christianity? Not at all! And, clearly, this is what those who advocate against these weel established scientific discoveries fear: conflict. Very tellingly, one just does not hear about scepticism, regarding other, equally well established discoveries, that do not conflict with Christianity. To be consistent, if it really was the science that these sceptics were questioning, they would question these findings as well: such as the heart pumps blood, the kidneys filter blood, excess fatty diets contribute to heart disease, planets revolve around the sun, stars are composed of hydrogen, etc. Why not question these things? Because there’s no perceived conflict between their acceptance, and Christianity’s acceptance.
But that’s the key: perceieved. It’s only aperceived conflict between Christianity and the ages of the earth, universe, dinasaurs, and evolution. When one examines them carefully, the perceived conflict vanashes.
October 23rd, 2010 | 4:04 am | #56
Fundamentalists and theological liberals tend to read the Bible the same way. The only difference is that one group believes.
October 23rd, 2010 | 9:09 am | #57
Adam,
Charles Lyell, in his ‘Principles of Geology’ (3 volumes, 1830-1833) set forth his uniformitarian view on how geology should be done in which he insisted that only present-day processes at present-day rates of intensity and magnitude should be used to interpret the rock record of past geological activity.
His writing used the ideas of James Hutton, ‘Theory of the Earth’ (1795) and Hutton’s uniformitarian view that everything in the rock record must and can be explained by present day processes of erosion, sedimentation, volcanoes, and earthquakes, as well as the writings of John Fleming and George Scrope. This theory of earth history was labeled uniformitarian, the idea that the processes of nature such as volcanoes, earthquakes, local floods, wind erosion, rain erosion, deposition in river deltas, coastal sea erosion, etc., have always operated uniformly with the present degree of intensity, rate, and geographical degree of effect. It was a view propounded in the early 19th century in the debate going on at the time against the ‘catastrophist’ view of men such as Cuvier, Buckland, Sedgwick, and others, and the ‘Scriptural Geologist’ view of men such as Penn, Bugg, Fairfield, Young, and others.
This was a big debate in the early formations of modern geology in the early 19th century and uniformitarianism won out. It is to this definition of the word that I am referring to, in contrast to the principle of the uniformity of nature which we should not conflate. All the above three groups believed in the uniformity of nature as a scientific principle, yet their views on the theory of the earth each had its separate components and distinctions.
Radiometric dating, which only began as a science in the early 20th century, and upon which now it is claimed the earth is 4.5 billion years old, comes out of this uniformitarian view of geology. There are assumptions in radiometric dating that may or may not be true and it is to these ‘assumptions’ that I am saying the debate on the theory of the earth and it’s age should focus. Proponents of a 4.5 billion year earth want to point to an ‘overwhelming amount of evidence’ from the science of radiometric dating as proof positive in bolstering their claims, but they seldom want to discuss the assumptions and discrepancies inherent in the process. It is to these assumptions and discrepancies to which the honest inquirer should look and to which the discussion should focus if there is to be any intellectual integrity for holding a particular view of how ‘old’ the earth is.
The other side of the coin is whether ‘science’, and more specifically in the context of the discussion here, whether ‘historical science’ can give any final, authoritative, ultimate epistemic and metaphysical certainty for a given truth claim. But perhaps that discussion is left to another thread?
October 23rd, 2010 | 9:48 am | #58
David C. said:
“If I am reading you correctly, you are arguing that the rates of erosion, or radioactive decay are not (or may not be) uniform…”
Credible scientists with PH.D’s in geology (or are we simply going to dismiss their findings because they are Christian and hold a young earth view?) write, publish, and speak to your questions in comprehensive detail. They do not claim that present-day rates of decay are not uniform, but that because there is so much daughter product still in the rocks there must have been ‘accelerated’ rates of nuclear decay sometime in the past. Their findings indicate that the assumption that the rate of radioisotope decay has ‘always’ been constant, is invalid, namely, and conversely that the rate of radioisotope decay has ‘not’ ‘always’ been constant.
The calculation of the age of the rock based on present-day rates of decay of a radioisotope from the amounts of daughter element which give billions of years, is clearly invalid if the rate of decay has been different in the past. The ‘supposed’ orders of magnitude disappear if their findings are correct.
October 23rd, 2010 | 10:28 am | #59
Bret Lythgoe,
My ole’ comrade from a previous thread. I pray you are well.
What’s disturbing to me, frankly, is this insistence, on the part of some, while claiming to be ‘Christian’, have such a low view of Scripture and the revelation of God, mistakenly believe that scientific pronouncements are the end all and be all for all truth claims.
You see, Bret, two can play this game. But is this really honorable in a duel of ideas? I don’t think you would agree, so let’s avoid the patronizing and mocking comments of ‘supposed’ intellectual superiority, and discuss the issues in a civil and honorable fashion if we might.
Bret said:
“To be crystal clear: the empirical and rational support for a 16 billion year universe, a 4.5 billion year earth, that evolution occurred, and humans are a result of that process, is clearly overwhelming.”
Steve Drake: An audacious claim, Bret, given that there are so many scientists who would disagree wholeheartedly and completely with your bold naked assertion above. What we should do is break your statement down into it’s component parts and intellectual discuss the merits or demerits of those components to see if your overall claim bears any semblance of reality.
Bret said:
“To be consistent, if it really was the science that these sceptics were questioning, they would question these findings as well: such as the heart pumps blood, the kidneys filter blood, excess fatty diets contribute to heart disease, planets revolve around the sun, stars are composed of hydrogen, etc. Why not question these things? Because there’s no perceived conflict between their acceptance, and Christianity’s acceptance.”
Steve Drake: An oversimplication and straw man, Bret, so that one can easily tear the opponents position down. Building the straw man is easy, isn’t it? But to accurately reflect your opponents position one is best better to understand what they are really saying. This furthers our understanding and facilitates better discussion, does it not?
October 23rd, 2010 | 11:30 am | #60
“This theory of earth history was labeled uniformitarian, the idea that the processes of nature such as volcanoes, earthquakes, local floods, wind erosion, rain erosion, deposition in river deltas, coastal sea erosion, etc., have always operated uniformly with the present degree of intensity, rate, and geographical degree of effect.”
All this is to say, uniformitarianism is an extension of what I am talking about: present measurements are a key to understanding past measurements. I pressed some questions about whether you consistently affirm or deny this, but they weren’t answered. You seem to want to deny it, because of your skepticism about geology, but you want to affirm it, in some sense, because you believe there is regularity in nature.
