http://spectrummagazine.org/files/archive/archive06-10/6-1geraty.pdf

Excellent article on chronology by Dr. Geraty. The real issue regards the interpretation of the Bible, not its veracity.

I suppose one issue is whether Adventist scientists do their 'scientific research' with the unwavering caveat that the Bible is 'scientifically true' including it's chronology and creation story. If they start from that point, then they cannot find any truth that doesn't support it (since their belief will be that if something doesn't support their initial assumption that the Bible is scientifically true, then it must be false no matter what evidence is brought to bear).

What I started to notice when I started looking at evolutionists vs. creationists is that the evolutionists had all the best arguments. The creationist arguments always came down to this: "such and such evolutionary hypothesis doesn't make sense to us, therefore God must have done it".

I'm not saying God didn't do it. I have a hard time believing evolutionary theory without the guiding hand of God, even if there is no objective evidence for such a hand.

That said, if Jesus comes back in person, and shows us how He really did create the world in 6 days, then I'm all for it. As it is, even though I've lost my faith, I still kick back every Saturday for some Sabbath rest.

Jared

Thanks for being so swift and so sagacious in your responses to this amazing discovery and display!

My response to the question as to whether we should ever discard reason and experience is "No." My response to questions as to whether we should ever discard Scripture and tradition is the same.

Scripture and tradition are like the constitution and history of a nation. One can--should, actually--debate what they meant in the past and what they should mean for us today. But one cannot say, I "discard" them and remain a citizen of that nation in fact and not merely in name.

Likewise, we learn things from what we experience and what we think that we should never discard. Again, the ongoing debate is what counts.

Debate? Yes! Discard? No!

Thanks again, Jared!

Dave

Jared,

Thanks for the post, link(s), and thought-provoking questions.

I'd like to comment on a few the questions your raise.

#3. Like Dave, I don't think the only option left after such a discovery is an either/or between Scripture/Tradition and Reason/Experience. Rather, the question(s) that arises for me are ones of priority and interaction. Which of the 4 poles maintains primacy? Does Scripture trump the others and shape the way we critique and understand tradition/reason/experience, or does it go the other way around?

#5. What part of Adventist teaching? and why not? If you're referencing the idea of a seven-day literal creation, you could still maintain that God created everything in 7 days in some basic form, and then let things "evolve" over time. If you go for a more symbolic read of Genesis 1-2, you can still believe that God created things in the beginning (so he's still the creator) and that somehow, he's guiding/sustaining the evolutionary process. As long as you don't abandon the idea of God as creator/sustainer (and adopt a materialistic atheism which is the the methodological starting point of most science, but an invalid/unsupported metaphysical conclusion.), I don't see irreconcilable differences. Perhaps you're referencing the Sabbath teaching. In my mind, the importance of the Sabbath does not rest on a literal 7-day understanding of creation. God still commands it. In Deuteronomy's version of the Decalogue, the reason given for the Sabbath observance is not creation, but redemption. The only view that cannot supported in light of the discovery of fossils is a young-earth view. I don't think this is an "official teaching" of the church.

#6. No, unless they are atheistic materialists. This view is irreconcilable to anything the Scriptures teach.

#4
What similarity do you find in Galileo saying the earth revolves around the sun and not the other way around then and if creation or evolution is true now?

None.
Catholics during that time period told everyone what to do, what to think in every circumstance. Not because it had specific import in relation to Christianity, but because they were basically a spiritual dictatorship complete with army, secret police etc. who controlled every facet of peoples lives.

The orbit of the planets has no religion killing aspects but evolution does. Its not the same at all so trying to compare Galileo with the current ongoing debates is to slant the argument in the extreme.

GTW

Jared,

I think you have raised some good points, and asked some very good questions. But like the sanctuary issues, they will be with us as long as we exist.

I think you are stretching it quite a bit though, when you wrote "(Spoiler alert: Ellen White reveals the origin of dinosaurs in a "cryptic" comment on amalgamations between man and beast, i.e. genetic engineering)". Mrs. White made no such revelation about dinosaurs, and we must be careful how we re-write the history.
What did she write?
In Spiritual Gifts, Vol. 3, published in 1864, she commented on page 64, "But if there was one sin above another which called for the destruction of the race by the flood, it was the base crime of amalgamation of man and beast which defaced the image of God, and caused confusion everywhere."
Again on page 75 she wrote " "Every species of animal which God had created, were preserved in the ark. The confused species which God did not create, which were the result of amalgamation, were destroyed by the flood." Fair enough, but then she continued " Since the flood there has been amalgamation of man and beast, as may be seen in the endless varieties of species of animals and certain races of men."

There is nothing in these rather cryptic comments to suggest that amalagamation of man and beast resulted in the development of dinosaurs. In fact according to her the amalgamation of man and beast continued after the flood and this "may be seen in the endless varieties of species of animals and certain races of men." If that process of ' amalgamation' had produced dinosaurs, it should have continued to produce dinosaurs after the flood. Instead it only produced " endless varieties of animals and certain races of men " The suggestion that her comment reffered to the development of dinosaurs requires a stretch of the imagination that is beyond most of us.
Thankfully, Mrs. White had the good sense to cease the relation of this revelation in all of her works subsequent to 1870.

Well,

What's the rush? If this 1983 find is 47 million yrs.old we should be able to have time to hear the thesis and antithesis of this find, should we not?

I heard today that God was dead. What are the implications for Christians and the Adventist church?

Where is the proof,I asked, as others ran towards the proposition with glee and expressed the immediate need and desire for change!

regards,
pat

Additional Comments...

From “Celebrated Fossil Shown to World” by Gautam Naik
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124274731478535053.html

“Despite the publicity surrounding the announcement, other scientists say the finding isn't likely to be the last word on which branch of early primates eventually gave rise to monkeys, apes and humans….
While many scientific discoveries tend to be disclosed in sober fashion, this one was heavily promoted. It has already resulted in a rapidly written book called "The Link" about the discovery and implications of the fossil. A two-hour TV documentary will be shown in the U.S. later this month.
Philip Gingerich, a paleontologist from the University of Michigan and a member of the Ida research team, said the latest discovery will prove significant for an understanding of early primate evolution. Asked in an interview last week whether the study ought to have been published in Science or Nature, the two most prestigious scientific journals, he replied: "There was a TV company involved and time pressure. We've been pushed to finish the study; it's not how I like to do science."

Jared:

As much as I dislike, "In Your Face" commentary a la "Cliff": one must admit he is correct. The very definition of Seventh-day Adventist is creationism. It is an oxymoron to claim to be an Adventist and a neo-darwinian. Why claim what you deny?
Tom

Following that thought Tom.

For those of the "theistic evolution" bent, to me, the age of the earth is not primary in the sustenance of Biblical accuracy. I accept an old earth and young created order as "allowed" by scripture.Gen.1:1,2.

I am aware that this does not solve all the "questions" related to Origins or questions related to the world as we see it or as it has been. Likewise, I am not convinced anyone can answer all the questions.

What is essential, at least to me, is a young creation by God of mankind and the present order, thus the creation of Adam and Eve as created male and female. Without this story there is no fall and no plan of redemption. No need of a savior and I suggest the presence of a re-creative power to make all things new.

It would all truly be but a "pejorative myth" and our faith is foolishness and in vain. It may be useful for ethical theories for the likes of Ritschl who desire simply that weather Jesus is or isn't the kingdom comes by common moral action ornamented with love....but sorry that is not enough or useful for this sinner to remain in a reconstructed "faith."

regards,
pat

If Ellen White saw extra-terrestrial life, then when was that life and planets created?

If Lucifer and the angels were created before man sinned, were they also created before our Earth was created? Was Lucifer not with God at creation? When was the war in heaven - was there death involved?

Is it possible that God created us humans, despite the presence of sin? Does this open the door for theistic evolution? What implications does this have, if any, on the salvation model?

What implications does this have for the Sabbath as the memorial to Creation?

Would any number of these finds be sufficient to prove outright any untestable assumptions? If there is the possibility of another model that has different but also untestable assumptions that these finds fit, then neither model can defeat the other - no matter how many finds there are.

How much does the weight of public opinion influence us on this?

The intersection between SDA religion and science is amusing to behold. How long before the educated "reason" will be dismissed to ancien texts--texts that were never meant to be understood literally but an explanation of origins just as other cultures had their stories of the "beginning."

The ancient writers of the Gilgamesh Epic, the Hebrew Scriptures, and other writings predating the Bible stories are all to be considered "hogwash" and only the Bible is the true, literal explanation of how this earth and humans began.

No eye witnesses were there to record it; and the stories were no less "true" than similar ones from other cultures. Placing the Bible on a pedestal of both inerrancy and infallibility is destined to turn away educated scientific minds. When Galileo made his discovery, there wasn't general literacy and the Roman church interpreted scripture according to their perspectives. We do the Bible and the SDA members a great disservice by refusing to face scientific facts. The Bible was not written as a chronological or scientific story and its dates are constructed by man, but as the genealogies in Matthew and Luke have demonstrated, errors abound in accepting such accounts as they cannot both be correct.

When one abandons his faith because scientific discoveries do not affirm the Bible stories, one must decide to go backward to the "Dark Ages" of science in all areas, and that is an impossibility. Where would our life spans be if we followed the treatment for disease found in Leviticus, or even the NT? It dishonors the minds of men that were created by God to be curious, studying and discerning. To limit one's knowledge to the Bible is an admission that there is nothing that has occurred since the canon was closed that we have learned or benefited from. To reject because it cannot be explained by the Bible is to retreat to maintaining ignorance.

Pat,

"There was a TV company involved and time pressure. We've been pushed to finish the study; it's not how I like to do science."

Thanks for digging that up. See even how it works by the sorts of questions that it raises on this website. It shouldn't have this much impact - that we are questioning the four Wesleyan pillars! It should not be that significant. It just goes to show how we are all susceptible to hype.

Nevertheless, it provides us another opportunity to say our case.

"genealogies in Matthew and Luke" What else can you throw in Elaine? The kitchen sink!

A comment on Galileo. Galileo got in hot water for being most undiplomatic, and for having inferior evidence (he thought the tides proved the motion of the earth). Cardinal Bellarmine gets a bad rap here for dogmatically opposing "science", but the fact is that, at that time, the Jesuit Astronomers actually had better data than Galileo.
A quote from Bellarmine:
"While experience tells us plainly that the earth is standing still, if there were a real proof that the sun is in the center of the universe…and that the sun goes not go round the earth but the earth round the sun, then we should have to proceed with great circumspection in explaining passages of scripture which appear to teach the contrary, and rather admit that we did not understand them than declare an opinion to be false which is proved to be true. But this is not a thing to be done in haste, and as for myself, I shall not believe that there are such proofs until they are shown to me."

In my mind, the Galileo trial was a mistake, but not as colossal a mistake as Draper and White made it out to be.

I don't think Adventist Theology would necessarily perish from accepting evolution. That being said, it certainly would change. Our theologians would have to start doing some theology instead of only "Biblical Scholarship", to come to reasonable and consistent conclusions, to derive a theology that is helpful, informative, relevant, and consistent, but that doesn't overstep its bounds, or make untenable claims. St. Augustine is helpful here: "If [infidels] find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe our books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren,... to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture, ... although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion."

It is telling that Augustine, among others, held an allegorical view of the Genesis account of creation long before Darwin demonstrated the necessity of such a view, and he, apparently, did not find that it made the Bible or his faith untrue or irrelevant.

In response to Tom, there are other reasons (e.g., the salvific one, derived from Deuteronomy) for regarding Sabbath as special, and one could still honor the creator on the Sabbath, even if the creation happened in a manner somewhat different from the Genesis account.

Cheers, everyone! It's a gorgeous day here in SW Michigan!

Pat,
There are quite a few scientists out there right now on the blogs who are both excited about the discovery and cringing mightily at the hype. It is a cool discovery because it is so intact and it sheds light on primate ancestry but it is simply one piece of a puzzle. People have quite a few misunderstandings about evolution and how it works and the roll out of this fossil hasn't helped those misunderstandings in the least. Even referring to it as a "missing link" is unhelpful.

I've heard it referred to as vindicating Darwin. Ridiculous. Darwin's main ideas have been vindicated long ago by a wide variety of evidence that is also still coming in. This is one piece of that evidence and it is a cool fossil but it is hardly worth the hype. There have been many transitional fossils already discovered including those in the more recent primate family - finding another is no big deal as far as learning anything more about evolution beyond early primate ancestry. It supports evolution because evolution predicts we would find creatures like it at that particular time (as opposed to say 500 million years ago) - but it simply takes its place along side the many already found that also support evolution.

A few responses--

Dave and Zane,

As far as John Wesley's famous quadrilateral goes, I think most people would agree each is important and that none should be discarded (though I could be wrong in that assumption). However, it seems as though in very practical terms, when incongruities crop up between the four points, in reality some points are discarded in favor of one or more of the points. Perhaps discard is too strong. Maybe sublimate or supress would be a better way to say it.

The question then becomes, "If Scripture and Tradition fail to correspond with Reason and Experience, should Reason and Experience be sublimated for the sake of Scripture and Tradition?"

Michael,

I think that even someone with minimal scientific sophistication can see that the correlation in the question about Galileo is not between heliocentrism and evolution but rather between the church's misguided attack on science to uphold untenable dogma based on an uncritical reading of Scripture then and, seemingly, now.

Garnett,

Concerning Ellen White's statements on the origins of dinosaurs and the "amalgamation" passages in her writings, I am not describing my belief, I am describing a premise of the Adventist lawyer who took it upon himself to do the work of scientists in his book on Adventism and dinosaurs. I can see how what I wrote might have caused some confusion.

Pat,

Please take note of what I have done and what I have not done. I have written a brief report of what the scientists who have done work with the fossil are saying about it. I have written my questions in the subjunctive mood, using the qualifier "if." I have not expressed glee or the immediate need and desire for change.

Tom,

My question was not, "Is it an oxymoron to claim to be an Adventist and a neo-darwinian," but rather, "Would the church be better off if all those who take Darwin seriously were to leave?"

Would the Church have been better if all the heliocentrists had left, and the church had been permitted to go on teaching the Bible truth of geocentrism?

Niemand,

Thanks for inserting that quote from St. Augustine. It's a ponderable ponderance.

Beth,

Alright now. Tell it like it is. Make it plain!

I don't believe many appreciate the scriptural "multiple reciprocities" related to the creation (or it's lack) of Adam and Eve and the fall.

The entire Bible would become but an allegory including Christ's reference to marriage and the creation of Adam and Eve.

All would have to be reframed. Many are pleased at the prospect.

The Christian church could be a useful social community for many "foolish people who worship an in vain faith" however.

regards,
pat

Jared,

I said, "I heard today that God was dead. What are the implications for Christians and the Adventist church?
Where is the proof,I asked, as others ran towards the proposition with glee and expressed the immediate need and desire for change!"

Did I say you shared that view.

Perhaps you refer to Dave's response and excitement? "Thanks for being so swift and so sagacious in your responses to this amazing discovery and display!"

regards,
pat

Pat,

Regarding your comment on "Multiple reciprocities"--

The comment presupposes a picture of Scripture that is like a brick wall--firm, rigid, inflexible... If one or two bricks are taken out, the structural integrity is compromised, and the wall is in danger of falling down.

What if Scripture is more like a Joshua tree--hardy, alive, dynamic, with a strong structure but also flexible... If one or more branches are pruned, it will continue to grow and thrive.

Can something be true in the most important sense, even if not completely factual? Is To Kill A Mockingbird, for example, true, even though it is a novel?

As for your second comment about glee and change, I assumed it was a brief metaphorical story meant to convey your point related to this thread. Did that really happen? Did someone really say that God is dead and people ran with glee? Or was it an illustration?

That, after all, is the question.

Chris asked:

"genealogies in Matthew and Luke" What else can you throw in Elaine? The kitchen sink!"

It's coming next! Do you dispute that the genealogies in Matthew and Luke differ? How can later genealogies that are incorrect, not also presume that just, perhaps, the records of the patriachs in the early Genesis account were exact? If you accept them as being absolutely infallible, then how can inconsistencies in the NT which can be verified as wrong, also not be reflected in the OT accounts?

The Bible was never believed by the Hebrews (after all, it is THEIR history), to be an accurate and literal history.
Too many of the stories contain similar heroes, villains, and battles won and lost that are the main themes of contemporary literature. It was later Christians who invented the infallibility and inerrancy of the Bible. The Hebrews used it in many ways as an allegory.

To Pat:

Sorry to keep going back to St. Augustine. I normally don't care much for him, but he makes a few good points and has a couple of good ideas. Augustine understood the Genesis creation account to be allegorical, but still held to the literalness of Christ's death and resurrection, and the literalness of the hope of salvation and eternal life. So, it's possible.

Cheers.

Jared, you asked the question: "If Ida turns out to be as old as she appears. . . " How will we ever know? Admittedly, I am not really straight on the merits or challenges of radiometric dating, but from what I do understand, there seems to be quite a bit of circular analysis that goes on with it.

And this whole "Ida being the 'missing link'" idea is a bit overblown, premature, and highly propagandized. Those involved with it have pulled off a huge media blitz before any real science has been pursued. It seems as though Darwinists find the "missing link" every few years, only to realize that there is still another "missing link" to find.

Let's not get too carried away with these developments.

And not to beat a dead horse: but Augustine can say what he wants about Genesis (as can anyone else), but there is absolutely no basis for reading it allegorically - according to the Hebrew text.

Jared,

There are concepts which removed because of "Multiple reciprocities" that bring the whole house down. The ones I have mentioned in above post are, I suggest.

Creation, the fall, the necessitated redemptive history, a savior, re-creative power necessary to make again all things new...and the miracle of Christ's resurrection.

Yes, it was an illustration that I actually made after hearing the thought("God is dead") this morning. Did I name you or are you perhaps projecting that? If the shoe fits "wear it."

regards,
pat

Elaine: "The Bible was never believed by the Hebrews (after all, it is THEIR history), to be an accurate and literal history." Who told you this? Where did you get that from?

Also, regarding the Matthew and Luke genealogies: last I checked, Jesus had a mother AND a father.

As I said, I usually don't like Augustine. I think he helped contribute to some really unnecessary guilt in Christianity. But he happens to have a couple of good ideas that are relevant here. I don't begrudge him those good ideas just because I think he was pretty much a jerk otherwise.

Chris, have you read Larry Geraty's report:

http://spectrummagazine.org/files/archive/archive06-10/6-1geraty.pdf

I suggest that before you criticize statements with which you disagree that you read someone with proper credentials on this subject.

Jared,

I'm about to run out the door. Real quick, a bit about Wesley's quadrilateral (from Wikipedia) that is relevant to the discussion:

The United Methodist Church, asserts that "Wesley believed that the living core of the Christian faith was revealed in Scripture, illumined by tradition, vivified in personal experience, and confirmed by reason. Scripture [however] is primary, revealing the Word of God 'so far as it is necessary for our salvation.'"

It must be understood, however, that for Wesley, Tradition, Reason, and Experience do not form additional "sources" for theological truth, for he believed that the Bible was the sole source of truth about God, but rather these form a matrix for interpreting the Bible. Therefore, while the Bible is the sole source of truth, Tradition forms a "lens" through which we view and interpret the Bible. But unlike the Bible, Tradition is not an infallible instrument, and it must be balanced and tested by Reason and Experience. Reason is the means by which we may evaluate and even challenge the assumptions of Tradition. Reason is the first means by which we may "trim our sails" and adjust interpretations of Scripture...

Each of the "legs" of the Wesleyan Quadrilateral must be taken in balance, and none of the other three apart from scripture should be viewed as being of equal value or authority with scripture. None of these should be taken in isolation without the balancing effect of the others, and always Scripture should have the central place of authority.

>>>

In other words, Scripture has primacy on matters "necessary for our salvation."

Reason and experience shape the way we interpret the Scripture. One does not reject one for the other.

47 million years old? I'm assuming they used C-14 dating. C-14 dating is very limited. At best, with lots of calibrations, it can be manipulated to extend to about 67,000 years. However, we'd have to know what the ratio of C-12 to C-14 was in the environment at the time the monkey lived. We can't speculate accurately because C-14 has not reached an equilibrium in our atmosphere. It's also been known to fluctuate significantly during short periods of time (e.g. the industrial revolution). There's also more C-14 in the atmosphere to day than say thousands of years ago.

The astronomical numbers that evolutionists come up have got to be one of the greatest hoaxes that lay people have believed. It is assumed that the ratio of C-14 to C-12 in the atmosphere has always been the same as it is today (1 to 1 trillion). If it were true, there would be no way to date anything older than 100,000 years.

Some questions we should be asking:

1. Is the explanation of the data derived from empirical, observational science, or an interpretation of past events (historical science)?

2. Are there any assumptions involved in the dating method?

3. Are the dates provided by 14C dating consistent with what we observe?

3. Do all scientists accept the 14C dating method as reliable and accurate?

Shane:

C-14 dating is only one radiometric method. There are others. As you pointed out, C-14 is only valid for stuff less than 60,000 years old.

From the article: "The Messel fauna belongs to the early middle Eocene or earliest Geiseltalian, MP11 with a calculated radiometric age of ca. 47 Ma based on a basalt fragment coming from an underlying volcanic chimney."

Combine that with what's know about the geologic column, and you can nail down a date fairly well. Yeah, there's some uncertainty, but the uncertainties are generally quite small, relative to the dates under consideration. The nice thing about geology (as I understand it) is that you have a variety of methods for determining dates of layers and objects in the column, and they all agree remarkably well with each other. Nothing new, I know, but I still get shivers when I think about how consistent this universe can be. I love teh science.

Niemand:

Let me understand this correctly. They dated the monkey based on "a basalt fragment coming from an underlying volcanic chimney"? That means they used radiometric dating used for inorganica material to date organic material. The basalt the monkey is in or near is allegedly old, thus the monkey is that old. Is that the reasoning? That doesn't even seem like a logical line of reasoning. Just because I put a brand new penny in a vault that's 50 years old doesn't mean that when it's found seven years later that the penny is 57 years old--it's 7 years old. A crude analogy, but I think it illustrates the absurdness of that type of dating.

1. How can we be sure radioactive decay has always occurred at the rates we measure today? We can't know.

2. And how can we know how much radioactive decay occurred in their mantle source before these lavas erupted, which produce basalt rock?

Samples taken from basalt yields a variety of ages. Good examples of this can be given. Ther are quite a few assumptions that are made with radiometric dating. So once again it becomes a speculative science. Once again it is not derived from empirical data.

and once again conservative SDA who don't understand the science are rushing to condemn it.

Various of the radioactive clocks don't start ticking until the lava has set.

/Bevin

Regarding the Wesleyan Quadrilateral, I think tradition, reason and experience all affect how we interpret Scripture, and we need each of them to keep us open-minded.

And since on this earth we will never "know" all we need to in order to fully understand the earth's origins, I think we just have to hold it all in tension. Certainly, science is constantly learning more and changing it's understanding as it does, and we can't just ignore it.

Bevin:

Radioactive dating in general depends on three major assumptions:

1. When the rock forms (hardens) there should only be parent radioactive atoms in the rock and no daughter radiogenic (derived by radioactive decay of another element) atoms;5

2. After hardening, the rock must remain a closed system, that is, no parent or daughter atoms should be added to or removed from the rock by external influences such as percolating groundwaters; and

3. The radioactive decay rate must remain constant.

If any of these assumptions are violated, then the technique fails and any ‘dates’ are false.

Once again, these dates are not based off of empirical data. You misunderstood what I meant by various dates being pulled from samples. Please explain how this dating method is so accurate when there are some serious unknowns.

Just which link does Ida supply to the chain of evolutionary evidence? Seems clear enough that diversity is part of the order of things--not necessarily the origin of things. Tom

Galileo expressly said that the Bible cannot err, and saw his system as an alternate interpretation of the biblical texts. I'd have to agree with him.

In a letter to Christina of Tuscany, Galileo agreed with the statement "The intention of the Holy Spirit is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heavens go." So, he must have had a different view of inerrancy, if he believed the Bible to be inerrant.

Could God create the universe in 7 literal days? Is He able to? Is there really a way to know (prove) that?

And what if God created everything as if it has existed for some time. How then we can prove the age of it?

The probability that God did it in 7 days will always remain, unless we can invent the time machine.

If I say that God created everything by evolution, it is a hint that may be he is not so powerful after all. Why would he do it otherwise? Why do things slow and painful way, by millions and millions of creatures dieing and eating each other. Why not do it quick way in 7 days.

We are so clever, but still cant sort out our own lives :)

The "science" of Galileo is observable and repeatable to this day.

Can the same be said for the "theory of origins" of both the universe and man for which I am asked to cast doubt on scripture? I think not.

regards,
pat

No one (except Dawkins and his ilk) is asking anyone to reject their scripture. Reject a particular interpretation of scripture may be necessary, but the two are NOT identical. It takes some serious chutzpah and/or arrogance to assert that one's own interpretation is absolutely, without reservation, the definitive and correct interpretation. Of course, the same goes for science. However, science has the luxury of (generally) an abundance of data, compared with religious data, and it is of a type for which consensus is possible among professionals of a variety of religions.

Right. Lots of words just to say that, IMHO, it is easier to come to firm conclusions about natural matters than it is to come to firm conclusions about spiritual matters.

This is pretty funny - but then I'm a big fan of well done snarkiness.

http://scienceblogs.com/notrocketscience/2009/05/everything_changes.php

Thanks for the link Beth--very funny and definitely well written snarkiness. Now another place to waste my time on the net.....

Regarding "Multiple Reciprocities" what are we saying? Are we saying that we can't believe evolution because if we do it negates the creation story, the Sabbath, the need for salvatoin, etc.? Are we saying that if evidence suggests something that brings the historical/literal accuracy of the bible, then that evidence must be thrown out because it doesn't fit our presupposition that the bible is true?

Linked below is an independent method of dating that solidly confirms radiometric dating to at least 10s of millions of years ago. It's astronomical dating, and it bests radiometric dating for more recent dates:

http://www.innovations-report.com/html/reports/earth_sciences/report-352...

Glen Davidson

Elaine,

I will have to look at that reference a bit later.

The reason I raised my point was that "the infallibility and inerrancy of the Bible" is NOT the issue at heart for me. The salvation model is the issue.

Yes we base salvation model on the Bible, but the Bible does not have to be correct in every single detailed way for us to understand the divine truth of salvation revealed in scripture.

It's an interesting discovery Jared. Thanks for sharing. I don't see any reason not to believe what the scientists say: the fossil is 47 million years old and is the descendant of something that came before and the ancestor of something that came after (although it turns out from the news stories that the scientists are divided about just how significant the find actually is and what it may be the ancestor to: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8057465.stm).

Your questions about "reason", "faith" and "evolution" can't really be answered, though, until you spell out what exactly you mean by these terms.

