Creation Wonder
by Nathan Brown
We need to reclaim the wonder of creation. While the arguments continue to be argued in so many forums and voices, our first task should be to pause — for at least a moment — and simply survey the world around us, the beauty of so much of what we often overlook and the complex miracles of life.
Belying our quest for scientific certainties, our limited understandings should be a source of humble joy: “In the natural world we are constantly surrounded with wonders beyond our comprehension” (Ellen White, Education, p170). Contemporary Christian writer Brian McLaren has put it like this: “The beauty of ‘in the beginning God created’ should make us giddy with joy and speechless for decades, leaving us little time to argue” (More Ready Than You Realise).
I was reminded of this attitude recently — and we need to be reminded of it regularly — by tree-hugging, river-loving lady from my small local community in her narration of a journey from where our local river meets the sea in the centre of the city of Melbourne to the river’s source high in the hills above our valley: “The outrageous mystery of how we evolved from stars, that what we are made of is — literally — stardust, is a tale of such magnificence that we ought never recover from the wonder of it” (Maya Ward, The Comfort of Water: A River Pilgrimage).
Amid the origin wars and pseudo-religious political debates, we must remember the simple fact of our existence, however we came about, is a foundational miracle and source of wonder. The Bible does not tell us how the world was created — in a scientific, literal sense — and we need to be careful in seeking, contriving and relying on certainties beyond what the Bible actually says. Rather the Bible tells us a story of the creation itself, how wonder-filled that creation was and is, and even more importantly why our world was created.
The Bible is filled with celebrations of the natural world — both by God, such as in Job 38-41, and God’s people, such as Psalm 148. Jesus too, drew examples of God’s goodness and care from the natural world (see, for example, Matthew 6:26, 28-30), commending both our reliance on God and an appreciation of the simple gifts that surround us with wonder: “To live intimately and sympathetically with the earth is to see that we are surrounded and sustained by gifts on every side and to acknowledge that the only proper response to this unfathomable kindness is our own attention, care and gratitude” (Norman Wirzba, The Paradise of God).
As Adventists — those who look for and anticipate God’s coming — the beauties, joys and goodness we see and experience in the world around us are glimpses of what our world was and will be. Our focus on Creation is as much about re-creation. Yet even the shadowed beauty and the imperfect joy speak to us today of God’s love.
In Ephesians 3:14-21, Paul urges the “wisdom and scope of God’s plan,” specifically describing God as, “the Creator of everything in heaven and on earth,” and draws imagery from the natural world in trying to convey the vastness of God’s love and its place in our lives and in the church: “May your roots go down deep into the soil of God’s marvellous love. And may you have the power to understand, as all God’s people should, how wide, how long, how high, and how deep his love really is. May you experience the love of Christ, though it is so great you will never fully understand it. Then you will be filled with the fullness of life and power that comes from God” (NLT). Ultimately, this is what our creation understandings, arguments and wonder must be about.
Yes, it is worth spending time and attention on the importance of the doctrine of creation, responses to the challenges of alternative theories and the theological implications of these varying worldviews. But may we also pause to experience, enjoy and wonder at the realities and beauties of creation, and the life, world and love God has given to us. If we were to pause to wonder more and more often at the miracle of creation, some of the other arguments may fall into place more easily or even begin to fade in their importance and damage.
Finally someone stands up for creation.
First things first. Belief in creation is the beginning of faith. It is, simply, the belief that God is who He says He is. And if He is not, why would one believe anything else He says?
Alternate theories of how things came to be bathe our vanity and appeal to our desire to frame things in a way that our limited minds can deconstruct. But, it also allows us to create alternate theories of God or to eliminate Him from the equation altogether. Whatever the motives of the doubters, that is the end-in-mind of the Deceiver.
Creation is the root for God's authority over mankind. Without it, man can become god to himself. It seems, like Lucifer, we are happy to do so.
Preston,
You say that alternate theories of how things came to be bathe our vanity? So because we now have unlocked many of the secrets of how gene expression is controlled by normal and abnormal physiology we are vain? How about curious? Science gives a rational explanation of how things work. We as scientists become awed when we see how nature works. Our desire for "real knowing" has lead to evidence based medicine. Modern medicine saves real lives when pathology is present, God and religion do not. However, God and religion can save a life if one comes to a point of despair and lack of sense of purpose.
I do not understand how unlocking the mysteries on how life changes through evolution removes a sense of appreciation and wonder for the natural world.
Great story here and I fully agree with the creation as recorded in the Bible. Will we ever be able to understand the science of God who can simply speak and things are created? It will be great to watch when a new heaven and earth are created. Even then will we understand it? Seems all we will be able to do even then is to praise God for what He has done.
I hope that the positive spirit of Mr. Brown's comments about looking at and appreciating God's creation will not be disminished by the comments of others who require God to have preformed his creation in a certain time frame and by a certain means. All Christians belive that God is responsible for all that is good in the created world. Let's see if it is possible not to be focused on the details of how and when he did it.
Nathan Brown’s attempts at peacemaking are commendable, and perhaps even blessed. However we cannot “require God to have performed His creation in a certain time frame and by a certain means.”
In the final analysis, we can only take His word for it–or, decide not to do so.
With all due respect-"OH PLEASE"…still not able to even see the shoreline huh? The problem here with you is thst you are in a position to have influence over others and are therefore responsible for that influence….But after awhile there is a line that is crossed and we are advised in Titus to warn a heretic once or twice then have NOTHING to do with them….
"To pause in wonder at the miracle of creation"…Today, Christmas day, I watched in wonder as a flock of starlings swooped up and down, back and forth through the hills and vineyards shadowing Mt. St. Helena, seemingly performing a perfectly-executed "dance of creation". How those thousands of wings shimmered in the sunlight! And earlier, as my eyes first opened this morning, they beheld the most glorious sunrise, stretching clear across the heavens, perfectly timed for the Creator's "birthday" celebration. It seemed like the Master Artist was busy all day, lightly brushing delicate clouds here and there in the cobalt sky. Truly, creation and Creator call us to wonder, adoration and worship.
Nathan, my testimony is that the wonder of creation, the awe I experience for our Creator God has greatly expanded after my understanding of creation grew from a short 144 hour creation to a much longer and more detailed, intelligently designed, longer Creation chronology. When I finally permitted science to throw its light on the Bible, it deepend and enlarged my admiration and love for the God of the Bible. The doctrine of creation is in no danger from a longer chronology for creation. The Sabbath is in no danger from a longer chronology for creation. The fall, recemption, and the second coming are not at risk with a different chronology of creation. The only thing at risk is pride of our previous opinions and a fearfulness in moving farther, deeper, higher, broader in the study of Creation. Long-term and short-term Adventist creationists both use Moses as the starting point and guide for understanding our Creator, but long-term creationists think Moses account must be the beginning, not the end of the creation story. To stop understanding Creation with Moses, would be like stopping our understanding of Jesus at the manger. The Redemption story is much more wonderful, more detailed, and more interesting than simply Matthew 1 and 2. The Creation story can be much more wonderful, more detailed, and more interesting than simply Genesis 1 and 2. Genesis 1 and 2 is a true story, but it is not all the story, not nearly all.
I can't seem to reply due to faulty website so I have to post a new comment in reply to Ervin Taylor.
Some choose not to remain ignorant of what God said regarding His own creation – For in SIX days the Lord created the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them.
Even the original Hebrew is very clear in Genesis. And the English translation is as clear as daylight – there was evening and there was morning, the "n"th day.
How much more clear do you want it. Do you want someone to shine a police helicopter searchlight in your eyes. Would you then see the light? It might blind you (if you aren't blind already).
Seriously, the willfull ignorance of some highly educated people never ceases to amaze me.
I am interested in some historical sciences. One of them, history of science / history of philosophy tells me that a non-literal reading of the early book of Genesis is as old as the church. In the early days, the people who wrote treatises on theology were all able to read the original hebrew (as compared with today when everyone with the aptitude and a laptop are writing treatises on theology). This ought to show that your conclusion is not demanded by the very clear text.
I also have a theory regarding the acts God makes in the world. They are real. They are real in the sense that they lead to real results with real consequences. They are not etheral nor are they confined to the minds of believers. When God heals a sick person, anyone with proper training would have been able to examine the person before and after and conclude that the person used to be sick but was no longer so. When God ressurected Jesus, experienced dealers in death (soldiers and executioners) could testify that Jesus was in fact dead. After the ressurection hundreds of people could testify that Jesus was no longer dead. Gods acts are real and can be examined and shown to be so by bystanders.
A second historical science I am interested in is biological systematics. It is the science which works towards learning how living things are related. And related they appear to be. Very clearly so. To a point where the questions that remain are "how" the higher groups are related. To a point where the question becomes, either the clear text of Genesis is missunderstood, or the very building blocks that make up each and every one of us is telling an elaborate lie. For some, it more likely that something got lost in the cultural translation spanning two separate language groups and perhaps 5000 years, than that the cells in our body represent the one miracle made by God where Gods acts did not result in actual, accurate and identifiable results.