October 23rd, 2010 | 11:46 am | #61
Adam,
Uniformitarianism as a theory of earth and the geological implications that come out of the theory uses the principle of the uniformity of nature just like the ‘Catastrophists’, and the ‘Scriptural Geologists’ of the early 19th century. Are you claiming that only the ‘Uniformitarian’ view can claim the IP to this principle of nature?
To do so, from an historical standpoint, is to lose the distinctions of the theory of the earth that each view held.
October 23rd, 2010 | 12:09 pm | #62
Steve, you keep bringing up geology. Why? It is a red herring that keeps you from answering my questions. I am not talking about something Charles Lyell developed within his discipline. I am talking about a minimalist principle: “The key to what happened in the past is what happens in the present.” That is it. It is deeply compatible with the regularity in nature, and science as practiced in any discipline, say astronomy.
October 23rd, 2010 | 12:18 pm | #63
Adam,
And you keep implying that I don’t agree with the uniformity of nature and that not to do so proves your point that the earth is 4.5 billion years old.
So where does that leave us? I have answered your questions about the principle of the uniformity of nature to which I agree, but that does not follow, or imply that I am then inconsistent in not believing in your 4.5 billion year old earth without discussing the assumptions and discrepancies inherent in the radiometric dating pronouncements to which you want to hang your hat.
And yet as Christians, we have not even discussed what Scripture says about a worldwide flood in the time of Noah that would have had a huge impact on geology and it’s interpretations, a fact that ‘uniformitarianism’ conveniently dismisses as fable.
Do you not think that what God has said in His authoritative and self-attesting Word has bearing here?
October 23rd, 2010 | 1:22 pm | #64
Steve, you are not grasping the point of my argument. Nowhere have I made a claim about the age of the earth, nowhere have I made arguments from the geological record, and as for citing Scripture, I am the one that has brought up the issue of interpreting Genesis 1. It is simply a misrepresentation of my position to say I hang my hat on radiometric dating. If anything, I am going for logical consistency. Here is my argument.
1. If one’s knowledge of the length of a day at the beginning of creation is informed by the length of a present day, then one presupposes that knowledge about the present is the key to attaining knowledge about the past (the uniformity principle).
2. If one denies the uniformity principle, then one has no justification for extrapolating backwards into the past knowledge gathered from the present.
3. Denying the uniformity principle undercuts one’s belief that the length of a day at the beginning of creation is the same as present day.
As for Scripture, there is nothing in it that says a day is precisely 24 hours long. If the Bible said that it was, there would be no need to look to science to confirm it. Yet it doesn’t say that, and we arrive at that knowledge from scientific processes done today, and note that these processes have consistently yielded the same results over time in the scientific record.
Notice how premise 1 posits a sufficient condition for presupposing the uniformity principle, and a YEC is perfectly entitled to do so for her purposes in historical-grammatical exegesis. Yet, it is inconsistent to hold to premise 2 in geology, or astronomy, or biology, or paleontology or any other discipline (because it does not yield the desired results?). No matter what the reason for denying 2, it will undercut belief in premise 1.
Now it seems to me that you don’t deny 2 from what you said in #62, and believe that the ages of the earth yielded by geology are the result of junk science. But then you said, “The uniformitarian axiom that the ‘present is key to the past’, is exactly what needs to be challenged, debated and discussed in my opinion” (from #49)? Why? It seems that you believe in it.
October 23rd, 2010 | 2:02 pm | #65
Adam,
And it seems you are not grasping the point of my argument as well, brother. Are we whistling past each other in the graveyard?
Logical consistency? And yet we leave out of our discussion the origin of the laws of logic for another day? Perhaps?
You seem to want to turn the argument towards the meaning of ‘day’, as though simply stating that nowhere in Scripture is this defined proves your point. On the other hand I began my argument in #48 above by commenting on your assumption that the earth is 4 billion years old.
Why do you believe this?
I think in subsequent posts you have answered that question, and thus my challenge to your assumption of radiometric dating and the science behind it on which my claim that you hang your hat. If you are not saying this, and are not starting from this axiom as your presupposition, but want to use Scripture to claim that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, then you have not demonstrated or proven your point. Where are the Scripture verses you want to use that claim a 4.5 billion year old earth?
If your argument is solely concerning how to interpret Genesis 1 then let’s have that argument, and our discussions could prove fruitful. Is that where you wish to start?
October 23rd, 2010 | 2:26 pm | #66
Steve, we are talking past each other. You are not engaging my argument, and you keep insisting that I am hanging my hat on radiometric dating (and that I have somewhere in this thread have claimed exactly that) then there is no point in going further. I have done no such thing, and you insist I have. That is an impasse that cannot be bridged.
October 23rd, 2010 | 2:30 pm | #67
Adam,
Why do you believe the earth is 4.5 billion years old? State your case simply and precisely.
October 23rd, 2010 | 2:56 pm | #68
Steve, why do you challenge an axiom you seem to hold to?
We can do this all day.
Btw. I don’t have to hold to 4.5 billion years to believe that the earth is not 6000 years old. We’ve talked about this before in a thread where I cited ice drilling cores as evidence of an earth 300,000 years old.
October 23rd, 2010 | 3:04 pm | #69
Adam,
Do you believe the earth is 4.5 billion years old? A simple yes or no will suffice. If you want to cite ice drilling cores as the only reason you believe this date, then we can go there in our discussions. Is this your answer, that ice drilling cores are the sole reason you believe the earth is 4.5 billion years old?
October 23rd, 2010 | 3:11 pm | #70
Steve, 4.5 billions years of age is irrelevant to the discussion. You still have not answered my question.
October 23rd, 2010 | 3:18 pm | #71
Adam,
And you have still not answered mine. You want to limit our discussion to the meaning of ‘day’ in Scripture, yet in all your arguments you want to bring in extra-biblical support for your view that the earth is not 6000 years old. Which is it Adam?
Shall we limit our discussion to Scripture alone, or shall we agree to use extra-biblical considerations to support our views?
October 23rd, 2010 | 3:26 pm | #72
I don’t need to answer your question, because it is both irrelevant and fallacious. It is like asking me if I have stopped beating my wife. You keep asking it so you can dodge my question which is precisely the matter at hand. Why do you deny the uniformity principle when you need it to get your 24-hour day Bible interpretation? My point all along is that a YEC cannot limit the discussion to Scripture alone and must presuppose an extrabiblical consideration to get desired results.