David Bentley Hart, Terry Eagelton, Stanley Fish and quite a few others have been taking the so-called New Atheists (Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, et al) to the intellectual woodshed for making philosophical, scientific, and historical claims that go far beyond what the scientific method and theory of natural selection can possibly tell us... claims that are both bad science AND bad philosophy, and that also ignore or suppress a great deal that CAN be known through sober research (e.g. about the historical relationship between Christianity and science, which is in fact not a tale of mutual hostility or incomprehension).

I think the really interesting question (for folks not trapped in the peculiar and frankly embarrassing Adventist debates about biblical literalism, demonology, animal-human "amalgamations", Ellen White's authority on scientific matters, etc.) is therefore: what are the limitations of a certain kind of methodology for better understanding the world?

Put another way: At what point does scientific materialism evolve from being a helpful methodological tool into a species of epistemological imperialism claiming all of factual reality as its own? At what point does science in fact become scientISM and natural selection not a theory for organizing empirically observable facts but a myth of origins that through some linguistic sleight of hand can be used to fill in the gaps for things that are unobservable, unrepeatable, and irreducible to scientific approaches by definition (such as the origin of the universe, the origin of life, the origin of sentience, the origin of human language ability and rationality, and perhaps a great deal more besides)?

We've heard a lot about the dangers of a "God of the gaps" theology, but it seems to me that there is such a thing as a "scientific materialism of the gaps" too that will never be filled in by fossils like this one and that needs to be very critically analyzed.

Unfortunately, many self-described Adventist "liberals", perhaps in reaction to the various fundamentalisms they grew up with, appear to be trapped in a thoroughly modernist paradigm that takes the Enlightenment narrative of "progress" through "science" and "reason" more or less at face value and is therefore incapable of mounting such a critique. Many of us have deeply absorbed the Enlightenment conceit that "faith" and "science" really CAN'T be reconciled at some level so that we must always be taking a side either against other people or against some part of ourselves... invariably the part that does not fit with whatever the latest "science" is telling us.

For those who choose to remain within the church, this often seems to translate into a kind of anemic process theology that retains the language of orthodox Christian faith but the functional beliefs and outlook of deism, and that refuses to say or do anything that might prove intellectually offensive to those committed to a more thoroughgoing naturalism.

But surely reality is more complex, rich, and messy than the modernist/Enlightenment narrative with all of its pretensions to certainty, power and mastery over the physical world through the methods of scientific materialism would have us believe. Instead of endlessly debating the alleged conflict between "faith" and "reason", I would therefore like to see a conversation among Adventists framed not in terms of "faith VERSUS reason" but instead in terms of "faith's reasons/reason's faiths". Neither can be conceived as discreet, isolated outlooks or mental properties. The challenging and interesting question in any particular case, then, is how they are interacting.

Jamie,

"Regarding "Multiple Reciprocities" what are we saying?"

I am saying that if Neo-Darwinism or Theistic evolution (of man) IS TRUE you have gutted the Bible of any legitimate meaning for faith and practice because of all the "multiple reciprocities"/linkages of text that you must reframe.

You have gutted the animal and left but a supposed carcass and facade of "re-framed faith."

I don't then need the "new" Christianity.

But then...that is my view.

pat

What is the purpose or reason for our reading the Bible? Is it to develop and strengthen faith in God? Faith does not rely on objective evidence--a very different view of the scientific perspective which needs objective affirmation in its theories. Also, each new theory is always subject to scrutiny for falsification. Religious belief is subjective and cannot be subjected to others for affirming one's stance. It must be very personal and not rely on the scrutiny which is applied to scientific findings.

It is left to the individual to decide how the confluence of religion and science can meet his current beliefs and scientific knowledge.

Elaine,

"Faith does not rely on objective evidence."

I would suggest that Christianity IS grounded in the objective, Life, Death,and attested to by many witnesses, Resurrection of Christ.

" Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. 46 He told them, “This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, 47 and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. 48 You are witnesses of these things. 49 I am going to send you what my Father has promised; but stay in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high.” Lk.24:45-48.

Witnesses don't testify of that which has not been seen. Those hearing the witness then decide if the witness is credible as a "faithful witness."

regards,
pat

Several people have posted a link to Garaty's article: http://spectrummagazine.org/files/archive/archive06-10/6-1geraty.pdf. That article is missing two pages, which apparently contain two of his central arguments. Does anybody know where I can find the missing pages? (Since I'm currently in Korea, print resources are probably inaccessible to me.)

Scott: here are the missing two pages (sorry about the lousy alignment of the table).

ordinary genealogies to be interpreted on the same principles as other biblical genealogies are.[12]

Finally, if the purpose were chronological, the author kept it a secret. Nowhere does he add up the numbers or even suggest that his readers do it. And nowhere in the Bible does any other inspired writer deduce a chronological statement from these genealogies.

Different Numbers

Another consideration is the fact that the texts of the Septuagint version (the earliest translation of the Hebrew Scriptures) and the Samaritan recension of the Pentateuch both vary systematically from the Hebrew Massoretic text in both the Genesis 5 and the Genesis 11 genealogies.

As shown in TABLE 4,[13] the ages of different patriarchs at the birth of their successors are quite irregular in the Hebrew text. But the Septuagint introduces something like a regular gradation. The table also shows that Luke 3:36, following the Septuagint, adds a patriarch who is completely absent from the Hebrew and Samaritan. This addition, and the alternate numbers, produce a difference of nearly 1,500 years between the Hebrew and the Greek for the interval between Adam and Abraham.
TABLE 4 (Genesis 5 and 11)

Which text is superior ? On text-critical grounds, it is possible that the Hebrew is the original, the others diverging according to a set principle – that of making the lives of the patriarchs more symmetrical. It is important to note that this principle is not to effect a change in the chronological period as a whole; so even the versions seem to have had no interest in chronology at this point.

Structure

The structure of the Genesis 5 and 11 genealogies may also favor the position that they do not contain all the names in their respective lines of descent. Their regularity seems to indicate intentional arrangement. Each genealogy includes ten names, and each ends with a father having three sons. Just as the genealogy of Matthew 1 is arranged in three periods of fourteen generations each by dropping the requisite number of names, so it seems probable that the symmetry of these primitive genealogies is artificial rather than natural. In other words, that the definite number of names fitting into a regular scheme has been selected as sufficiently
representing the periods to which they belong is much more likely than that all these striking numerical coincidences should have happened to occur in these successive instances.

Historical Problems

If the genealogy in Genesis 11 were complete, Terah would have been a contemporary of all nine of the patriarchs that preceded him (including Noah), and Abraham would have been a contemporary of at least seven of the patriarchs preceding him (including Shem for a minimum of 150 years) , 14 If Cainan is added on the authority of Luke 3:36, then the situation is complicated even further. But the whole impression of the Abraham narrative is that the days of the Flood belong to a geological event long past and that the actors in it had died ages before.

The preceding paragraphs summarize a few internal reasons why Genesis furnishes us with no data for a chronological computation (other than a minimum) before the life of Abraham.[15]

ANCIENT NEAR EASTERN GENEALOGIES

But the literary genre of "genealogy" is not unique to the Bible. It may be useful to consider several Old World genealogies, many of which have been brought to light by archaeological research. A fairly recent discovery, for instance, is the genealogy of the Hammurapi Dynasty, a text found in the British Museum. This "shows conclusively that the Semitic tribes west of the Euphrates and of the Upper Euphrates region had evolved an elaborated genealogical tradition at an early age probably not later than the turn of the Third Millennium B.C."[16] Since such

A lovely discourse of petty questions compared to how does this knowlege save me?
Have you great debaters considered that if God created the universe by "speaking and they were so" except for mankind that He created from existing dirt, then elements (Carbon, Oxygen, Phosphorus etc) from "His-self" - would be innately in His creation. Question - How old is God? - If He is from everlasting to everlasting, placing the age of something to 1 trillion years is possible. The earth can be considered young if the elements from earth is compared to the same elements emanating from God. So, the relative issue of the age of anything should be to answer the question how old is God?
The fact that man is trying to make a big to do out of a preserved cat or catch only fosters the fact that there are a lot of things that our science can't begin to find out and therefore, this should not change our perspective of the Standard - God. "Always is and always will be even after this discourse. Give Him the Glory - He might shed some extra light and wisdom with which we can understand our fears and quests.
Good discourse - something to ruminate. Jared - Good job - feed the Gor ka? Focus on the Standard and share with all. Blessings

Elaine,

Our belief system does not fit into your definition of religious belief. Many Christians clearly maintain quite a few beliefs that involve the physical world. There is no rule that says religion can not involve the physical world. One issue is that if God does not physically interact with this universe, then God just diminishes to some human construction.

NUMBERS, RONALD L. ED., "GALILEO GOES TO JAIL AND OTHER MYTHS ABOUT SCIENCE AND RELIGION." HARVARD UNIVERSITY PRESS, 2009.

Table of Contents
Acknowledgments

Introduction
Ronald L. Numbers

Myth 1. That the Rise of Christianity Was Responsible for the Demise of Ancient Science
David C. Lindberg

Myth 2. That the Medieval Christian Church Suppressed the Growth of Science
Michael H. Shank

Myth 3. That Medieval Christians Taught That the Earth Was Flat
Lesley B. Cormack

Myth 4. That Medieval Islamic Culture Was Inhospitable to Science
S. Nomanul Haq

Myth 5. That the Medieval Church Prohibited Human Dissection
Katharine Park

Myth 6. That the Copernican System Demoted Humans from the Center of the Cosmos
Dennis R. Danielson

Myth 7. That Giordano Bruno Was the First Martyr of Modern Science
Jole Shackelford

Myth 8. That Galileo Was Imprisoned and Tortured for Advocating Copernicanism
Maurice A. Finocchiaro

Myth 9. That Christianity Gave Birth to Modern Science
Noah Efron

Myth 10. That the Scientific Revolution Liberated Science from Religion
Margaret J. Osler

Myth 11. That Catholics Did Not Contribute to the Scientific Revolution
Lawrence Principe

Myth 12. That René Descartes Originated the Mind-Body Distinction
Peter Harrison

Myth 13. That Isaac Newton’s Mechanistic Cosmology Eliminated the Need for God
Edward Davis

Myth 14. That the Church Denounced Anesthesia in Childbirth on Biblical Grounds
Rennie B. Schoepflin

Myth 15. That the Theory of Organic Evolution Is Based on Circular Reasoning
Nicolaas A. Rupke

Myth 16. That Evolution Destroyed Charles Darwin’s Faith in Christianity—until He Reconverted on His Deathbed
James Moore

Myth 17. That Huxley Defeated Wilberforce in Their Debate over Evolution and Religion
David N. Livingstone

Myth 18. That Darwin Destroyed Natural Theology
Jon H. Roberts

Myth 19. That Darwin and Haeckel Were Complicit in Nazi Biology
Robert J. Richards

Myth 20. That the Scopes Trial Ended in Defeat for Antievolutionism
Edward J. Larson

Myth 21. That Einstein Believed in a Personal God
Matthew Stanley

Myth 22. That Quantum Physics Demonstrated the Doctrine of Free Will
Daniel P. Thurs

Myth 23. That “Intelligent Design” Represents a Scientific Challenge to Evolution
Michael Ruse

Myth 24. That Creationism Is a Uniquely American Phenomenon
Ronald L. Numbers

Myth 25. That Modern Science Has Secularized Western Culture
John Hedley Brooke

Notes
List of Contributors
Index

...So we have Genesis. Chapter one (...forget chapters - there were not there when first written) speaks of detailed, accurate literal creation of the world... Then, a page or two later we already have first four (three) people in the world. Cain, after murdering his brother, has to leave his home- and then it becomes even more interesting as far as the accuracy and common sense is concerned. Cain gets mark so than no one (Who?) would kill him, he gets married (with whom?) and establishes a city (inhabitants from???)....And all this is just few dozens of line from the very accurate narrative of Creation that according to some is the pillar of our belief...

...And then after 50 years we still talk and use C14 argument. The truth is that there are at least dozen other ways to to measure age of the earth and fossils. Let's assume that all of these methods are completely wrong. the problem is, however, to explain how is it that all these 'inaccurate' methods show the same results...Now that's an 'oddity' that no Creationist has yet benn able to explain.

Jared, thanks for asking these questions. Enjoyed the fact that someone had courage to ask them in our SDA context.

Niemand:

Why does an evolutionist seek salvation? Moral evolution is warmed over Elile Coue de Chataigneraie (ism) "In every day and in every way I am getting better and better." If man emerged by trial and error from primordial ooze--he grew up not "fell" down! Thus is no need for a salvific "Sabbath" anymore than a creation Sabbath.

The concept of a final generation necessity to vindicate God, is a warmed over "Sanctification" model of Eile Eoue's infamous mantra. Don Matzal calls this the theology of Glory --the consequence of "Once Saved, Always Saved". He contrast this with the Theology of the Cross. He see the difference between the two as: The Theology of the Cross defines repentance as contrition and faith while the Theology of Glory sees contrition and human determination.

Moral evolutionists are of the Theology of Glory taxonomy. Christians are of the Theology of the Cross. Dr. Edward Heppenstall captured this distinction in his seminal article in Signs of the Times of about 1964--"The Centrality of the Cross." Paul was an affirmed apostle of the Theology of the Cross--It was his Alpha and his Omega.

That evolutionists need rest, there is no doubt for they are flesh. Where, how, and why are based on entirely different premises that those of the Seventh-Day Adventist's 28 Fundamental Beliefs. It seems academic that the how and why are as significant as the when? No Creator, No Fall, No Seventh-day Sabbath according to Fundamental Beliefs.

Certainly Saturday and Sunday work out as being the best two days out of the seven in which to "rest" in Western Economy. The merit is in the renewal of mind, body, and spirit, not in any salvific sense. One could rig up a prayer wheel for that. Tom

P.S.

The Man with the Hoe by Edwin Markham is a classic apology for what man has done to man since the "fall". There have been physical and intellectual consequences as well as moral.

God made man in His own image
In the image of God He made him.--Genesis

Bowed by the weight of centuries he leans
Upon his hoe and gazes on the ground,
The emptiness of ages in his face,
And on his back the burden of the world.
Who made him dead to rapture and despair
A thing that grieves not and that never hopes,
Stolid and stunned, a brother to the ox?
Who loosened and let down this brutal jaw?
Whose was the hand that slanted back this brow?
Whose breath blew out the light within this brain?

Is this the Thing the Lord God made and gave
To have dominion over sea and land;
To trace the stars and search the heavens for power;
To feel the passion of Eternity?
Is this the dream He dreamed who shaped the suns
And markt their ways upon the ancient deep?
Down all the caverns of Hell to their last gulf
There is no shape more terrible than this--
More tongued with censure of the world's blind greed--
More filled with signs and portents for the soul--
More packt with danger to the universe.

What gulfs between him and the seraphim!
Slave of the wheel of labor, what to him
Are Plato and the swing of Pleiades?
What the long reaches of the peaks of song,
The rife of dawn, the reddening of the rose?
Through this dread shape the suffering ages look;
Time's tragedy is in that aching stoop;
Through this dread shape humanity betrayed,
Plundered, profaned and disinherited,
Cries protest to the Powers that made the world,
A protest that is also prophecy.

O masters, lords and rulers in all lands,
Is this the handiwork you give to God,
This monstrous thing distorted and soul-quencht?
How will you ever straighten up this shape;
Touch it again with immortality;
Give back the upward looking and the light;
Rebuild in it the music and the dream;
Make right the immemorial infamies,
Perfidlous wrongs, Immedicable woes?

O masters, lords and rulers in all lands,
How will the future reckon with this Man?
How answer his brute question in that hour
When whirlwinds of rebellion shake all shores?
How will it be with kingdoms and with kings--
With those who shaped him to the thing he is--
When this dumb Terror shall rise to judge the world,
After the silence of the centuries?

Comments on Jean Millet, The Man with the Hoe
Oil on canvas. Private Collection.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Return to the Poem Index

I take it that the Wesleyan Quadrilateral is a hermeneutical rather than merely a historical tool.

By this we mean that we need not use it when we are simply trying to reconstruct as accurately as possible what people in Bibilical times believed and did. It comes into play when we are pondering what these should mean for us today. These are definitely related; however, they are not exactly the same.

So, if I'm trying to figure out how to apply some portion of Scripture to my life, I would do well, says the Wesleyan Quadrilateral, (1) to see what the whole of Scripture says on the topic, (2) consider how Christians over the ages have interpreted it, (3) try to figure out what the experiential results from the various interpretations have been like, (4) think about it myself, being unafraid to use "common sense."

In the end I have to decide what the text will mean for me; no one else can do this. And this invovles me making hermeneutical or interpretative judgments.

It is not as though Scripture is a reference work in which we find ready-made answers to all of our questions. Rather, the process is hermeneutical for all of us at every step of the way.

Those of us who apparently think that we are considering nothing but the Bible when interpreting it are unaware of how much of what see there is conditioned by all these other factors. Instead of letting them unconsciously influence us, the Wesleyan Quadrilateral makes this whole process more conscious.

The sixteenth century Protestant Reformers understood this; i.e., for them "sola scriptura" did not mean that they consulted nothing but the Old and New Testaments. Their writings oveflow with references to other authors, ancient and recent.

Were they alive today, they would consider evidence from every possible source of knowledge. They were not of "The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it" crowd.

That's much more recent.

The Fundamentalists have kiled religious belief. Where there was once mystery has been replaced by literalism; not a good marriage.

Dave,

"They were not of "The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it" crowd."

I would suggest that the Reformers were of the opinion that on those issues which scripture speaks,with proper exegesis guided by the Spirit, it is indeed, "The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it."

How else could the Bible be seen to them as the final authority for "faith and practice?" They did not claim to be infalible in their interpretation...nor should we... but they did demand they be proved wrong by scripture "alone."

In the final analysis, what we have here is a progressive/liberal mindset that does not accept the Bible as the inspired word of God (at times perhaps "selective" word) vs. what the Reformers and "conservative Theologians" claim is the "inspired word" that is to "judge us/and our theology" and not the other way around.

The outcomes of the two theological processes can often be quite divergent.

regards,
pat

Tom,
Thanks for the poem.
"How will it be with kingdoms and with kings--With those who shaped him to the thing he is--
When this dumb Terror shall rise to judge the world,
After the silence of the centuries?"

Is it possible that God, having shown us the Theocracy and what it takes for "Righteousness by Works" to create order on this earth and harmony and lasting Peace, has since asked of Satan and the "Nations"..."Show me my errors and my unrighteousness by 'your' righteousness?"

"See, I have taught you decrees and laws as the LORD my God commanded me, so that you may follow them in the land you are entering to take possession of it. 6 Observe them carefully, for this will show your wisdom and understanding to the nations, who will hear about all these decrees and say, “Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.” 7 What other nation is so great as to have their gods near them the way the LORD our God is near us whenever we pray to him? 8 And what other nation is so great as to have such righteous decrees and laws as this body of laws I am setting before you today?" Deut.4:5-8.

Indeed He later has said, "If only you had paid attention to my commands, your peace would have been like a river,
your righteousness like the waves of the sea." Isa.48:18

The problem is NOT with what God calls righteousness and that which brings lasting peace...but as we both know...OUR ability to do it.

Praise God for Christ in whom we can be reckoned righteous...our Savior/King, in whom we can have spiritual peace until the day He returns and creates lasting realized peace indeed.

regards,
pat

How else could the Bible be seen to them as the final authority for "faith and practice?" They did not claim to be infalible in their interpretation...nor should we... but they did demand they be proved wrong by scripture "alone."

The Reformers were facing an dominant church that used the "Writings of the Fathers" and "infallible popes" to establish truth - and (curiously) the truth that these sources established was the dominant church is authorative and should be obeyed.

Sola Scripture is demoting these other "authorative" sources into the realm of "just another person's opinion". They still should be listened too, but they aren't a "trump card".

Bevin,

No they are not just a "trump card" they are the "Rook."

"We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ." 2 Cor.10:5.

Pat,

You're a good Adventist. As such, I assume you reject the idea of an eternally burning hell where the unrighteous are tormented forever. You'd be well justified in rejecting such an idea, as most (if not all) Adventists do.

To arrive at that conclusion, Adventists invoke something more than the plain words of Scripture. The plain words of Scripture say that there actually is eternal torment for the unrighteous. Adventists reject that notion based on human reasoning, and I would argue, sound human reasoning.

Likewise the idea that in 1844, Jesus began a new phase of his ministry in the Heavenly Sanctuary. That is nowhere in Scripture. Nowhere. But Adventists, used a series of several logical (or illogical depending on whom you ask) steps of exegetical gymnastics that amount to more human reasoning in order to arrive at our "Sanctuary Doctrine."

Part of those exegetical gymnastics is the "Day-Year Principle", which Adventists rely on to interpret historical timelines. The "Day-Year Principle" is not in Scripture. To get from "For a thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night" (Psalm 90:4) to the idea that when interpreting prophecy, a day equals a year of real time, you are required to use a fairly large logical (or illogical, depending on whom you ask) leap. In fact an equally plausible principle would be the "Day-Thousand Year Principle," which I haven't heard anyone using with their timelines lately.

Point is, there is no such thing as "Sola Scriptura," unless all you're doing is reading the words (and even then, there are countless valid ways to interpret the original languages in each verse).

We need to be honest about the fact that Reason is the rationing device we all use all the time to make sense of the "plain" words of Scripture.

Unless you're going to tell me that you offer bulls to God for their pleasing aroma, and you refrain from touching any women who are in the unclean phase of the monthly cycle (for starters).

If you'd like to read about more problems with following Scripture without interjecting a bit of human reasoning, read THIS.

1. I'm not afraid of being called "liberal." Indeed, the basic meanings of the word are very attractive to me!

2. It seems to me that the sixteenth century Reformers hammered out their positions on Scripture, grace and faith in direct opposition to the Roman Catholicism with which they were familiar. They had far less to say about Greek Orthodoxy, for example. We can and should learn much from them; however, we cannot simply extend what they wrote to every other subject in every other context. We must do careful hermeneutical work here, too.

3. Wasn't John Calvin a humanist? A French/Swiss Christian humanist, but a humanist nevertheless? This means that he was very interested in and influenced by the most sophisticated cultural currents of his time. The rest of us can only envy his knowledge of ancient, medieval and early thought, both philosophical and theological. I think he would be surprised and saddened by some of the things that are said today in his name.

All the best!

Here is one account of what Martin Luther said at the Diet of Worms [capitalization supplied for emphasis]:

"Your Imperial Majesty and Your Lordships demand a simple answer. Here it is, plain and unvarnished.

Unless I am convicted of error BY THE TESTIMONY OF SCRIPTURE OR (since I put no trust in the unsupported authority of Pope or councils, since it is plain that they have often erred and often contradicted themselves) BY MANIFEST REASONING, I stand convicted by the Scriptures to which I have appealed, and my conscience is taken captive by God's word, I cannot and will not recant anything, for to act against our conscience is neither safe for us, nor open to us.

On this I take my stand. I can do no other. God help me.
Amen."

And the world has never been the same, thank God!

David and Jared,

I suggest you miss the point. Of course reasoning and a sound exegetical method is needed. Soooo?

The point remains that all of our sound reasoning and exegesis is subject to the "final authority of scripture."

The point remains that the Bible is the inspired Word of God that is to "ever reform us" and our proper understanding of the intent of the Holy Scriptures.

As I previously said, none of us should consider our exegesis as infalliable...it is always subject to a "better exegesis led of the Spirit" of Holy Scripture.

That is different from saying this part of scripture is inspired and this part is not. That the cultural input of the original writers was the overpowering input rather than the "inspiration of God acting upon the writer" that would at times over-ride the cultural imperatives of the day.

Jared,

I do not accept eternal Torment because I believe a better exegesis of the "final authority" suggest the wicked will be consummed. I think Stott has taken that position as well as other non-Adventist theologians. I think F.F.Bruce see's Annihilationism as a valid alternate interpretation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annihilationism

I reject our interpretation of 1844 because a "better interpretation" of scripture states Christ went into the Most Holy at His ascension and sat down at the rt.hand of the father as king-priest...not in 1844.

regards to you both,
pat

Pat,

Perhaps not missing the point so much as making a different point.

I don't mind your disagreeing with one part of Scripture in favor of another part of Scripture (for certainly both annihilationism and eternal torment are NOT explicit, or implicit even, in the same passage). I also don't mind saying that all Scripture is inspired.

But as soon as you enter some rationing device into the discussion to select which one of the positions you find more tenable, you've demonstrated that there is something above and beyond scripture, and thus more authoritative in the final analysis. I'll let you name what that rationing device is for you.

[HINT: It isn't Scripture because the Bible doesn't tell you whether to pick annihilationism or eternal torment, which is why different denominations have gone different ways. If the Bible were clear, everyone would believe the same.]

Rolf Knierim, a retired Old Testamenter at Claremont, demonstrates very convincingly in The Task of Old Testament Theology that the problem for theologians is a plurality of theologies in Scripture.

Plurality in itself is not a problem. The problem is that some theologies are irreconcilably different. So Knierim proposes that the task of theology is to create a hierarchy of theologies by asking which themes, motifs, and modes of God's relating to reality are most foundational, that is, primary.

Knierim asserts that Scripture contains its own prioritization of themes and modes of God's relating to reality, but in order to identify Scriptures priorities, it is fairly obvious that one will need something more than Scripture itself because the Bible doesn't say, "This is the highest imperative, this one is second, and then this one comes next."

We all do the task of prioritizing instinctively. You have done it by saying that annihilationism is preferable to eternal torment (and please don't try to come back and say one is biblical and the other isn't--anyone can see that they are both possible in the biblical text).

The real question for doing our theology is this: On what basis will we prioritize one theology--one motif or theme--over another? And why?

.

>>>Nobody's addressed questions one and two yet. Anyone feel like having a go?<<<

.

Jared,

Again you miss the point.

All of your theological priorities and resulting exegesis/hermeneutics are still subject to the "proper exegesis" of scripture.

I used this illustration to Ron C. once:
The US Constitution is the law of the land in the US.

There are various interpretations of the document but the interpretations in and of themselves don't change the fact that the document is the "final law of the land."
The best interpretation obviously is what the founding fathers meant it to mean...not us.

Various theologies may come up with different understandings.
No problem....but the Reformers would say that all of these, includung there own, are subject to the "Spirit led" proper exegesis of scripture. Scripture is "self revelatory."

You seem to want a definitive "deciding party" such as the RCC. I don't.

I am merely saying that all of our understandings are ultimately subject to the "proper exegesis of scripture" through the HS as our final authority. I am not claiming any of us posseses infalliable interpretation. Get it?

I question that many "liberal/progressives" see the Scriptures as the inspired word of God, within itself, for the final authority for faith and practice. The tendency is to de-myth it and decide which portions are truly inspired.