Yes, but by "the church" do you mean apostates, like the early church fathers, who taught doctrines contrary to the scripture. Paul and others warned about such people, and they were already at work at the time the New Testament was being written.
You need to ask the question "did all of the Bible writers treat Genesis as literal history?" and most importantly "Did Jesus Himself treat Genesis as history?" I don't particularly care if apostasy is as old as the church. I'm not interested in apostasy but in the truth.
So, you define all the leaders of the church after John died as apostates? When did the church leaders become true christians again? Have they ever? Even more, do you know how much our "plain reading of the scriptures" owe to these "apostates"?
I am presently reading a book called "Gods philosophers", and there I read that a big difference between how some of us approach something is fundamentally different than how they did it only 600 years ago. The important question we ask is, how does this work. Noone (in europe) would have been interested in this question back then. They wanted to know, "for what purpose does this work". You will surely recognise the difference this makes in relation to the early books of Genesis. Where we read, "in six days", "spoke" and "by water", they would have read, "God saw that it was good", "let Us make mankind .. to rule.." and "the thoughts of humans were evil .. God regretted .. I will wipe the earth clean..".
Now we are aware of two quite different approaches to study the clear word of Genesis which applies to our own western civilization. We do not yet know which approach the hebrews would have had 5000 years ago, but it is equally likely that it would be more like ours as that it would be like the one our ancestors had as that it would be a third unrelated approach. That leaves a 33% propability that what is the clear reading in 2011 AD would make any sense in 2088 BC. Do you now see what I mean with "lost in cultural translation"?
Some people are blinded by their own lust for worldy applause. Evolution is a way for a "christian" to be considered "OK" in the eyes of the world.
Perhaps an unintended point made by Nathan's blog is that one does not have to be a Creationist of the pagophilus version to have a sense of awe at nature, or creation if you wish,…
“The outrageous mystery of how we evolved from stars, that what we are made of is — literally — stardust, is a tale of such magnificence that we ought never recover from the wonder of it” Maya Ward
Nature is wonderful! I am in awe of its splendor at every level of organization and mystery. We are all fortunate to be witness to the wonders of nature.
I have no doubt at all that the book of Genesis says what it says. I also no longer have any doubt that it does not represent a literal description of what happened.
If you believe God made you, why do you think He gave you a brain? Why were you given the ability to explore nature and consider the abundant evidence that is there?
It is true that those who are "highly educated" are not immune from ignorance; but, in the case of recent, creation-in-a-week origins, much evidence must be ignored and one must blindly accept information that is utterly implausible. But, for those who have been taught and told and believe the bible is literal and infallible, that is, those who essentially worship the bible, open-minded examination of the evidence becomes unthinkable. All they believe in and stand for is threatened by a story that does not conform with their concept of God. To hold such belief one is forced to retreat into ignorance rather than admit that God is not as one has defined Him. It seems to me that the time must come, if a Christian continues to grow, when one let's go of worshiping one's own concept of God, and lets God be God. He is who He is. He is not limited to being what you think He is. We finally realize we cannot put God in a box.
Surely we are free to use our brains and other abilities to seek and find and evaluate evidence, and sometimes discover emerging truth. It is hard to imagine that God is not big enough to have enabled us to study, explore, and discover nature. We retreat into ignorance at our peril.
The beauty and the complexity of the natural world amaze the simple as the educated individual. The debate of short or long period creation involves that one of them is wrong. The ones who choose to believe in “long period of creation” (evolution, death before sin etc.) are basically going against the writings of every single author of the Bible. More seriously are saying the Bible cannot be thrust.
If The first chapters of Genesis are not historical in the modern sense of the word, every single author of the Bible has to be wrong? Really? Id like to see you prove that statement..
It should not be so devastating that one would reject God because something in the bible is not literally true, should it? This is what I mean by worshiping the bible rather than God. Perhaps it is one's interpretation of the bible that should not be trusted…. If one's entire view of the world and God is so dependent on believing the unbelievable, that surely is grounds for being insecure and defensive. It is so unnecessary….
In my opinion, it is simply a cop out (of Biblical proportion?) to believe in or to give benign lip service to the God of the Bible in any way, yet reject out of hand the narrative of creative origins found therein.
The atheist is far more intellectually honest and intellectually coherent than are theistic evolutionists.
The “brain that God has given us” argument is especially nonsensical (to me) because: from whence comes the idea that we have God to thank for our brains?
I see that pagophilus and David can't resist the temptation to inject sectarian ideaology into what started as a fine thread by Nathan Brown. So sad.
Isn't it interesting that people who come up with vague ideas who don't want to hear sound refutation pretend to be saddened or offended by the refutations. Come on, do you really think we couldn't see through this.
Your original comment "I hope that the positive spirit of Mr. Brown's comments about looking at and appreciating God's creation will not be disminished by the comments of others who require God to have preformed his creation in a certain time frame and by a certain means." is really saying "Please let us have free reign on this one." Well I'm sorry Mr Taylor, we must have our say too, so that the impressionable minds reading this who haven't come to any conclusion yet can see both sides of the story.
Pagophilus,
I think Dr. Taylor is saying that you are injecting sectarian theology into the discussion as if your theology has some authority. When you did such we also could see right through your attempt. It only has authority for those that allow. SDA creation theology is a perspective and not necessarily the truth. For us who do science its both with awe and some understanding that we are able to grasp how life changes over time. I enjoy reading when some say IN SIX DAYS the Lord created the heavens and earth, etc. As if this statement has some authority. For me it does not. Its a statement within the context of an ancient story. The creation account of genesis is not historical or mechanistic. It is an expression and deference to the idea that the universe came about by something greater than ourselves.
"one does not have to be a creationist…to have a sense of awe at nature…the outrageous mystery of how we were formed…we ought never to recover from its wonder" — For a believer, how much more true! For the outrageous mystery of how we were formed from dust, that what energized and gave life to this dust was – literally or figurtively – the breath of God, is truth of such magnificance that we ought never to recover from its wonder. As Brown suggested, whether we are short-age or long-age proponents, our response to the creation (when we pause long enough to capture its mystery) cannot help but be one of wonder, worship, and commitment to such a Creator. "Giddy with joy and speechless for decades" – that's like the pictures in Revelation!
Just to be clear, and to be sure you have the ability to consider the source of my comments, please understand that I grew up in an adventist home, with an extended family on both my father's and mother's sides mostly made up of adventists. I was homeschooled and went to adventist schools through the first two years of college. For part of that time (late 50s, early 60s) I was a theology major (at PUC). By the early 60s my religious experience was, I think, as deep and honest as any I have ever encountered. But an honest examination of the world and knowledge not taught in SDA schools at the time, led me away from strict belief in the literal ultimate truth attributed to scripture. My marriage to an SDA girl began and ended. I finished college and went to graduate school, honestly continuing to seek answers to life's persistent questions. The time came when real geological and paleontological evidence, along with molecular biology and comparative anatomy, made it much too difficult to explain that evidence within a recent creation framework. I simply could not be honest and believe the literal recent one-week creation story.
For awhile I felt that without the creation story, the concept of God made no sense. Then I found plenty of other people believed in God and even creation, but without being able to answer the when and how. I have come to tolerate that position, mainly because I cannot, and do not even wish to, disprove the existence of God. My best guess is that God was created by mankind, in part, to answer unanswerable questions. So, I do not consider myself an atheist because I do not insist that God does not exist. I'm not all that fond of the term agnostic either, because I think it conveys a lack of certainty that exceeds what I believe is warranted. I do not believe in God. If you do, that is fine, and I do not need to have you believe as I do. Teaching young earth creation is another matter. That is teaching error as truth, and no matter who you worship, teaching error as truth is not a positive contribution.
So my point about the human brain being God given was not an expression of my belief. It was an atribution of belief to someone else. I think it is clear that the human brain evolved and that the chimpanzee brain evolved, etc., even the drosophila brain evolved. If you believe that God played a role in in that process, I do not mind. I think comparisons of human, chimpanzee, bonobo, gorilla, orangutan, gibbon, baboon, macaque, etc., primate brains is very interesting and enlightening. Especially in the contexts of molecular genetics and genomics and population biology and ecology.
So, as I have said before, I probably do not belong here. Well, in a way I do, because I was an adventist and believed as many of you believe. But I really don't belong here, because I can no longer honestly believe what the church teaches as true (and some of what it teaches, or ignores, as false). And yet, I have met old friends and relatives here and made new friends here. I am not trying to cause anyone to lose his/her faith. But I do think you should know that one can honestly seek truth and find some, and that if you cannot honestly go on blindly believing, it will not be the end of the world. I have had a good and fulfilling life and have much peace and joy. I'm just saying, ignorance is not the only path to bliss.
Joe,
For whatever it’s worth, I respect your position—now that you have clarified that you don’t believe in God. You are not a theistic evolutionist after all; and therefore you are not trying to illogically have it both ways regarding God.