October 23rd, 2010 | 3:32 pm | #73
Aw man, I can’t believe it! I miss a day and we are only one step away from talking about dilithium crystals powering warp drives. I say that because the average Joe knows about as much about dilithium crystals as he does radio isotopes. I can’t tell you how I hate it when the origins debate devolves to the very issues that cause the problem: namely, that science can age the earth or universe. This is a philosophical/theological discussion, not a scientific one. If anyone in this discussion believes in God and miracles, then at some places science is out the door. Do we not agree on this?
Just a couple of comments:
Steve,
I think Adam is exactly right. You are not addressing his argument at all. It seems you are making a studied effort to avoid it. He is simply saying that we know we have a 24 hour day because we have a 24 hour day now. If you toss that uniform principle of astronomical measurement as a constant, then why should we believe the days were 24 hours in Genesis. I say this and I agree with you…I think.
Adam,
About the miracle of the old earth/universe created only 6,000 years ago. Let me ask you this: I believe that God created a mature Adam out of the dust. Would you say that God made a 30 year old man? Is that what you mean?
Bret,
Again, you diatribe about our stupidity in holding to a young earth is tiring. I will grant you this, and this is big: I will grant that if all we have is a non-miraculous universe, then you are right and this place is old, old, old. But this is not merely a scientific argument. You don’t argue with wizards who actually conjure rabbits out of hats about how old the rabbits are. It is absurd. Yet, that is exactly what you are doing here. God made the universe out of nothing. You can’t then get your isotope measurer out the very next day and cry, “Voila! It is 4.5 billion years old!”
October 23rd, 2010 | 3:37 pm | #74
Brad, yes, what you say about Adam is exactly what I mean. Adam really was 30 years old, but his property of being 30 years old was the product of a miraculous act that happened in a matter of moments. That’s the fun thing about miracles! They can instantiate properties at any time!
October 23rd, 2010 | 3:58 pm | #75
Brad,
Adam will not answer my question about whether he believes in a 4.5 billion year old universe and what are his supporting arguments because he knows that this will box him into a corner. On the one hand he wants to limit our discussion to the proper interpretation of Genesis 1 and the meaning of ‘day’, using Scripture only, and on the other hand he wants to bring in extra-biblical support and start talking about ice cores.
If I am accused of not answering his question about ‘knowing’ that we have a 24 hour day because we have a 24 hour day now, he can be accused of the same thing, a failure to give supporting documentation for his belief that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. Please notice that Adam has not answered my question about ‘why’ he believes the earth is 4.5 billion years old. Once he does this, I will endeavor to give an answer to his and your claim that because we ‘know’ we have a 24 hour day now, we ‘know’ the days are 24 hours.
October 23rd, 2010 | 6:01 pm | #76
Steve,
You’re just being stubborn. Adam never said he believed in a 4.5 billion year old earth. How can he even begin to age it if you will not give him a consistent measuring tape? What he at least implied was that God made a 4.5 billion year old earth 6,000 years ago.
I do not know your understanding of creation at all. Do you think that when God created the universe how many ever thousand years ago it was (6-10 or thereabouts), that everything went into place really, really fast? Or instantly appeared in its spot how many ever billion light years they are apart from each other?
I believe, and I think Adam believes, that God made Adam mature. He was a few seconds old, but yet he was a 30 year old man as far as maturity goes. What is the problem here?
October 23rd, 2010 | 7:56 pm | #77
Steve Drake: Thank you, friend, it’s great to talk to you again.
I do respect your point of view, and, based on your thoughtful comments, now and in the past, I suspect that you put a lot of careful reflection into this issue.
My comments were meant to show that the so-called “war between science and religion” is largely, if not entirely, without justification.
My comments were not meant lightly. I truely believe that the evidence for those notions (old earth, old universe, evolution) is sound, and we do ourselves a terrible disservice when we deny this. I know that you disagree, and I hope you don’t consider my comments condescending, because I really don’t mean to be, even though I can see how one might interpret them, in that fashion.
You state that many scientists don’t believe in an old earth, old universe, or evolution. Who are they? They certainly are out of the mainstream, and have not published their “science”, in respected journals, for proper peer review.
Which brings me to this: do they utilize the scientific method? And if so, why do they come to such radically different conclusions, from most other scientists? Are the latter dishonest? This is not a frivolous question. And as I think David C. asked, why such incredible differences btween scientists: the mainstream believe in a 4.5 billion year earth, and the other scientists believe in a 6,000 year old earth!
October 23rd, 2010 | 8:11 pm | #78
Brad Williams: I don’t believe that anyone on this blog is stupid. Those who believe in a young earth accept certain premises, that I think are wrong. You state that we cannot use scientific methodology, to judge the truth of miracles.
Ok. Therefore you must be against young earth scientists, trying to use science, as they understand it, to prove that the “miracles” of a young earth, and young universe, make sense.
October 23rd, 2010 | 9:35 pm | #79
Brett, I don’t think that follows. YEC’s (and every creationist for that matter) are interested in seeing if normal secondary causation can be eliminated from the scope of inquiry until primary causation is all that is left. For example, you can’t get behind the beginning of the universe and find some mechanism or natural secondary cause, because the conditions for those to exist do yet exist. All that remains is primary causation, or in other words, a miracle. Origin science is typically thought to allow for miracles in creationist thought.
October 23rd, 2010 | 10:46 pm | #80
Bret,
What Adam said.
And to add to it, what really bothers me about your position is your reluctance to take Genesis 1 at face value, which then leads to the doubt of a historical Adam. There is simply no end in sight to metaphor and allegory at that point because you cannot make sense of the NT references to Adam if he weren’t real. Paul obviously thought that he was.
So, for the record, that means you are already willing to ditch a recent creation, a historical Adam (which means no original sin I suppose), and a world-wide catastrophic flood. I wonder if you believe that the sun went backwards in the miracle to Hezekiah? For what? Academic respectability? How does the academy view a dead guy coming back to life after three days, who also happens to be virgin born, who also happens to be the second person of the Godhead whilst retaining complete humanity, and who actually died as a propitiatory sacrifice for people not yet born? Which ones can I keep and still retain my scientific street cred?