The tendency is to deny that inspired "objective" truths are actually taught in scripture that are "eternal truths" not merely the culturally conditioned truths of the writer...for can God actually convey "truth" through the medium of man's words?

regards,
pat

What is exegesis if not human reasoning?

What does "Spirit led" mean? How does the Spirit lead you to your conclusions? Are there other people who follow the same formula (i.e. pray for the leading of the Holy Spirit, read a passage, and interpret it) that reach different conclusions from yours? If so, what does that suggest about the concept of "Spirit led"?

If you insist on the Scripture being the final authority, your are liable to be asked, "Which part?"

You have already demonstrated that not each part has equal weight or even merit.

Which part of Scripture is the final authority?

Whatever answer you provide will be the result of your reasoning, not Scripture's.

Jared,

"What does "Spirit led" mean? How does the Spirit lead you to your conclusions? Are there other people who follow the same formula (i.e. pray for the leading of the Holy Spirit, read a passage, and interpret it) that reach different conclusions from yours? If so, what does that suggest about the concept of "Spirit led"?"

Who was more Spirit led in your opinion...the Protestant Reformers or The RCC? Did the HS have anything to do with enlightening the reasoning?

Of course they did reach different conclusions. Were they both wrong or were there better answers? Who continually required an answer from Scripture before "tradition." Who required more "outside sources" besides scripture...and they both used reason.

regards,
pat

In this protracted conversation, I've sought to demonstrate a point, and though you've fought against it the whole way, you have helped to demonstrate what I'm talking about.

The point is this--

While we say in all sincerity that Scripture has the final word (i.e. highest authority) in our faith and practice, reality reveals something different. Reality demonstrates that all four points of Wesley's quadrilateral are operative in all aspects of our faith and practice, but the final word in reality is what Wesley described as reason, that is, logic, rationality, critical thinking and analysis.

The reason why Reason has the final word is that, while we use the text of Scripture to guide us, we make our conclusions about Scripture through Reason. Indeed, it is reason that leads us to accept Scripture (or reject it) in the first place.

Reason has the final word when we accept some parts of Scripture as more beneficial or pertinent than other parts.

Reason has the final word when we decide to follow Scripture's advice.

Reason has the final word when we make a conscious, volitional commitment to apply Scripture to our lives, and the application of Scripture always requires Reason.

None of this should be bothersome or problematic, unless one wants to contend that God made a mistake in giving us brains, liberty, and the power to reason.

But we've hogged this post for too long. Other people have other good and reasonable things to say too. :-)

[HINT: It isn't Scripture because the Bible doesn't tell you whether to pick annihilationism or eternal torment, which is why different denominations have gone different ways. If the Bible were clear, everyone would believe the same.]

Posted by: Jared Wright | 21 May 2009 at 8:49

Perhaps the source of your confusion.
You imply that there are right perspectives and wrong perspectives in the bible as if the writers were trying to make it dificult. You speak of plurality.

If you instead understood these different perspectives as different facets of the same truth you would see that the perspective that is the correct on would be one that both are true and aligned.

Humans go around picking up little tidbits of information or truth and assemble them as makes sense to them not the origonal writers. Proof texting is an example. Latching on to annihilationism or eternal torment as if it was one or another is the same thing. Tossing both out for your own reasoning because my God wouldnt do that or he wouldnt be worthy of my worship, is the other side of the same coin.
Your own knowledge of this is captured in your words here. "...which is why different denominations have gone different ways."

You also seem to put the blame on the writers.
"If the Bible were clear, everyone would believe the same."

Perhaps not understanding how annihilationism and eternal torment fit together as the writer intended is more of a sign of peoples limited understanding than the writers plurality.

Jared,

"In this protracted conversation, I've sought to demonstrate a point, and though you've fought against it the whole way, you have helped to demonstrate what I'm talking about."

And what you have fought against the whole way is not that I have implied reason is not used in all methods but that "reason" trumps "scripture."

I do say reason is used but yet Scripture remains the final authority over all of our theological conclusions.

The "best Spiritual answers" come from those who cherish God's Word. They do the least "de-mything." They do the least "allegorizing" and "metaphorizing" unless the genre of scripture calls upon it rather than a straightforward reading. They do the least dividing of what portions are "inspired" and which portions are not.

By the way, who was more "Spirit led" in the issues of the day? The RCC or the Reformers? You failed to answer.

Which and why?

Cheers and Regards,
pat

I'm cross-posting from Pharyngula, slightly changed to make it "nicer" for here. I'm doing it because I don't know that I agree that "reason" is what matters, since the way that reason works depends upon one's premises.

What I find with creationists of various stripes (including IDists) is vastly inconsistent treatment of the evidence, with the only meaningful "premise" being an empirically illegitimate one , that (macro)evolution could not occur. The first paragraph was from someone else's comment:

Surely it's only a matter of time until a creationist decides that cause and effect is a theory in crisis?

The upshot--causality doesn't hold where miracles occur, by definition. So of course it's wrong wherever miracles are already assumed to occur (trot out your favorite IDist "proof" that evolution can't occur, to cover the fact that you're gruesomely inconsistent on causality), but it's right whenever you can "prove" something against atheists or the heathen by using causality.

Glen Davidson

Such difficulties can easily be avoided if we stop looking to the Bible for the answers to all of life's situations. It is only one source, of many that can help us along life's journey.

It surely cannot be the last word in the sciences (we have seen recently problems with such a position: praying for healing and avoiding all medical aid; nor can it be the last word in history, nor answer some of life's major dilemmas we all experience.

It does have good advice, but also some very harmful conclusions that have instigated misery and violence in our world. Making it the sole authority diminishes our reasoning ability and can lead to robotic actions. It shouldn't be necessary to cite examples, but to conclude that the Bible can answer all of life's questions is demeaning to humans who should be learning to trust their own intution and abilities.

It can end in such senseless attitudes as retold of someone in a dire situation who opened the Bible and relied on the first verse to magically give him an answer just for that particular need, which is no different than throwing the dice for an answer. This is biblical abuse, and if the Bible was ever intended to be used in that manner, what led to it if not that the Bible was the final rule of life?

Jared:
I'll tackle #2.

I hear an assumption in the question and the assumption is that when we get more evidence for evolution then people won't be able to object as much. As the fossil record fills in, then people will come to understand and accept evolution. And to that I say, "Don't hold your breath."

There is a woeful lack of understanding about the evidence we have already and as long as teachers are scared to address it in science classes and creationists continue to pump out either ignorantly or purposefully misleading information, the misunderstandings will continue. Many people are primed to accept the information from anti-evolutionists for a variety of reasons and many people learn about evolution by what they hear from anti-evolutionists rather than learning about it directly from those actually doing the science. In addition, there is a very strong resistance to many aspects of it that isn't overcome by more cold hard facts.

Filling in more of the fossil record isn't likely to help. As some creationists would say, "Finding Ida just means now you have two more gaps on either side to fill."

Elaine,

"This is biblical abuse, and if the Bible was ever intended to be used in that manner, what led to it if not that the Bible was the final rule of life?"

The Bible is the final authority for faith and practice on what it speaks of.

Were there better answers from the Bible offerred in the Reformation by the Reformers or RCC? Was it simply better reasoning skills alone? This is a practical question for you and Jared.

Which and why?

regards,
pat

Dalmation,

"Let's assume that all of these methods are completely wrong. the problem is, however, to explain how is it that all these 'inaccurate' methods show the same results...Now that's an 'oddity' that no Creationist has yet benn able to explain."

I have an answer. They all use the same uniformitarian assumptions. If the universe and all of creation slowed down when God withdrew His sustaining presence, then the deceleration would be universal, and mostly undetectable. The foundational laws of physics would have shifted slightly, but they would have all shifted universally. So, hard to prove, impossible to disprove.

PS. This means that I am saying that the methods are not necessarily wrong. So they may be correct within their assumptions. They clearly admit to uniformitarian assumptions, and laugh at the idea of anything other than uniformitarian assumptions. But, these assumptions are not testable. Hence creation can never be defeated on scientific terms.

Beth,

I agree, if finding missing gaps was the answer to disprove creation, then it would have been done long ago. Obviously if evolutionists want us to give up on the faith that God created us humans by supernaturally manipulating the physical, then they are going to have to prove that He did not do that. An impossible task.

Chris,
Actually I think they would agree with you. It is true that some evolutionists want people to give up their belief in God as creator. It is also true that some physicists do and some engineers and even some lawyers. They think it is irrational. But if you listen carefully to what Dawkins et al are saying, they are not arguing that evolution proves God did not interfere. They are arguing, (and rightly so I would say) that evolution is sufficient to explain the diversity (not the origin) of life without supernatural interference and that there is no naturalistic evidence of supernatural interference. Thus, arguing that God interfered somehow is a matter of personal preference and has no place in the PRACTICE of science. And regarding the origin of life, they will keeping looking for naturalistic explanations for that too because that is what science does. Even believers who are scientists do that because that is science. Dawkins argues against God because he thinks it is irrational, not because he thinks evolution (or any other science) can disprove it. It's more about logic to him.

Those arguing against a creationist God might argue that there is no evidence for God and so belief is wishful and even dangerous thinking. But what they do not argue is that science can ever disprove a supernatural creator. They can and do argue (and I agree) that science can support or disprove claims that happen in the material world and would leave evidence that we can study. For example, a world wide flood a few thousand years ago. Or all of life, mostly in its current form, suddenly popping into existence a few thousand years ago. Or that humans are somehow so unique that we can tell they are not products of common ancestry.

Tom:

Sorry for the delay in my reply to your question.
My reply isn’t exactly a reply, just some thoughts on the value and meaning of Christ and human divine interaction (among other things) in the context of evolutionary development. Thank you for sparking interesting thoughts.

I felt that my response was a wee bit too long (and possibly off topic) to post here, so here's a link to my blog where the post can be found:
http://niemandgegenzeitgeist.blogspot.com/

Cheers,
Niemand

Empirical evidence of microevolution (change within species/kinds) can be witnessed and studied; however, there is no empirical evidence that birds came from reptiles.

I think we may be so bold as to say that no amount of breeding over ANY length of time will produce a bird from a reptile. This is not science; it's absurd. To add to this absurdity, it's being taught as fact.

Are there some of you who believe actually believe that once species evolved into another?

Our genes contain our genetic information. There's only so much information. The amount of change is limited to the information present. Please explain to me how information is added to produce another species. TIME is not the magic element my friends. No amount of time will alter the genetic code of any animal to jump outside it's species. Attempting to link the fossil of one species to another by labeling it a missing link is just that--labeling. And just because I say Ida is a missing link doesn't make it so. Sure it's primate skeleton, but any more information beyond what can be empirically deduced is pure speculation.

The only thing that will ever contradict the biblical account of creation will be mans assumptions, opinions, speculations, and misinterpretations.

Some Christians have fixed evolution by adding a theistic element. God used evolution? Not only does the Bible not teach that, it flat out contradicts what the Bible teaches about God's character and the nature of death and how it was introduced.

You cannot pair evolutionary theory with the Bible.

Jared:

Here are my personal thoughts on the seven questions you posed:

1. We should absolutely follow the truth wherever it leads us.

2. What objections are there to the fossil record? I have none as a creationist.

3. If the Bible fails to correspond to our reason or experience, then it's very possible that our reason is faulty and experience misunderstood. If the Bible is the inspired word of God, what basis would I have for thinking that my reasoning could conclude anything superior to it? If the Bible is not the inspired word of God, what basis would I have for thinking my reasoning is superior to anyone else?

4. The condemnation was inappropriate. As I stated earlier, Galileo did not think his theory was contradictory to the Bible; he did think that Rome's interpretation of the Bible was wrong.

5. Adventist scientists should not be loyal to tradition, but to the word of God.

6. Once again this goes back to methods. While the methods may be good, they assumptions are wrong and theirs substantial evidence for that. Once again, if the Bible is the word of God, it will never contradict science and vice versa.

7. Why would they want to be part of the fold? If they continue to teach lies, refusing to confess of their wrong, then yes, they should no longer be in the church. I know quite a few that are in places of influence that don't even believe in God or the Bible, but who continue to masquerade within church institutions. This is one of the greatest forms of hypocrisy: to represent a church in who's beliefs he no longer holds as truth.

Shane,

Thank you for your opinion, bu I would refer you to the many voices in the discussion above. This is your - very particular - interpretation of the Bible. In fact, it is precisely this interpretation that causes religion so much harm. I was very irreligious (and unchristian) until I discovered that the Bible does not have to be interpreted literally. Perhaps it was never intended to. Wherever reason and religious thinking seem to contradict each other (whether the religious thinking is claimed to be based on the Biblie or not), I tend to favour reason. After all we can always change our interpretation of the Bible if we find it to be wrong. And we were wrong about a 7-day creation 6,000 years ago. So very wrong. I don't believe in evolution of the species. I know about it. I would urge you to get at least some basic knowledge of geology, biology and/or paleontology. Good luck!

Pat, you asked:

"Were there better answers from the Bible offerred in the Reformation by the Reformers or RCC? Was it simply better reasoning skills alone? This is a practical question for you and Jared."

I didn't say that I preferred either. People find in the Bible what they are looking for and interpret accordingly.

Were the great philosophers: Aristotle, Plato, Augustine, and all the others wrong? They each made a great contribution to our understanding and moved our ideas along, just as the figures from the Renaissance and Enlightenment. We owe much to all the great thinkers of the past. The Bible is only one source and there is no book or person who has all the wisdom and knowledge. We need the best we can get. Relying on one source seriously limits our knowledge and understanding.

Thanks Niemand

I at least understand you better now. I think the plan of salvation is much clearer than you imply. The first five Chapters of Romans are quite clear. Coupled with the assurance given to the thief on the cross, We can be sure than God in Christ will judge on heart not voice. (See Matt. 25) Tom

I, and a friend, are reading, together, the Bible (Harper Collins Study Bible - New Revised Standard Version), AGAIN, for the FIRST time . . .with the help of the Queer Bible Commentary (Editors Deryn Guest, Robert E. Goss, Mona West, and Thomas Bohace, SCM Press, London, 2006) . . . through the lens of a critical-reading approach instead of the canonical-reading approach.

My "evolution" from being a hard-core, SDA scriptural literalist to a non-Christian Deist was a necessity of survival for me. Thomas Paine with his "The Age of Reason" was the first of several epiphanies in this process.

Some time ago, I found, what I think of, is a doxology of Deism. For me, it is a most comforting concept of my origin, my destiny.

The Word of God

From desert cliff and mountaintop we trace the wide design,
Strike-slip fault and overthrust and syn and anticline...
We gaze upon creation where erosion makes it known,
And count the countless aeons in the banding of the stone.
Odd, long-vanished creatures and their tracks & shells are found;
Where truth has left its sketches on the slate below the ground. [1]
The patient stone can speak, if we but listen when it talks.
Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the rocks.

There are those who name the stars, who watch the sky by night,
Seeking out the darkest place, to better see the light.
Long ago, when torture broke the remnant of his will,
Galileo recanted, but the Earth is moving still [2]
High above the mountaintops, where only distance bars,
The truth has left its footprints in the dust between the stars.
We may watch and study or may shudder and deny,
Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the sky.

By stem and root and branch we trace, by feather, fang and fur,
How the living things that are descend from things that were.
The moss, the kelp, the zebrafish, the very mice and flies,
These tiny, humble, wordless things -- how shall they tell us lies?
We are kin to beasts; no other answer can we bring.
The truth has left its fingerprints on every living thing.
Remember, should you have to choose between them in the strife,
Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote life.

And we who listen to the stars, or walk the dusty grade [3]
Or break the very atoms down to see how they are made,
Or study cells, or living things, seek truth with open hand.
The profoundest act of worship is to try to understand.
Deep in flower and in flesh, in star and soil and seed,
The truth has left its living word for anyone to read.
So turn and look where best you think the story is unfurled.
Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the world.
-- Catherine Faber

http://www.cs.rice.edu/~ssiyer/minstrels/poems/803.html

Yes, to believe that God wrote the rocks, the sky, life, the world . . . with the evidence and faculties of reason that we as human beings have been endowed with, and at least for some of us, this physical written "word" must transcend a mythological story of origin common in ancient Mesopotamia.

But there was a line near the end of that hymn, and that line suggests my obligation . . . "The profoundest act of worship is to try to understand."

For some of us, the two creation stories of Genesis are no longer intellectually, spiritually, emotionally or rationally justifiable as a paradigm of belief of the origin/natural history of this world and the known universe. And yes, when one no longer accepts the first 11 chapters of Genesis as a literal, canonical-rendition of reality, nearly all of the 28 fundamental beliefs of the Seventh-day Adventist church collapse.

As my friend and I read together, the Bible, again, for the first time, our question is constant. What does this tell me/us of God? We have just completed the Book of Judges.

Suffice to say, thank God it is only fiction.

And "Ida," you do have lessons to teach us.

May your death not be in vain.

Kenneth James
kdjamesrd@msn.com

Beth,

Thanks for taking on question number two. I think you raise a good point that more evidence does not guarantee persuasion. In fact, the Adventist lawyer I referenced who wrote his treatise on dinosaurs admitted in an interview that for all intents and purposes, his mind is made up whatever new evidences might surface.

That contradicts Shane Hilde's courageous assertion that he will pursue truth wheresoever it goes. Good on ya for that, Shane (as my Australian friends might say).

Now, one of the objections that the Intelligent Design crowd usually raises is that the gaps in the fossil record are too expansive to demonstrate common ancestry on a broad scale. In that light, it seems fair to suggest that as the fossil record fills in, as it continues to do, there will be less to object about. The question then is, "How should we (people on all sides of the table) respond to the filling in of the fossil record and the fact that the same allows for fewer objections?"

Pat,

I'm not certain why you're asking me to answer questions about whether the Protestants or Catholics appear more "Spirit led" or more biblical, or why that is an especially practical question.

First, I have not invoked the Spirit's leading (in your first incarnation of the question). The onus to demonstrate the Spirit's leading rests with you since you bring that into the conversation on authority, faith and practice. It probably will not work out too well to offer a proposal and then ask me how I would defend it.

Second, the question about whose theological "answers", Protestants' or Catholics', are better according to the Bible presupposes that I will subordinate the Bible to my assessment of what the Bible means, and then I will determine which of the two more closely conforms to my assessment of what the Bible means. So in this instance as in the others, my Reason becomes the arbiter of Scripture.

-----------------------------------

I would invite everybody, not just Pat with whom I've been rambling, to think of an instance or two in which the Scripture was your *final* authority for faith and practice and not Reason.

Every thesis needs to be tested, sooooo....

Kenneth,

Thanks for sharing those comments and for injecting some deep pathos into the spirited conversation. I appreciate the words of the poem--terrific!

Now the following elicited from me what my professor, Fritz Guy, describes as an amiable raised eyebrow:

And yes, when one no longer accepts the first 11 chapters of Genesis as a literal, canonical-rendition of reality, nearly all of the 28 fundamental beliefs of the Seventh-day Adventist church collapse.

I would be curious what convinces you that nearly all of the 28 hinge on a "literal, canonical-rendition of reality."

Jared

A very commendable appeal to reason. In that context, why isn't it reasonable to read the book of Revelation as just that, an "unveiling" a disclosure in a literal sense. Such as Christ speaking directly to the seven churches in Asia (the Roman province in what is now Turkey). Why does the SDA church attempt to convert those simple words into a dispensational application of the church down through the ages? The "unveiling" clearly outlines the three tactics of Satan: persecution, intellectual confusion (gnostic thought), and moral decay. These are depicited variously, as the beast from the sea, the beast from the land, and the whore.

Moreover these three tactics of Satan have been used over and over again to challenge the Church. If God said it was a Revelation why does the SDA Church insist on making it an allagory?

Reason tells us that the seven churches existed in Asia Minor. Reason tells us that each church was bedeviled in different ways by the same evil spirit. It suggests that until Christ puts an end to Divish works those tactics will continue to be used until the end of time.

Finally Reason tells us that the Gospel has been accomplished. Babylon is fallen. Christ reigns supreme.

This idea of making Papal Rome out of Pagan Roman is unreasonable other than to say that each of the seven Church fell at times under the influence of the Beast--be it persecution, intellentual muddling, or moral decay. If nothing less the volumes of the Testimonies would indicate that the SDA Church has not been spared any of the three.

The unreasonable thing is to make a dispensational application to the unveiling. That is the neutering--and Adventism has been in the vanguard of those doing the "cutting". Tom

Hello again to everybody,

tomorrow before SS surely somebody will raise some question like "What do you say about - "

and that is fine. Jared Wright already and veryveryvery promtly had asked this question to "Spectrum" viewers, and they abundantly have shared their opinions with us

and that is fine.

Let me remind you : It was the RC Viennese cardianal archbishop who in New York brought "Intelligent Design" into the headlines. Todays this very man says that of course it is hard to believe in Creation, for in everyday life we observe Evolution here and there - I am sorry, Your Eminence, I only observed decline and decay on the pathway of Entropy all Life and Nature and World is submitted to.

Do you remind SDA scholars dealing with Entropy ?

Let Clifford Goldstein yelp, forget the Creationists, question the Geoscience Institute : Reconsider all those unresolved questions we live with - and we live "by". After all without the "working tool" (David Larson) of Positivism we never could operate one mission health outpost, not speaking of the General Hospital there and there or LLU.

Inbetween I try to maintain one vision in my everyday life, That Man is the very handiwork of the Creator : " God made - better : He formed - , like an artist. The body of Man therefore appears to be a fine artpiece of Gods very hand. See, o man, on every of your sacred limbs there was the fingertouch of God - -". (A commentary of about 1850)

That for me is the message of Gen. 2.

Alwayws to be aware of this -

that would be fine.

Greetings, blessings.

Beth,

Don't buy that. "And regarding the origin of life, they will keeping looking for naturalistic explanations for that too because that is what science does."

There is not any rule that says that science can not discover things that are beyond current knowledge. To suggest that creation is purely beyond science, somehow dismisses the possibility all-together. Science is the search for truth, it can not be so arrogant to say that it will not discover something new or unexpected.

And, science can not go so far as to say that belief in God is irrational. These a-priori assumptions are actually very anti-scientific. Self defeating if you are an open-minded scientist.

Dismissing the un-dismissable is delusional!

It is not as binary as Dawkins et al would have us believe. There is a big difference between assumption and proof. I don't mind science making the assumptions it does, based on the track record it usually seems reasonable. But never forget they are assumptions, and are not proven fact. Also I have learned time and time again, that when we extrapolate data beyond the observable - we better be within the field of testable ranges to make significant claims on. For some reason, this reminds me of the principal of the 'far field' theory dealing with mechanical stress - not sure I can put my finger on exactly why yet.

Some of the 'softer' sciences go beyond that - most especially evolution - not all of biology, not all of evolution, just some aspects of evolution break these rules. Breaking these rules does not work for any science that has delivered any real benefits to our society.

Scientific speculation needs to lead to repeatable testable discoveries. And still, the speculation is not proven if the testable discoveries are not directly testing the original speculation. So, the whole falsifiablity debate...

I have no problem with speculation, it is required to advance science - to gain new knowledge. So, even more reason to not dismiss speculation about God. Speculation does not disprove anything.

Although it is theoretically possible for fish to to be able to evolve into birds or reptiles, or whichever way around the argument is these days. But it is not practically realistic, it is still a stretch to fathom. I see room to question the fact that it had to have occured that way.

It is possible for science to one day understand how God created. Science meaning human understanding, will be able to achieve that, when it is revealed to us. For me to believe that there is no possible scientific explanation, means that I believe it was not real.

Anyway, back to the binary thing. Religion and science are not that far removed really. To suggest that they are, limits both of them. This distinct magisterium business, it relegates religion to the imaginary. And it puts a border around science limiting it to only what is currently known and visible about our existence now.

This border around science is artificial, and counter-productive. And relegating religion to the imaginary makes it no longer a 'true' belief, but a fantasy. Yet Dawkins is driving this fallacious wedge as hard as he can - and people are buying it.

Both science and religion search for truth. Religion is more advanced in it's speculation, and science accepts the speculation only after it 'sees' how. But that does not mean that it is impossible for science to catch up, and humans to understand 'how'. It does not mean that God is not real.

So, yes I agree that speculations are not 'scientific' until we understand 'how', and repeatably so. This is one of the defining attributes of science. But to say that we can not speculate beyond current scientific understanding... to deny science any speculation, to say that God's actions should be left out of the equation, says that God's actions can never ever be revealed to us in reality. To make a rule that God's actions can't be considered as possible - is a serious insult to believers - and a mockery of the scientific method - which requires speculation to start with.

Science should not assume God's actions, nor should it start with ruling them out all-together either.

If science shows that it is possible for scales to evolve into feathers, (and lets say that we could even demonstrate that - like the scales on chickens legs or around it's eyes - if you didn't eat it as an egg first :)), it could not prove that is how it actually did happen that way in the past. According to evolution, it would also be possible for the feathers to evolve into scales. Therefore, which way is correct? Both possibilities remain open.

One of the difficulties is that science is not simply the search for what did happen, it is actually more the search for what could have happened, and it is also the search for what could possibly happen in the future. Then we make a judgement call (which is often wrong). I think of evolution in the category that explores what could have happened - that allows me room to respect it, even though I believe in creation.

Quite often science reveals more than one possibility. And sometimes, that is all that science can do - it often can not turn around and say that the other possibility is impossible - without properly disproving it! If science could truly turn around and say that something is impossible like 'creation is impossible' for example, then it is also opening the door for irreducible complexities - which also point out the impossible! But, some scientists deny irreducible complexities, by saying that it has to leave the door open of what is possible. Hello, see the contradiction?

Science has to accept the possibilities are possible until proven otherwise. If not, it becomes contradictory. Reductio ad absurdum on its own philosophy if it does not accept the possibilities are possible.

That's why I can agree that irreducible complexities do not disprove evolution. But it's also part of the reason why I know that science can not disprove creationism.

We can make a guess at which possibility we want, but it is not science making that choice, it is us - weighing up the evidence, like in a court case. Dawkins' philosophy is simply the lowest common denominator. He should be talking about the facts that give weight to the possibility he wants us to believe instead of doing exactly what the irreducible complexity camp are doing in trying to disprove the opposition.

Tom,

"If God said it was a Revelation why does the SDA Church insist on making it an allagory?"

Maybe 'cos of all the dragons and multi headed beasts and stuff.

PS, it talks about the end of Satan and sin. Is that allegorical?

The questions that arise for me are different than the questions that arise for Jared. I have less time than I would like to phrase them well, but mine are not the scaffold of doubt that I sense Jared is building. Must every "fossil" newly produce a controversy? It does not for me. I believe that darwinian scientists have a "thus far and go no further" attitude as clearly as hardcore conservative adventists do.