My issue is with those who believe that there is a benevolent, all powerful, Creator God, and who were introduced to the very concept of a such a Being by the Bible; yet do not believe that the same God either did, or could do, what it is claimed that He did in the source material from which their concept of Him emanates.
Stephen,
I need to pick up on a point you make to Joe as to who your issue is with. I also respect Joe's position and presence on here. I think both add value. What I want to pick up on is this:
"My issue is with those who believe that there is a benevolent, all powerful, Creator God, and who were introduced to the very concept of a such a Being by the Bible; yet do not believe that the same God either did, or could do, what it is claimed…."
Your issue seems to be based on the view that such a position requires one to have been "introduced" to it by the Bible. This is not the case. Example. I have a cousin who grew up in an athiestic home. Through the process of observation, study and experience that person has moved their thinking to a point somewhere between that Joe describes and a typical Christain view. Theistic evolution for want of a better term. No Bible involved. Your issue is a straw man.
I would also suggest you seek to better understand how a theistic evolutionist would describe God. Your terms "benevolent, all powerful.." etc may not be accurate. If so you are setting up another straw man. Does God have to be all those things to still be God? Show me in the Bible where the word "Omnipotent" is used? (please don't give me generalizations – eg with God nothing is impossible because I will explain that away the same way you would explain away "And the smoke of their torment rises up forever and ever..")
Stephen,
btw, when I suggest you show me "omnipotent" in the Bible, it probably goes without saying that I am not doing so in recognition or suggestion that it has the final say on God or the qualities of God. I do not. I presume that is your view, as it once was mine, so I use that basis. Similar to Joe's point above about the brain.
Cb25,
So let us get this straight, your cousin has taken a position somewhere between not believing in God, yet not being willing to claim His non-existence as a belief (Joe) and, say…my (“typical Christian”) position of believing the God of the Bible to be the Creator of everything, and of Him having done whatever He did in the manner described in the Bible?
Now there’s quite a bit of room, I suppose, between those two positions (or is there?), but the larger point that you are making is that your cousin arrived at his/her nebulous position with “no Bible involved” as you put it.
My question then goes to your cousin’s “process of observation, study and experience.” What did he/she “observe, study, and experience,” and how isolated from “typical Christian” belief or dogma could they possibly have been to come down in a position that considers the “typical Christian view” within conceivable proximity?
As to how a theistic evolutionist describes God, clearly that would depend on what theistic evolutionist is doing the describing. The participants on this site seem to overwhelmingly believe that God exists and that He is good; although I could be wrong.
As to God being omnipotent, I don’t know with what part of this concept you, or others, have a problem. (I for one do not necessarily “buy” the typical Seventh-day Adventist explanation of “forever and ever” with regard to Revelation 14:11; so you may have to try someone else.) My Dad has a theory that God cannot do things that are contrary to His nature. For example, he cannot lie. I believe that God can simply do anything He chooses, or decides, to do. This is because Jesus believed this: Matthew 19:26, Mark 10:27, Mark 14:36, Luke 18:27.
stephen,
You paraphrase my cousins position as:
"…has taken a position somewhere between not believing in God, yet not being willing to claim His non-existence as a belief". No. They began with the belief in His non-existence, and moved to a belief in God's existence.
You then ask:
"…how isolated from “typical Christian” belief or dogma could they possibly have been to come down in a position that considers the “typical Christian view” within conceivable proximity?"
First, you seem to doubt such is possible. I suggest yes. Church, God, and Bible were not part of the home deal. Secondly, you speak of "conceivable proximity. mmm how long is a peice of string?
re Theistic evolution. I believe God Exists.
As for omnipotence. Intrigued by your bit on Rev 14, but fair point. Your other comments re God demonstrate that even among the "believers" there is room for difference. Dare I suggest that even the vocal few here who defend God and Creation at the expense of all common sense on some things, would have their own "personal" interpretations of who God is and how to describe Him.
Even for these the Bible only has as much authority as they "give" it, and every doctrine is a matter of interpretation at the end of the day. I prefer to give authority to any source based on the best a posteriori examination, and to interpret tentatively after the same process.
At the end of the day there can be faith without the Bible. There are many, many shafts of light shed in this world.
cb25,
For me, the key phrase is, " . . . the vocal few here who defend God and Creation at the expense of all common sense on some things . . ."
Indeed. That is the point. God. Creation. Omnipotence. Omniscience. Uncommon. Beyond our ability to comprehend rationally.
We all have our beliefs. Some are grounded in faith in God and the Bible as His Word to us. Some have faith in themselves and their formidable, yet limited ability to analyze, a posteriori, data, for which they apply a range of theories.
One thing you may want to consider. Those of us who believe God and the Bible are operating on evidence. However, that evidence is anecdotal, random, usually non-recurring, faith dependent, yet compelling. What do I mean? You may wish to re-read the testimony given to the rational doubters of that time which concludes with the simple, yet unimpeachable conclusion: "I was blind, but now I see," John 9: 1-25.
Preston,
🙂 I did qualify the statement about common sense: "all common sense on some things". Note the bold.
Some things are beyond our ability to fathom. True.
But let us never use that as an excuse to deny the reality of the world and life around us. Just because I don't know all there is about things that may or may not exist beyond my rational comprehension does not mean I should accept as fact doctrines which deny things that are very much within my realm of rational comphrehension. eg as Joe noted the doctrine of YEC.
I also happen to think that the Bible is in itself NOT random, anecdotal, non-recurring etc. It is hard copy. Yes, much of what it describes is as you say. But the factual claims about nature and creation are to a very large degree measureable against the reality we see. It does speak of many things within my realm of rational comprehension. And many of those things (or at least the interpretations commonly given them) are refutable from hard evidence. Hence my point above about YEC.
Cb25,
Forgive my skepticism regarding your cousin. Unless he/she has not been exposed to the Bible, I would venture to say that there is something about God that is revealed in the Bible that has led him/her to believe in the Bible’s God.
God no doubt reveals Himself to those outside of western culture or civilization who may have never heard of the Bible.
My paraphrase of your cousin’s position is based on your description of the position they now hold (according to you).
You haven’t yet divulged what it was they have studied, observed, and experienced to have moved him/her to a belief in God’s existence. In other words, what would get them to move from a belief in His non-existence to a belief in His existence outside of some sort of Biblical reference or context? Did the heavens declare the glory of God to them? This is of course possible, but from where would they get such an idea?
Just because the Bible was not part of his/her upbringing means absolutely nothing. If he/she is a product of western culture and civilization, there is no way that they have not heard of the Bible.
It doesn’t make any sense to believe in the God of the Bible yet not believe the things that the Bible says about Him. It is even more of a non sequitur to believe in the existence of God without Biblical context. It is simply a logically untenable position. At least in western society, it is.
Stephen,
Let me try to bring this back to what I was trying to say.
1. I do not know all the details of my cousins journey, but I know enough to make the point I was trying to make. One can believe in God without having to have been "introduced" to it through the Bible. You are welcome to be skeptical.
2. Re my cousins position. In re-reading, I probably left it open to misunderstanding when I refer to Joe's point/position. Theirs was different in that they were willing to say there was no God, but moved from that position to one of belief that there is. For the sake of illustration I used Joe's comments as a "marker". It was your paraphrase that caused me to pick up the unintended shade of meaning you had taken from it. Sorry I was not clearer.
3. I find your view that one cannot move from unbelief in God to belief in God outside of the context of the Bible somewhat objectionable. There are many religious beliefs in this world who have God, god's, or deities in their understandings. While monotheism may be less common, Is it not a questionable argument to say that one could not find or experience the concept of God outside the Bible? I think so.
4. Your last paragraph reminds me so much of the many (futile?) words David Newman and I engaged in. I don't think I have actually said I believe "in the God of the Bible". You see, so much of the doctrine that surrounds the "God of the Bible" is based on interpretation. Hey, I know plenty of SDA's who will argue till the cows come home that the trinity is nonsense. Jesus is a man, God's Son at best etc. etc. I can move from one Christian group to another and almost to a man they will understand God differently.
Who in fact IS the God of the Bible? Yes, Jesus words, life, and ministry probalby give us one of the best insights (shafts of light) into who He really IS, but it is all "looking through a dark glass". I would submit that ultimately our understanding of God should be shaped by a wider search than the "Bible alone", will give us.
To insist that I cannot believe in God without all the things (interpretations) the Bible says about Him is indefensible, but it is the belief of so many, and perhaps drives much of the fear they have in even looking at the evidence against YEC. The fear? If there is any "truth" to evolution their position, which you also have taken, would force them to throw all belief in God out. Tragic.
I should hasten to clarify that the largest traditions of faith, whether they be monotheistic or not, have teachings about theistic concepts which may be considered biblical.
It has already been conceded that God can and has revealed Himself to cultures or people who are unfamiliar with “our” Bible.
We are talking to and about western culture and largely with people of a Judeo-Christian background on this site, or possibly some from Muslim, Buddhist, or Hindu backgrounds for all I know; all of which teach a concept of theism, I think.