October 24th, 2010 | 6:41 pm | #81
Brad Williams: It all depends by what one means by “face value”. One can still except Genesis, but believe that it should be interpreted metaphorically, as most biblical scholars do. Why do you insist on reading it literally, and assuming that everyone else must too?
October 24th, 2010 | 7:37 pm | #82
I meant to say “accept Genesis. Freudian slip? :)
October 24th, 2010 | 11:17 pm | #83
Brad Williams: when you claim to that will be “no end in sight to metaphor and allegory”, I would respond that, metaphor and allegory will only be the interpretations, if it’s the best or only explanation.
For example, some claim that the resurrection should be interpreted metaphorically. I don’t. I think that the best explanation, is that it occurred. I think that your fear is, that if we let the metaphorical man’s foot in the door, to explain some supernatural stories in the bible, the metaphorical man will squeeze his whole body in, and take over all seemingly supernatural occurrences.
while this fear is understandable, it doesn’t hold water. What we wanr is the BEST explanation, and if that means literal, great. if it means metaphorical, great too. To be consistent, obviously, we would interpret mundane things in the bible metaphorically, if the evidence warrants it, and literally supernatural things, if the evidence warrants it.
October 25th, 2010 | 11:12 am | #84
Bret,
Okay, the best explanation of Genesis One is the literal one. It accounts for original sin, it accounts for Paul’s treatment of Adam, and it gives a satisfactory answer to the origin of all things. It is also not in contradiction with science as long as presuppositions are taken into account. It’s just win, win, win all over the place.
You take your reading of Genesis One as metaphor and what do we have? We have no idea how the universe came to be, unless you literally believe that God spoke it into being. I guess that part won’t be metaphor then, eh? (Come to think of it, if you believe in creation from nothing, you seem guilty of being kind of literal yourself in certain places where it suits you.) In your interpretation, we have to be agnostic about what Scripture treats as literal, i.e. the reality of Adam and Eve. We disbelieve the flood account because it seems scientifically suspect. And, despite your protests to the contrary, there is plenty of historical evidence that metaphor man’s intrusion into texts where he doesn’t belong is a real problem for the faith.
In the end, this boils down to your view of Scripture and your thoughts on miracles. If you believe in the miraculous, then the “literal” reading of Genesis One is a piece of cake. It isn’t even the most baffling miracle of the Bible. The Incarnation is far more complicated than this. But apparently, it is only slightly less scientifically absurd.
Out of curiosity, do you believe in the virgin birth of Jesus Christ?
October 25th, 2010 | 11:54 am | #85
Bret said:
“One can still except Genesis, but believe that it should be interpreted metaphorically, as most biblical scholars do. Why do you insist on reading it literally, and assuming that everyone else must too?”
Steve Drake: Hi, Bret, I think your statement above needs to be qualified somewhat. Most Biblical scholars did not interpret Genesis metaphorically for the first 1800 years of church history. If you want to claim that most Biblical scholars today read it that way, this too does not bear any semblance of reality to an accurate portrayal of the current debate. The fallacy of the appeal to authority is just that, but doesn’t get down to the nitty gritty of how you hold your position and how you can defend it. I haven’t seen you really talk specifics, or use Scripture to support your views.
Bret said:
“You state that many scientists don’t believe in an old earth, old universe, or evolution. Who are they? They certainly are out of the mainstream, and have not published their “science”, in respected journals, for proper peer review.”
This is another bold naked assertion. Creation scientists do publish in peer reviewed journals, publish their own books, and make their arguments known on all their websites, but are excluded before the fact in publishing in a secular journal by the nature of their being creationists. It is biased, I think, to support your argument solely on secular publications and secular scientific pronouncements without reading and analyzing what your opponents have copiously produced and made available to all.
Bret said:
“Which brings me to this: do they utilize the scientific method? And if so, why do they come to such radically different conclusions, from most other scientists? Are the latter dishonest?”
Either you have not read any of the creationist literature, or you are simply being dishonest here with asking such a question as whether they utilize the scientific method. I don’t think you are trying to be dishonest, so I think it might be the former. Scientific data must be interpreted. It is interpreted within a worldview. The interpretation within the worldview is what gives rise to our current debate on origins and Genesis 1. No one is intentionally trying to be dishonest.
October 25th, 2010 | 12:07 pm | #86
Brad said:
“You’re just being stubborn. Adam never said he believed in a 4.5 billion year old earth. How can he even begin to age it if you will not give him a consistent measuring tape? What he at least implied was that God made a 4.5 billion year old earth 6,000 years ago.”
My original question is why say that God made a ’4.5 billion year old earth’ 6000 years ago. It has to do with the term and usage of 4.5 billion years. Why not say that God created the universe and earth and all it contains in the space of six days 6000 years ago? Why use the 4.5 billion year term, and what are the underlying assumptions for so doing?
Brad said:
“I believe, and I think Adam believes, that God made Adam mature. He was a few seconds old, but yet he was a 30 year old man as far as maturity goes. What is the problem here?”
If we are simply arguing over whether God created a mature creation and mature Adam, then there is no problem, although I’m not sure how you can say that Adam was 30 years old on day six of creation. The 30 years seems arbitrary unless it is just for example only. He could have looked 18, or 21, Scripture simply does not say. We do however infer that he was created an adult, and not a child, and was able to procreate with Eve as ‘bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh’.
October 25th, 2010 | 12:31 pm | #87
Adam said:
“1. If one’s knowledge of the length of a day at the beginning of creation is informed by the length of a present day, then one presupposes that knowledge about the present is the key to attaining knowledge about the past (the uniformity principle).”
One’s knowledge of a day starts with Scripture, (Gen. 1:5), and has been confirmed by human experience of the light-darkness cycle ever since Adam. Did Adam have to presuppose knowledge about the present to attain knowledge of the past? We are told that he had propositional revelation from God from the day he was created, and that God spoke to him.
I think what you are trying to do in our discussions Adam, is equate the uniformity principle in creation, with then logically adopting the uniformitarian position on the theory of the earth. You are fallaciously saying that in order to have or believe the one, you must then have or believe the other. I have already stated in posts above that to do so ignores the assumptions and discrepancies in coming to this uniformitarian viewpoint on the theory of the earth. Please go offer your line of bait in another fishing hole, because this fish ain’t bitin’.
October 25th, 2010 | 1:11 pm | #88
Finally! Steve addresses my argument.