So here are just a couple of questions that this article brings up for me:

1. Was the monkey someone's pet?
2. If so, what was it's name?
3. Did animals also have a longer life span before the flood?
4. So it was found in a mine? How deep? If deep, how did it come to be buried so deeply?
5. What does it show about the monkey that shows that it's an early human ancestor? Seeing as the scientists are dating it as a very old monkey indeed.
6. If our point of view is that the theory of evolution is true, how different should we expect a very ancient monkey to be compared with a current live monkey? One claw different?
7. What in this article actually relates to a reexamination of Adventist teaching and the Bible, other than a realization that Adventist teaching and the Bible don't do much for the theory of evolution.

Cheers,
Seth

# Are we serious about pursuing truth wherever it leads us or are we best served by adopting a "thus far and no further" approach? Why?

Yes of course. To suggest otherwise is ridiculous (and insulting.)

# As the fossil record gradually fills in, and relieves us of our objections, how should we respond? Why?

The same as always. This has nothing to do with the real objections.

# The Wesleyan Quadrilateral includes, in addition to Scripture and Tradition, Reason and Experience as ways of forming theological conclusions. If Tradition and Scripture continually fail to correspond with Reason and Experience, should we discard Reason and/or Experience? Why/Why not?

Don't be silly. Its a monkey in a rock.

# When Galileo, a scientist, was condemned by the Church for challenging a theological truth claim based on his scientific understanding, was the condemnation appropriate at that time? Why/Why not?

Appropriate? May be / or not. Unexpected, not sure.

# What should scientists employed by the Adventist church do if their findings cease to run parallel with traditional Adventist teachings? Why?

Impossible. See my verbose response above - sorry it was not distilled very well.

# If Ida turns out to be as old as she appears, can Adventist teachings survive? Why/Why not?

If you accept the dating assumptions, that is your choice. It does not mean we have to accept them. 'turns out to be' is not honest scientific language when the assumptions are not testable. This is human inference type language, which is not adequate when it is disputable.

# Will the Adventist church be better off if its "Seventh-day Darwinian" members (to borrow a phrase from Cliff Goldstein) leave the fold (to borrow a recommendation from Cliff Goldstein)? Why/Why not?

Hmm, no - it would be a loss to lose anyone. But, they are clearly not holding to the fundamentals of the church. Science can not disprove the churchs position, so why do they have an issue? The church might appear to be wrong. For example, it appears impossible that someone can come back to life from death. So what, we are Christians, and we believe in creation as well. Neither of these things can be disproved, and it is not normally a problem if they are hard for us to prove now. Why should this be any different?

Bottom line, the church clearly makes untestable assumptions, and evolution makes counter untestable assumptions. They (science) should be honest about their assumptions, realise that it is impossible to scientifically disprove the creation model, and then there is no conflict.

Hey Jag:

True we do make our own interpretations of meaning, but the Bible states that it is the final authority on how it should be interpreted. The Bible interprets itself through a careful comparison (Isa. 28:10). Even the symbolic language is explained within the Bible itself. Now there is nothing to indicate that there is anything symbolic about a six day creation in Genesis. What reason do you have for thinking these days are note literal?

I fail to see how our reason can be the ultimate source of truth. We are such an extremely selfish race, that's hardly reasonable because ultimately a self-serving mentality crumbles. God does invite us to reason, but remember that our reasoning can always be mislead. There is nothing sure about our reasoning.

"Life is an experience to be lived, NOT a problem to be solved.

Likely the closest we can get to truth is that "Existence is self evident"

"Life is a perception"

Several facts that are common to all humankind, all humankind kind has an opinion about God and they are all wrong.

Where is present truth in all this?

The basic principle as revealed in the ten precepts is LOVE.
Love however is not a feeling but a principle of life that has its existence in the development of the human brain that as it is understood better can lead us all to a more peaceful way to live in harmony while we are here.

Our scriptures themselves say that Yeshua- Jesus will never abandon those for whom he died and that he died for all humankind. The great question is can we trust HIM to save ALL his children and can he do so without violating our freedom of choice? He said HE would convict ( I like convince a lot better myself ) all of sin and of righteousness. The life experinece with all its attendent opportunies and struggles to develope that choice should not cause us undue paranoia. Real choice comes toward the end of lifes experience not at twelve years off age.

I find myself freer than ever to question and to expect my higher power to answer those question with out threat of rejection or punishment. His acceptence just as I am gives me the courage to look at all the evidence as the one whom we call GOD reveals himself to us who cannot know him except as he reveals himself to us. There is NO fear in LOVE.

Let us enjoy the life experence in the context of assurance that GOD is able to do all that he has promised with full assurance. Lifes experience is the only way to give human kind a real experiential choice.

Inshallah. Salaam Aleykim.

Jay,

"Life is a perception"

One might ask the "pollyanna Wall Street cheerleaders of 2007" how that formula works when meeting "reality."

Shalom

"And regarding the origin of life, they will keeping looking for naturalistic explanations for that too because that is what science does."
Beth

Beth
If scientists were worth their supper the statement would read;
And regarding the origin of life, they will keeping looking for explanations because that is what science does."

To even classify the type of explainations is to taint/slant the research.

In many ways the difference between the 2 statements is what these debates are all about.

Seth,

Hi, I don't think we've met. I'm Jared. I've lived in Rwanda, Thailand, Texas, Tennessee, Honduras, California (currently), and Massachusetts. I'm married but don't have kids, and I'm working on an M.Div at an Adventist institution. And you?

Now to allege that someone is building a scaffold of doubt is one thing. To demonstrate it is another thing altogether. You've done the former. Are you planning to demonstrate what you mean? Doubt what?

Chris,

"Don't be silly. Its a monkey in a rock."

Thanks for so artfully setting the record straight (no pun intended).

Shane,

"...the Bible states that it is the final authority on how it should be interpreted. The Bible interprets itself through a careful comparison (Isa. 28:10). Even the symbolic language is explained within the Bible itself."

Someone might ask you this:

1. Where does the Bible state that it is the final authority on how it should be interpreted?

2. How does the Bible interpret itself? Does it describe which passage interprets which?

3. How do you know which passage to compare with which passage?

Nobody has said at any point that Reason is the ultimate source of truth. But your answers to questions two and three will reveal that it necessarily supercedes Scripture in questions of faith and practice.

If that last point is desmonstrably false, I suspect someone will demonstrate it forthwith.

All the dating methods are completely irrelevant to Christians, Christianity and Creationism. The assumptions required to accept all radiometric dating as valid come from Naturalism-methodological and/or Metephysical. Within Creationism, the assumptions are invalid and so isometric dating is completely irrelevant.

Also, in order for this to be considered a missing link, one must already accept that corollary of Naturalism, evolutionism. Since creationists reject both, naturalism and evolutionism, Ada is nothing more that a curious, interesting fossil of an extinct kind of animal worthy of intense study. But, there is no evolution, so there is no missing link to be found. There is genetic variation within kinds and Ada may be a separate kind or simply a variation within a kind. It is worth studying to see how God's designed in genetic variation works.

There is nothing here to get too worked up over.....

Allen Roy
Dino Hunter
Bozeman, MT

Jared,

After you do your Greek exegetical paper developing the "preferred meaning" of a text using the textual apparatus perhaps we can talk again.

There is among many progressive/liberal theologians a dislike/avoidance of Systematic Theology as a part of developing meaning.

I won't change the original intent of this strand though it is most certainly linked.

regards,
pat

I'm not sure what your suggestion changes.

Should we be looking for God's meaning of the text? The text's meaning of the text? Systematic theology's meaning of the text?

How are we going to arrive at the "proper" meaning of the text (as if there is one correct meaning and all others are false), whether God's or the text's or mine or any other?

I thought we agreed a while ago that to arrive at the meaning of the text, we use our best judgment and exegetical tools.

How would systematic theology change anything that we've said thus far?

One tool illustrating how does the Bible interpret itself?
This "situation" can be noted by a casual but "earnest" reader by the way.

regards,
pat

Pat:

Pardon my ignorance, but I thought it was the Adventist "Biblical Scholars" who avoid systematic theology (read: religious philosophy) like the plague. Many Adventists obsess about tying SDA doctrine to specific Biblical passages and well-define (in the Bible) Biblical notions (even though many of their ties seem questionable at best). I know of Adventist "Biblical Scholars" who would be almost offended if I called them theologians.

Chris,
I am the first to admit that I can explain my point so much that I end up making it less clear instead of more clear. And clearly I have done so. So let me try again.

I agree that science cannot prove or disprove God. And so do all the atheists that I have ever read who are arguing against God. Atheists make their arguments based on logic - i.e. it is illogical to believe in something for which there is no evidence. Many believers try and use science to prove God which is a losing proposition IMO but I disagree that it goes the other way - that Dawkins et al try and use science to disprove God.

As to the rest of your argument. I apologize that I can't give it the full time and attention it deserves - things are a little tight today. I would just say that you and I have a very different perspective on the concrete evidence that evolution is based on. It's not like thinking life appeared suddenly recently is just as speculative as saying life shows a long pattern of evolution. One is based on a totality of evidence that contradicts the other. They aren't two equally plausible possibilities that we can choose based on personal preference.

Neimand,

It is but one tool to be integrated. Literary,Thematic,Historical...

These indeed do also integrate with community and Individual Christian experience with Sola Scriptura as the center reference point.

regards,
pat

Jared:

1. Where does the Bible state that it is the final authority on how it should be interpreted?

If God is the souce of all wisdom (Prov. 1:7), and all scripture is inspired by God (2 Tim. 3:16), then wouldn't it follow that if the Bible says we should compare precept with precept, line upon line, study here a little, study there a little (Isa. 28:10), that we should do just that?

God says the heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked (Jer. 17:9). He also says to trust in the Lord with all our heart, and not to lean on our own understanding. If our heart is deceptive and our own understing inadequate, then it stands that we should not rely on our own way of interpreting, but let God's word be interpreted by its own means, within itself.

2. How does the Bible interpret itself? Does it describe which passage interprets which?

While I already answered part of this question in question 1, there is an aspect which I did not mention and that is we must ask God for wisdom (James 1:5).

3. How do you know which passage to compare with which passage?

God has given us the ability to reason, without this we would not be able to discern the method by which we are to study the Bible. This is an interesting question. I've never heard that question before, but Isaiah 28:10 answers that question.

Shane:

The point that I think Jared and others (myself included) would like to make is that the Bible isn't clear. Which precepts and lines? Do they come from the Bible? You assume that Isaiah was talking about the Bible (maybe he was), but there was no Bible in his day (maybe he was talking about Torah, in which case it might be reasonable to extend Torah to all of Scripture today). But, alas, it is not clear, and to make it clear, we build models, much as in science, and even if the Bible itself is infallible (a view I do not hold), our interpretations of it certainly are not.

You point out that God is the source of all wisdom. That statement and the statement that the Bible is the source of all wisdom are not in any way synonymous. Surely the Bible is not the only Revelation of God (Nature as God's second book). Reason must be applied, as you point out, so we can come to reasonable interpretations. Reasonable assumptions are called for. How do we know if our assumptions are reasonable? In my mind, assumptions are reasonable if they lead to a consistent system: internally coherent, and consistent with other knowledge (things we are certain of beyond reasonable doubt and barring future shocking revelations indicating something entirely to the contrary of current knowledge).

OK Shane, very well.

Now, regarding your first response--

Is it fair to say that what you have done is that you have selected three verses (not because the Bible told you to select those three verses but because your understanding is that those three verses would apply) and then you used your understanding of what those three verses mean to come up with what you understand to be a valid way of interpreting Scripture? So that in actual fact, is it fair to say that the method of interpreting Scripture you are getting at (and you haven't actually stated what that method is yet) is your method, not the Bible's, strictly speaking?

Regarding your second response--

When you ask for wisdom, what comes next? Assuming God grants you wisdom, what are you going to do with it? How does your new found wisdom impact the way you interpret and apply Scripture?

Regarding your third response--

How did you decide that Isaiah 28:10 answers the question about which passage to compare with which? Did Isaiah 28 tell you that it answers the question or was there some other way by which you deduced it?

---------------------------------------

This conversation has revealed an undeniable disparity between what we say is happening and what is actually happening, and the sooner we acknowledge the disparity, the sooner we can begin making sense of discoveries like Ida the fossilized primate.

The disparity is this:

We say we are not relying on our own understanding and we say our rule for faith and practice is "Sola Scriptura." In actual fact, when we examine what we do, and we begin asking questions about how we come to know something (epistemology) and how we apply what we know (praxis), we are relying on our own understanding at every step of the way. It is unavoidable. There is no possible way that we can read Scripture, interpret Scripture, and apply Scripture without subjecting it to our own understanding at each turn.

I am not making an ethical/philosophical argument about what ought to be. I am offering an ontological statement of what is.

Can we stop running away from the unavoidable reality that we always inevitably subject Scripture to our Reason (i.e. our own understanding) and proceed?

Neimand,

To say that the Bible "isn't clear" does not mean that there are not better understandings by a thorough love and study of the text, that I suggest does create a "self -revelation" from the scripture. Despite some post modern thinking, I suggest words do have meaning and the thoughts derived from them.

All of us indeed do have our presuppositions including those who say it is "not clear." So they resist any noticeable internal continuity from a "common author" because they relish "mystery." Some on the other hand seek such concreteness that they eisegete meaning to make it work.

I have said enough for a while on this strand...forgive me...I have "cabin fever" as it has been raining almost non stop for a week in Orlando interupting my other usual activities. "Fellow Readers" have suffered from my "excess time."

Jared, please understand that I am not saying that reason is not used...I am saying that sola scripture does maintain the position of judging "our reasoning processes" and that "better interpretation" is possible though not infalliable.

I am saying spirituality and the best exegesis are inseparable...because of the disposition and presuppositions of the searcher.

I can live in life with "better choices."

regards,
pat

Evolution = science? If you believe that contact me as I have a bridge I need to sell! Someone mentioned how science has been all over the ballpark trying to figure our the origin of mankind. It's nothing more than a theory.

Scripture has made it quite clear and the true SDA church will never deviate from a literal six day creation. While I may have missed it I didn't see any reference made to the book, ORIGINS, by Ariel Roth, a scientist. A scientist, incidentally, who is not afraid to confront the puzzles that the Creationist encounters. Read it you may learn something!

All our speculative assertions will one day be put to rest when He comes in the clouds of glory.

While I may not *always* agree with Cliff he hit it spot on with his article about Darwinian Seventh-day Adventists.

Niemand:

True, not every thing is clearly understood in the Bible, and thus requires more than just a superficial reading. Good question, what precepts and lines is he talking about? We can know from the context of verse 9 that Isaiah is asking who God shall teach knowledge and wisdom to(28:9).

I think verse 13 answers your question best when it says "the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little...."

So these "precepts" and "lines" are God's word. True, we do build models, but these should come from the Word of God (Bible).

What do you mean when you say you don't believe the Bible is infallible? As in it's not the infallible expression of God's will?

I agree that the Bible is not the only source of wisdom. I didn't say that Bible was the source of all wisdom. I was merely creating a simple syllogism.

1. God is the source of wisdom
2. The Bible is God's word
3. Thus wisdom comes from God's word.

The Bible says that sin entered in through one man, Adam (Romans 5:12). The effect of sin is death. The Bible does not say he used death to create the animals. He spoke and it happened. This contradicts the process of evolution by natural selection--remember I'm talking about the evolution from species to species.

Jared:

1. Is it fair to say that what you have done is that you have selected three verses (not because the Bible told you to select those three verses but because your understanding is that those three verses would apply) and then you used your understanding of what those three verses mean to come up with what you understand to be a valid way of interpreting Scripture?

I did select the verses on my own, yes. I did assume that the verses were inspired by God and thus ultimately the truth. I'm not trying to discuss whether we should use our reason. That is a moot point. I thought we were talking about method of interpretation. Of course we must use reason, but what assumptions is that reason based on. That's what is going to cause us to interpret the Bible differently. For example, these are the assumptions I make:

1. the Bible is fully inspired

2. the Bible is fully trustworthy

3. the Bible is absolutely authoritative in all that it teaches or touches upon

4. there are no internal discrepancies, contradictions, or inconsistencies in Scripture; this diversity in Scripture.

Those are my assumptions, but until these assumptions are proven false I think it is quite reasonable to believe that they are true based on the evidence provided.

It is because of these assumptions that I promote the method of letting the Bible explain itself: yes, this requires us to reason. What is our reason being guided by, and what is it based on?

Personal Note: You probably don't remember me, but we have met before. I graduated from La Sierra University in '05. So we don't know each other, but we've met. Small world.

Michael said:

"If scientists were worth their supper the statement would read;
And regarding the origin of life, they will keeping looking for explanations because that is what science does."
To even classify the type of explainations is to taint/slant the research."

Could we maybe agree on the following?

"Regarding the origin of life (and other mysteries of life), human beings will keep looking for explanations. Scientists, when they are doing science, will stick to naturalistic explanations because that is what science does. However, those same scientists, when they are not doing science, are free to use other methods."

To suggest that science should include an very broad pursuit of knowledge is to make a mockery of the definition of science. It becomes meaningless. I could call the casting of chicken bones to predict the future science. I could call praying for divine guidance science. Both are ways of trying to gain knowledge but they ain't science.

Science is a particular way and method of gaining knowledge. Of course it is going to classify the type of explanation it uses and while one could argue that that taints/slants the research, it is still valid to define science as a particular pursuit of knowledge and contrast it with other methods like theology.

Shane,

I saw your profile on FB and I thought I recognized you.
Small world indeed. I don't remember when and where we met though.

I appreciate your laying your cards on the table by stating your suppositions. They don't, however, change the thesis I've offered:

We say we are not relying on our own understanding and we say our rule for faith and practice is "Sola Scriptura." In actual fact, when we examine what we do, and we begin asking questions about how we come to know something (epistemology) and how we apply what we know (praxis), we are relying on our own understanding at every step of the way.

The consequence of my thesis, in case it is ambiguous, is that reason is actually "ultimate" if that's the language you want to use. Again, I'm not saying that's how it ought to be or how I want it to be, but how it inevitably is.

Beth:

I agree that "science is a particular way and method of gaining knowledge."

Science is limited in that it can only deal with what can actually be tested. Am I wrong?

Jared:

I think I understand your these. I'd agree with it. Our reason is ultimately the way we understand and interpret things? Is that the gist of what you mean?

Jared,

Regarding your statement:

"It is unavoidable. There is no possible way that we can read Scripture, interpret Scripture, and apply Scripture without subjecting it to our own understanding at each turn...

Can we stop running away from the unavoidable reality that we always inevitably subject Scripture to our Reason (i.e. our own understanding) and proceed?"

Yes, I think it is undeniable that we read everything (including Scripture) through a lens (reason, experience, tradition, etc.), or with prejudices.

It would be a mistake, however, to claim that this is the only thing that happens. There is a "hermenuetical circle." The text, or new experiences, challenges our assumptions.

Sometimes we are less open to this than we should be, but unless we live in a world that we have created, or are reading a Bible that we have written, we can not rid ourselves of this alterity.

So, in other words, its a two way street. We read the text through a lens, but the text also alters the lens.

I'm not talking about just the Bible either, but other texts as well, and experiences as well.

Science is limited in that it can only deal with what can actually be tested. Am I wrong?

Much of the advancement in science has come from being very clever about those tests. The experiment has to be reproducible - but the reproduction can take place in an environment which can not be reproduced but which is repeatedly accessible.

For example: We can't reproduce a star - but we can run repeated tests on the same star.

This means that we can study the current earth with science to construct a plausible history for it, and we can test that history by using it to make predictions about other tests of the current earth.

People who claim decay rate changes need to remember that our telescopes, aimed into space, are recording the spectra of stars which are a long way away, and hence whose light has been travelling for a long time...

/Bevin

Zane,

Right. Precisely. Now every step of the hermeneutical circle is ultimately governed by_______________________. And you can guess what I'll say, because I've said it a time or two already.

:-)

Bevin:

Yes, the assumption that radioactive decay and half-lives is relatively constant is based on numerous scientific studies; however we're still assuming that the conditions have never changed and that those changes could never have influenced the rate of decay or formation of radioactive elements.

Now, there is no proof that rates were different in the past, but there also no proof that they were the same. Thus radiometric dating relies purely on assumptions. Also, more than 50% of radiocarbon dates from geological and achaeological samples from northereastern North America have been considered unacceptable (1).

Scientists place great faith in this dating method and yet more than 50% of radiocarbon dates from geological and archaeological samples of northeastern North America have been deemed unacceptable after investigation. Perhaps that percentage has changed since 1977.

Here are four counter arguments to the constancy of the scientific assumptions:

1. The constancy of cosmic ray bombardment might be questioned. The flood could have distrupted post-flood environment.

2. An increase in the magnetic field of the earth would have shielded the earth from cosmic rays. Some scientists argue that the magnetic field of the earth has declined over time.

3. Specimens could look much older than they actually are if C-14 reservior had mixed with much larger reserviors of C-12 at the time of the flood.

4. Even if the rate of decay is constant, without knowledge of the exact ratio of carbon-12 to carbon-14 in the initial sample, the dating technique is subject to question.

I'll have to get back to you on the star light. I haven't read much of anything on that topic. I'll do some research on that.

1. J. Ogden III, "Annals of the New York Academy of Science," 288 (1977): 167-173.

Jared,

One closing thought.

How might you understand this thought in Hebrews 4:12 that I suggest is related to 5:13 & 6:5 in that, I suggest, they do relate to a given/revealed “authentic command” Word?

“For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.” Heb.4 :12.

It seems your premise and possibly Dave's of “no sola scriptura” relates to our reason interpreting scripture in an infallible way developed by our reason and constructs. I am not saying or suggesting that. I am saying inherent in God’s Word is the ability to investigate our innermost motives and reasoning’s. In this sense our best reasonings are yet subject to Sola Scriptura. He will use His Word on the day of Judgment to point out our thoughts, attitudes and reasonings.

Is there a reason you decline saying weather the Reformers interpretation in any way excels the RCC?

If so How and Why?

A nice weekend to all from “not so sunny” Florida.

Regards,
pat

Could we maybe agree on the following?

"Regarding the origin of life (and other mysteries of life), human beings will keep looking for explanations. Scientists, when they are doing science, will stick to naturalistic explanations because that is what science does. However, those same scientists, when they are not doing science, are free to use other methods."

Posted by: Beth | 22 May 2009 at 5:53

I dont believe that is what science does. Not true science.

It could be we are all wrong about everything we ever thought and Aliens created our genome in a labratory test tube by an accident that even they dont understand.
What if life here was seeded from somewhere else?
How is naturalistic explainations going to figure that out?

By definition Science doesnt rule anything out without hard proof.
Naturalistic is probably the worst way to consider the origin of life.
First it excludes outside interaction. Wheres the proof to exclude that?
Second, by definitions it also excludes un-natural explainations. Events or convergences of forces so rare and infrequent that even God has only seen it once.
If science wants to be seen as the persuit of empirical truth no matter what, then why would they overly narrow what could be truth by assuming only naturalistic explainations?

Jared,

"Now every step of the hermeneutical circle is ultimately governed by_______________________."

You want to say "reason." Pat wants to say "text." You have your prejudices, and so does he. =)

I don't think it's a either/or, but a dynamic interplay.

We want to mold the text it into our image, but if we keep reading it, it resists us.

This cuts both ways and challenges both the evolutionist that wants to reduce all miracles to myth and the inerrentist who thinks the Bible is science manual.

Scripture defies both categories.

Shane wrote:

"there are no internal discrepancies, contradictions, or inconsistencies in Scripture"

This displays either little knowledge of the Bible, or abysmal ignorance in understanding how the Bible was written or compiled.

There are hundreds of discrepancies in Scripture; there
is no reason to even think there should be consistency as the Bible is composed of many writers, at different times, with differing agendas, and was first orally transmitted for generations before being written. Once written it then became static and could be referred to for any errors; prior to that, it relied on the memories of people over centuries, even millennia of time. Since God did not make make humans free of all error, how can it be concluded that everything man wrote was both inerrant and infallible? Where is the evidence? Not internally in the Scripture.

Elaine:

You think there are "hundreds of discrepancies"? What is the nature of these alleged discrepancies?

I'm well aware of how the Bible was written. Perhaps we're talking about different kinds of discrepancies. I would agree that there were transmission errors in Scripture, which can be easily ascertained and corrected by comparing the plethora of available manuscripts. When it comes to historical facts and truth, there is no error.

Scripture was inspired by God and written down through human language. I've heard of plenty of alleged discrepancies, but nothing that held any weight once actually studied out.

Please give the three biggest discrepancies you've seen in the Bible. I want to see these for myself.

Just because a person has the gift of prophecy for a word doesn't mean every word they speak is prophecy. This is a huge error of the SDA denomination. Balaam's Ass prophesied. God was mad at King Saul and in the presence of David he feel down on his face and prophecied. These are clear instances that the gift is temporal.No instance in scripture is given where every word of the prophet is inspired.Thankfully not every word of the old testament prophets are today available.
The teaching of amalgamation is purely against the teaching of God's Holy Word and anyone that believes this teaching is clearly being misled.
First Consider God's Word
Ge 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
Ge 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Here God said "after kind" five times and "it was SO"
Secondly consider that science has tried to amalgamate species. Time and time again amalgamation has proven impossible. The atheist of the world would love to see this amalgamation done against the word of God.Lets amalgamate man and monkey today to prove this teaching, lets amalgamate dogs and cats for the perfect pet satisfying everyones desires in a pet. Let us prove this teaching. Many have tried !.
Thirdly to believe the amalgamation garbage(a huge embarassment)one would have to credit man with creating something that God did not create. This teaching is pure garbage and it is time that we realize that not everyword spoken was purely from God. Please consider careful study of the above scriptures.

Jared,

But it is. It is a monkey in a rock. Do you disagree? This is the 'fact' that no one disputes - well at least we all assume it was a monkey, but even that is an assumption - it could be a complete hoax too - wouldn't be the first time. But I think most of us will accept it is a monkey in a rock. And because most of us will accept it, then it can be considered the only 'fact' established so far. The rest is speculation, conjecture, and assumption.

The dating methods are all based on the same uniformitarian assumptions - so I would expect all of them to give similarly long ages. I don't have to believe the uniformitarian assumptions.

My complaint is that you are not presenting all of the assumptions being made. To be honest, in science, we are supposed to clearly explain the assumptions to start with. Then we know the limitations of the conclusions are within those assumptions.

While the scientific validity of the conclusions has any dispute, then we should not require any shift in our religious beliefs. To suggest that we should, means that we should ignore the scientific challenges to the issue. Should we shift our belief system because some scienctific research suggests that our belief system is unlikely?

Do we believe Jesus rose from the dead? That is even more of a challenge to conventional scientific knowledge, than is creation. Yet we believe it anyway.

As in way of explanation for my 'short' answer, I tend to normally use too many words. I know that long answers get glossed over - I gloss over them myself. And often I end up writing more than is ideal. I tried a short answer approach to your questions.