Those of us in the western societies who have heard of God have done so in the context of Him being the benevolent Creator and Sustainer of life and therefore worthy of worship and love. My point, again, is that this concept has been taught in some biblical context in the major faith traditions for sure; and that subscription to this conception of God is a result of exposure to these teachings and the biblical context from which they have emanated, and to subscribe to these conceptions of God via biblical contextual exposure yet not believe the creation narrative found in the same biblical context from which this conception of God is derived is logically incongruent and intellectually incoherent.
Theistic evolutionists essentially posit that God exists and may have put in place the necessary elements and ingredients for life as we now know it to have evolved over time; but that in any case He certainly did not speak life (and perhaps our galaxy, or at least our solar system) into existence according to the Genesis narrative.
But why, and on what basis, do they believe that God exists?
(Personally, I accept that some evolution may well have taken place, but that the Genesis account of God personally speaking fully formed life forms into existence is correct.)
Finally, you have provided us with the Mother of All Understatements: “Who in fact IS the God of the Bible? Yes, Jesus words, life, and ministry probably give us one of the best insights (shafts of light) into who He really IS…
Preston,
There is so much in that post I'm sure I cannot, perhaps should not, respond to it all.
You do ask one very important question, (among others perhaps).
"But why, and on what basis, do they believe that God exists?"
My answer: On the same basis you do. Faith. You just have a few more steps in your faith than I do. You first accept the Bible's authority and claims on or in faith. You then accept its explanations of life, creation and God on or in faith.
I accept by faith that God IS. Sure, for me I have come from a Biblical perspective having been "introduced" to God via that medium. I remain convinced others have come to believe God IS via other avenues.
You are welcome to your opinion, but personaly I don't think I am being logically incoherent when I accept by faith that God IS, when you also ultimately must accept such by faith having first granted authority to a book by faith.
I honestly think the illogical part is more likely to lay with those who have to deny much of reality about our world to maintain many of the interpretations of the Bible. eg YEC yet again:)
Anyway, unless you think I am avoiding further discussion, it is beginning to look like we are best to agree to disagree at this point.
Thank you Chris and Preston for your conversation. I think there might be some geographic basis for the differences in perspective. The native/indigenous peoples of Australia have clearly been present there
for about ten times as long as the YEC position accepts for life on earth.
Having previously tried this approach of questioning the logic of theistic evolution in another forum, I knew the reaction to expect. No one likes their worldview categorized as illogical, and creationists like me should certainly be more sensitive to this; but the only way I can understand that which appears illogical to me is to challenge.
As the Genesis narrative indicates that the earth existed “without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep” at the beginning, and there is no indication how long it had existed in this state, I don’t have an opinion on how old the earth may be. Bear with me, but how can it possibly be “clear” as to who/what was where 6,000 or more years ago?
Believing that “God IS,” but simultaneously claiming not to be cognizant of any particular attributes of God seems to be a cop out double down, with all respect. Faith based on the authority of, and reliability in, the inspiration of scripture (and personal experience) is one thing; faith while claiming not to know who God is, and not believing what scripture says that He has done is…curious.
Preston,
I have lived in the YEC / YLC world view. I understand it/them. Rather than being "sensitive" to you challenging it, I am actually trying to say to you that the typical creationist position is illogical. So, we are both saying the same thing to each other.
Let me state this very bluntly. The creationist position does not appear illogical to me on the basis that I do not understand it, BUT because I do understand it. I spent dacades of my life defending it, studying it, and teaching it.
I also spent years researching, asking questions, and learning, and the more I understood the more reality I had to deny in order to remain in my narrow little world view. As noted before, seeing Vieth trot out some of the staple diet of YEC etc, was the straw that finaly pushed me to re-examine and admit what I was trying to deny.
If I were in fact to become convinced that my attempts to harmonize the existence of God with the reality of a very old earth AND life was not possible, my only alternative would be to join Joe.
Having come out of ignorance how could I retreat into it? There is no returning.
Rather, I have experienced things in life which convince me that there is more to reality than I can rationaly understand or explain, and that there may well be Someone "bigger than me" out there. I certainly can't dismiss it, but like you I cannot prove it.
What I can do is look at this world, nature etc, and accept that that is what I see, can study, and can allow to comment on reality.
What I mean by that is: Use what IS (natural world) to guide me on what MAY be (God), not the other way around. As a creationist I allowed a book's description of what MAY be to inform me about what IS until what IS was seen to blatantly contradict what that book claimed. (at least my interpretation of what it claimed)
Why should a Book of "Truth" cause me to live in contradiction of reality? Let us not present that kind of God to the world.
Obviously this conversation was not over:) Loose ends remain/ed.
And there are people out there who say the opposite…they believed and studied evolution, until they could no longer defend the silliness of it.
The "SCIENCE" does NOT support evolution.
One has the right to believe in whatever he/she wanted to believe. But if one decides to trust in the Bible or In God described in the Bible there is not room for evolution. If one desires to be considered seriously need to be consistent.
Furthermore the SDA Church probably is one of the most conservative in regards the 6 day creation and keeping the Sabbath as a memory of the creation. I’ll concur with Mr. Goldstein when he stated a true SDA couldn’t be an evolutionist.
Decide to trust the Bible on what basis? Consistent in what? Based on what? Defined by whom?
Goldstein? mmm each to their own:)
Earlier Joe made some really great points. (I hope you don't mind Joe if I paste one here)
"But, for those who have been taught and told and believe the bible is literal and infallible, that is, those who essentially worship the bible, open-minded examination of the evidence becomes unthinkable."
you are a mayor in theology you should know why to trust the Bible
consistent in what you believe ( if you belive in the evolution you could not be a true SDA)
Per John 1:1-4, 14, perhaps I AM guilty of worshipping the Bible, as I believe it to be the Word of God.
Any other distractions . . .?
Preston,
To confuse the word of God (which is the Bible + anything else God chooses to say) with the Word of God (God incarnate in Jesus) strikes me as being so close to heretical that it makes no difference. The Bible is a record of God's acts in this world (whether or not to be taken literally is a moot point). Jesus is the essential nature of God made human. There is no comparison between the two, just as there is no comparison between God and any created thing. If you are guilty of worshipping anything except God, you are guilty of idolatry. I have no problem with the Bible being inspired and authoritative, but it is not God. I think you need to think through your view of the Bible again, as I doubt you would wish to identify the Bible and God as closely as you have above. If you do indeed believe that the Bible is God in written form, rather than a record of God's acts, then I guess I have nothing else to say on this.
Doesn't the first chapter of Johns gospel define the person Jesus as the Word and as God?
Kevin,
As Thomas points out, the texts that I've referenced are quite clear. I have chosen to believe what they say (BTW, they also describe, again, the creation process).
If Christ, from the beginning, is both the Word of God and God, worshipping the Word is not idolatry, but submission. I have chosen to believe the Word and to order my life by it. I do not worship the physical book, but I do worship what the book says. More than any other thing in this world, it determines what I believe and think. Along with the Holy Spirit, the Word is the defining authority in my life.
I have also chosen to limit my trust in what seems obvious, intellectually appealing, or "common sense" IF it is contrary to what the Word says, particularly when the Word speaks literally (when it symbols are used, interpretation is, I believe, best done by comparing prophecies, fulfilled prophecies, and listening to the Holy Spirit). I have had the benefit of and diverse exposures in my life: public school, private school, elite schools, high corporate and government experience. All of it re-enforces the fact that mankind is limited, fallible, self-seeking, and purposefully dishonest. Known "facts" not only change with new information, they, and the conclusions drawn from them, are influenced by the agenda of the "research" funder. For me, depending on what men present as fact requires much too much unearned faith.
All of this is to say that I believe all what the Bible says (in this case, about creation). I believe that others on this blog are smart and well intentioned. However, a good deception is based on what seems obvious and on what people WANT to believe. If an appeal to vanity is added to the deception, "success" is virtually assured. A third of the angels in heaven, who looked into the face of God continually, were deceived. They were deceived by depending on what seemed to be obviously true, but counter to what the Word was telling them. It was a fatal choice (Proverbs 16:25).
Preston,
Just to clarify, in my view, the text is indeed quite clear, and Kevins analysis of your mixing up the Word with the words in the bible a good point. The Word is a person, and it is consequently not a book. The book gives one perspective on the person, but as the gospel of John ends, it would require quite a library to even try to cover the full perspective. You can read a dozen biographies about someone, and even feel that you know the person after doing so. But in the real world, you only know the person for yourself when you spent quality time together. That is, once you spent some time doing things together.
I have just pasted a comment at the bottom and it went up several comments. I will try again as I want this to be at the bottom. If it fails there will be two upstairs. Forgive me if it does:)
Trevor, David and Preston,
Gentlemen, I am weary of this type of discussion. It has even degenerated to the point where Trevor, you have stooped to being rude enough to declare that I did not actually believe in creation. Please!
