Tough Questions Answered

Let me see if I have this straight:

1. You, personally, think the Earth is on the close order of 6,000 years old (despite the fact that there are *trees* older than that).

2. You think that because of your Holy Bible.

3. You recognize that looks absolutely insane to anyone who isn’t convinced of #2.

4. So, um, we’re not supposed to worry about it, because it’s not that important?

Respectfully: that doesn’t make a lick of sense. If you think you have holy truths communicated to you by an omnipotent being, you ought to share those truths with us. And if one of those truths is that — despite all appearances to the contrary — the Earth is younger than Jarmo and domesticated wheat — then you ought to own up to the consequences of that.

On the other hand: if you’re claiming that a book reveals holy truths about the nature of humanity and the universe, and that holy book has transparently false information in it, I think you should expect that nonbelievers will continue to be skeptical as to how holy and how true it is. Sorry.

@Bill Prat

I’m curious as to what logic lead you to your choice in favoured theory?

@ Michael Crass

If you remove the quality of sentience from God would creation not be enough? Not to be deterministic but if the Creator set forth existance from it’s begining what need would their be to “create” or “design” evolution or life? Would these events not occur as natural forces(ie: physics and the elements) influenced?

and yes, I include the begining of life and it’s evolution in this statement.

What little I understand of modern physics suggests that time itself is not an intrinsic property of reality, but is itself a thing having a beginning, a possible end, and is malleable by various properties such as gravity and velocity. In short, if there is a creator, it is entirely reasonable to assume that this creator exists outside of the boundaries of time, and transcends it.

Given such as creator, is there any substantive difference between saying that he (or it) started everything, which now run by fixed laws, or saying he (or it) influences everything that happens as it happens?

This idea does not require a Christian God (although the principle would certainly apply!); a creator described as a very few foundational principles in physics would do… Does a struck pool ball behave as it does because of the laws of physics operable in the “Big Bang”, or does it operate as it does because energy is conserved in this exact, particular operation? Timeless, or temporal; I think there is probably less difference than we think.

For we theists and Christians, there are some technical issues attending to evolution v young earth creation. But as for the fact of God doing it, I think it makes very little difference. I would think a “clockmaker God” who started things up and then went on about his business is a non-starter

Others, believing there are gaps in the fossil record and claiming that species seem to “appear” rather than develop from simpler forms, believe that God performed large-scale creative acts at different points over longer periods of time.

If I read it right, the above is roughly what you tend towards.

I have a couple of questions about that.

1) Is there a discernible end to this period of creation? In other words, is there a point when the creation of new species stopped? When was that?

2) To follow from 1, would you expect there to be any new species of anything created in the future?

3) do you include micro organisms such as viruses and bacteria in your answers?

Thank you
limey

Tom D: “I think Andrew EC just copy and pasted that little bit, I’ve seen it before.”

If that were true then it wouldn’t be hard to google parts of his post and find whole phrases from it elsewhere. Given that Andrew EC’s post passes that test – it throws up no google results – I’d say that it is original, not copy and pasted. You should take a few seconds to do the same test yourself before you make such an accusation.

I’m sorry if I seemed to suggest that you were proposing a clockmaker god, clearly you had other fish to fry. My point about time is that it does indeed, as you point out, obey fixed laws of physics; if we were to use language more common to personal interaction, we would say that it is subordinate to the laws of physics.

When I drop a pen, I can say that my pen is being this moment acted upon by gravitational force of the sum of the masses divided by the square of the distance.
It is equally valid to say that my pen is acting in accord with one of the four fundamentals of the universe, part of the foundational characteristics of all that is. I think one of the manifestations of time being “inside” physics is that these two statements are essentially redundant. For there to be laws inherent at the beginning is the same as laws operating now, always and everywhere.

The part about that which I find interesting is that by changing the language to that of personal interaction, we can get something pretty close to the monotheistic understanding of God: “X” happened because God willed it so, “X” happened because it is consistent with the way He created the universe, it is consistent with His character.

The principle is the same, whether one posits a sentient, personal God, or a non-sentient, impersonal “unified field theory” as the ground of all things.
==============
But more directly to your point: I think Science and Christianity are imminently compatible, there is only one set of “all truth,” although there are many subsets. Some truth I know by personal experience, some by revelation. Some revelation comes through Newton or Planck, some is revealed to us by the Creator directly. Most, experience or revelation of any source, is subject to misinterpretation, growing subtlety of understanding, and re-evaluation.

The conflicts between the two are where I have made errors in my reasoning:

God made the Heavens.
God is perfect.
Therefore the heavens are perfect.
Therefore planets move in perfect circles, and are unblemished spheres.
Therefore Copernicus and Galileo are heretics.

Or I can misapply the science equally badly.

The conflicts are where there is something I don’t yet understand, or I have misapplied what I do know.

You spoke of “Something that would eliminate the need for an “intelligent design” argument.” I am rather uncomfortable with the theories advanced for the purpose of either filling or eliminating needs in our more core ideas. I understand that nothing advances without the desire to “plug the gaps” but it is also where wish-fulfillment will bite us (either of us) in the butt. While I do believe in an “intelligent designer,” I am not particularly fond of the arguments of the “intelligent design” theorists. They are (or so they seem to me) so strongly influenced by their desired conclusions, which I share, that I do not trust their analysis; particularly their statistical analysis which seems to me deliberately short-sighted.