Sorry for the double post, my internet connection has gone mad.

Beth,

What does 'naturalistic' even mean? If it is not purely tautological, then it's meaning, as I read it, is to say that science can not start with speculating on the unknown.

I say that science has to start with a question, rather than starting with an answer. The philosophy of science demands this.

Speculation, includes statements like 'an as yet unknown mechanism'. If that sort of statement is legitimate science, then the naturalistic rule can not be used as the starting point.

The naturalistic rule can only be used at the end point, when we know all of the mechanisms, and we can agree and establish a conclusion. But even then the conclusion is only valid within it's assumptions.

When 'naturalistic' is used in the context that you have put it, it is understood to mean that God's actions are not allowed to be used in any explanation. But! That means that God's actions can not interact with our reality! That is not what we believe, and it should not be what science teaches. And it goes against the philosophy of science.

So, I dispute the 'naturalistic' word in your summary of the philosophy of science.

Beth,

PS. The point that you raised about the weight of evidence seems valid. But I still think about the weight of evidence that we can not come back to life after death. Yet we believe in the resurretion.

I don't dispute the weight of evidence. But you have to acknowledge that it all uses the same assumptions.

We have reason to believe in the resurrection. And we have reason to believe in creation.

Beth,

Also, some athiests that I know, are not so mistaken in their logic as Dawkins is. They have not sold as many book either.

A monkey in a rock!

Is that what this discussion has de-evolved too?

Ida, you deserve better than that. You have so much to teach me, to some of us, to those who are willing to learn.

But, of course, you are only a monkey in a rock! What would you know?

The deniers won't even recognize or acknowledge your very existence, without it being a hoax or something. At best, a creative practical joke just to confuse everybody on when-was-when.

But you are only a monkey in a rock.

A monkey.

A rock.

A testimony.

That can fracture a religion.

That can heal a soul.

Thank you Ida. I for one will let you speak to me as yet another one of the Words of God.

Kenneth James
kdjamesrd@msn.com
http://therefectorymanager.blogspot.com/

I think Ellen made it pretty clear that she was referring to "certain races of men," in her infamous amalgamation claim. Indeed, her apologists (including her husband) even filled in the blanks about which races those might be (what one might expect in that racist age). Since she was no stranger to defending herself with voluminous verbiage, she never corrected the record and so one must assume that it is correct as stated. Indeed, she even labeled such kinds of scientific inquiry the "sciences of satanic origin" (presumably because they refuted and continue to refute her own ill-informed opinions).

"A monkey in a rock!

"Is that what this discussion has de-evolved too?

"Ida, you deserve better than that. You have so much to teach me, to some of us, to those who are willing to learn.

**Backwards.... everything learned from Ida is interpretation of the fact that she's a monkey in a rock. Fossils cannot speak, they are interpreted within paradigms.

"But, of course, you are only a monkey in a rock! What would you know?

**Fossils don't know anything

"The deniers won't even recognize or acknowledge your very existence, without it being a hoax or something. At best, a creative practical joke just to confuse everybody on when-was-when.

**Ada is no hoax, just the fossil remains of an extinct animal. It's supposed fit in evolutionism--an unimaginative imaginary fairy tail for grownups who lost their ability to think critically. But really it's just interpreted within evolutionism

"But you are only a monkey in a rock.

"A monkey.

"A rock.

"A testimony.

**There is no testimony, just raw data. There is just interpretation of that data within evolutionism which is making up all this slop.

"That can fracture a religion.

**If an imaginary tale can fracture your religion, you got no real religion.

"That can heal a soul.

**What soul? In Evolutionism there is no soul.... There are no creatures (i.e. things created by a Creator) just souless evolutes....

"Thank you Ida. I for one will let you speak to me as yet another one of the Words of God.

**Ida can be interpreted within the fold of creationism as one kind of God's amazing creatures. Evolutionism and God are mutually exclusive.

Allen
Dino Hunter
Bozeman, MT

Most of this stuff about Ada is Media hype. Saner scientific heads in the evolutionary community are voicing huge concerns about the validity of the claims. see: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/05/21/ida-real-story

Allen
Dino Hunter
Bozman, MT

I take it back. It is more than a monkey in a rock. It is a 'money monkey in a rock'

What's the definition of science?

Here's what the National Academy of Sciences, arguably the most prestigious science organization in the world says:

Science:
The use of evidence to construct testable explanations and predictions of natural phenomena, as well as the knowledge generated through this process.

Out of the approximately 2,100 NAS members, 200 are Nobel Prize winners. It is considered the highest honor in science to get elected next to the Nobel Prize. And before anyone continues to claim that evolution doesn't fit that definition, NAS has also put out a statement saying that evolution is most certainly science and the main tenants of it are so well established scientifically that they are fact.

So maybe they were just having a bad day when they came up with their definition of science and when all the very top scientists from all those various disciplines agreed that evolution is science and it happened. I'm sure they would welcome letters from the non-scientists pointing out their obvious error and educating them about what science really is.

http://nationalacademies.org/evolution/

Beth

Evolution makes use of science but it is of itself a science, except in the sense of process not outcome. The nature of beginnings is beyond the reach of either science or reason. Both are a leap of faith. Tom

Not a bad def. of Science. The problem is that Evolutionism is not a hypothesis to be tested. It is not a testable explanation. Creationism is not a hypothesis to be tested. These are both assumptions within which science is done. The real issue between Creationism and evolutionism has nothing to do with science. Rather it is everything to do with which philosophy you do your science within--Naturalism/Evolutionism or Creationism.

Nice Argumentum ad verecundiam. Too bad such appeals are logical fallacies. See: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#authority. But what else could we expect.

Allen
Dino Hunter
Bozeman, MT

Allen

You are going to get wet with one foot on the dock and the other in the boat.

I needed a well on my six acres horse ranch. I called in a well driller. He had a branched stick and set out to use it.
I said. No need. He said why not! I said. Drill it here it is within 50 feet of the house, and 150 fee from the barn. It is 600 feet from the septic system. If you look yonder you can see Clark Hill Dam 8 miles away. It is 50 feet higher than this piece of groud.

Water has to be seeping toward the ocean from there to at least here for 30 years since it was built. He drilled and hit 200 gal. per minute at 180 feet. That was 40 years ago and it still pumbs 200 gal a minute--we haven't tested it with a stronger pump--but I bet it will pumb 500 per minute if tested. Was that science, logic, or just pure luck?

Regardless of you logic systems, Evolution is not science nor is creationims science both are untested hypotheses that use science at times to "prove" a link in their hypothesis. Just like medicine and dentistry are not sciences but make valuable use of science in practice of their professions.

All four avocations are still wide of the mark of final proof of anything but death and taxes. Oh yes lots and lots of very hard work. Tom

Tom:
Evolution is science, or, related to science, in the same way as cosmology. Forensic science is still science. It makes predictions that can be tested, have been tested, have been confirmed, are being confirmed, or lead to discoveries that then lead to the alteration of the theory.. Creationism's testable hypotheses have generally been found wanting.

Beth,

"The use of evidence to construct testable explanations and predictions of natural phenomena, as well as the knowledge generated through this process".

This is overly simplified, it covers a lot of ground. And it does not address too well the challenges that are being made.

A scientific hypothesis does not need to have complete evidence to start with, in fact sometimes it needs nothing but imagination. Consider Einstein's theories. And it can not claim any facts while there is not enough evidence to answer all questions. When there are untestable assumptions - the hypothesis can never be claimed as fact. It can only reach what seems to be reasonable conclusions, but these should not be considered true 'facts'. They are only valid within their assumptions.

Science starts with a question not an answer.

The a-priori assumption that we can not start with an un-naturalistic explanation makes no sense. Look at electricity for example, to their frame of reference it was not naturalistic, but they studied and came to the conclusions about it being a decent conclusion. It became considered naturalistic after a long time. If they started with the rule that they could not have un-naturalistic explanations, then they would not have developed all of the electrical theories.

Naturalistic restrictions are an invalid starting point for science. They are no more than the actual limitations of current scientific knowledge. So for our knowledge to be able to grow, then these artificial border should not hinder the advance of science.

The naturalistic restriction is a myth, this barrier designed only in this age of evolution vs creation, for what purpose? Think about the limitations this places on science. Think about this line, it is rather artificial. This implies that God has no physical interaction with our reality. But it can't know that.

Nieman

Evolutionists use the tools of science. It is not a science.
Its hypothesis is not amenable to falsification any more than is creationism. The sciences of evolution are geology and paleantology etc. Most of which are assumptions of relationship of elemental decay etc. One has to develop an umbrella definition of science to include evolution--a poor excuse indeed. Evolution is as much science ad alchemy. Tom

Niemand,

A few of us have agreed that creation has untestable assmptions. And we like to point out that evolution has equally glaring untestable assumptions as well. The assumptions that I question are about uniformitarianism, which can not be tested - therefore any extrapolations to ascertain time have room to be questioned. or at least have to admit they are within those assumptions.

Here are some of Creationism's testable hypotheses. Tell me if they are generally been found wanting?

1.) I am here.
2.) The earth is here.
3.) The sun shines on me.
4.) Land is separate to water.
5.) Kinds reproduce after their own kinds.
6.) Variations occur to produce different specimens.
7.) Causality is real - try and construct logic against this one
8.) Truth is real - try and falsify this one
9.) We can not avoid the reality of morality.
10.) Humans are the most dominant species on the planet.
...

Every single sample of life meets the hypothesis of creation. I dare say that this is a lot of evidence.

Every single point of energy in existence meets the hypothesis of creation. I dare say that there are innumerable of these samples that fits creation.

You need to be more specific about which hypotheses are wrong. Just as much as we need to be careful about which hypotheses in evolution that we say are wrong.

This uniformitarian assumption is utterly fundamental to this debate. Both competing hypotheses, creation and evolution, start with an opposing foundational but unntestable assumption. Evolution assumes a uniformitarian past, creation assumes non-uniformitarian past.

This is not testable, and therefore neither can defeat the other from our current human perspective. Our current limited human scientific knowledge does not have any scientific explanation for non-uniformitarian past. But neither can this be disproved.

"The naturalistic restriction is a myth, this barrier designed only in this age of evolution vs creation, for what purpose? Think about the limitations this places on science. Think about this line, it is rather artificial. This implies that God has no physical interaction with our reality. But it can't know that." -- Chris Plewright

I definitely agree. If there were serious evidence, accessible to all (as opposed to primarily personal experience with God), that supernatural interaction had and does occur regularly in dramatic ways in the world, science would not keep its nose out of it. Not by a long shot. Science should say that "fantastic claims require fantastic evidence," but it requires no a priori assumption of materialism IMHO.

"Regardless of you logic systems, Evolution is not science nor is creationims science both are untested hypotheses that use science at times to "prove" a link in their hypothesis. Just like medicine and dentistry are not sciences but make valuable use of science in practice of their professions." -- Tom Zwemer

Tom, I always hesitate before engaging your frequently disrespectful attitude (did it ever occur to you that most scientists are honest human beings who want to know the truth?), but I think the contributors to JAMA would be rather miffed at your labelling medicine as "not science." I do see what you're getting at. Medical practitioners are like engineers: applied scientists as opposed to research scientists (that is except of course, the JAMA gang et al). They have a goal, a motive, and they use the tools that research has provided. But I would remind you that the science, the truth behind their work puts serious constraints on how they can meet those goals in valid ways. It's not purely subjective and up to the whim of the investigator.

I personally and somewhat offended by your (pardon the epithet) postmodern take on the questions science can and can not address. I will be the first to acknowledge that science too is subject to the hermeneutic circle. But to say that neither evolution nor creationism is "science" is a reactionary and rhetorical ploy that I have difficulties appreciating. Science is the search for truth and confidence therein (i.e. that we can all agree on), nothing more, nothing less. I like to bolster that broad definition with concepts from the Bayesian probability theory of Cox and Jaynes, in which data (observations from the world) is seen to either reinforce or diminish confidence in the validity of a hypothesis.

I think what you're actually trying to say is that creationism and evolution are both models which lack sufficient evidence for placing objective confidence in their truth, and thus anyone who stands up with a bold conclusion is deluding themselves. In such situations with slim data it's equally likely that a third model exists that we have not yet thought of, but which fits reality better. It's appropriate to withhold judgement. String theory is like this -- a very interesting hypothesis, and an intriguing world view for lack of any other knowledge, but not something anybody places much confidence in as anything more than our best guess given incomplete evidence.

I personally do not believe that the question of biological development lacks evidence. There is plenty of evidence by which to evaluate both the young-earth creationist model and the modern synthesis. We need only look at the forensic evidence in geology and paleontology, the biological evidence in present-day life, and the mathematical evidence in the self-organiziation of complex systems to evaluate the plausibility of the models. That's what it's about -- determining if it's plausible that our hypothesis is correct.

On a side note, the argument that we can't put evolution in a lab is ludicrous. First of all, evolution makes many predictions that we can put in a lab. Second of all, the world counts as laboratory. Observation is the source of data, not just repeatable experiments. I believe Abraham Lincoln lived, and I believe I had a grandfather on my mother's side, though I can' re-grow either of them in a test tube or see them with my two eyes.

Which model is more plausible depends on the information at hand. If your information includes a personal relationship with Christ and a long history of spiritual experiences, than Intelligent Design might be a viable model in the context of belief in a personal God who is actively involved with His creation (or at least a sort of theistic evolution such as Francis Collins' "BioLogos"). Here we start to approach a stalemate again, like the one you initially proposed, in which one must choose a model (ID or naturalism) in the face of unconvincing evidence. That I can respect.

But don't pretend that the efforts of humanity to make sense of things have nothing to offer. From my perspective, it seems that you tend to be eager to dismiss the intellectual world at large because they disagree with your vision of rightthink (If that is a perverted caricature of your thinking, then I recommend you rethink the way in which you communicate your perspective). That world is vast, rich, and deep -- very deep -- full of honest people with serious insight, and often a great deal of wisdom. Pithy comments and spiteful hand-waving is rhetoric that if you say long enough and loud enough is convincing, but doesn't actually engage the issues at hand.

If it's not science, then what is it? What value is there in it? What can it tell you about truth? Or are you too entrenched in your postmodernism defense to have room for intellectual empathy?

ES

"This is not testable, and therefore neither can defeat the other from our current human perspective. Our current limited human scientific knowledge does not have any scientific explanation for non-uniformitarian past. But neither can this be disproved." -- Chris Plewright

Neither can we determine whether or not we all blipped into existence five seconds ago as a quantum fluctuation. But science is not about proving (verifying) or disproving (falsifying) things, it's about making plausible inductions and determining what confidence we should be willing to assign a given model.

Therefore in-depth discussions on whether creationism or evolution is a more plausible model given the evidence are perfectly appropriate. It's not up to the flip of a coin. I don't like the model that says "same evidence, different assumptions = different conclusions," because it's a postmodern escape that implies there is no good answer. If you believe the evidence is inconclusive, say so, but be careful lest you demean your opponent unduly. Many scientists have very good scientific reasons for believing in evolution. Many creationists also have very powerful reasons for believing in a personal God -- which then adds context to their science and makes things like Intelligent Design seem a lot more plausible. To dismiss either as "different assumptions, different conclusions" doesn't do their experience justice.

Science is best guess, not proof. If you say something is not science or that it is an unsupportable hypothesis (i.e. Russell's teapot) is rude, and doesn't do justice to the enterprise of human reason.

Besides, isn't the "assumption" of a "uniformitarian past" testable? What would we expect to see if the past was uniform? Bam. Prediction. What do we see? Bam. Observations. Does the hypothesis fit the data? Viola, a basis for discussion, i.e. a science.

ES

Hello Eric Scott,

Besides, isn't the "assumption" of a "uniformitarian past" testable?

No, it is not directly testable, only the corrolaries are testable. But, those corrolories can also be explained by other models. So the tests are not sufficient to prove either model while they both offer competing explanations.

What would we expect to see if the past was uniform? Bam. Prediction. What do we see? Bam. Observations. Does the hypothesis fit the data? Viola, a basis for discussion, i.e. a science.

What about the ten points that I made above, they are testable, do you acknowledge that they fit into the scientific model of creation?

So, then as to the weight of evidence, every single sample of life meets the creation model. That is a lot of evidence in favour of creation? Note also, that reproduction can be tested in a lab, that also confirms creation! But of course it is not QED.

Evolution claims too much evidence that fit into both sides, when it is trying to disprove creationism. This is my gripe, the public don't realise this.

Will you agree with me that the challenge is not about any of the evidence that can be fit into either model, the challenge is coming up with evidence that does not fit the other model? But further still, the assumptions limit the conclusions. This can never be denied either.

Eric:

Science is a formal method of testing a theory or hypothesis. Science is used in many walks of life--some simple, some very complex. But the sum of such use may or may not constitute the discipline as "science." An electrician, plumber, carpender, all use the fruits of science. A carpanter cannot cut a stairs or a rafter without the science of mathematics. That does not make a carpenter a scientist.

Of course, one could extend the term science to any disciplined course of study.The scientific method is a very precise way of testing a hypothesis. Neither palentology nor geology have been able to test their hypothesis of origins and more than have creationists. There is nothing disrespectful about that, it is just the plain simple truth.

If you can find a phrase I used that showed disrespect to a person, persons or profession, I will apologize immediately.

If you want disrespect try Dawkins, and Hitchins, or even Cliff. If I disturbed you, I am sorry. I was rebutting your assertions. If those assertions define you, then I am sorry to have unsettled your ego. Tom

TZ

Naturalism and Creationism are not hypothesis to be tested by science. They are philosophies that supply the unprovable assumptions needed to do science.

These include:
I am alive and real
There is a reality outside of myself
I am capable of know and learning about that reality
Natural laws and processes are uniform across time and space

These philosophical assumptions MUST be accepted as true, and ALL scientists accept them as true, whether they realize it or not. Sadly, this part of philosophy and science is barely touched on (if at all) in the schools.

Naturalism supplies these assumptions based on the truth that they must be true. Creationism supplies these assumptions by revelation from God.

Along with Naturalism (The Cosmos is all there is, has ever been or ever will be -- Sagan) come some corollaries: Abiogenesis, Evolution, and Deep Time. These are not hypotheses, but are assumed "truths" that come with the territory of Naturalism.

The revealed truth of Creationism includes the Creation by divine fiat of all life forms that reproduce after their kind on this planet some 6000 years ago and a global cataclysm some 4000 years ago that destroyed most life forms on the planet but for those that could survive in water and those preserved on the Ark. Neither the Creation nor the Global cataclysm are hypotheses, but accepted facts.

Once the assumptions and accepted facts are determined by philosophy then science can be done. Because science is dependent upon philosophical assumptions in order to operate, science cannot then turn around the prove these assumptions true. This would be a logical fallacy.

It is important to note at this time that both philosophies supply the same assumptions needed to do science. Because these philosophies proved the same assumptions then the methods of science and the data acquired by the scientific method will be nearly identical regardless of which philosophy a scientist believes in and is working within. Thus one might expect that the foundational philosophy doesn't really matter.

This is true for many of the "hard" sciences such as Chemisty and Physics and related fields in Engineering and such. This is because science is functioning in the continuing present and any hypothesis can be tested and retested. However, for the historical 'sciences' such as Geology, Paleontology, Anthropology, Cosmology, etc. hypotheses cannot ever be tested and retested, for the past cannot be repeated. In these "sciences" the assumed truths of the mutually exclusive philosophies cause widely different interpretation and understanding of the same data.

It is the different philosophies which cause different scientists to look at exactly the same data and arrive at completely different conclusions. Its not the science that is the problem. Its the philosophical assumptions that science is done within that causes the problems.

Allen Roy
Dino Hunter
Bozeman, MT

One other thing:

There are many hypotheses about HOW Evolution worked (Darwinism, Post-Darwinism, Punctuated Equilibrium) and HOW Abiogenesis happened (Miller-Urey). But NO ONE ever questions in a hypothesis IF Abiogeneis or Evolution worked.

In Creationism there are several Flood model hypotheses about HOW the flood happened (Catastrophic Plate Tectonics, Asteroid impact models). I don't know of any Creation hypotheses about HOW God created for only God knows that.

Allen
Dino Hunter
Bozeman, MT

Tom,

Mostly I was reacting to the likes of "Evolution is as much science ad alchemy," which, while it could be a valid point if supported by an extensive discussion, seems rather harsh as a standalone statement. I too apologize if I've overreacted.

"Neither palentology nor geology have been able to test their hypothesis of origins"

I think we're still clashing over what constites a test of a hypothesis. Speaking in the abstract like this won't help us understand eachother, either. We can't go on arguing over whether a model is testable without talking about exactly what that model is, what predictions it would make, how to test them, and then of course what significance said tests have. Otherwise all we can do is sling opinions around.

"No, it is not directly testable, only the corrolaries are testable." -- Chris Plewright

i.e. only its predictions are. Same with any hypothesis whatsoever. Some are more easily tested than others.

"Evolution claims too much evidence that fit into both sides, when it is trying to disprove creationism. This is my gripe, the public don't realise this." -- Chris Plewright

And that's a very good point. Just because a model fits the data doesn't mean it's valid. That's why we need things like Ockham's razor. By far the best way to validate a model is if it makes bizarre predictions that are not easily explained by another model, or which we didn't expect until we worked the hypothesis through to its more obscure implications. Take Einstein's general relativity, for example, which made the strange prediction that light from distant stars would be bent by the sun's gravity. Sure enough, that was confirmed in 1919 by Eddignton's expedition with convincing enough accuracy that Einstein instantly became an international celebrity.

"If you want disrespect try Dawkins, and Hitchins, or even Cliff."

*shiver.* Amen to all of the above.

"If I disturbed you, I am sorry. I was rebutting your assertions. If those assertions define you, then I am sorry to have unsettled your ego. Tom"

Oh, see, now you're just begging me to defend my honor. I'll just note that I would also get miffed at anyone who made bold statements that agreed with my perspective, but which seemed to prematurely dismiss an opponent's cogency. See one of my favorite articles on the matter here.

Allen:

"Along with Naturalism (The Cosmos is all there is, has ever been or ever will be -- Sagan) come some corollaries: Abiogenesis, Evolution, and Deep Time. These are not hypotheses, but are assumed "truths" that come with the territory of Naturalism."

I am in a darkened room in a friend's house. I can't see more than the outline of four doors on the north and east walls, but I can only reach one of them. On that one I feel a door-knob. I have seen tens of thousands of doors in my lifetime, and been in hundreds of friend's homes. Every one of these doors has had a door knob or handle of some sort.

A week later my friend's house burns down around him. In trying to determine why he couldn't get out, it becomes relevant whether I believe that those three doors had handles on that side. No one is around that's seen them, and no one has given me reason to think these doors are more special than other doors. In all honesty it never even crosses my mind that they wouldn't have handles.

Is it an "a priori" assumption if I believe those doors had handles? I've never seen those doors before in good lighting. The hypothesis is untestable -- the house is gone now, but I believe they had handles.

Now Joey comes along and tells me that I'm being unscientific, and that my reasoning is based on blind faith, and that I'm biased against the possibility that the Great Green Arkleseizure (a la Douglas Adams) reached in and removed those doorknobs at the moment of their installation. "The existence of those doorknobs is not a hypothesis," he tells me, "but is an assumed 'truth' that comes with the territory of Doorknobism."

Imagine how that makes me feel. And how looney that makes Joey sound.

Of course the relationship between science and religion is a lot more complex than door knobs, and I don't mean to imply that you're looney for viewing naturalism as fideistic. Sometimes atheists can be closed minded, that's for sure.

But what I'm getting at is that you can't simplify things down to "their assumptions define their world view, it's not based on evidence." That's just rude to thinking people across the globe.

If I had a personal relationship with the Great Green Arkleseizure, beleived I had seen him remove doorknobs in my house, and believed that he was every bit as interested in my friends houses as mine, then all of a sudden the matter is different. Maybe those door knobs were removed, and maybe that's why my friend couldn't get out of his house.

We cannot test abiogenesis directly, but we can make a case for its feasibility (I highly recommend looking into the science of complex systems). Deep time we can -- microwave cosmic background radiation and redshift and radiometric dating use the exact same inferential principles as seeing the photons bouncing off a doorknob. It's not just that we see light bouncing off something -- we see the image of a *doorknob.* We also see "images" of what our hypotheses predict in the history of the earth and universe. Then, with the rocks dated, we see an interesting progression in life's history that evolution attempts to explain. Mathematical explorations of natural selection show how complexity can be developed via stochastic processes, further reinforcing confidence in the model.

I don't mind if you disagree on whether evolution is a viable model. That can be saved for another discussion. But to say that naturalism is fideism is rather strong. A person does not have to assume a priori that God does not exist before abiogenesis looks plausible. Perhaps he believes that God utilizes natural processes regularly (such as evolution), in which case abiogenesis need be no different. Or perhaps he looks at the world and the progress of science so far and says with Laplace "I have no need of that hypothesis," and comes to view -- from his scientific experience -- God as a parameter in the model that at best violates Ockham's razor, and worse is no better an idea than the Great Green Arkleseizure. If He has had a personal encounter with God, or if He's seen evidence for Him elsewhere, then things would be different. But as is, abiogenesis seems like the most likely solution.

So anyway, I'm just reacting again to the defense mechanism so common to creationism: declare the issue undecidable. That way your opponents can't fight back, because now we know all their arguments are based on an a priori assumption, not reason. In fact, however, we have a great deal of experience as individuals and as a community which help to contextualize and motivate our beliefs. Motivated belief (a la Polkinghorne) -- that's what we're aiming for on both sides, not fideism.

"It is better to light a candle than to curse the dark."

Eric
Nice visiting with you. Tom

Eric,

God as a parameter in the model that at best violates Ockham's razor

Something you failed to acknowledge, look at the ten points I made. Creationism is a model with a 'causal' explanation for all of them. Evolutionism does not have a 'causal' explanation for most of them - it simply acknowledges that they must be true - with no explanation. So, your beloved Ockham's razor says that the explanation needs to be adequate to explain the things. Creationism is adequate to explain these, evolutionism is not.

Eric.

You haven't a clue what I'm talking about.....

Allen

Allenroy, boyo, I grant that science and evolution in particular assumes various axioms, but get rid of those axioms, and everyone gets into trouble. I don't think that even the fanatic Hovind groupie would actually want to get rid of the fundamental axioms of science. The point is that, yes, we have untestable axioms, but we can get an idea of whether or not our axioms are reasonable, and in the case of science and evolution, the axioms are eminently reasonable, and have led to consistent theories and spectacular results. Science, in its domain, reigns supreme because nothing else, not creationism or alchemy, has demonstrated anywhere near the level of consistency, external and internal, that science (in this case, evolution) has. There are serious scientific, philosophical, and (for Christians) theological problems if one gives up science's axioms.