I will place to you the challenge I put before David Newman. Below are two links to the TalkOrigins site. Demonstrate to me that you actually understand where people like me are really coming from. Read through the site. Follow the links. You don't have to take it on board, but you owe it to basic respect for others in these type of discussions and dialogue. I know from my past that in these type of discussion I continually came from a safe position within my conservative world view and beleived I knew what the "other side" believed and why. I was so wrong.
When you have done so, let me know, and we can create or find a context on AT to really grapple with the nuts and bolts of this problem. Until then, be Christian.
David N may have had other reasons for backing away from the challenge, but I suspect fear can too easily play a role. Are you gentlemen man enough?
http://www.talkorigins.org/
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs.htm
updated copy of Morton's material:
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/geo.htm
Thanks for understanding (?). Oh and by the way, my brother wants you (and Joe) to know that, for the most part, you have been conversing with Stephen (and not Preston) on this thread. (I don’t mind getting confused with him, whereas he gets irritated when he is confused with me. Now you know—or have a clue—who has the better reputation.)
I don’t think that theistic evolution is illogical because I don’t understand what it is; I think it is illogical because, by definition, it is literally intellectually indefensible.
It is absolutely undeniable that the Bible depicts God as the original Source of all life, love, goodness, wisdom and knowledge.
Faith that God exists without an acknowledgement—or even a cognizance—of God’s attributes is not really faith, is it? If “faith” is partially based on a feeling that something out there is bigger than you, or comes about because there are things that you can’t fully explain, isn’t that much more like a hunch than faith? In any case, how firm can any faith/belief be if there is no discernible or explicable reason for the faith/belief?
Creationists, on the other hand, have unabashedly placed faith in the authority of the Bible; which is certainly illogical to a dyed-in-the-wool evolutionist, but it is faith after all, which is somewhat different than a feeling that we may not be alone.
Besides, how would even compelling (though not indisputable) evidence that certain life forms have in fact evolved over time disprove the proposition that God indeed spoke life forms into existence; or more importantly, that Jesus was born of a virgin? Again, how clear can it be as to who or what was where even 10,000 years ago, much less billions of years ago?
Sorry for mixing up your names guys.
Cheers
Likewise, I hope I have not mixed up names here. Mostly, I do not wish to make my comments personal, but I know they are sometimes very directed.
Please understand that I am not asking anyone to reject God or faith in God. If you are able to have faith, that is fine with me. What I am suggesting is that faith in God should not depend on belief that life on earth is less than 10,000 years old. If you put all your faith in that concept, rather than God, you lock yourself into believing and defending a position that is false and indefensible. You adopt a position of willful ignorance. You end up thinking people are your enemies who are not your enemies. You decide, by ignoring geological and paleontological and molecular genetic evidence, to live in a very restricted world. What sort of logic permits one to cite as an authority an individual with whom one fundamentally disagrees? Dawkins is one of the people I sometimes refer to as an "evangelical atheist." He campaigns to get you to disbelieve in God, and he seems to think that recognition of the abundant evidence that life has existed on earth for hundreds of millions of years and that life has been evolving throughout that time, compels one to reject that God can exist. In my opinion, recognition of the abundant factual evidence of ancient life and evolution does not necessarily falsify the existence of God. It does necessarily falsify the absolutely unbelievable notion that life on earth has existed for less than 10,000 years. It is an absolutely incredible belief, yet, it is believed by many people who simply refuse to look at the real evidence. Please have a look at Erv Taylor's book of chronometric methods, unless, of course, you cannot entertain that anything exists outside your narrow recent life concept.
Chris and I and several other people who have posted here once clung to the same young earth idea with all our minds and faith. In Australia, there is a great deal of evidence–more being found all the time–that humans have lived there for 40 to 50 thousand years, or even more. A typically accepted figure is 60,000 years–ten times as long as life has existed on earth, according to some. Of course, the time span is even longer in Africa, Europe, and Asia. Humans have lived in the Americas longer than 10,000 years. Fossil hominids go back at least 6 million years. Other primates, including the prosimians, go back more than 60 million years. The notion that all this is some vast conspiracy of scientists and Satan–which I have heard expressed more than once–almost requires one to be mentally ill to believe. After while, the cognitive dissonance between factual evidence and paranoid delusion has to be resolved, if one is to remain honest and sane.
Ah, yes Joe…cognitive dissonance, that’s the term that I should have been using to make my point; thank you very much!
Please understand me (not to be confused with others on this strand); I am not attempting to get anyone to believe the creation narrative. If you are convinced that science can determine what happened and who was here before Adam—what happened one million years ago as opposed to what happened one billion years ago—then so be it; that is your prerogative.
It is also your prerogative, or more precisely Chris’s, to believe that God exists while simultaneously believing that both Adam and Eve had earthly parents and prehistoric ancestors.
My point is that it is illogical on its face to hold the latter position; i.e. that God exists, but that He didn’t make man in His image.
Now, someone may say, “I believe that God (may have) made man in His image, but that He chose to take billions of years and an evolutionary process in which to do it.” To which I would (again) reply, “Where in the world could you have possibly gotten the idea that there is a God (who would, or could, do such a thing)?”
As I have said before, the larger the time frame, the less precisely the time can be estimated–and the less the magnitude of error matters. How do you explain the existence of various fossils and artifacts that are estimated to be somewhere between 40,000 and 60,000 years old? Or 400,000 to 600,000 years old? Or between five and seven million years old? Or between 15 and 20 million years old? You just can't fit all that into a <10,000 year box.
If one can believe that life on earth all fits within the last ten thousand years, one can believe anything! So how is it so difficult to understand that someone else can believe something different? Especially if it actually accommodates facts that can only be disputed by assertions that they can't be true–no evidence, just willful rejection of evidence….
I would think a person of faith would be glad to see that someone who acknowledges evidence contrary to young earth still has faith in God. After all, it is the recent origin of life that is unbelievable, not the possibility that there could be a powerful force in the universe that is beyond our comprehension. How we deal with things that are beyond our comprehension is pretty personal and perhaps quite open to individual taste, but how we deal with objective evidence regarding things that really happened within the last hundred thousand or million years is far less open to personal interpretation. Of course, one can simply turn a deaf ear and blind eye to objective evidence and invent bizarre and unbelievable explanations.
Joe,
You seem to be trying to get me to consider evolution as the explanation of creation and the possibility, or certainty, that it can be scientifically determined what happened 40,000 or 400,000,000 years ago.
I have already told you that I respect your position as someone who does not believe that God exists and is convinced that the evidence that things have evolved over millions and billions of years is probative; and overwhelmingly so, at that.
Accordingly, I am not trying to get you to believe otherwise. To the contrary, I am trying—if anything—to get others to be as intellectually honest and coherent as you are in these regards.
Why then would you attempt to engage me in explaining why I believe what I believe; when you already know full well why I believe what I believe? Are you trying to get me to open my mind to what you consider overwhelming evidence disproving the Genesis creation narrative?
Why not accept that mind is as open to evolution over billions of years, or millions, or hundred or tens of thousands of years (whichever you prefer) as yours is to becoming a creationist again?
Besides, my point again is that it is nothing but an intellectually disingenuous and logically incoherent cop out to believe (have faith) in God and believe that He didn’t, or couldn’t, do what it is claimed that He did in the very source material from which our very concept of God emanates in the first place.
Let me first say that Christians don’t worship the Bible or Nature for that matter – but we do ‘worship’ God. Regarding the Creationist position: some may claim to have studied it, taught it, understand it and have defended it: BUT have they believed it? Methinks not.
Two main groups are mentioned here who marvel at Nature: 1] The Stardust/Nuclear Waste enthusiasts (This first group can be further split into: Atheists, Weak Atheists, Deists and Weak Theists or Theistic Evolutionists) and 2] The God Created what is revealed He Created in a literal Creation Week as per Bible Narrative group. God’s Omniscience and Omnipotence can’t be fully appreciated by the Weak Theists in the first group as they limit His Power and Creative ability to a lesser lower level of Creative capability which is qualified by their erroneous belief in Evolution Theory which drastically reduces their estimate of God and limits Him to be able to only specialize in bringing forth just the lower life forms only.
The beauty and fascination we find in Nature reveals the Glory and the Power of God. The Cross: His Love. By default, those who diminish God’s Creative ability and power deny the truths found in the Holy Bible. They have to discredit the Holy Bible in order to make their theory credible. By the way, die-hard Atheist and Sci-Fi Evolutionist, Richard Dawkins, debunks Theistic Evolution as a crock.
Of course nature is wonderful. All of it. Including all that existed more than 10,000 years ago and more than ten million years ago.
What in the world would suggest that Richard Dawkins, an absolute atheist, would be accepting of "theistic evolution?" I am not a theistic evolutionist. I simply recognize that science cannot, does not, and should not even try to, or claim to, disprove the existance of God. The young life assertion can be, and has been, completely refuted by abundant evidence. And I say that does not require people of faith to reject the existence of God. If one cannot believe in God and recognize that life is ancient, maybe that faith is not so great. There is no need to place such limits on God, if you really have faith. I just don't think think faith requires ignorance. It does not seem to me that a just and loving God would even want people to choose ignorance over evidence.