“One’s knowledge of a day starts with Scripture, (Gen. 1:5), and has been confirmed by human experience of the light-darkness cycle ever since Adam.”
Yet notice, how Scripture doesn’t tell us anything about the length of a day. It only tells us about certain events that happen in a day’s time–morning and evening. And further notice how you must affirm the uniformity principle when you say our knowledge of a day has been “confirmed by human experience of the light-darkness cycle.” What we experience today is precisely the key to understanding what happened yesterday.
“I think what you are trying to do in our discussions Adam, is equate the uniformity principle in creation, with then logically adopting the uniformitarian position on the theory of the earth.”
No. All I have done here is demonstrate how holding the uniformity principle is necessary for making a scientific claim about the past. You seem to hold it, and thus contradict yourself when you say we ought to challenge it (see your comment #48).
“Please go offer your line of bait in another fishing hole, because this fish ain’t bitin’”
Don’t be smug, Steve. It is unbecoming of you.
October 25th, 2010 | 2:23 pm | #89
Steve,
When I say that Adam was “30″, I was making up an arbitrary number for maturity. Also, I am using “30″ as a measurement akin to height, not necessarily in numbers of years he experienced. That is, I might tell you that I am 6 feet tall. Anyone would assume that I passed through 5’11″ to get there. However, Adam didn’t “pass through” 1-29. But, as far as years are a ‘standard’ of measurement, he might have been 30.
But then again, he might have been 100. The guy lived to be 930. I’m guessing that’s from the moment he was formed.
Like I said to Adam, “years” becomes a weird concept once you recognize that time had a definite beginning point and that things “popped in” mature. It’d be like measuring “speed” if we could immediately teleport wherever we wished. It would sort of cease to make sense as a category in some ways.
October 25th, 2010 | 2:53 pm | #90
The “appearance of age” does bring up some interesting questions. For example, suppose God creates a giant oak tree right at this very moment. Wow! Look at that! Suppose, we chop it down and start counting the tree-rings. Now suppose I know from counting the tree rings of a another tree I chopped down that each ring represents a roughly year’s time. I know this because the tree was planted in my life time, and after 30 years it got too big for my taste and I wanted to get rid of it. With the giant oak tree God just created I see that it has 100 tree rings. Am I warranted in believing the tree is 100 years old? It doesn’t seem like it, but maybe I am wrong here.
All the uniformity principle can tell us, then, is that the tree has properties that indicate it is 100 years old under normal circumstances. The miracle, which we witnessed, was a minutes ago. Thus, it seems special revelation is needed to tell us when miracles happen. If we don’t have that, all we are left with is our inference to the best explanation based off of the uniformity principle.
October 25th, 2010 | 3:12 pm | #91
Adam,
How would one know if I was being ‘smug’, since you and I don’t really know each other, or is your ‘Finally! Steve addresses my argument!’, not itself smug? But point well taken. I’ll refrain myself if you are honest in your dealings with me, and state your true intentions, is that fair game?
With that said, I want to know your position on the age of the earth. How old do you believe the earth is? You know that mine is a young earth position, approximately 6000 years old. Please state your position so that we can have meaningful discussion.
Adam said:
“Yet notice, how Scripture doesn’t tell us anything about the length of a day.”
On the contrary, Genesis 1 does tell us the length of a day. Let me ask you this, did Adam have a watch in the garden, so he could determine seconds, minutes, hours? I’m sure you would say ‘No’. Was he aware of the passing of time? Yes, most definitely. How? My position is that God did define the length of a day, when he says in Gen. 1: 5:
“And God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.”
God’s definition of the length of a day was the light-darkness cycle. Notice the cardinal number ‘one’, (Hebrew echad), used here in contrast to the ordinal numbers used in verses 8, 13, 19, 23, and 31.
All human experience and scientific study have confirmed this, and we define the length of the day today in terms of its rotation on its axis. This happens to be the same light-darkness cycle that Adam observed and what God defined it as.
Adam said:
“What we experience today is precisely the key to understanding what happened yesterday.”
This is too simplistic Adam and is nowhere near the universal axiom that you want to make it to be. It excludes the miraculous by definition, especially how the phrase ‘the present is the key to the past’ came about in adopting the uniformitarian theory of the earth in geology.
You’re co-opting the phrase ‘the present is the key to the past’ and applying it to the principle of uniformity in creation, whereas historically the term came out of the uniformitarian view in geology and it’s theory of the earth as opposed to the ‘Catastophists’ and ‘Scriptural Geologists’. Do you not understand the historical significance to what I am saying here?
If you want to talk about the principle of the uniformity of creation (nature), then we ought to properly define that term.
Adam said:
“All I have done here is demonstrate how holding the uniformity principle is necessary for making a scientific claim about the past. You seem to hold it, and thus contradict yourself when you say we ought to challenge it (see your comment #48).”
And all I ‘have’ been saying all along is that I don’t disagree with you. I do hold it, but it also involves predictions about the future, does it not? A proper definition of this principle would be ‘predictions of what happens at any given time in the material world will, under sufficiently similar conditions, occur again’. Which is to say, the same material causes under the same material conditions will produce the same material results. Or even, ‘uniformity is valid in all places, and uniformity is valid at all times’.
This principle, properly conceived
October 25th, 2010 | 3:17 pm | #92
Adam,
to continue from above.
This principle, properly conceived, does not preclude the possibility of miracles by God. This law of uniformity is a universalistic principle, not a particularistic one. Miracles, by definition, are rare divine, particular interventions in nature that are appropriately called ‘signs’ or ‘wonders’ due to their overriding natural law.
Please do not miss my point about stating your position Adam on the age of the earth. I will not continue my discussion with you under hidden assumptions on your part.
October 25th, 2010 | 3:32 pm | #93
Steve,
Unless I am completely misunderstanding Adam, it seems that you cannot understand what he is saying because you look at things as scientifically as Bret does. We’re off the scientific charts in this discussion because we are talking about a miracle, right? I mean, we are talking about when time began. What in the world does that even mean? The only reason we have a word like “began” is because we cannot think outside this type of measurement.
Adam can correct me if I am wrong, but asking how “old” the universe is impossible based on the assumption that it popped in mature. If you take his oak tree analogy seriously, how “old” would you say it was? A couple of minutes? Would you say it was as mature as a hundred years but as old as five minutes?