Chris:

I think that one would have a difficult time demonstrating a single element of your ten, let alone all of them. Some of them are taken by science as assumptions. Others are pure religious hubris. Still others require definitions that you will hardly get anyone to agree with. The nice thing about science is that the practitioners generally agree (or come to agree) on method and definitions.

Furthermore, depending on one's viewpoint, the God hypothesis far more complex than purely natural explanations. What kind of god? Where did that god come from? How does the god work? And so on, and so forth. Positing "God" as an answer to a scientific question short circuits the process and is only a simpler explanation if you already believe in the kind of god that is supposed to be the answer to the question.

Niemand,

I disagree with your point about science's axioms. Especially the one about long time and uniformitarianism. One of the rules is not to extrapolate too far from the data at hand.

Have you considered what I said before about the laws of physics changing, the universe decelerating, when God partially withdrew his sustaining presence? This would answer most of the challenges about dating. An unimaginably magnificent biosphere collapsing over a couple thousand years, while the decelerating universe and laws of physics changing universally, almost undetectably , could explain all of the geological collumn, all of the patterns in ice layers, patterns in pollen in the dirt, that make us think it was millions of years, there could even have been a lot of evolution occur during that time period of deceleration. If you can get what I mean by decelerating universe, and the relativity of time, then it actually allows for the scientific data to be fit into the creation theory.

I know this might seem a bit wild. But the point is that I have to believe that the laws of the universe shifted, so that we would not be able to live forever. God must have been counteracting the effects of the second law of thermodynamics, for the biblical creation story to even work. How does God counteract the second law of thermodynamics? If this is true, then the rest of the model I just posed is not so far fetched either.

Others are pure religious hubris Why, because God is the answer to them? Because science has not found any other naturalistic explanation yet for them? Or do you suggest that science (human knowledge) can't find an explanation for them? It is not hubris to open up the possibility of what science can discover.

Doesn't Occam's razor ask for the simpler explanation anyway?

Which of the ten facts I presented are not demonstrable?

"But what I'm getting at is that you can't simplify things down to "their assumptions define their world view, it's not based on evidence." That's just rude to thinking people across the globe."

Perhaps you ought to learn a little about philosophy. Consider, Naturalism -- defined as "The cosmos is all there is, has ever been, or ever will be"--per Sagan. This automatically excludes a interfering, messy God.

1: The ONLY way that anyone can know that the "Cosmos is all there is" is for that person to know absolutely EVERYTHING about the Cosmos. If there is anything that is not known, then one would be forced to say that the "Cosmos MAY be all there is." But Naturalism allows no such equivocation because that leaves room for God.

2: The ONLY way that anyone can know that the Cosmos "has ever been" is for that person to have existed and known the Cosmos for as long as the Cosmos has existed. There is no human who can say that they have existed for as long as the Cosmos as existed, therefore they cannot know that the Cosmos "has ever been." Unless they claim that the cosmos has existed for only as long as they have existed.

Is there evidence that the cosmos has existed for longer than I have existed. Yes. I need only ask for the witness evidence of my father. Is there evidence that the cosmos has always existed? No.

3: The ONLY way anyone can know that the Cosmos "will ever be" is for them to know the future as well as they know the past. No human knows all the past, nor all the future.

There is ONLY ONE PERSON who knows all there is to know about the cosmos, who can measure its time and can know its future -- God. And the witness evidence He has given us in the Bible through the prophets is NOT Sagan's twisted imaginations!

Naturalists and evolutionists accept Naturalism and it's corollaries as FACT because the alternative is unthinkable, unacceptable, -- i.e., God.

Naturalism is a philosophical worldview. It is not based on science, rather science is done within and interpreted by it. All evidence acquired by science is done within and interpreted within that worldview cannot be evidence for that worldview. That would be "Circulus in demonstrando" see http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#circulus.

If "thinking people across the globe" are guilty of this type of "thinking" its about time they got woke up, regardless how rudely.

"A person does not have to assume a priori that God does not exist before abiogenesis looks plausible."

Abiogenesis does not "look plausible", it is an absolute necesity for Naturalists!

1: Since the cosmos is all there is and has ever been or ever will be;
AND
2: Since there was once no life and now there is life;
AND
3: Since there is no God to mess with things;
THEN
Abiogenesis--life from non-life--spontaneous generation--is and must be an undeniable, indisputable fact even though how it must have happened is unknown.

"Looking plausable" is a ridiculous statement.

It is within this fact of Naturalism that scientific data is interpreted. And only those who accept Naturalism or are completely blind to the philosophical basis behind science would be taken in by such interpretations and think abiogenesis "looks plausable."

"But to say that naturalism is fideism is rather strong."

Fideism????!!! I.e., Exclusive reliance in religious matters upon faith, with consequent rejection of appeals to science or philosophy (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fideism?r=75 ) ??????!!!!

Wow! This is why I said before: "you haven't a clue what I'm talking about!!" This is so far out there, it's not even in the same ballpark!! The only thing I can say is go back and read what I already wrote above. And not only here but in other previous threads on the topics of evolutionism and creationism.

"rejection of appeals to science or philosophy" because of faith????? I've been talking of nothing but philosophy and its relationship to science and religion. Science depends upon philosophy and which philosophy you choose comes from ones beliefs. They are all interrelated, NOT separated!! Creationism is a philosophy of life based on belief in the truthfulness of the Creator who saved us from sin and death. Because of assumptions that come from a philosophy one is able to do the scientific method and gain a body of scientific evidence that is understood and interpreted within that philosophy. The idea that science is somehow independent of philosophy is so deeply flawed that only non-thinkers could be suckered by it.

Popper (and others) has shown us that it is IMPOSSIBLE for science to PROVE ANYTHING. The best the the scientific method can do is falsify hypotheses.

Khun (and others) have shown us that a philosophical worldview impacts all aspects of the scientific method. It influences what one observes. It influences what questions one asks. It influences the hypotheses that are raised. It influences the design to test hypotheses. In influences and interprets how one understand the scientifically acquired data.

Anyone who is trying to still function as if these facts are not true is living in a fantasy world.

Allen
Dino Hunter
Bozeman, MT

Hi Allen,

Consider, Naturalism -- defined as "The cosmos is all there is, has ever been, or ever will be"--per Sagan. This automatically excludes a interfering, messy God.

Strange isn't it. On face value, Sagan's definition could mean to include God in the cosmos. God is real. God uses science that we don't comprehend, but He is real. If this is true, then naturalism needs to include God.

If it meant that the Cosmos has limits that are definable by human knowledge, then I agree, it is a ridiculous thing to suggest. We don't understand string theory or gravity or time or much about our observable universe, except to know that it is mostly different than we can imagine.

"Subtle is the Lord, but not malicious."

Chris,
I'm not a physicist but aren't the rules of physics pretty important when it comes to life and the structure of the universe? Don't a bunch of people argue that everything has to be extremely fine tuned for life to be supported and that this is evidence that the universe was created for life? Start messing with that and I would think you'd be in big trouble really fast.

Take for instance radioactive decay. The process gives off heat. Speeding the process up even a fraction of the amount needed to fit into a creationist time table would raise the temp on earth to over 1000 degrees and vaporize life. So would entire land masses zooming around the world in a few months due to the flood. Lots of heat there too. And so messing with the laws of physics even a little is incompatible with life.

It is a reasonable assumption that the laws of physics behaved similarly to today because that is what is compatible with life. Unless one wants to throw a bunch of miracles in there including ones to hide the evidence of any of the other miracles happening, I think it is by far the most reasonable assumption, especially in the absence of any other evidence to the contrary.

It reminds me of my favorite New Yorker cartoon:

http://www.cartoonbank.com/product_details.asp?mscssid=82DTD2F712559JL8N...

Chris,

Sorry, this will be another long one -- but 'tis my nature to try and be thorough.

"Something you failed to acknowledge, look at the ten points I made. Creationism is a model with a 'causal' explanation for all of them. Evolutionism does not have a 'causal' explanation for most of them - it simply acknowledges that they must be true - with no explanation. So, your beloved Ockham's razor says that the explanation needs to be adequate to explain the things. Creationism is adequate to explain these, evolutionism is not." -- Chris

I'm looking at your ten, but am still having troubles trying to see what point you were making. I thought you were talking about predictions that overlap. You know, what you were saying about evolution claiming evidence that works with both sides, and thus doesn't actually tell us anything about which one's right.

But I suppose now you mean that the existence of a Judeo-Christian and/or anthropomorphic God provides a motivation for things like "I am here," "I am dominant," and "morality is a big deal." Feel free to clarify, 'cuz I think I'm still missing your point.

I'm not sure that a naturalistic world view provides no explanation for the things on your list. Land and water being separate are kinda no-duh. The abiogenesis->evolution model provides an explanation for everything except the existence of truth and casuality, which is not proven by theology either (since before you can even reason with Descartes that God would not deceive you you must assume them). I do acknowledge that naturalism hasn't given and cannot give any explanation for why there is something rather than nothing at all, why we live in a universe that supports life, etc. Those are grand and inspiring mysteries -- the question of first cause and why it caused what it caused.

On the second matter, I didn't intend to get into whether or not God is an extremely simple hypothesis or an extremely complex one according to Ockham's razor -- that has been argued about inconclusively man times and many places.

I think of Him as complex in the sense that the Flying Speghetti Monster, Russel's teapot, or what I've been calling the Great Green Arkeleseizure is complex -- as a hypothesis based on no other evidence than the problem at hand, it's pretty speculative and out there. But in light of other evidence, such as personal experience or belief in divine revelation, it can make sense, and I can respect that.

Similarly, if science had no evidence of consistent physical laws, then explaining history in terms of radiometric dating would be a huge leap in the dark, violating the razor. Or if there were no support for evolution from computer simulations of natural selection or the fossil record, then it would be a pretty ridiculous way to explain the shape of a bird's beak. The razor would demand a less speculative hypothesis.

"If you can get what I mean by decelerating universe, and the relativity of time, then it actually allows for the scientific data to be fit into the creation theory."

Now here's an interesting question for the razor. Are variable laws of physics a sound explanation for what we see? I'm quite intrigued by your post, and while we may disagree I can respect where you're coming from.

I will grant that constant physical laws are something much of science assumes. Of course, we can't explain everything by constant laws, because we don't understand the fundamentals of what those laws are. Dark energy, for example, refers to the paradox of the accelerating universe, which our current knowledge cannot explain. Not only is dark energy something we know nothing about, but there is some evidence that its strength/relevance has changed over time. But we do tend to assume that whatever it is is following some well-defined law beneath the hood.

We cannot show that the laws are uniform conclusively, but most scientists feel that the universe does follow well-defined laws that don't change. Thus Niemand's quote of Einstein: "Subtle is the Lord, but not malicious."

I admit I haven't looked into it in detail, but from what I understand models that propose changing laws or different laws throughout time or space are awfully hard to fit to all the data properly. And they necessarily have extra parameters -- a gradient by which the speed of light changes as you get further from the Orion Nebula, or however you set up the model.

I think Beth also has a very good point. If you change the laws, big things happen because everything is related mathematically. If you speed up light, E=mc^2 changes, and the Sun suddenly starts producing waaaaaay more radiation than is healthy, and would most definitely destabilize the sun as we know it (It would have to be many orders of magnitude bigger to suppress that kind of explosion). You would have to change the speed of light drastically to cover the distance to distant galaxies, and it's squared to begin with, so basically we're blowing the Milky Way right there with out sun. If you don't change the speed of light, and let distant stars be old, then we see very distinctive emission spectra that correlate directly to the spectra freshmen observe in their labs today.

In short, it'd be a pretty delicate and very specified process. Ockham's razor doesn't like it as a purely speculative hypothesis. But, then, Ockham wasn't God, even though his name gets thrown around like a deity in discussions like this.

"I know this might seem a bit wild. But the point is that I have to believe that the laws of the universe shifted, so that we would not be able to live forever." -- Chris

And there's the kicker. It does seem a bit wild if you're approaching science without anything but the book of nature. String theory also purports to fit the data -- but even if it does, in the end it's just speculation, one out of an endless variety of models that could explain physics. But in this case you have an extra context for evaluating the models:

God exists, is actively involved in a relationship with me today, and was actively involved with His creation throughout history. The Bible says creation was originally perfect, and great emphasis is placed on the fallen nature of man. With this in mind, it stands to reason that the earth is younger than we think, evolution, if it occurred, only accounts for part of what we see, and the nature of the universe has been changed on a fundamental level. We have a model to explain it, albeit an imperfect one since we don't know everything. With the added evidence of God, it makes at least as much sense as "uniformitarianism," if not more. Ockham's razor can't cut out a God that you have experience with -- instead now it needs to find a model that includes that evidence, that God.

I can respect and sympathize with that. I have a few more thoughts, but they're more in response to Allen, so on to the next monologue...

ES

Allen, calm down.

"Perhaps you ought to learn a little about philosophy."

"Anyone who is trying to still function as if these facts are not true is living in a fantasy world."

While I happen to agree with the last statement, the others are ad hominem rhetoric that just gets under my skin. It makes me want to defend myself, which means that it's distracting from the issue at hand and a dishonest method of debate. You see how Niemand, Chris and I are having civil discussion, seeing value in eachother's statements where value is to be found, not demonizing eachother while still disagreeing vehemently on the issues? Yeah. That's what we call dialogue, and it's how real communication takes place. It starts with a realization that just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they're an idiot who needs "rudely awakened."

Now, on to the actual topic. We're talking about why science, or rather the naturalistic world view many people feel it implies, is wrong because they assume naturalism in doing said science. A "Circulus in demonstrando."

Brining up Khun was a good move. An excellent point. I made a post here on spectrum last year ("Scienctific Subjectivity: Bias, Evolution, and Astrophysics" -- It was published in the... was it the December issue?) talking about the same sort of thing, and I agree that anyone who thinks science is the incontrovertable acceptance of what the data perspicuously implies is indeed "living in a fantasy world."

Circulus in demonstrando? That's a bit pessimistic, and redolent of an agenda to dismiss the conclusions science has placed confidence in. However, is it a Hermeneutic cycle? Absolutely.

Oh, before I forget, there I go again using a theological term to describe science. I did the same thing with fideism, which as you said expresses the idea of putting faith above reason. You misunderstood me, however, by going with the literal dictionary definition that involved its traditional usage in describing religion. I was using it to describe science in that case -- in which case I was not saying that science puts faith in religious revelation and rejects science. I was saying that science puts faith in science and rejects religion. That should have been clear from context, but I guess I could have specified it. And anyway, I wasn't saying that, I was saying that you were saying that. What a birds nest.

"Naturalists and evolutionists accept Naturalism and it's corollaries as FACT"

Not all evolutionists are naturalists. Indeed, most American scientists are Christians. And evolutionists.

And as to accepting it as fact -- yes and no. For a naturalist to call himself a naturalist (or materialist, or atheist, or secular humanist, or whatever label he uses), he has to believe that there is no supernatural. But he is likely to believe that because he thinks it's the most reasonable reading of the evidence at hand, not because of an a priori distaste for a hypothesis that involves God.

Now, about abiognesis, which is possibly the single most difficult-to-establish claim of the naturalist world view: You do well to harp on it.

"Abiogenesis does not "look plausible", it is an absolute necesity for Naturalists!

1: Since the cosmos is all there is and has ever been or ever will be;
AND
2: Since there was once no life and now there is life;
AND
3: Since there is no God to mess with things;
THEN
Abiogenesis--life from non-life--spontaneous generation--is and must be an undeniable, indisputable fact even though how it must have happened is unknown."

Yeah, pretty good summary.

There are two reasons to disbelieve abiogenesis or any other speculative hypothesis that cannot be tested:

(1) A different model exists that is less improbable and/or fits the data better (Ockham's razor).

(2) The model in question is so improbable that a different model is likely to exist that is less improbable and/or fits the data better.

A naturalist is coming to criteria (1) with a subjective belief -- based on his experience in the rest of science and his life (not an a priori assumption) -- that God is improbable. (2) is a serious quandry, which many solve by invoking Carter's "weak anthropic principle" (WAP). Others forgo the WAP by laying hope in how abiogenesis would be more probable deep in the earth, or by looking with Stewart Kauffman at the amazing self-organizing properties of complex systems, which could imply that life from non-life is not so improbable as we might think.

This is how it "looks plausible," and while you insist that anyone who thinks it's plausible is a fool, I need you to engage these ideas with a fine-toothed comb before I'll be convinced of that assertion.

To a naturalist these are plausible, because it seems unlikely that another viable model exists. He literally thinks, given his experience, that it is more likely abiogenesis occured than that a God exists to fill in the "gap." That statement is not an a priori assumption, but a weighing of the evidence.

Inferring God directly from nature is very difficult. Science is the study of nature -- the evidence that anyone can look at and agree is there. You very quickly are looking at a God who used the big bang to indirectly create the elements needed for life via stellar nucleosynthesis, and who laid out the progression of life of the course of hundreds of millions of years in the billions of years of history of the earth, and who used entirely natural processes to affect speciation and the development of the biosphere, and so on. Maybe he tinkered with it a bit, and gave us some irreducibly complex organs, or altruism, but we can't be sure that the complexity-generating mechanisms in nature aren't powerful enough to do that by themselves.

The role of miracle is limited. How can we assume that, you say? I would answer that with another question: how can we infer that miracles exist in history? If we're just following science, studying nature itself, the evidence everyone can see, which sets a precident for physical explanations, a miracle is quite the assortment of extra parameters that would make Okcham's razor squeemish.

Remember my door-knobs story? The one that you dismissed with a one-sentence reply saying I was clueless? Yeah, it's the crux of the entire matter. I would feel better if you could explain why all my thoughts on the matter are clueless, give some consideration to how my statements interact with what you're trying to say, and then you can tell me what I've missed in a way that I'll understand. "Is not!" does not constitute an argument.

Now for a point that might seem off topic, but is crucial, for if we can't agree on how to dialogue properly and constructively, then we can't dialogue properly and constructively:

"It is within this fact of Naturalism that scientific data is interpreted. And only those who accept Naturalism or are completely blind to the philosophical basis behind science would be taken in by such interpretations and think abiogenesis 'looks plausable.'"

You tried to beat me over the head with Khun. I'd like to return the favor. This last quote of yours is rhetoric and I do not feel that it would be beneficial to either of us for me to reply. I might add that one of the implications of Khun and others is that you should be careful about your own black and white picture of reality, separating people into the fools and the wise ones. You have entirely dismissed your opponents as ignorant and biased fools. In my experience, most of the time when I make such assumptions it turns out to be wrong,

One way to foster effective dialogue is through active listening. Repeat the other person's main points back to them, and ask if that's really what they're saying. Say "okay, so you believe A is true, and your reasons for it are B, C, and D." That way you show them that you respect their effort, and you avoid the confusion created by misunderstandings and straw men and personal attacks. Then, after you've been properly empathetic (or expressed what Daniel Goleman calls "emotional intelligence"), you can say "but have you thought of E? That seems to imply F by my understanding. Furthermore I think you've not looked closely enough at B..."

Through this we can click together into one powerful reasoning unit, exploring the space of ideas and possibilities together and learning from eachother. As is, if we continue, it's not much different than two brothers fighting over the front seat, which quickly digresses into name-calling and ad hominem, until they're arguing over whether one of them "always" takes the biggest piece of cake, and they don't even remember what the original fight was about.

Ug. This is why I need to stop arguing on the Internet. I have this great desire to solve the messiness of debate and make it so everyone can get along and disagree respectfully. Ha. Yeah right. It's the Internet, for crying out loud, it's supposed to be vulgar.

ES

Shane: What are you saying Isa 28:10 proves?

Isaiah 28:10 (New International Version):

" For it is:
Do and do, do and do,
rule on rule, rule on rule;
a little here, a little there."

Footnotes:

Isaiah 28:10 Hebrew / sav lasav sav lasav / kav lakav kav lakav (possibly meaningless sounds; perhaps a mimicking of the prophet's words also in verse 13."

How do you take this verse to mean that "the Bible states that it is the final authority on how it should be interpreted"? I think you have a lot of assumptions about the Bible (the Bible interprets itself through a careful comparison; even the symbolic language is explained within the Bible itself; there is nothing to indicate that there is anything symbolic about a six day creation in Genesis, etc.).

To me it is obvious that the creation account in Genesis is symbolic:

- there are in fact 2 separate accounts, contradictory if you take them literally;
- the chorus-like repetition about "morning and evening" at the end of each day of creation suggest a poem or a temple song;
- common sense and scientific knowledge (we know from fossil record that simple organisms existed first, more complex next, and humankind is a relatively new species on the planet);
- the fact that many early Christian writers did not interpret the creation account literally;
- creating and resting in 7 days is a very anthropomorphic vision of God, similar to other ancient myths (Mesopotamia).

If - like you say - our reason can't be the ultimate source of truth and there is nothing we can be certain of when it comes to our reasoning - then how come you use it to judge that the creation account is to be interpreted literally after all? Do you allow for a possibility that your interpretation is wrong and evolution right?

It is interesting to look at Isaiah 28:10, in context. I've long thought the association of the described behaviors with the 'outcomes' experienced by the practitioners -- see verse 13! -- was an incentive to avoid 'here a little, there a little' Bible study.

Here's an interesting discussion of some views.
http://www.joyfulministry.com/lineonlinef.htm

Jag:

I don't recall saying it proved anything. I was using the text to illustrate how God teaches us through his word, the Bible.

Beth,

Yes, the laws and forces are amazingly balanced as they are now. It is still a valid point. My point was that there would have to have been other laws and forces in place, in order for humans to not die! Those other laws and forces do not necessarily mean that the currently observable set of laws and forces aren't in perfect balance. It just means that the current balance is not perfect for humans to live forever.

All of the currently observable laws and forces are within their correct range to balance each other so as to not wipe us out now. That in itself is amazing. But it doesn't discount the possibility of other unobservable laws and forces also interacting with the currently observable laws and forces.

Shane,

Maybe I'm just too dumb, but I can't even see how this text from Isaiah refers to the Bible or how it proves the Bible is God's word! Please feel free to explain in more detail. Thanks!

Jag:

1. The Bible is God's word
2. The book of Isaiah is in the Bible
3. Isaiah is God's word.

This syllogism shows why I think Isaiah is referring to the Bible, or God's word. Now, I assume your contention is with my first premise. The basis for the belief is summed up in two syllogisms that I posted on another thread, but will repost here:

1. Whatever God teaches is true.
2. Historical, prophetic, and other evidences show that Jesus is God.
3. Therefore, whatever Jesus teaches is true.

4. Whatever Jesus teaches is true.
5. Jesus taught that the Scriptures are the inspired, inerrant Word of God.
6. Therefore, the Scriptures are the inspired, inerrant Word of God.

Which premises do you think are false?

Jag:

I'd like to walk myself through the reasons why you think the Genesis account of creation is symbolic.

1. "there are in fact 2 separate accounts, contradictory if you take them literally"

I've re-read Genesis 1-2 and I couldn't see the two separate accounts. Here's what I saw: Genesis 1-2:3 takes us through the entirety of the 7 day creation period. Genesis 2:4 concludes that part of the narrative. Genesis 2:5-6 talks about how the plants were watered; Genesis 2:7-9 expounds up the creation of man from 1:27; Genesis 2:10-14 talks about the rivers that flowed through Eden; Genesis 2:15-17 gives God's injunction against eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil; Genesis 2:18-25 explains how and why Eve was made, again expanding on Genesis 1:27. So, in one sense there are two accounts, but Genesis 2:4-25 just expands what happened in Genesis 1:27. Please tell me if that's what you're talking about, or if you're referring to something else.

2. "the chorus-like repetition about "morning and evening" at the end of each day of creation suggest a poem or a temple song"

Supposing that it was written in a poetic style, does it follow then that it's symbolic? The Psalms are written in parallel structure, a type of Hebrew poetry, and convey literal truths. So, assuming that Genesis was written in poetry form, it wouldn't logically follow that the information conveyed is not literal.

3. "common sense and scientific knowledge (we know from fossil record that simple organisms existed first, more complex next, and humankind is a relatively new species on the planet)"

I'd say the evidence for a universal flood is quite strong and I'll give four pieces of evidence from the geological column.

a. Massive fossil graveyards show evidence of plants and animals being washed into position.

b. Huge sedimentary deposits speak of large-scale coverage by water. Nearly 75% of the earth's exposed surface is covered with sedimentary rock deposits.

c. Vast coal and oil fields of the world are further evidence of a vast flood catastrophe. No process occurring today can even remotely approach the magnitude of the catastrophe necessary to account for such a vast scale of universal burial of plants and other organic material.

d. Chalk deposits of the world are universal. Chalk is formed from the skeletons of marine protozoa and algae, and can only settle out of relatively shallow water. In deep oceans, the calcium carbonate shells dissolve on the way down to the ocean floor. The chalk deposits are thus an indication of worldwide coverage of a relatively shallow sea. Chalk deposits of the same age are found in North America, Australia, Europe, Asia, and Africa, and all of these deposits are resting on the same type of glauconitic sandstone.ii For these factors to be so universal, the same conditions must have existed universally.

4. "the fact that many early Christian writers did not interpret the creation account literally"

First, I'd like to know who these "early Christian writers" were, and secondly, tradition is hardly a basis for belief. It wouldn't matter they believed. There are Christians today who don't believe the literal creation account. That's hardly reason enough to believe in something or not to believe in something.

5. "creating and resting in 7 days is a very anthropomorphic vision of God, similar to other ancient myths (Mesopotamia)."

In Genesis 1:26 God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness..." So anything good in us would merely be a reflection of God's likeness. You've inverted it and said that since this seems like something a human would do it can't be God. I would say since this is only something that God can do, it must be God. Ironically it is God's blessing on the seventh day of creation that made him distinct from any other God. What god created in six days and rested on the seventh day? The God, the Creator of everything that has every been or will be made. That's God's claim and his proof is the seven day week, more specifically the sabbath. There are over hundred ancient languages that refer to the seventh day of the week (our Saturday) as sabbath or rest day; and this was long before the Jews. For example, the Babylonian language was in use hundreds before the Hebrew race was founded.

Also, stating similarities to other myths does little because the Genesis account presupposes that all these cultures came after creation and the flood, so in effect it would be natural that so many cultures have a flood myth.

Jag, based on the reasons you've listed above, I can see no reasonable evidence to think that Genesis 1-11 is not literal. Do you think the reasons you gave me necessarily lead one to doubt the historicity of Genesis 1-11?

Hello to Eric Allen and Niemand,

Sorry I got sidetracked lately with other things, and this was promising to be an eye opening discussion for me.

Eric,

But I suppose now you mean that the existence of a Judeo-Christian and/or anthropomorphic God provides a motivation for things like "I am here," "I am dominant," and "morality is a big deal." Feel free to clarify, 'cuz I think I'm still missing your point.