1 – evolution does not exist because of god? This therefore negates our intelect, and the atributes that God bestowed upon the creature created in his own image. It creates a paradox. It says that we cannont understand the universe, and being made in God’s image, then God cannot understand it either. I do not believe that a negative paradox, or the trivialisation of our faculties is the correct answer.

Although I think that the claim that God cannot understand the universe if we can’t is a bit overstated, I think I take your point; in that if creation is not rational, and therefore understandable by rational beings, then it cannot be the product of a rational God. I totally subscribe to that, as I think would many of the architects of scientific method.

2 – evolution cannot exist because of the church? scientific method and intelectual understanding threatens religious dogma, and calls Christian perspective into question. This is not meant to challenge a persons faith, but to reasses their perspective and understanding of the world.

There are certainly conflicts between my understanding of evolution and my understanding of the Bible. There are further conflicts between “m.u.o.” evolution and m.u.o. Chirstian theology, based in the Bible. The rub comes, as I’ve said, in that most of the conflicts are probably in that “my understanding of” bit. Holding the two apparent truths in tension until resolved or disproved seems to be the only sound route.

I don’t think that the argument of evolution has anything to do with either science or faith, but reallly boils down to economics. If you allow a questioning perspective, then a person may begin to question the need for the church (much like Christ himself) then the institution of the whole Christian church becomes threatend.

I am assuming you mean what is often called “the institutional church” At least to my reading, one of the highest goals of Jesus is that people would be drawn into unity with one another in likeness to the unity of the Trinity. I take this to be the nature of the church, and a great deal of what I understand by the “Image of God” we invoked earlier.
The institutional church often fails and impedes that goal, thus illustrating one of its own core doctrines on the defective nature of humans.

Gone on way too long, you raise some provoking points that I hope I have understood correctly.

-R. Eric Sawyer

Bill P: My post was aimed at you.

Tom D: That’s a very weird criticism, and false in any event. But suppose it were true — what of it?

I don’t mean to be easily exasperated, but this sort of argument is preposterous. The Bible *clearly* speaks to the creation of the Earth, and it just as clearly is demonstrably (and monstrously) false. Saying “oh, but that part isn’t really that important” and then adding “even though we believe the Bible is the inspired, inerrant word of God” under one’s breath is the worst sort of used-car shillery.

Bill — you said:

“I tend to lean toward the last view Keller mentions [young-earth creationism], but I am not completely certain….”

That indicates that you, presently, believe that the earth is 6,000 years old.

Now, you do profess open-mindedness, and I do sincerely appreciate that you’ve caveated your young-earth creationist belief by stating that you’re not “completely” certain about it. Of course, we shouldn’t be “completely” certain of anything!

I sense in what you’ve written — and please tell me if I’m wrong — that this young-earth belief is causing you a certain level of discomfort. You don’t want it to be central to Christianity. You want to be open to hearing other views. I humbly submit that this discomfort is occurring because a young-earth creationist worldview is absolutely and completely contradicted by everything we know about biology, astronomy, chemistry, geology, paleontology, archaeology, and history.

Now, I chose that list carefully; I didn’t just grab seven words that end in ‘-ology’ and trot them out to sound impressive. Each and every one of those fields of inquiry confirms — and requires, as a baseline for investigation — that the Earth is on the order of 4 billion years old. When you choose to discard those fields of human inquiry in favor of a belief that the earth is six *thousand* years old — well, I honestly have a hard time wrapping my head around that one.

Look, this is your blog, and I am trying very hard not to be obnoxious. I do acknowledge and sincerely appreciate that you’ve let my comments go through un-moderated.

I also think there are a great many wonderful things in the Bible, and there are a great many wonderful things that Christians do. Your post asks the question as to whether the Young Earth Creationism is a stumbling block to atheists accepting Christianity. What I’m trying to tell you is (1) that it is a stumbling block the size of a mountain, and (2) that the problems it creates cannot be handwaved away.

I enjoyed your discussion, The Chisel.

But please, never use the word ‘irregardless’ – it makes no sense!

Bill: My apologies for misunderstanding you.

When you say “old-earth creationism,” do you mean (1) that the “days” of Genesis 1 are longer periods of time; (2) that there is a “gap” between Gen. 1:1 and Gen. 1:2; (3) that the creation account in Genesis is allegorical or otherwise not to be taken literally; or (4) some other view?

Thanks!

This is excellent Bill. As a deconverted Christian who definitely based his Christianity on Genesis and “scientific” evidence, I am only now looking to see if there is possibly anyway I would get back into the fold. I don’t know if I will, but if I do it will be for the correct reasons the next time.

Archaeology, Chemistry, and History REQUIRE 4 Billion years of history?? REALLY?

“There isn’t one, despite what some people will tell you.”

Well, there may not be one “christian” view, but there is only one Biblical view. That is the one that counts because the Creator, Who is also the Author of the Bible as well as our Redeemer, states very clearly in Genesis 1 that He spoke everything into existence in six days. Thus, no evolution!