Again, it’s like teleporting instantaneously to a destination. If I could instantaneously teleport to Alpha-Centauri for a beach vacation, and some alien asked, “How fast did you go to get here?” I would have a hard time answering that question.
Anyway, my brain is starting to hurt. I think you are probably right about the stuff you are saying, for the most part. I just think that apologists have been debating scientists for so long that it’s hard to tell when a philosopher enters the room.
October 25th, 2010 | 3:45 pm | #94
Brad,
On the contrary Brad, I completely understand what Adam is trying to prove by trying to equate the law of uniformity, with the uniformitarian principle in geology. The two are not the same.
No amount of obfuscation about when ‘time’ began, or stating we can’t know how ‘old’ the universe is, will mask the underlying assumptions of either accepting Genesis as the literal history of what God did and how He did it, or of trying to bring in extra-biblical support from science or wherever to state that it is not 6000 years.
Adam has said succinctly in a post above #68 that he does not have to believe in a 4.5 billion year old earth to ‘know’ the earth cannot be 6000 years old. This is our point of discussion, and I am puzzled at how you are trying to say otherwise.
October 25th, 2010 | 4:28 pm | #95
Steve, you want have a conversation with me about something I have not been talking about, or intend to talk about (geology). I have deliberately not been drawn into this discussion, because my purpose here has been twofold: to show that miracles can produce counter-intuitive results (the appearance of age) and that the uniformity principle is necessary and valid for making scientific claims about that past (the length of days). You wanted to deny both things, which is the source of the confusion. I did not intend to defend a certain age of the universe–only claim that a recent miracle can produce something that looks old. I am not sure if you deny this or not–I can’t tell.
For the uniformity principle, I am satisfied that you agree with it. I remain puzzled as to why you wanted to deny it. Perhaps, you were talking about geology again, which I adamantly maintain was not my purpose in coming here. No doubt the uniformity principle has implications for doing geological research, but I refuse to be drawn into your various diversions, and it seems that the conversation can go no further. I simply do not know enough about geology or its history to argue about it. Yours is the last word.
October 25th, 2010 | 4:34 pm | #96
My head hurts (banging it against a wall, even a metaphorical one will do that…) but we have circled around to a point that I was trying to make long ago. Steve asserts (and either Adam or Brad — I can’t quite sort which –seems to agree) that Young Earth Creationism is an indispensable (and apparently unarguable) tenet of Christian orthodoxy. That is for me, deeply problematic.
Why? Well because nowhere in Scripture or the history of the Christian faith has the age of the earth been held to be the sort of thing by which we measure orthodoxy. Heck, even the ‘Fundamentalists’ did not include it in the Big 5 back when the whole Fundamentalist/Modernist controversy first blew up. Here’s Gretchen Machen on the topic of Genesis 1:
“The meaning of ‘day’ in Gen 1 has been debated in the church at least since the days of Augustine. The literary form of the passage in its relation to other scriptures is important for its interpretation. Responsible Reformed theologians have differed as to whether Gen 1 teaches a young earth or allows for an old earth. While one of these interpretations must be mistaken, we believe that either position can be held by faithful Reformed people.”
That last sentence is the clincher for me. So you see, perhaps, my dilemma? I raise a question about the age of the earth with men I would gladly embrace as brethren in Christ and find myself (along with Bret) having my orthodoxy examined like I am some sort of crypto-heretic, one step from being read out of the faith. It’s really kind of odd. Bret and I are much farther apart on some of these things than Steve and I are (recall that this all came up because I pointed Bret to other possible interpretations of the Flood) and yet we both find ourselves in the sights of someone who wants to make YEC an essential tenet of the faith.
Painful. At least to me.
October 25th, 2010 | 4:46 pm | #97
David, for what its worth, I was not arguing for YEC as a fundamental, or YEC in general. I don’t hold to it, but I was trying to think of a way to help it out. That was it.
October 25th, 2010 | 4:51 pm | #98
David C.
Wow, pastor, pretty bold in your declarative pronouncements, I’d say. Where have I ever declared that belief in six days and a young earth is a test of orthodoxy? Or are you simply very wise in your own eyes, and knowingly and seductively using this as a ruse to silence your critics?
I see, yes, label your critics as wanting to make this a measure of orthodoxy so that you can silence discussion of the issue. Only from a pastor, I guess. Those heralded seminarians who are supposed to be accurately handling the word of Truth. The high priesthood to which the layperson must bow down.
If you wish to engage me, then please do so, but spare me this pabbling on about wanting to make this a test of orthodoxy. Shed your enlightenment from Scripture please, you being the pastor, and all.
October 25th, 2010 | 5:23 pm | #99
Steve,
You are the only guy here talking about geology in this particular discussion. I keep reading some of your comments thinking, “Why is this guy bringing geology to a philosophy fight?” I guess there is some history here I don’t know about. Maybe Adam is being shifty. If he is, I cannot detect it.
Regardless, all I wanted to point out is that creation is a miracle and that the universe was made from nothing. Nothing! There was no time before it came to be. Saying it is a 4.6 billion year old universe that was made 6,000 years ago is just funny. It sounds like something G.K. Chesterton would have said. Maybe my problem is that I spent too much time studying philosophy and reading up on the nature of time. You, in the meantime, were studying rocks.
David C.,
I wouldn’t say it’s a test of orthodoxy. I’d say it’s a test of reading comprehension. You can believe the earth is 4.6 billion years old and still be a Christian. I mean, it’s not like I called you an egalitarian!
Adam,
Are you trying to trick me, dude?! I cannot believe that I nearly threw in my lot with an Arminian when death was on the line! I mean, when orthodoxy was on the line. Sorry.
October 25th, 2010 | 5:30 pm | #100
Brad, I am thinking I should have kept my mouth shut! No trickery… I am just trying to think of ways for science and religion to be compatible in YEC. Perhaps I am wrong to take the course I am taking, because I am not a YEC. Oh well. I better get back to studying!
October 25th, 2010 | 5:43 pm | #101
Adam said:
“I am just trying to think of ways for science and religion to be compatible in YEC.”
What hubris. As if they aren’t compatible already.
October 25th, 2010 | 5:58 pm | #102
Adam
Fair enough. I hope that I did not offend nor mis-characterize and I apologize if I did.