I'm not sure that a naturalistic world view provides no explanation for the things on your list. Land and water being separate are kinda no-duh.

The difference is that the creation theory has a more causal relationship to those things. It speculates and gives the cause a label. Whereas on the other hand, evolution just says, well we can see that it is true, but we better not speculate on what caused those things until we have more evidence.

Why are humans the dominant species. According to evolution theory, the answer is simply because of random chance. According to evolution, there could be even more advanced thinkers on the planet than us. There is no reason that we are the most advanced. Now, according to creation, it says that there is a cause for us being the most advanced species. Therefore, as in way of explaining the question why, the creation model has more explanatory power to that question.

Land and sea. yes, duh, but this goes to the laws of physics. Why are they set up the way they are? If we want to answer this question, we have a model that can speculate that it was God's intention. The creation answer has more significance toward providing a possible causal factor, than the evolution answer which simply says 'well it just is'.

Saying, 'well it just is' is intellectual laziness. Some scientists say, well, we don't even know how to find out, so why bother trying. Whereas hypothesising on a causal factor, God, could (and does) lead to understanding other things about our reality. It is a more useful model for many reasons.

And I like to add. We can continually discover how God did things. At least it is a model to be investigated, and refuted if possible. We have discovered a lot about 'how' God did things over the past few hundred years. If we just sat back, at any time, and said, well that is just the way it is, because it just is. Then we would not have investigated the how. But by believing that there was a how, that there was a causal factor, that God did actually do things in a causal fashion, then this allows us to continue to search for how he works in our universe. And, there is no reason to limit this to any of the laws of physics. Saying dah, is not what I was aiming for.

Saying that the laws of physics are the boundaries of our possible understanding of our universe is horribly limiting. At least, the God hypothesis maintains that there is more out there to learn.

The creation model covers a lot more than the evolution model. Creation dares to pose a lot more answers to questions that evolution just goes 'duh'.

That's one of the things about my ten points. They are almost all testable. I grant that a couple seem like hubris. A couple are probably philosophically tautological, but that is part of the point. Why does logic even work? We all know so deeply that it does, but we never stop and think, why does logic work? What causes logic, what causes consistency? The creation model dares to pose an answer for those sorts of questions as well. It leaves evolution at 'duh'.

Eric,

Continuing on from my previous post...

You also said to me.

And there's the kicker. It does seem a bit wild if you're approaching science without anything but the book of nature.

Now, I just want to clarify that God and the creation hypothesis come from the book of nature. I don't mean in a religious sense, about sin and salvation and all that, or necessarily about 6 thousand years either, or YEC etc. But I do want to share that God and creation were, and still are, the only hypotheses given to certain aspects from what we actually observe in the natural world around us now.

The general hypothesis of God and creation, does not require the bible alone. Nature testifies to those as well. In fact, there is enough evidence to show that it is the hypothesis that many ancient tribes have come to. From a scientific point of view, we should be able to acknowledge at a minimum, the rationale they used to come to their conclusions. Especially when we have no better answer today for many of the reasons they had. We dismiss it too easily, and in doing so, forget that it still answers more questions than we might realise.

Finally, there is the possibility that creation was handed down knowledge from Adam and Eve. So someone has already told us about the door knobs. We just choose to ignore that although we have been told, and grope around what we can find on our own. Don't get me wrong, this is understandable that science chooses to not rely on hearsay from hundreds of generations past. But, it also might actually be true! Interesting thought.

Allen and Niemand,

Sorry if I got the questions mixed up. I can't remember who asked me what. I might be answering some of your questions in my response to Eric? I lost track of this thread somewhere along the line!

Dear Shane,

You say:

"1. The Bible is God's word
2. The book of Isaiah is in the Bible
3. Isaiah is God's word.

This syllogism shows why I think Isaiah is referring to the Bible, or God's word."

I still don't understand your logic. If you are correct, then it would mean that the Bible is only referring to itself. How very postmodern!

However, the first question to ask is, how do you know what is the Bible? There are many differing canons and they all had been agreed on by people. The Bible did not fall down from heaven.

Also, your assumption that "Jesus is God" is clearly extrabiblical - just like the concept of trinity. Nothing wrong with being extrabiblical, just realise that this is the case. Still, even outside the Bible, the only "evidence" I see that Jesus is God comes from church councils, which were far from unanimous anyway. If the opinions had been divided differently back then, the idea that "Jesus is God" might well have been a minority one today and considered a heresy by a vast majority. And the further back you go when reading the books of NT, the more human Jesus appears - and less God-like.

We do not know exactly what Jesus taught. He left no autobiography, and there are no eyewitness accounts. We are only reconstructing his teachings thanks to biblical scholarhip, such as the Jesus Seminar. Admittedly, they do a rather good job out of it!

As to your saying that "Jesus taught that the Scriptures are the inspired, inerrant Word of God" - that's news to me. It's not even in the canonical NT books! In fact the OT canon was far from closed at the time of Jesus, and there is no account of Jesus ever listing the "inerrant" books.

As to the 2 creation accounts, it seems you missed the order of creation. It is clearly different in both accounts. In fact, biblical scholars have long known why - they come from 2 different traditions, and were put together in the same book by a "redactor" after the Babylonian exile. Same with the 2 flood narratives (how many pairs of animals were REALLY in the ark?) or 3 different sets of 10 commandments.

Thank you for the example of psalms. It is in the nature of poetry to be able to depict both literal truths and non-literal images, often mixing them together. We find both in Genesis and the Psalms (you are not really saying that the Psalms are all literal?). We use reason to determine what is symbolic and what is literal. That's why our interpretations may sometimes differ (nothing wrong with that either).

As for the flood, even Adventis theologians and scientists often argue that it wasn't a worldwide event. I recommend the book "Creation Reconsidered" published by the Association of Adventist Forums a few years ago. I also recommend you study some geology. The evidence we have speaks clearly against the biblical, literal, worldwide flood. Otherwise we would surely find at least one human's remains at the same level as the trylobites or at least dinosaurs. Instead what we have reads like a book - simple organisms at the bottom, more complex at the top. No humans and dinosaurs intermingling. Quite the opposite - the story how life went out of the water and onto the dry land. Story of evolution of the species. The only other explanation was that God intended to mislead us and use a divine sieve to grade the carnage it created. Personally, I'm not proposing that.

You really think tradition is not a basis of belief? How about yours - isn't the Bible part (and fruit) of Judaeo-Christian tradition? Therefore, check for instance what Origen had to say about the interpretation of creation accounts, and how absured the literal interpretation already seemed to him back then.

The 7-day creation account necessarily presupposes a flat Earth. Surely God would have known better than that? There is no such thing as a universal sabbath on our planet. In fact, there are times when there are 3 different dates in different parts of the world. Beyond the polar circles day and night last for months. When would you celebrate your sabbath if you were an astronaut in space? This proves that the sabbath story was only created by ancient Hebrews for ancient Hebrews. It has very little relevance for us, at least not on a literal level.

I'm not trying to convert you, Shane. Your belief is your choice, and I'd like you to be able to believe whatever you want (as long as it doesn't hurt others, of course) - even if it seemed absurd to me. I'm just trying to make a point that your interpretation is neither the only one, nor even the best one, and that it is most likely outdated and out of touch with reason and common knowledge.

Jag:

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. Well, I can't think of another way to explain the Isaiah text. I'll try this: God is referring to his word/wisdom, and since I believe the Bible is a revelation of his word, then it follows that I would treat the Bible as such. But this topic seems like smalls fries in comparison to the other topic that we have been discussing. So, I'm going to set this one on the shelf for now as it's easier for me to focus on topic at a time.

1. "your assumption that "Jesus is God" is clearly extrabiblical"

I don't understand why you'd think that this idea is extra-biblical, when it is drawn directly from the Bible. Here are a few texts that demonstrate this truth.

John 1:4
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men."

The Word is Jesus. Jesus is called God.

Hebrews 1:8
"But unto the Son he says, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a scepter of righteousness is the scepter of your kingdom."

The Father refers to Jesus as God.

John 20:28
"My Lord and my God."

Thomas states that Jesus is God, and Jesus does not rebuke him.

Here are a few others:

Matthew 14:33
"Then they that were in the ship came and worshipped him, saying, Of a truth thou art the Son of God."

According to Exodus 20:3, God is the only one to be worshipped. Also, the angels worship Jesus (Heb. 1:6).

Matthew 9:6
"But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (then saith he to the sick of the palsy,) Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thine house."

Jesus claimed that he could forgive sin. In Isaiah 43:25, God claims to be the only one who can “blotteth out thy transgressions”. This truth is solidified in Luke 5:20-21 when Jesus forgives the man with palsy and the Pharisees respond, “Who is this which speaketh blasphemies? Who can forgive sins, but God alone?” They were either wrong about there assertion, Jesus was being blasphemous, or he is God.

Last point: The word elohiym is a plural noun and is used 2,606 times in the OT. It’s interesting that the authors of the Bible used the word “elohiym” over its singular form “El” 2,371 more.

And this is only a small handful of texts that testify that Jesus is God.

2. "He left no autobiography, and there are no eyewitness accounts."

Two of the gospels, Matthew and John, are eyewitness accounts. The other two at least used source material from eyewitness accounts. As for the Jesus Seminar, they are on the fringes of main stream NT scholarship. It is widely accepted that the gospels are a historical source for the life of Jesus.

3. "As to your saying that "Jesus taught that the Scriptures are the inspired, inerrant Word of God""

John 5:39
"Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Mark 12:24
"And Jesus answering said unto them, Do ye not therefore err, because ye know not the scriptures, neither the power of God?"

Jesus stated that the OT testified of him. If the OT was not the inerrant revelation of God's will, how could Jesus say that they testify of him? There is also the plethora of prophecies regarding Jesus.

There are more texts that illustrate this point, but this is getting long. Jesus regarded the scriptures as authoritative.

4. You told me I missed the order of creation, but didn't point out to me how I missed it or where these two accounts are. So please point them out to me.

5. Please show me some evidence that "speaks clearly" against the biblical worldwide flood, for I have seen nothing but evidence that supports it.

6. Jag, the whole argument about simple organisms to complex is at best an archaic one. Are there still scientists today who are arguing that a trilobite is simple?

7. Please show me how a 7-day creation presupposed a flat earth. I've never heard that one before.

I'll stop here. My wife is calling me to bed. Looking forward to your response.

Jag wrote:
The 7-day creation account necessarily presupposes a flat Earth. Surely God would have known better than that? There is no such thing as a universal sabbath on our planet. In fact, there are times when there are 3 different dates in different parts of the world. Beyond the polar circles day and night last for months. When would you celebrate your sabbath if you were an astronaut in space? This proves that the sabbath story was only created by ancient Hebrews for ancient Hebrews. It has very little relevance for us, at least not on a literal level.

That's an overly-literal way of interpreting things. Right now, I'm in South Korea. It's Thursday here. Meanwhile, it's Wednesday on the US East Coast. But from my perspective, it's Thursday, and when I describe some event anywhere in the world, I'll describe it from my point of view. Similarly, why couldn't Genesis simply have described creation from the perspective of a fixed location on the earth? So, for most parts of the world, including the regions relevant to the biblical writers, there is a seven-day week just as we'd expect. And the fact that the date is different elsewhere, or that the polar regions are special, is irrelevant to the writer's purposes.

Shane,

You mentioned John 1, but missed the punch line:

14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Great discussion! I have thoroughly enjoyed reading this thread. I was directed to this blog by Alex's post on the La Sierra Evolution vs Creation Blog. Judging from the tone of Alex's post I don't think he liked my comments, but he was quite adamant that this was the place to have an intelligent conversation. After reading the blog I would agree it is a great place for open dialogue. I don't claim to be a philosopher or theologian but I have real difficulty rectifying the centricity of death in the evolutionary model and the concept that God used evolution and thereby death to bring about mankind. Maybe Alex or someone like-minded would give me a Biblical explanation of how death could precede sin as a human phenomenon. I don't want a lecture on the literality of the first 4 chapters of Genesis. I don't want to discuss if the creation week is an actual 7 day period. All I want is a theoretical framework (with Biblical references)to explain how one can believe in a God who's core principle is love yet used the cycle of death and misery to form his most treasured creation. Also an explanation of how to Biblically separate sin from death and visa versa. Before commenting consider Walt Whitman's quote "The art of art, the glory of expression and the sunlight of letters is simplicity."

Hi Jeremy,

I don't claim to be a philosopher or theologian but I have real difficulty rectifying the centricity of death in the evolutionary model and the concept that God used evolution and thereby death to bring about mankind.

That's exactly one of the things I have been thinking about. Well, we believe that sin started in heaven, that there was war with the dragon, etc. This all occured when? If the angels were created before the creation of earth, then sin quite possibly existed before the creation of the earth! War in heaven! Was there death before man sinned? Possibly there was already.

You posed that God used the cycle of death and misery to form his most treasured creation

The next step is that God created us despite the presence of sin. Not by sin, so He did not use sin. That would be contradictory. And, this is true weather we believe creation or evolution. So, death is only an extension of that sin that already existed. So, despite the presence of sin, he directed and sustained the course of evolution towards the goal of creating man - its not that different to saying that he created man by speaking it.

This way, God is not entirely responsible for sin before creation, equally as much as after creation. Lucifer brought sin into existence - whatever that means. So, the point is, the model that relies on sin not existing before humans is not entirely valid or necessary in our Christian framework of salvation.

Another thing, Adventists who accept E. G. White's visions as from God, what do we think when she says she visited with other beings on other worlds? When were they created? Were they created despite the presence of sin as well? Maybe she was in a self hypnotic trance, maybe it was real, but nevertheless, it's an interesting point for Adventists to consider in the whole creation debate.

That's as far as I have got about thinking in that direction. Also, as a matter of record, I don't believe evolution is proven fact, but I do accept it is as a reasonable scientific theory. Within the assumptions that it makes - and I accept those assumptions 'seem' reasonable as well.

My belief system however, still holds to the fact that God was almighty in creation, that the uniformitarian assumptions that we assume now, would not have to apply to God, if God chose to manipulate space and time He is free to do that any way He chooses. And just because we don't understand it, it doesn't mean that it didn't happen.

Chris:

Thank you for pointing that out, but it's irrelevant to what I was pointing out. God became flesh. If anything, that should magnify the cost of his sacrifice on the the cross even more. It's not unreasonable to think that Christ became human. Of course I presuppose that there is an all powerful God, which explains everything, even though I may not know the exact mechanism by which it was done.

Jeremy,

Glad you jumped in. Good to have you around!

You raise some important questions, and I think that the direction Chris Plewright suggests will get us some place worthwhile.

Three points seem especially salient:

1. Christians have always held that the created order has been invaded and corrupted by evil personified (the term most Christians use is "Satan" or the devil).

2. Christians have always held that God works in, with, and through the created order despite the presence of evil in it. God subverts and works against evil by entering into the created order.

3. Christians have always held that humanity is called to join with God in subverting the evil present in the created order insofar as it is possible for humanity to do so.

If Christians have been correct in those three tenets, what is to keep us from acknowledging that #1 and #2 preceded the emergence or creation of humanity and #3?

A careful reading of Genesis reveals that immortality was never a given. There is nothing in the text to suggest that humanity is innately immortal.

The text is very aware of the existential reality of death prior to the first recorded death.

Shane,

Sorry, I wasn't disagreeing with you. Actually I was agreeing with you, and adding another verse to support what I thought you were saying. I was suggesting that when using 1st John 1, which you used, that the verse 14 is critical to the argument you were putting forward. In my opinion.

Jared,

You liked that more than a monkey in a rock?

The immortality thing is an issue for me. I haven't gone very far down that line of thinking.

I still hold to the model that humans did not die until they chose to sin. If we take that away, then we are taking away the resurrection, and heaven for us as well! Is this wrong?

Jared:

I think I agree with all three points you made; however, I think we have good evidence from the Bible that evil had not corrupted anything till after the creation week. Thus, sin did not enter till after everything had been created. Another way to look at is that the Bible depicts man being created last. All the animals and vegetation were came into being before Adam and Eve. According to Genesis 3 sin entered into our world through Eve and Adam, which means sin corrupted this world after the vetetation, animals, and humans were created.

Paul, in the NT, corroborates this idea that sin entered into the world through one man.

True, Adam and Eve were warned that death would result if they sinned, but we have no evidence that prior to the injunction that God gave them that they knew or had seen death.

Shane,

Romans 5
12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.
16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.
17 For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)

I'm thinking about vs 13. Does the law apply to the animals? For example, they kill, but are they sinning? So, even though death was in the world, sin might not have been in the world, until there were creatures that could comprehend sin.

Also, I am thinking about vs 12. It does say that sin causes death. And it does say that all men sin, and that also can cause all of us to die as well. But, is it really saying that death is exclusively caused by sin only? Is it saying that there is no other cause of death? I am not sure if it is necessarily saying that.

So, coming back to the animals, do they die because they sin? Is it possible that death can occur outside of sin? Then it is possible that death occurred before man first sinned.

Chris:

Interesting thoughts. I don't think I've ever wondered why animals die if they haven't sinned.

Does an innocent baby die because it sinned? I don't think so. The baby dies because it was born into a sinful world, and the natural result of sin is death.

We're not condemned by the law until we are conscious of the law and have willfully broken it. Christ's death took care of the condemnation of sin, but that didn't take away the effects of sin on this world. We will continue to die off, until God totally erradicates sin from this earth.

If death is the result of sin, then it follows that animals did not begin to kill each other till after Adam and Eve sinned. And even then, it might have been a slow transition for the animals, moving from a vegetarian diet to a meat diet. I'm just speculating.

Shane,

the natural result of sin is death

Yes, but I'm not 100% sure if sin is the only cause of death.

If death is the result of sin, then it follows that animals did not begin to kill each other till after Adam and Eve sinned.

It only follows if sin is the only cause of death.

Anyway, you also said We will continue to die off, until God totally erradicates sin from this earth. This is one of the crucial points for me as well. Being completely saved from sin, is meant to include no more death.

Chris:

Perhaps a better way to phrase it would be that sin is the ultimate cause of death. Once sin has entered humanity there is a plethora of ways for us and animals to die: murder, old age, diet, accident, or disease.

Shane,

I don't usually like playing against my own beliefs. But I think we have good reason to examine this belief.

Ultimately yes, all sin is caused by death.

But what is the sin that entered the world through humanity? Is it just that humans recognized it and so only then accountability became an issue for this planet. Does it necessarily mean that sin had never had any consequences on this planet? Sin may have effected this planet, and death occurring, even though accountability for sin was not yet present before man was created.

Chris:

The sin that was committed was disobedience to God's command. According to the Bible that is the very definition of sin.

God said "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die" (Gen. 2:17).

So they had full knowledge of God's command, and what the result would be if they disobeyed. While they did not experience death right away when they sinned, they were kicked out of the garden and God pronouned what the results of their disobedience would be.

Sin did not corrupt the Adam and Eve and the world they lived in till they disobeyed God's law.

Shane,

Yes. I think I agree. I can't see how the bible can support a different model.

Gen. 2:17 does imply to me that if they didn't eat, then they wouldn't have died. It also has an awesome symmetry with salvation.

I guess the only option is to not take it so literally. Can we still maintain the essential spiritual truths by allowing the idea of evolution?

Say if we could take it symbolically. What are the essential spiritual truths by us maintaining that death did not enter the world until man sinned? What does it matter if animals died because of our sin or because of previously existing sin?

Chris:

Here's an interesting thought. Let's assume that Genesis 1-2 is speaking in symbolic terms.

What then would our symbols be?

A day
The serpent
The tree of knowledge of good and evil

There might be some others we could through into there. While it's very clear Genesis 1-2 is not a prophecy, we could apply the day for a year principle. That would give us 7,000 years plus earth's history since then would bring us to about 13,000 years. That is still way too short for the evolutionary process.

If 7 day week is not literal, then how would we apply the Sabbath? The Sabbath points directly to God as the creator of the universe. It is the sign, the memorial, that he is God.

How is that as far back as 3800 BC Babylonians had a 7 day weekly cycle? Mon-Fri were numbered off like most ancient cultures did, expept for the seventh day, which is always called rest day. This is especially interesting because of the Genesis account. There are over 100 languages that attest to this fact. Here are some interesting points:

1. In the majority of the principal languages the last, or seventh, day of the week is designated as "Sabbath."

2. There is not even one language which designates another day as the "day of rest."

A seven day week was almost universally practiced throughout ancient times up until now. Look at the Noah's flood.

1. It was either a literal story
2. Or, symbolic of something else
3. Or, a myth.

My presupposition is that the supernatural exists, so believing that there was a world wide flood is no problem, but lets asuume that is was just local. Assuming that Noah is a historical character who survived a flood (universal or not) with his family, and as a result was the only surviving family, it seems strange that the idea of a seven day week was practiced after the flood; however, it does make a lot of sense in light of the creation story. Those who followed God before the flood were aware of the Sabbath and the seven day cycle, and this information was passed on through Noah, thus it was transmitted to all languages, or at least most. The practice of observing one day at the end of six as a holy day does not have any explanation or basis if the creation week was not literal. So a good question to ask ourselves would be, on what grounds did God remind the Hebrews of the Sabbath? He commanded them to remember it. Plus they had a knowledge of the Sabbath before God had given the commandment (Ex. 16). This only bolsters the point that the literal seven day week had been passed on through Noah, and that they were practicing the sabbath, or at least passed on the knowledge of the sabbath. Conclusion, if there is no literal 7 day creation week, there is no basis for the 7 day week or the Sabbath.

Jesus recognized Sabbath as a literal day, and he claimed to be author of the Sabbath, thus it stands to reason that the first Sabbath was a literal day.

"Another way to look at is that the Bible depicts man being created last."

Not in what is considered the older creation story in Genesis 2. There, "no shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted....Then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being. And out of the ground the Lord God caused to grow every tree that is pleasing to the sight."

In this Creation account, man is the first object of God's creation. However, since there were no eyewitnesses, and these tales were told for thousands of years before being put to writing, they are all the myths (meaning stories and legends) very similar to those in contemporary and earlier cultures.

It is a mistake to presume that the biblical order of the books in any way infers chronological sequence.

Inspirations does not imply infallibility. Has "inspiration" ever been wrong?

There is probably little chance that the first couple of chapters of Genesis are symbolic. Much greater chance that they are allegorical. In other words it is a step by step telling to reinforce the idea of God as the creator of everything. The story of the fall is the story of man's own problem of trusting God which of course is what the story is trying to convey. Given after Israel left Egypt the purpose is to get the people to accept that what is happening has a larger purpose then merely a tribe leaving slavery. The other idea of the story is to explain why the world appears as it appears. Why does the snake crawl on the ground? It was cursed by God. Why is are women subservient to men? Because God cursed them and made childbirth painful.

Of course at that time Israel new nothing of Satan so the snake was merely that a magical snake that was man's enemy, just as the poisioness snakes of the land we mans enemies.

the question of the origin of death is interesting. First we take what Paul said as it meaning that he was talking about all death. But he was probably not talking about all death but specifically man's death. And that death is because man has but one end unless God's gift of life is accepted. The story works as an allegory but does not work as literal because what were they doing eating fruit if there was no death. You chomp on fruit you kill cells in the fruit. So you say will killing those cells is ok, steping on a mite and killing it is ok also, because well we are covered in tiny creatures how can we help but kill some of them. In which case even in this unimaginable paradise there was death. Or maybe paradise was completely different, in which case the author would not record what it was very well, since he was clearly familar with the kind of world we see around us today.

Then again what about the idea of death coming on everything because man sinned. Man sinned so God cursed the world flies started to die, rather then multiply and cover the earth in 10 ft of flies in 50 days. God made creatures who through no fault of their own now grow ripping and tearing teeth and start killing other animals or gave them parasitic insticts that caused them to lay their eggs in another animal so that the eggs when hatched could eat the animal. Does that somehow make God better in your eyes then a God who sets up a self sustaining system where life and death cycle, where some creatures life off of decay and some creatures fix nutrients into the soil.

I guess it comes down to which idea makes the most sense. Really it does not seem to make that much sense for God to do all that to his creation merely because someone ate some fruit. No allegorical story seems to work better to my understanding. Baby steps to teach people that there is a God and that He is working for them even in a hostile world. Because they would never undertand a perfect world, we still can't. But then a perfect world would not have a lieing snake and a special tree as a test and another tree to supply life. But an allegorical world would have those things.

Ron

All the problems in this area that are self-evident today began when Christian fundamentalists began teaching the literality of the Bible, rather than it was a collection of books of varied genre.

Once that literality was taught in the church schools with no alternative considered, it required continued support, all the while the superstructure was crumbling with scientific revelation.
The problem the church had with Galileo should have taught a lesson, but it took more than four centuries before it was corrected; all the while millions of Christians continued to be taught and believed that the creation story in Genesis described in great detail how life began on the earth.

It would be impossible to teach geocentrism in any school today, even SDA schools. But there is still a witch hunt for those sincere teachers with integrity to teach what is apparent to the entire scientific world, but rejected by Adventist education.

Only those parents whose main goal is to perpetuate their children into Adventism, rather than preparation for living and working in the world, will SDA education be able to survive. What will be the result when SDA students taught such literal events from the Bible when they apply for graduate school in any of the scientific disciplines? Does it "lock in" such students when every other university or college does not allow credit for Bible subjects as often taught in SDA schools: EGWhite, Daniel and Revelation, etc.?

It's not unreasonable to think Genesis 2:4-25 is a short recap of the week, and a prelude to a more in-depth explanation of Eden and the meeting of Adam and Eve. Here's why: Genesis 1:1-2:3 relates a six day creation, ending with a day of rest. Then we read 2:4-25 and it parallels 1:1-2:3, but in a concentrated form.

Day 1: LIGHT

Day 2: SKY/WATER

Day 3: EARTH/VEGETATION

Day 4: SUN/MOON/STARS

Day 5: ANIMALS

Day 6: HUMANS

Genesis 2:5, no plants had sprouted yet in the earth, and God watered the surface of the ground with a mist. There was no man yet to till the ground. Genesis 1:11 says the vegetation sprouted, which would fit perfectly with 2:5's description.

Verse 5 and 6 anticipate that man will be made. It follows the chronology of the first chapter. So, it's not unreasonable to think that it's the same story. Repetitions in a story are no sure indication of different sources for a given literary work. It's common writing device to give the over all chronology of things and then go back and expand more.

What reason do we have for thinking Genesis 1-2 is allegorical? There is no indication from the text that it is allegorical. It's very reasonable to believe that the writer of Genesis intended to convey to the reader that an actual six day creation took place. There is no evidence within the text itself that suggests otherwise.

Here's the bottom line on this issue of creation vs. evolution: science can only comment authoritatively on what it sees and observes; science can speculate, but it's no authority on such matters. Therefore, a reasonable person can believe in Creationism if s/he embraces the existence of an eternal, all-powerful God who is supreme over time, science, natural law, and reality.