Trevor wrote:
"Regarding the Creationist position: some may claim to have studied it, taught it, understand it and have defended it: BUT have they believed it? Methinks not."
This reminds me of the defence of the "once saved, always saved" position, where a saved person can never be lost, and anyone who lost their faith, it is said, never had it to begin with..
The second part, I think, is an exercise in making the world simple. Good guys think like me. Bad guys think something different.
I heard a story describing heaven and hell as two camps in the forest, with people sitting around the fire with a pot of food in the middle. Each person had a spoon which was too long to feed one self with. In hell, everyone starved to death as they could not feed themselves and would not feed the pagan, infidel, heretic, atheist or evolutionist on the other side of the fire. In heaven, everyone ate and enjoyed the evening because no one saw an enemy in front of him or her, everyone saw a friend whom they could help eat.
Now my question is, does dividing the world in "those who think like I do vs those who do not think like I do" suggest a place around the fire where everyone provide for each other or a place around the fire where fear and mistrust prevent any providing for the other?
As a scientist I look for the most credible proof a replicable observation, which is lacking in the evolution. What is there is a lot of speculations some of them very fancy ones, but at the end is just that: speculation or interpretation not realities. Some naïve people wanted to put the theory of evolution at the level of the law of gravity what a crack! An credible person would know the great difference.
David
As a scientist, you would know that this particular argument only helps creation IF it is better supported by replicable observation than is evolution. IF it makes more useful predictions which lead to better applications.
Thomas,
An excellent point. Where is the verifiable replication of recent creation? Independent assessments of the ages of fossils and artifacts land in the same general time frame. If they do not, we appropriately question and are skeptical of them. Likewise with the molecular evidence. The speculation comes in with regard to what the evidence means. That speculation is clearly identified as such, and people must learn not to confuse the evidence with the speculation about what it means.
Thomas there is a big difference, creation does not claim as scientific finding, is a matter of faith. Evolution claims that is base of scientific findings, but the hard evidence is lacking when one look very carefully and absent when we ask for reproducibility. For the great majority of the evolutionist evolution is a matter of faith, because they are trusting in the writing of somebody and almost never summiting to a rigorous questioning.
I could ignore your profoundly mistaken comments regarding science, speculation, evidence, etc., and I probably should. Your mind is made up, and nothing, no matter how valid, can get in. You do not understand the objective evidence of ancient life and biological change because you choose to not examine the evidence without deciding the answer in advance–which is certainly not good scientific practice. It is so sad and unnecessary that a bright person like you cannot be open-minded.
Joe,
Like you I think David has his mind made up and you can never get through. I wonder if Davids perspective would change if he actually used evolutionary principles such as "conservation" of gene sequences when trying to design probes to look at gene expression in sub species where the genome is not sequenced. Science in the end can only provide insight into the natural world, not the supernatural. The latter is a concept not subject to rational investigation and although a phenomena of the human brain, the supernatural claims are inherently, irrational.
Stephen asked a very good question about how we can know about things that happened more than 6000 years ago. I was waiting for Erv Taylor to speak up on this, since that is his exact area of expertise. Now, I am not suggesting that we believe something just because Erv says so, but you can read something he and a colleague put together in a volume published in the "Advances in Archaeological and Museum Sciences" series, published by Plenum Press. R.E. Taylor & M.J. Aitken (Eds.) Chronometric Dating in Archaeology. New York: Plenum Press, 1997. In this volume many of the methods of determining the age of artifacts are described, reviewed, and critiqued. There are, of course, hundreds of other sources. There have also been many efforts to discredit these techniques. The trouble is, when these efforts are fairly evaluated, it becomes clear that those who use these chronometric methods are already aware of, and take into consideration, their weakest characteristics.
Thomas there is a big difference, creation does not claim as scientific finding, is a matter of faith. Evolution claims that is base of scientific findings, but the hard evidence is lacking when one look very carefully and absent when we ask for reproducibility. For the great majority of the evolutionist evolution is a matter of faith, because they are trusting in the writing of somebody and almost never summiting to a rigorous questioning.
Again, these assertions are unfounded. Hard evidence, subjected to careful scrutiny, is evaluated, presented, published, re-evaluated, questioned, examined, re-examined, and subjected to very detailed analysis. The carefully evaluated evidence clearly and completely falsifies the notion that life on earth is less than 10,000 years old. This is not a mere matter of belief or faith. This is an undeniably factual conclusion. BUT, that conclusion does not falsify, or claim to falsify, the existence of God, or, necessarily claim that he was not the creator.
The hard evidence DOES, however, show that humans and human-like remains, have changed across hundreds of thousands and millions of years. Likewise, so have many other life forms. The fossil record, which has changed substantially during my lifetime, along with knowledge of molecular genetics and genomics, provides a tremendous amount of hard, carefully evealuated, evidence that was unknown to Darwin and Wallace when they described natural selection as a major force in evolution. They knew very little about the actual processes of evolutionary change by comparison with what is now known. If someone believes in evolution because he reads and trusts Darwin, as if his writings were the holy Word, what you are saying might be true–it might just be faith, just as your belief is faith.
But, there is evidence, hard evidence, constantly being refined and re-evaluated and questioned and examined. And many people, some here, are simply unwilling to even have a look at it. Why? The only answer is to assert that all that evidence simply cannot be true. It just can't be, because I refuse to acknowledge that it even exists.
Joe has graciously mentioned a book I and a colleague assembled some time ago. That volume addresses only the techniques used in archaeology, i.e., dealing with the record left by anatomically modern human behavior over the last 100,000 years or so. There are, of course, a number of additional techniques used in geological research which reach back hundreds of millions to billions of years. Joe is absolutely correct when he notes that “There have also been many efforts to discredit these techniques. The trouble is, when these efforts are fairly evaluated, it becomes clear that those who use these chronometric methods are already aware of, and take into consideration, their weakest characteristics.”
It is rather strange to read the efforts of our fundamentalist friends—Adventist and others–to pick at this and that little point around the edges of the massive corpus of evidence supporting the fact that life forms have been on this planet for billions of years. It kind of reminds me of some people who would like to ignore the periodic table of modern chemistry and go back to believing in earth, fire, and water as the building blocks of matter.
I think we should always seek understanding of the theological, psychological, cultural and historic reasons why our fundamentalist co-religionists can’t accept the obvious conclusions of two centuries of scientific research on the topic of “deep time.” It seems to me that one important factor for traditional Adventists is that classical Adventism developed a single monolithic theological package that brought together a whole series of individual elements. There appears to be the fear that if one or a couple of these elements turn out to be incorrect, the whole theological package would come apart and with it, the entire Adventist Church enterprise. This is an understandable fear, but really sad to see what happens when you have to defend so many very problematical elements in the name of keeping the whole package together.
Like i stated before what is called "hard evidence" is based in interpretation retrospective studies. any serious person will know the limitation of retrospective observations.
Going back to the initial point, one may choose to believed in whatever. but in one choose to believe in the Bible and God described in the Bible there is not room for evolution. Like wise there is more credibility in a hard core atheist that believes in evolution than in a theistic evolutionist.
Interpretation retrospective studies are good enough in modern history and in the criminal court. It might even be good in medieval and studies of biblical archeology. But move even one step into prebiblical archaology and any serious person will know its limitations.
Interpretation retrospective studies are also good enough in human health studies. That is, in every human medical study where the researcher uses preexisting data rather than designing end executing the study personally.
David, why dont you just stop invoking your profession in these discussions, particularily since you readilly admit that it is unrelated to your preferred view. Making these uncommitting statements about "all hard evidence is lacking" when the truth is that your paradigm does not accept it as evidence is just tiresome.
If you truly wish to be helpful towards your cause as defender of yec, find an explanation that uses all of the data that is continuously being generated in this field of science that fits with yec. Use this explanation to find more data in one or preferably several of the sciences. Show that the new explanation is at least as good at performing as a scientific model as the previous one. The reason why the war is lost for yec IMO is that one side spends its energy in producing data according to their accepted model whereas the other side spends its time complaining that this model is not perfect. If you and your fellow yec defenders would show that there are two explanations competing for the interpretation of data, you would have cause shout from the rooftop. Shouting from the rooftop that the only interpretation of data is false is a waste of air, for even should someone accept your shout, you will have done nothing more than force the person to reject the data itself.
Thomas you just prove my point the hard evidence is the reproducible. history and all retrospective observations have limitations. In medicine retrospective studies are taking with allot of caution and in many cases are disprove with RPTC (hard evidence).
And yet soft evidence is still infinetly more than no evidence.
Or soft evidence could be infinetly more mis leading that not evidence at all.
Of course you must regard the evidence as misleading since you have a vested interest in it being so.
an example of misleading soft evidence. For several year we believed that gastric ulcers were the product of all kind of reasons and millions of dollars were literally wasted in the fake treatments. Only when the hard evidence showed that is related to H pylori a serous advance in the treatment was done.