Brad
“A test of reading comprehension?” Seriously? Where does it explicitly say ~anywhere~ in scripture that the earth is 11,000 (or 6,000) years old? If men ranging from Augustine to Machen were willing to credit the possibility for a range of interpretation with respect to the Genesis origins account do we really want to get all snarky about it?
Look, I really want to be through with this (it’s getting kinda ugly) and I certainly don’t want to fight with a brother about it. The sense I had was that there was a chain of logic for you. Dismiss a young earth and it’s a slippery slope to disbelieving everything from a literal Adam and Eve to the Virgin Birth. Perhaps I misread and I am sorry if I have.
Steve
We’ve got not place to go from here. You’ve shown an inclination to mis-characterize what I’ve said and I’ve clearly offended you. In light of those twin realities, I don’t think there’s any point in pursuing this further. Believe me, however, when I say I certainly was not trying anything so patently futile as trying to “silence” you (or anyone else here).
As for your obvious disdain for my calling, that sounds a lot like a personal issue and, again, clearly not something about which we can likely engage in any constructive discussion.
As for Scripture, I’ll play Paul to your Barnabas (or have it the other way round if you like) and we’ll part ways here with my wish for you that God blesses you and yours.
October 25th, 2010 | 6:08 pm | #103
David C.
Well said. How have I mischaracterized what you’ve said? If you were not referring to me when you claimed above, “and yet we both find ourselves in the sights of someone who wants to make YEC an essential tenet of the faith.”, then who were you referring to?
No disdain for your calling, pastor, yet my challenge is still open. Maybe you can share your insights from exegeting the Scriptures on Genesis 1 and 2, the same way you would to your flock as you preach from the pulpit. I am truly interested in hearing your insights here, as long as we can then debate your points if we find ourselves in disagreement. Are you open to the challenge? If not, why not?
October 25th, 2010 | 6:39 pm | #104
Steve
As I said, I just can’t see the benefit to either of us or to this blog. If you are willing to describe my words as a “knowing and seductive…ruse” what would be the point?
Seriously, as someone whom you are willing to characterize as a “high priest” who is self important (“wise in [my] own eyes”) power hungry (one to whom the “layperson must lay down”) plus a liar (“ruse” monger) and a suppressor of debate (“silence[r] of critics” and “discussion”) of what possible interest to you could be my exegesis of Genesis 1 and 2?
You assert that I have mischaracterized your argument. That you do not intend a YEC model to be a measure of orthodoxy or Biblical faithfulness. I am glad to hear it and therefore apologize for having misread you.
As for the rest of it? Well, how about we just agree to part amicably? Again, the mercy and peace of Christ be with you…
October 25th, 2010 | 6:50 pm | #105
David C.,
Ah, yes, well a very nice way to bow out pastor. But how about referring me to something you have published on the issue of origins? Do you have sermon topics that are on the web anywhere? Books, articles, sermon notes?
October 25th, 2010 | 7:24 pm | #106
Steve,
Haven’t ever preached a series on the “issue of origins”. I have said in the context of preaching on Genesis that I believe there is room for varying interpretations on matters like the age of the earth, but that the Bible is clear and authoritative in the description of God as Creator ex nihilo.
As is probably clear from this exchange, I don’t consider the question of the age of the earth to be an essential tenet and therefore (for reasons amply demonstrated here) have not devoted a lot of teaching time to it.
When I was in seminary my Welsh preaching prof. told me of going in to a high pulpit in a Scot’s church. As you stepped into the pulpit he said there was carved into the back of it the admonition: “Sir, we would see Jesus!” I try to keep that in mind week to week as I prepare to preach.
October 25th, 2010 | 7:45 pm | #107
Some books that have had ~some~ influence on my thinking about origins:
Johnson — Darwin on Trial; Reason in the Balance
Hummel — The Galileo Connection
Blocher — In the beginning
Genesis Commentaries by Kidner, Hamilton and Wenham
October 25th, 2010 | 7:49 pm | #108
David C.,
I guess all I can say at this point, pastor, and you might disagree with me here, is that your flock, and those of us who are laypersons, are thinking alot about the issue of origins. It’s a hot topic, and to ignore it would be a disservice to the sheep that you shepherd. I am not saying that Jesus, the great Shepherd, the Christ who came incarnate as a sacrifice for the sin which so roundly condemns us to hell, and to which all of us need to acknowledge as LORD, is not the central and most important issue to which we must deal with, but that the admonition by Paul to Timothy to be ready in season and out of season to preach the Word, and by this I think he means the ‘whole’ Word is not also an endeavor that your profession must undertake. If you are saying that ‘Sir, we must see Jesus’ is the only reason for the pastor or priest to be in the pulpit, then I would have to categorically disagree. That said, I think we can certainly ‘see Jesus’ in Genesis 1 and 2.
October 25th, 2010 | 8:46 pm | #109
“If you are saying that ‘Sir, we must see Jesus’ is the only reason for the pastor or priest to be in the pulpit…”
Sigh. Of course that is not what I am saying, else I would have said so clearly….
As for my flock, sorry, but I know them far better than you. I know what the “hot topics” are for them and the question of the age of the earth isn’t in the top 50. You assertion not withstanding, I am therefore doing them no disservice whatsoever, at least in terms of not spending a lot of time on debates about the finer points of theologies of creation. I am probably not being a good steward of my time, however, in chasing this rabbit any further.
Pax Christi Vobiscum
October 25th, 2010 | 8:52 pm | #110
David C.,
Of course seriously! This is a matter of reading comprehension, isn’t it? What else could it be? I’m not being rude, I just think that you are wrong and that you are capitulating to the pressures of science. I’d say the same to Machen, if it makes you feel any better. Augustine didn’t really say what I think you are saying he said. But it doesn’t matter, I think Augustine was out to lunch on a lot of things far worse than the age of the earth.
But then, I am a luddite, extremist Baptist. And that finally brings us back around to the topic of the post! :)
October 25th, 2010 | 9:12 pm | #111
David C.,
May we live to discuss again then, brother.
Soli Deo Gloria
October 25th, 2010 | 9:20 pm | #112
Brad,
And I’ll ask again, where is the place in Scripture that I am failing to comprehend? That place which plainly tells us the earth is somewhere between 6,000 and 11,000 years old?
I am not “capitulating to the pressures of science” nor was Machen. I am agreeing with him that there is room for disagreement on the point; as there has been throughout the history of the church. Where certainty cannot be had I am believe in letting charity prevail.