The creation story is just that, a story. The story is written from the viewpoint of a nearby bystander or observer.

Taken literally, God would have had to set the earth, without form and void in space, two days prior to producing the stars, sun, and moon. It would mean that the earth was the first created heavenly body, covered with water--a lonesome spot in the universe. This from a God who is from everlasting to everlasting. Hardly the way it was.

Yes, I am a creationist, yes, the Genesis story of Adam and Eve is real, yes there was a fall from Grace. Yes, Jesus Christ as One with the Father, and Holy Spirit made provision for the redemption of humanity. Yes God allowed Himself to be misunderstood in the process.

As soon as I can understand the formation of the human eye, I'll explain all the rest of bio-history.

In the meantime, the Christ event is my assurance of the redeeming Love of God. He knows my comings and goings, He knows my longings and my loves, He will mark my final resting place with tender regard He has shown me all my life. If I am touched by one pair of pleading eyes, immagine God's pain at the evil Lucifer has brought upon us all.

Remember we each will have an eternity to learn the true mind and character of God. One look at the nail prints will be enough for me. Until then, the writings, of Matt, Mark, Luke, John, and Paul are my best source of hope and confidence. If wrong, the ehtos they brought into my life is more than enough for me as a way of life, a manner of living, a grace in which to greet and treat my brother, and finally the power of fatih and hope in a dying world. Doubt fills no voids, secptics offer not hope, media hype is just that. If our conversation doesn't heal or point to healing--let us be quiet. My belief system is built upon the best evidence available to me--I keep seeking more--currently I have found it in the writings of John R. W. Stott the learned one and John Bunyan the passionate one. Lord, I believe, help thou mine unbelief! Amen. Tom

Thanks for your response and arguments, Shane,

Totally agree that our Isaiah discussion is not the most important. I have checked a few translations and they all interpret this verse differently. Let's just leave it as inconclusive.

You clearly demonstrated by your quotes that the idea of Jesus as God has its seed sown in the late NT books (though only some of the quotes are valid - "son of God" is not the same as "God". Yet even those books never say directly: Jesus is God (unlike later church councils). And when you go to early books - Mark, or (authentic) Pauline letters - which are at least a generation earlier than the gospel of John - the idea is totally absent. To Paul Jesus became the "son of God" through resurrection. To Matthew - through baptism. To John he was preexistent. The later the book, the earlier Jesus becomes godlike! Still, as the Jehova's Witnessess claim, he was only a "lesser" God, "a god" - translation which the original Greek allows. Jesus is described as praying to the "Father" - was he merely talking to himself? He died - can God die? Christianity had a problem with this from early on, and it's only around the time of Constantine the Great that those claiming Jesus' divinity prevailed. Strange that Adventist agree with Constantine Christianity on this, but not on the Sunday rest issue! So let's say that the foundations for later claims of Jesus divinity are in some books of NT, yet other NT books say something totally different.

As to forgiving sins, it wasn't only God's attribute. Are you familiar with the "Prayer of Nabonidus"? The Jewish exorcist forgives Nabonidus' sins in this book.

By claiming that Matthew and John's gospels are eyewitness accounts, you clearly rely on church tradition. There is no proof of this. In fact, both gospels present a totally different Jesus. Matthew's Jesus refuses to give signs. John's Jesus hardly does anything else. Those two books were written at different times, are anonymous and never claim they come from witnesses. They reflect different stages of development of tradition about Jesus.

Not sure where you got your opinion of the Jesus Seminar. Do you know a better living historical Jesus scholar than John Dominic Crossan? He is a fellow of the seminar, and to ignore his work is to ignore a lot of knowledge. Which, incidentally, is not "fringe" knowledge at all. He does accept (like myself) that the gospels are a historical source for the life of Jesus. But at that time there was no concept of biography like the one we know. Therefore to treat the gospels as Jesus' biographies is a serious mistake. Rather, they are theological interpretations of Jesus' life.

In the text of John 5:39 you therefore find the opinion of a particular church group. Certainly not the words of Jesus. And, in any case, we simply don't know what the author meant by "scriptures" (lit. writings) exactly... there was no NT and the OT canon was still open! If, like you say, the OT testifies about Jesus, can you PLEASE provide a single unquesionable quote? Just make sure that it is clearly about Jesus - without stretching it. I have so far found none. Most of the so-called "Jesus prophecies" clearly refer to something else. They only become about Jesus if you interpret them in the midrash tradition. But then midrash also allows you to interpret them as being about Jag or George W Bush or anyone you like.

I can see you are making an effort to harmonise the 2 creation accounts. Well, I'm not really interested in destroying your faith, so won't argue about this any more. Still, you didn't answer me about the flood accounts and 10 commandments. They're even more clearly contradictory.

I recommended the "Creation Reconsidered" book to you already. It has the best arguments against worldwide flood - they come from Adventist scientists! You will also find plenty more on the net. And also read what Edgar P Hare wrote - a great Adventist geoscientist. And evolutionist.

Are you familiar with geological record? Are you saying you have evidence of human remains at the bottom of the life column? Or anything other that the simple to complex order of development? By the way, evolutioninst did not invent or discover the geological column. They inherited it from their creationist predecessors. They were just able - for the first time - to explain it.

Better stop here... This is too long already!

Ron,

Yeah, that's some good points. That's some of the reason why for me to hold the creation viewpoint, I have to understand it to mean that not only our physical nature changed, but also the fundamental laws of the universe changed as well. And if that is true, then it can never be disproved based on the assumptions that modern science has to use.

Shane,

Conclusion, if there is no literal 7 day creation week, there is no basis for the 7 day week or the Sabbath

OK, so one of the spiritual truths that we don't want to lose is the Sabbath. I agree, I don't want to lose that either. But, you gotta admit that some people believe in evolution and still keep the Sabbath as a memorial to creation, and as a memorial for salvation as well. Creation does not need to have been a literal 7 day week for the Sabbath to mean what it does for those people.

Also, there is basis again found in the ten commandments, thousands of years after creation, reestablishing the spiritual truths about the seventh day again. So this is sufficient to maintain the spiritual truths.

So, I don't think we would have to lose the spiritual truths about the Sabbath if we were to take a non-literalistic meaning.

Apart from the Sabbath, what other spiritual truths would we loose?

You also suggest there is no basis for taking it any other way than literally. But we have been asked to look at it that way, to see what we can find. Because there is good reason for people to believe in evolution. A lot of people do. A lot of Adventists do. They have good reasons to believe in evolution - so it is at least a valid question of them to ask.

Also, there are certain aspects that they can point to in the story. For example a talking snake. Why is there no longer a talking snake mentioned anywhere else in the Bible? Do we think that the devil was literally incarnated as a snake? And because of that, all the snake family suffer on the ground. Did the snake really sin to allow it to be posessed by the devil and deserve it being cursed?

Jag,

Are you familiar with geological record? Are you saying you have evidence of human remains at the bottom of the life column? Or anything other that the simple to complex order of development? By the way, evolutioninst did not invent or discover the geological column.

The model of creation does fit all of this in. The geological column does not falsify the creation model. An unimaginably magnificent biosphere decaying over a couple thousand years, along with some of the laws of physics being removed, deceleration of time and space, and nature being altered to survive the sinful earth, all occuring when God partially withdrew his omnipotent sustaining presence. The geological column would be indicative of the changes that occured during that first couple thousand years before the flood, and then in addition what the global cataclysm would have caused as well.

Chris, Jared, and Shane:

I really appreciate your thoughtful and systematic approach to tackling the issue of the origins of death. I would agree with the general consensus that there is biblical evidence that sin may have preceded death. I also agree that Lucifer was the one who unleashed the mystery of iniquity (…what ever that means). However Rev 12:7 does imply that Satan and his angels were cast to the Earth not into the vastness of space. This does not rule out that the Earth and possibly its inhabitants may have already been in existence when Satan fell. Thus sin may not have existed before Adam and Eve were on the Earth. Interestingly, just a few verses down in Rev 12:12 there is a warning about the Satan and his desperation. What I found most significant was, how the warning was given, and to who the warning was given. The warning says “the devil has come down to you” not the devil is already there, so watch out. The warning is also addressed to the inhabitants of the earth and sea. It makes you wonder if this infers that Satan was injected into a pre-existing system. So… I am not convinced, that it is a given, that sin pre-existed creation.

To the next question… did death pre-exist sin. My biggest doubt about the pre-existence of death before sin is my person belief in my need of Christ as my savior. Why does anyone believe they need a savior? I doubt that most people, who are intellectually honest with themselves, would say…”I need a savior because I want to be a better person during the 80+ years on this earth but I don’t really care about the immortality perk that comes with accepting Christ as my savior.” I believe that most people would admit that at least part of their reason for accepting Christ is their hope of the eternal. The concept of “Eternal life”, “immortality” or “achieving a higher existence” is central to almost all religions especially the Christian tradition. It follows that if death was the natural state of things before sin, as some propose, why would the sacrifice of Christ (living a sinless life for us) correlate to eternal life for those who accept him. In other words if death is not a corollary with sin then how can eternal life be a corollary with a sinless life (Christ’s not ours). A corollary has to work on both sides of the equation. I guess I would wonder why God would sacrifice so much to abolish a mechanism (death) that had served Him so well in the past, unless there was not something innately malignant about the origins of that mechanism. Just a thought.

Chris,

Thanks for elucidating on your list of predictions made by Creationism. It makes a little more sense now.

"The creation answer has more significance toward providing a possible causal factor, than the evolution answer which simply says 'well it just is'."

It's true that evolution cannot explain the origins of things. It's only a theory of speciation, nothing more. And even if you take "evolution" to mean all the pieces of the naturalistic world view, including the big bang, there still is no explanation for the laws of physics et al. Just like evolution is a theory of the development of life, not the origin of life, the big bang is a theory of the development of the universe, not its origin.

"Saying, 'well it just is' is intellectual laziness. Some scientists say, well, we don't even know how to find out, so why bother trying. Whereas hypothesising on a causal factor, God, could (and does) lead to understanding other things about our reality. It is a more useful model for many reasons."

Interesting -- "science of the gaps" as opposed to "God of the gaps". Ironic reversal of the common argument.

You're right that God is nearly the only working hypothesis we have for some things (i.e. why there is something rather than nothing at all). And I'm not one to say that science should rule out the supernatural a priori any more than it should rule out the existence of Julius Caesar a priori. When I express my belief that science alone does not successfully imply belief, I mean that it has not been able to thus far, not that it on principle cannot.

"God never asks us to believe, without giving sufficient evidence upon which to base our faith" -- Steps to Christ, p. 105

I just think that said "evidence" is the personal involvement of God in one's life in conjunction with science, at which point belief can become a "scientific" matter for the individual, based on the added evidence of one's experience with the divine.

"Why does logic even work? We all know so deeply that it does, but we never stop and think, why does logic work?"

Well, some of us do. But (in my experience) it very nearly makes our mind explode in a burst of postmodern confusion. See, among other things, Wigner's famous article The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences.

It's been a pleasure discussing with you, Chris. You stand as yet another anecdote to show that, contrary to popular belief, creationism is not championed merely by ignorant apologists.

ES

Eric,

Thanks for your kind words. I still believe I earn the title of ignorant apologist. I wouldn't want to be classified as one of the new Bright's. But, I enjoy exploring - there is so much to learn.

Jeremy,

Thanks for the Revelation references. It is not explicit if the devil first came to earth before or after man's creation. The details only start to get filled in the time he interacted with us.

Something else to consider. The angels, even Lucifer, were created beings. When was their creation? Before creation started on Earth, or after the creation week? Or during the creation week?

If Lucifer was the first created being, then doesn't that mean before man was created?

Note, that the serpent, that source of evil, was already there in the garden before man first sinned.

PS. Consider Job, that the devil could come and go.

Job 1:

6 One day the angels came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came with them.

7 The LORD said to Satan, "Where have you come from?"

Satan answered the LORD, "From roaming through the earth and going back and forth in it."

So the cause of the universe is God

And the cause of God is?

(a) You haven't solved the problem. You have just moved it one square left.

(b) Requiring things to have a cause is itself a personal preference, because it is not written in the stars that everything has to have a cause.

/Bevin

But Chris,
The geological column does falsify creation or at least the idea that everything was created together.

Even if you sped everything up by altering the laws of nature in someway, you would still get the stratification that shows everything did not exist together at all times. The oldest part of the column that shows life shows only simple cellular life forms for about 1 billion years. Nothing else. Then it only shows marine organisms. No reptiles, no fish, no mammals, no nests, no tools, no evidence of human habitation, etc. Then it shows tetrapod/fish-like creatures and so on. This is true all over the world, no matter where you access the column. The oldest stuff is the simplest. Things are not found out of order no matter how much Answers in Genesis wants to distort the truth.

This falsifies the concept that all of life appeared suddenly together. Unless you want to argue that after sin entered, only bacteria died for a long time and then only marine animals etc. And that the dying and burying even followed species, with certain species of trilobites all dying together all over the world, followed by another species higher in the column. And that tetrapod/fish-like creatures died in between the deaths of fish and early tetrapods (still no mammals) and then amphibian/reptile creatures died in between those classifications (still no mammals), and reptilian/mammalian like creatures died in between reptiles and mammals. Then flowering plants started dying long long after ferns started dying. And finally, humans started dying along with every single piece of evidence of their existence.

Arguing the existence of Lucifer, sin, the serpent, and creation as told in the Hebrew story is very similar to discussing and analyzing the contemporary Greek myths.

What did Pandora's jar represent? Why was hope contained only in the lid and not dispersed? Why are there differences in Hesiod's "Theogony" and Ovid's creation story? Were the Greeks, like the Hebrews, attempting to allegorize their origins? Why is only one "true" and the other merely myth? Could they not both be considered myth, in the correct definition of the word? Since "myth" is defined as: "a traditional story originating in preliterate society, dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serve as primordial types in a primitive view of the world" all such stories are rightfully labeled "myths."

No one has seen a talking serpent; no one has seen a tree with magical powers of life or death. These are stories that illustrate
man's condition for which there are no adequate explanations. Why is there death? Why are there natural disasters? Why is there both desire and fear between the sexes?

The only reason Christians have accepted lock, stock, and barrel the creation and other stories is because Christianity was born out of Judaism and the NT writers, so familiar with their scriptures, used the common midrash form in reinterpreting their
prophecies as fulfilled with Jesus. In adopting and accepting the Hebrew Scriptures (all the early Christians were Jews), they also
accepted all the Creation tales. It was not until the Enlightenment that the Bible began to be questioned and since that
time, there has been a division in the Christian world between those who accept everything as literal, and those who either realize that there are many types of literature that were compiled over hundreds of years, and those who could no longer accept that it was God's Word, neither inerrant nor infallible.

Hi Beth,

This falsifies the concept that all of life appeared suddenly together

Yes, but I am allowing for an extreme transition of nature, over a few millennial. So, I would expect to see quite a lot of change in the sorts of creatures present - and a definite directional change as well. Even more evolution could have occurred in that time that would otherwise naturally have taken millions of years if it was under current conditions uniformly.

My point is that I would not expect to see all of life that we see today appear suddenly, that is an assumption that us creationists don't necessarily need to take.

It is like the same old assumptions in Darwin's day, that species never vary. It is a wrong assumption that all species were created exactly as we see them today.

Beth wrote:
--
The oldest part of the column that shows life shows only simple cellular life forms for about 1 billion years.
--

Many years ago I was taking an astronomy class at a community college. It was taught by a Paleobotanist from Nigeria. Obviously under employed. His specialty was pollen, the fossilized remains or imprints of pollen. It was from him that I realized that literal 6 day creationism has insurmountable physical evidence against it. Pollen is something that today is pretty ubiquitous but we have large beds of cyanobacteria present, the oldest known fossils and they have no pollen.

Now you could say that plants and trees did not produce pollen in a perfect world but the Genesis story does include the mention of seed bearing plants and pollen is integral to that process. Of course the story did say things were to reproduce after their kind, of course with no adverse elements everything would reproduce 100% effectively and soon there would be no room for anything, Of course those things which reproduce exponentially would inherit the earth first.
* Bacterial growth:
o Divide every 20 minutes.
o In 36 hours – cover the earth 1 foot deep.

So the bacteria will probably beat the fruit flies.

That is why I often say that even those who try to talk about the perfection of the Garden of Eden really have no conception of what it could even be. To arrive at it nearly everything we know about life would have to be different. Things would have to be either micromanaged by God or life would have to have all rules written differently. The idea that because man sinned God rewrote all the rules seems rather strange but even if He did it would still ultimately be God making the rules that cause death, either originally as in Theistic evolution or as fiat after man sinned in literal 6 day creationism.

So to me which makes more sense with the idea of God,a God of love and order.

Ron

Chris,
So what do you mean by creation then? In your model, what do you think was created when?

When I'm talking about stratification, I'm not pointing out that there were no zebras earlier but there are now. I'm talking about the fact that there were no mammals period for a very long time. No reptiles, no birds, no amphibians, no flowering plants etc. So what was created in the beginning that then changed?

Ron,

You said, "The idea that because man sinned God rewrote all the rules seems rather strange but even if He did it would still ultimately be God making the rules that cause death, either originally as in Theistic evolution or as fiat after man sinned in literal 6 day creationism"

Genesis 2: 16-17
"And the LORD God commanded the man, You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."

Who made this rule, and what sort of rule is it talking about that changed man into something that could die?

When you say it is strange, do you mean all theodicies in general? Or strange because we don't yet understand how that could be physically possible?

Beth,

You asked, "So what do you mean by creation then?
In your model, what do you think was created when?"

Read Genesis 1 and 2.

You are implying that I have to accept all of the assumptions and conclusions of evolution. I do not accept all of them.

For example, you said, "I'm talking about the fact that there were no mammals period for a very long time."

You don't know this for certain. This assumption is based on the pattern that you rarely find these types of life low down in the column. The conclusion that those types of life did not exist, is not necessarily correct.

Also, when you say "very long time", I'll grant that this seems like a reasonable assumption, but I don't believe it is a necessary assumption.

What gives me the irrates, is when evolutionists say something is a fact to make their point. After all, they are the ones claiming to come from a scientific view point - so I expect the establishment of fact be properly qualified. The actual fact is simply the patterns in the column, and then inference and conjecture are made from that.

Chris,
I'm not saying you have to accept the assumptions of evolution. What I am saying is that the geological column directly contradicts the idea that life in even somewhat close to its present form appeared suddenly together.

Genesis says that all the "kinds" of life we see today appeared suddenly. Animals, birds, fish, plants and of course humans. So maybe one could argue that a zebra might not have been around but certainly close to zebra like creatures would have been. At least mammals. And the problem with that is that the geological column does not show this. Even crunching time periods doesn't explain the stratification.

It's not that mammals are rarely found in the lower levels. It's that they are never found in the lower levels. Ever. Anywhere fossils have been found all over the world. Mammals are never found before reptiles first appeared in the column and were around for awhile (however you want to define awhile). Reptiles are never found before amphibians were around awhile. Birds are never found before dinosaurs. And none of the above are ever found before fish were around for awhile.

And not just bodies either. No tracks, no nests, no poop, no eggs, nothing. All of which we do find when they actually appear in the column.

We can throw out all sorts of other science and say that the entire geological column was built in two thousand years if we want. But we would still see the first thousand or so years of rocks only having bacteria, the next oldest having bacteria and marine creatures, the next oldest fish being added, the next oldest amphibians etc, with each transition accompanied by creatures with characteristics of both.

We would have to come up with another mechanism besides natural selection because natural selection could not produce that diversity of life in so short amount of time. But we still couldn't say that Genesis is accurately describing what we found because the record does not reflect many different kinds of life appearing suddenly all together.

Some creationist resources (Answers in Genesis comes to mind) love to play these word games that are infuriating because they are misleading. They toss around phrases like "general pattern" and "rarely found." It leads people to think that there is sort of/kind of a pattern of stratification but there is still some mixup with some animals occasionally being found throughout the column. This is. . . well let me just say that it is very misleading information from those who should know better.

I should add that you guys were going over some good stuff up above and I fear I have dragged the conversation back into territory that has been discussed before over and over, amen. So on that note, I will scuttle back to my corner and encourage the rest to continue the more theological focus.

Chris wrote concerning Adam's eating the fruit:

--
When you say it is strange, do you mean all theodicies in general? Or strange because we don't yet understand how that could be physically possible?

--

What is strange is that instead of Adam dying the human being. Everything was dying, thus all the rules would have to change. The obvious question then would be if everything was working fine with no death anywhere would not it be easier to simply let the man die without everything else having to die. God could always teach them how to burn a body or something or simply use the bodies as landfill, probably just have to dig a bit deeper if there was no wee beasties in the soil who live off of decay. Or maybe just put in some decaying feeding organisms just to work on the bodies, hardly need to rewrite all the rules over the death for one species.

Ron

Beth:

He can correct me, but I think in Chris's thinking the conclusions of paleontology and the dating of rocks itself is challenged, because the idea is that the laws of physics changed (quickly or gradually). Ergo radiocarbon dating is suspect.

ES

Eric,
That is what I understand him to be saying as well. And what I'm trying to say is that it doesn't matter whether things are dated a few billion or a few thousand, you still have stratification which disproves the idea that birds, fish, animals, and plants all appeared together suddenly like Genesis says they do.

Beth

Your take on stratification assumes uniformity in the history of the earth. Such ain't the case. Even discounting Noah's flood. The extra terrestial impacts, the internal eruptions, the movement of plates and the rresultant wave action--on and on give the lie to uniformity of antiquity.

Recently they dug up our street. In so doing two layers of black top separated and a fossilized frog fell out. They sent the asphalt to the lab and they found the tar to be millions of years old. So they now have a million year old frog in the city/county museum. Tom

"the lie to uniformity of antiquity."

You gonna explound on how "the extra terrestial impacts, the internal eruptions, the movement of plates and the rresultant wave action" lead to that conclusion? If you have a point, we could learn something. A just-so assertion just confuses me. And I'm not sure how it debunks Beth's point at all. Remember her statement about *no* exceptions to the location of fossils?

And I take it your frog analogy was trying to say that you shouldn't date a fossil by the rock its in? The tar in the asphalt is analogous to the rock in a sedimentary layer -- which would date back to much earlier than the time at which it was laid down.

Scientists are aware of these difficulties. They're not the devil.

I'm curious, too, how we could date tar to millions of years old. I'm no expert, but I know carbon-14 hardly tells us anything before the neolithic (or, if you like, creation). 'tis an interesting problem. I'm not arguing on that point, just musing aloud.

Siggy

Many thanks, Beth, for your thoughtfull comments. You probably put things much better that I would have, and saved me a lot of research an typing! ;-) I always read your posts with both interest and admiration.

Thanks Jag for your kind words. They are much appreciated. I have learned quite a bit on these blogs too so stick around - the fun is just beginning :)

He can correct me, but I think in Chris's thinking the conclusions of paleontology and the dating of rocks itself is challenged, because the idea is that the laws of physics changed (quickly or gradually). Ergo radiocarbon dating is suspect.
ES

I don't challenge it with any other mechanism except for faith. So, I would not say that radiocarbon dating is suspect based on the reasoning that I gave. I have to give credit where credit is due. I don't challenge the validity of the science itself. But I am allowed to believe that the axioms did not necessarily always hold.

Consider the theory that we all popped into existence 5 seconds ago. It can not be disproven.

Now, how different is believing in creation, to believing in the 5 second ago theory? Surely, creation alsp can't be disproven. Because I have to admit that belief in creation, at some point, requires that reality was (very) different to what we have now.

The biblical story indicates that reality was different. So, I am not just making that up to fit. That is part of the old model.

Ron and Beth both point out well the problems that our models have in trying to explain something that we have very little understanding of. My point is that we can't really falsify it, until we understand what the mechanism was that caused reality to change as such. And, we don't have much to go by in explaining the mechanism.

Here is a strange thought. Inspired by sci-fi like back to the future. Perhaps sin changed our creation! i.e. it threw us into a different reality, one that had a different timeline, this new reality with which evolution was used to create man as we see man now. Sin caused us to change our past. God still guided our evolution, so that we could come to know him again, so he could still save us. BioLogos fits the current reality that we see. But it does not address the creation model.

This might sound far fetched - but the truth is that creation always has required that reality changed. How much did it change? We have to admit that to hold creation, it changed more than we could imagine. Being thrown out of the garden of Eden was being thrown out of a different reality.

Both models may be correct within their respective paradigms. We can't pretend to know or limit God's reality.

Further, this is no more ridiculous than believing we will be resurrected to a new reality of eternity. Actually if you think about it, I believe it is an even more symmetrical model.

Chris,
I like it! I think it makes much more sense then any creationist model I've heard so far. I think I see a book deal in your future and Bevin and I expect at least a mention on the acknowledgment page :)

Beth,
:)

Chris wrote:

--
Here is a strange thought. Inspired by sci-fi like back to the future. Perhaps sin changed our creation! i.e. it threw us into a different reality, one that had a different timeline, this new reality with which evolution was used to create man as we see man now. Sin caused us to change our past. God still guided our evolution, so that we could come to know him again, so he could still save us. BioLogos fits the current reality that we see. But it does not address the creation model.

--

Intriguing possibility but intriguing possibilities are a dime a dozen. Unless you are a good writer and can create a book that sells. More likely we should not be so heavily invested with things that we can't possibly know and when the reality seems so contradictory toward what we believe we really should question having a really strong belief in something that problematic.

What is interesting is that those who say they believe the story literally from Gen 1-11 the more you dig into what they really believe you see that they don't really believe it that literally. I will try to put an article on my blog tonight the example from David Read's comments and book review from Atoday.

Ron

"intriguing possibilities are a dime a dozen"

Point is, only our lack of imagnination leads us to the idea that creation has to be falsified. When talking about a religious belief, it's important to allow room for a little faith.

No I don't think so. We try to support information or falsify information that is how we arrive at truth. We do it everyday, we do it in conversation, in reading and even in entertainment. Why even a good joke has to have some hook in reality or we don't laugh.

Ron

Ron,

Cynical? We learn that truth is built on reason. Reason needs a little imagination and faith, otherwise there would be no more realisation of truth.

We hold axioms of reality, that a belief in God clearly opposes the absoluteness of. Do you suggest that the model proposed can't possibly have any hook in truth? Is there no value in expressing examples of win-win scenarios?

It amazes me that so much is being read into "Ida." It amazes me even further that someone's faith in creationism would be shaken by a primate fossil such as this one. Has anyone considered how closely Ida resembles a lemur? That she was a lemur ancestor seems probable. But when the claim is made that she was a missing link on the way to Homo sapiens, I believe we are dealing with sheer propaganda. Once again, a group of "experts" are chasing the evolutionary phantom that Louis Agassiz warned us about more than 100 years ago.