David please. So the science and ideas surrounding ulcers was not correct. So because science can be wrong we throw out the process? The nature of science is it can correct itself. Are you going to say the Kornberg/Crick model of DNA synthesis was not useful and the data supporting it were wrong? Although this concept was overturned by the Mitchell Chemosmotic theory, the former was correct given the limitations of the data of the time. With more data the old model could not explain the newer data and hence there was a theoretical shift to the Mitchell model that better explained both older data and newer data. You use weaknesses in science and examples of scientific error as evidence and reason to bolster your faith. Errors in science do not validate your faith.
What evidence is harder or more tangible than fossils and stones and bones? And how is DNA and genomic information not "real?" I'm not going to argue for theistic evolution, because that is not my position, but at least it leaves some room for admitting that fossils and rocks and strata and bones actually exist, instead of denying that HARD evidence exists.
I'm sorry to say that it appears that you are worshipping what you believe the bible to be, in a very brittle and inflexible manner–that is entirely unnecessary.
I don't deny the existence of fossil, but what I have a problem is the interpretation that is given to them. I know that some people believe that fossil in the high mountains are the product of slow grow of the marine forces leaving them in the top. Well how we explain the shells in the high planes (no mountains) of Peru and Bolivia? to me makes more sense that one point there was sea water there.
What I worship is not a theory but the living GOD described in the Bible. Is my response to his amazing grace that I experimented in my life.
The theistic evolution may leave some room for other gods but not the One described in the Bible.
How about the measurable fact that some mountain ranges are steadilly growing higher?
Would the point that most of us are worshipping the living GOD of whom you speak be lost to you? This also is only a question of which interpretation of the retrospective study (the bible) we make.
Other mountains are getting lower, we don't now for sure all the mechanisms for these variations. You could speak for yourself to WHO you worship. I only can say the GOD i worship change my life for the best. He created a new heart in me.
Those posting their opinions on the Adventist Today and Spectrum web sites on this topic can at least be happy that no one approaches in strangness and sillyness the protestations of Young Earth Creations/Young Life Creationists (YECs/YLCs) that routinely post on the EducateTruth (sic) web site.
Still can't see the shoreline, huh?
I guess that would be such silliness as being consistent with the Genesis account.
I have not yet run into anyone who is proud that they resemble a monkey or elated to claim they have descended from one. Phylogeny is catchy to the sophist who seeks acceptance in the reigning paradigm, but what human proudly displays a portrait of the ape in their hallway or happily draws attention to their own simian facial features?
Furthermore, why wouldn't Jesus correct the record with the Jews rather than referring to antedeluvians in his dialogue? Was He not deliberately misleading them into reinforced belief in YEC? How cruel and condescending that He did not have the heart to tell them the truth: that He came to die for them as the sorry descendents of gorillas — too stupid to understand it all this time and so they were bamboozled with tall tales of divine creation in God's image given by prophets so foolishly believed to be inspired by that same God.
Wow! Will we YEC's have an eye-opening moment in the Millenium when we will have to swallow the hard truth that the Bible is not true and yes, I am of the chimpanzee.
Thank God the athiests have discovered the truth, for surely God did not have the courage to tell us.
Ted,
Now I've seen it all…you are even stooping to insulting the animal kindom! As a general rule we consider ourselves more "intelligent" than much of the animal kindom, (at least we like to think so, though sometimes I wonder); but really, what kind of arrogance are you demonstrating when you speak of portraits of apes, or simian features? You may well be insulting more than my creature relatives! (not to mention that we are not "descended" from the apes as such, but that is beside the point.)
It is almost as bad as some guy who posted a link to a picture of a beautiful model some time back and suggested she was "proof" we had not descended from the apes. I doubt he gave a thought to the fact that the male canine probably sees a female of the same species as equally appealing from his perspective. Nor to the fact that the male bird of paradise is seen as perhaps the "most beautiful thing in the world" to his admiring female spectators. It says nothing as proof of creation, but a lot about what we are. In fact it is probably testament to the internal forces that drive us as a species and which reinforce the "survival of the fittest" model.
In fact, I submit that the guy was actually revealing more about his own internal "thoughts" and "temptations" than he was about God or proof of creation. He only proved he was human, (probably) male, and more than likely struggled with his thoughts! imo, typical of entrenched "conservatives".
Cheers
What clarifies in the text is the context. The discussion is among individuals that somehow are/were related or familiar to SDA church teaching. The SDA church holds and values the teaching of the Bible in relation to the creating power of GOD. To expect that church will change its view is extremely naïve. The association of a person to the Church is voluntary.
cb25 I just saw that you referred to me. I just will say we are coming in different directions. Looks like you started in a very enrich SDA media and became an believer in evolution. I grew up in place were atheism and evolution was at breakfast, lunch and dinner and when i was somehow educated in hard sciences i became to be a believer in the existence and creating of power of GOD. I'm very familiar with atheism and evolution. I'm so glad that my days of believing in that my are long gone. I prefer to give credit to my Creator and put my best effort helping somehow to suffering humanity.
?
Well, Ted, now you have run into me. I am proud to recognize that I am a primate. I am quite pleased to display around my home pictures of other human and nonhuman primates, along with other animals. I know many people who are quite comfortable with knowing that they share common ancestry with apes and monkeys, as recently as about 6 million years ago. Some of my most treasured life experiences have been those in which I was watching apes or monkeys in the wild. Of course, I am always prepared for SDAs to ridicule the very idea that we humans are primates, mammals, and animals.
I think it is nice for David that he had a conversion experience to which he attributes his changed life. In this day and age, I am not prepared to challenge the assertion that he was given a new heart. Perhaps so.
I'm not quite sure I understand what is being discussed as "hard" versus "soft" science. Is this intended to distinguish experimental biology from epidemiology? I very much appreciate good experimental design, but I also realize that there are valid nonexperimental methods, and these are often used in comparative biology, neuroscience, anatomy, physiology, zoology, primatology, paleoanthropology, geology, etc. Aren't fossils observable? And, look away, and look back…. Wow! The fossil or bone or artifact you just saw is still there! It is still the same shape as it was before. It is reliably observable, tangible, not imaginary, not even seen "through a glass darkly." Chronometric analysis using various techniques allows you to establish an age range for it. Denying that it exists does not change its shape or age or its absolutely factual and tangible existence. Even having a conversion experience does not change some things that are absolutely real.
So, what has happened? People change their minds. It is not amazing that people change from believing what they were taught as a child (although some don't). As we grow and age and experience the world, many of us reject what we were taught as being inconsistent with the reality we have come to know. It is fair to look again at what we were taught when we were young, and to evaluate the extent to which that old world that we once knew still exists.
I recall that fifty years ago, the concept of continental drift was ridiculed. The attitude within the scientific community has changed in accordance with overwhelming evidence. Among SDAs? Not so much, given that the ancient world is largely denied. So, science is inherently dynamic and changing as evidence comes along. Discovery of the role of Helicobacter in gastric ulcers is a good example of how knowledge and understanding changes and has consequences. How that can be seen as an argument against science or evolution is a little difficult to imagine.
But I think it is very cool that David can apply his energy to helping suffering humanity. That would be a worthy goal for any of us. Hopefully, regardless of our beliefs about the nature of the world and its inhabitants, we can use our abilities and talents in positive ways.
But, since Helicobacter pylori was mentioned, it bears looking at in more detail. These days, many things are being looked at scientifically in great detail that was never previously possible–and technology will continue to provide windows on the world. It is humbling to realize that there are trillions of things (more like trillions of trillions) about which I know absolutely nothing. And even though many things have been studied, many more have not been. It is awe inspiring!
Let me provide a link to a recent paper that is just one example of many of the kinds of interesting things currently providing deep insight into aspects of biology and medicine. The link follows:
http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pgen
I hope this works. Let me know if it doesn't….
Timo,
If God is waiting for the fullness of time (whatever that means), or evolution of sin or evolution of his image, then I think we will be waiting at least another 2000 yrs for his return? What you have written provides enough vagueness so that theologians of the future will be able to tell us why God has not returned in the next 10,000 yrs.
On the evolution of Gods image. How is that going? It seems to me the evolution of Gods image is limited to human language. Thus, once again we are in for a long wait. Or is it possible that God is just not ever coming back?
Timo,
By the way I enjoy your posts. You have some of the style of Montaigne. Do you write professionally? I do but its science writing not the creative artful prose that you post.
Dr F
Hi Joe,
Happy new year (at least here in OZ!)
I just tried the link and it didn't work for me.
Sounds interesting.
Cheers
Hey CB!
Hey Joe!
Hey Erv!
Hey Doctor F!
Y'all rock.
To everyone, Have an exceptionally great 2012! And about Creation Wonder, I'm with you baby! Curiosity and wonder about our universe keeps me going. Stay righteous! dl
Timo,
You really hit on the nerve that is running through this thread. The loud claims of the bible as truth and the understanding of that book by the people posting here with such authority, belies an insecurity. Its interesting to read the indignant claims of the true believers as they post. How dare intelligent people question their faith. Amusing persiflage.