I am a luddite about many things, this just isn’t one of them.
Be well.
October 25th, 2010 | 9:30 pm | #113
BTW — I quoted somebody named “Gretchen Machen” in #96 above. I meant of course Reformed luminary J. Gresham Machen….
October 25th, 2010 | 10:07 pm | #114
David C.,
I thought you were leaving the discussion, but I guess you haven’t quite finished yet. I will answer and challenge your assumption that Scripture does not indicate an earth between 6000 and 11000 years as it pertains to my position as well.
David C. said:
“And I’ll ask again, where is the place in Scripture that I am failing to comprehend? That place which plainly tells us the earth is somewhere between 6,000 and 11,000 years old?”
Steve Drake: I am speaking only for myself, here, and not for Brad, but I think your insistence that Scripture ‘plainly’ tells us the earth is 6000-11000 is somewhat misguided. Would you use the same argument and question to ask about the ‘Trinity’, which is nowhere ‘plainly’ indicated in Scripture?
The years are an inference from the chrono-genealogies found in Genesis 5 and 11, the ancestor list in 1st Chronicles 1, and the genealogies found in Matthew 1 and Luke 3. If you were to study the creationist literature you would certainly see this as their position. They also use extra-biblical scientific data such as the earth’s magnetic field, short-period comets, spiral galaxies, and others to support the claim that the earth cannot be as old as the 4.5 billion years claimed by secularists.
Now, do you wish to debate the validity of these chrono-genealogies? Let us begin, then.
October 25th, 2010 | 10:33 pm | #115
David C.,
Steve said what I would say, except for spiral galaxies and things of that nature.
Since guys lived so long back in the days of Genesis and it is apparent that folks in genealogies were often skipped. I’d be willing to push it all the way back to 20,000 years. But I’d feel like a bit of a compromiser.
And yes, Machen was, if he said what you say he said. So was Charles Hodge, God bless him. You can pile in the luminaries who did that, if you want to. Chesterton wouldn’t hear of it. But then, he converted to Catholicism. Alas, no one is perfect!
I did enjoy the discussion. I’m not an angry Luddite. I just think you are wrong, terribly wrong, and probably inconsistent if you believe in a literal Adam. If you do believe in a literal Adam, then you have some fancy hermeneutics indeed!
I’m out on this though because I’m probably not saying anything you haven’t already heard and dismissed. Be well!
October 25th, 2010 | 11:13 pm | #116
Brad
Agreed to disagree. hasta luego
Steve
Sorry, no go.
SDG
October 27th, 2010 | 10:07 pm | #117
David C. said:
“Where certainty cannot be had I am believe in letting charity prevail.”
And what are the underlying assumptions behind this position, pastor? That Scripture doesn’t speak plainly in Genesis 5 and 11? So where does Scripture ‘start’ to speak plainly then?
Exegete it, pastor, so that we may all be the better for it.
October 28th, 2010 | 6:41 am | #118
One aspect of this, that clearly has to be looked at closely, is the huge, and I mean increadibly huge, difference between those creation scientists conclusion, that the earth is 6,000-11,000 years old, and the mainstream scientists, who have concluded that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. This not only shows that one group is not only wrong, but is likely using really bad methodology. As David C. pointed out, that represents an error factor of 400,000 times.
No one, as far as I can tell, has dealt with the “problem” of carbon dating. If the earth really is only 11,000 years old, carbon dating is either an elaborate hoax, or based on completely faulty methods.
There’s also the slight problem of the dinasaurs. According to the most recent science, dinasaurs lived for hundreds of millions of years, before dying out, about 66 million years ago. I guess the paleontologists are wrong here as well, extremely wrong!
So, are these scientists just hideously incompetent, or are they intentionally distorting the evidence? Both claims would require a lot of evidence. Do any of you have this evidence, or know where it’s to be found?
What’s sad, is how unnecessary this all is. What’s so horrible about accepting that God had and has other creatures that He cared/cares about (dinasaurs) and that He created things a long long time ago?
October 29th, 2010 | 10:55 am | #119
Dear Bret,
The “problem” with carbon-14 has been dealt with in great detail. ‘Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth’, Vardiman, Snelling, Chafer, eds., Institute for Creation Research, 2005′, is just one example, ‘Thousands, not Billions’, by Don DeYoung, Master Books, 2005 is another. All of the creationist websites have articles ‘dealing with’ Carbon-14. Faulty conclusions is the correct answer here, as well as the discrepancies of carbon-14 found in coal and diamonds as an example. As you know, carbon-14 is used to date once-living things (animals and plants), and not rocks.
Dinosaurs were created on day six of creation along with all the other land beasts. They were taken on the ark by Noah, disembarked the ark, and subsequently many went extinct in the following years just like thousands of other animals and plants. Since you deny the worldwide flood of Noah, I realize you will not accept this as an explanation, yet this is clearly implied from Scripture.
I also urge you to be read up on your opponents position. It seems you do not read the creationist literature and do not have a grasp on the answers they give to these questions. Otherwise, you would frame your questions in your posts in a different light, and/or challenge the position in a different way.
Bret said:
“What’s so horrible about accepting that God had and has other creatures that He cared/cares about (dinasaurs) and that He created things a long long time ago?”
In a nutshell, the exegetical and theological implications and costs that come from a ‘long, long time ago’ position. Blessings.
October 29th, 2010 | 11:17 am | #120
Bret,
Clarification: The carbon-14 found in diamonds is an exception to the general rule that carbon-14 is generally only used to date once-living things. For the most part, when dating rocks, other radiometric dating methods are used. However, that said, unexpected carbon-14 atoms are found in many earth materials.
October 29th, 2010 | 11:42 am | #121
Steve Drake:
Please tell us who out of the Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth (RATE) project team had any training in experimental geochronology. I’ve seen numerous reports that the team was untrained in the field and/or that their methodology was shoddy.
October 29th, 2010 | 11:58 am | #122
I would further point out that DeYoung’s sparse scientific output appears been on the Mössbauer Effect — a field unrelated to geochronology. I would therefore question whether he is qualified to identify “problems” in that field.
October 29th, 2010 | 12:04 pm | #123
For those looking for a view of Radiometric Dating that is both rigorously scientific and devoutly Christian, I would suggest Radiometric Dating, A Christian Perspective by Dr. Roger C. Wiens on the ASA website.