At what point do you stop questioning and finally mature? When do you fianally grow up and put away childish things as Paul says?
Dave, Chris, Erv, DrF, et al.,
Happy New Year to you.
If you just enter that URL you should be able to get it. It is interesting work regarding evolution of Helicobacter, including pylori and a closely related form that is found in big cats. The question is
whether there was zoonotic transmission from cats to humans or the reverse, who was eaten by whom?
Many elements are relevant to the discussion here.
Take care. Warm wishes to all.
Joe
The article on Helicobacter that I tried to link to can be easily found by googling: "Who ate whom?"
The article contains much interesting information and many examples of the way genomic information informs medicine and helps us understand the world. I think it also shows how important it can be for physicians to keep current with the scientific literature.
My point is not that a physician who refuses to believe this kind of evidence cannot help suffering people.
Hi Joe,
Found it:) That is a most fascinating and informative read. Thanks for bringing it to our attention.
Cheers
Chris, I'm glad you found it. Thousands of papers like that are now published every year, amplifying understanding of living things from viruses and bacteria to humans and other primates. It is now known that the human genome contains many sequences from viruses. There is no end to the astonishing advances that are being made–and very few of them would fit with a young earth or immutable species perspective.
Careful Joe! Those conserved sequences are a pesky thing to creationists. We find that most of our mitochondrial DNA is similar to that of bacteria. Bacteria are oxidizing organsisms. Mitochondria are oxidizing organelles with similar size as that of bacteria. Hmmm, seems somewhere in time two different cell types got together and voila, eukaryotes!
Happy new year!
Joe and CB,
I remember being rather astonished at learning of the common inheritance of the damaged gene Gulonolactone Oxidase. The haplorrhini suborder of primates, which includes humans, all have the same damaged gene/pseudogene and are unable to make Vitamine C. The primate suborder strepsirrhini have the functional gene and can make their own Vitamine C.
I do not believe a creator would place this evidence, along with a mountain of other evidence, into our genome as a deception. Nor do I believe an evil one has manipulated our genome to make us appear to have evolved from mammalian common ancestry. dl
A careful look shows limitations that need to be answered. We don’t know for how long humans had H Pylori. Also H Pylori is not universal in humans, how long Helicobacter acinonychis had been in big cats? or how often is found in them we just don’t know. Where is the evidence that one bacteria mutated to be the other bacteria? To conclude that who eat whom proves evolution of bacteria is just more fancy speculation that hard evidence.
I whish all the best for 2012, I realized that this valuable time will be better use where is more needed, with my young children, patients and projects that could make a positive impact. I realized that AT has a roll of entertainment for retired people, good luck!
People can read this article, or in dozens of other recent articles, about clear and compelling evidence of relatedness and specific genomic differences between H. pylori and H. acinonychis and other species of Helicobacter. The results are the results. They are objective and they are real. Thousands and thousands of other studies show the same sort of results. Real results. This cannot be dismissed with the claim that it is just more "fancy speculation" as David attempts to do. When one reads a scientific paper, one reads the methods and the results, and when one gets to the "Discussion" section, one looks for the author's interpretation. That latter section contains some assertions about what the hard data mean. Sometimes some of these assertions are somewhat speculative. We are trained to distinguish between the hard evidence and the speculation. And, as I have said previously, we learn to handle the evidence and speculation very gently and tentatively. To simply claim with a wave of one's hand that an enormous and growing body of scientific evidence is nothing more than "fancy speculation" is just a retreat into deep and brittle ignorance.
But I do wish you well, David. I know you are a caring person, and I'm sure you put much energy into helping patients. I wish your family well, and I wish you much success with your projects. No ill will is meant when I point toward science as a method of gaining and evaluating information.
Two Questions Adventist Believers:
1.) Since Sister Ellen White admits: “Just how God accomplished the work of Creation, he has never revealed to men…”[1] One wonders how short term creation Adventists are so sure they understand how and when God accomplished the work of Creation from a Genesis 1 and 2 written to people who didn't know they were a planet, thought that the earth rested on foundations, and that the firmament was literally firm with windows to let through rain?
2.) And from what spirit comes the desire to laud anti-God, anti-Religion atheists as intellectually honest good fellows, but to crucify fellow Adventists who are long term creationists as intellectually dishonest charlatains or fools? Who, in Heaven's name, is the accuser of the brethren anyway?
I am hardly the correct respondant to Jack's questions that are directed to "Adventist Believers," because I left the SDA church about 40 years ago. I don't really qualify as an adventist or a believer. However….
(1) I think it is worth noting that the EGW quote is pretty consistent with what I have been saying about adventists not needing to claim to know that God spoke all that is into existence about 6000 years ago. What has been learned about geology and paleontology and genomics and phylogeny need not be at odds with belief that God caused all this in ways we do not understand. The use of scientific methods does not require anyone to reject God.
(2) Being a "skeptic" or "nonbeliever" does not, and should not, automatically brand someone as an "atheist." I do not think those who seem to feel called to convert others to atheism are really constructive, and I question their intellectual honesty. They cannot prove that there is no God, nor can they supply ultimate answers to about the origins of life or of the universe. Scientific methods do not really lend themselves to "spiritual" questions. Of course, there are "anti-religion" people on all sides of these issues–some who oppose all religion and some who oppose all but their own brand of religion. And, of course, as has been pointed out by others, for some people, atheism (and evolution) become substitute religions that are accepted without the kind of critical examination of evidence that I advocate for everyone.
So, yes, there are charlatains of all stripes, and they thrive on those who are all too willing to be misled. We really need, I think, to take charge of our own thinking and learn critical thinking skills, along with abilities to examine and evaluate evidence. It is not enough, in my opinion, to just take someone else's word regarding life's persistent issues.
The Biblical Creation Account has survived intact through the Classical elements of Babylonia, Greece and Egypt, alchemy, heliocentricity, geocentricity, Newtonian mechanics, Maxwell’s classical electromagnetic, Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Spontaneous Generation, Germ Theory, Double Helix, etc., the chance that it will succumb to Modern day Darwinian Evolution is slim. A lesson for the creationists is to keep faith but study up on science to engage in intelligent dialogs; for the Modern Day Darwinian Evolution evangelists and enthusiasts is to keep cool since the most cherished principles of science may be superseded overnight, witness the fade of the Principle of Conservation of Parity. Historical trend gives high probability that when Twenty or Twenty-first Century Darwinian Evolution Theory is superseded by science in the future the Creation Account will continue upheld by the faithful. Meanwhile behold the wonder of the Universe!
I just want to point out that "Darwinism," like "Millerism" or "Whitism," is a product of the 19th century. There are those who treat Darwinism as if it were a religion, but modern biology has continued to progress, and will continue to do so. The great thing about science as a method is that it is all about gaining increasing knowledge and understanding, including adopting new information and discarding previous dogmas. Many things stated or suggested by Darwin have turned out to be inaccurate or incomplete, and, as scientists see and evaluate new data, those ideas are falsified and discarded. Enough so that much of evolutionary biology is not considered "Darwinian selection," and that term has taken on new meanings.
The thing is, Darwin knew nothing about modern molecular biology or population biology. His insights were remarkable enough, and he showed courage in publishing ideas that ran against the grain for many. So he stimulated a movement (with the help of Alfred Russel Wallace) and many other scientists who saw merit in his ideas. There were many who lined up behind Gregor Mendel, while others became disciples of Darwin. But when Ronald Fisher integrated genetics and natural selection, this led toward modern biology.
Of course, biology will continue to progress, and new understanding will replace old. That's the way science works. Yes, let's marvel at the wonders of the world and universe. Don't be devastated if something you believe today turns out tomorrow not to have been true.
The assertion that there is a "high probability" 20th or 21st century Darwinian Evolution Theory will be "superceded in the future" betrays fundamental ignorance of the process of science. Biology includes new discoveries every day, ranging from molecular genomics to paleobiology. The trajectory is not in favor of eventual discovery that the "Creation Account" is correctly interpreted as recent or real.
Phillip Law says:
"The Biblical Creation Account has survived intact through the Classical elements of Babylonia, Greece and Egypt, alchemy, heliocentricity, geocentricity, Newtonian mechanics, Maxwell’s classical electromagnetic, Relativity, Quantum Mechanics…"
Which creation account is intact: the one considered to be the earlier one in Genesis 2, or the daily events in Gen. 1? During the Biblical creation account, the Hebrew writers liberally borrowed from other earlier accounts; particularly illustrating this is the Babylonian Epic story of creation lasting seven days which is also identical to that found in the Bible story, although the Babylonian story is centuries older.
Just as the Hebrew religion was not unique it many of its practices but was more similar than different, there is no new religion: they borrow from previous ones.
Regardless of what account of origins is believed, one's opinion is totally irrelevant. The Creator is blissfully silent. Man is both the origin of all written accounts and only their stories are known, and although many such accounts credit divinities, who is to determine the true one other than by choice?