| Greene's Creationism Truth Filter |
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BereanSpirit/message/29820
From: Steve Heiden Dear Larry, Please grab another soda... What I find 'interesting' (actually, it always seems amazingly curious to me) is that Christians are not only willing to grant that we discover facts about the world through scientific examination, but we routinely take such objective facts about the world entirely for granted, such as that the earth orbits the sun. Should it be something argued over? If someone made such a big deal about claiming that 'Well, we can't really learn anything about the world by scientific examination' or that "what ever we say, if it is not from the bible, is simply conjecture," then everyone understands very clearly that this particular claim is simply wrong. Does the earth orbit the sun, or not? Does the sun orbit the earth? You cannot determine the factual nature of the world in this respect without examining the world scientifically. We clearly know the answer to this question, and everyone accepts the factual nature of the scientifically discovered answer. How can it be wrong to argue about, or at least engage in rational discussion for the purpose of pointing out, that it is totally incorrect to claim that "what ever we say, if it is not from the bible, is simply conjecture" or that 'we can't really learn anything about the world by scientific examination.' These are incorrect ideas, so when people express them, it seems to me, simply on the basic principle of respecting truth, that those who understand that such sentiments are wrong and understand why they are wrong should speak up and point out the erroneous nature of the claim. Is it merely an opinion that the earth orbits the sun? If someone stepped up and began proclaiming that the sun orbits the earth, and claimed further that Christians who did not accept his (erroneous) belief were 'compromising their faith,' should we then in the interest of conciliation say 'Well, that's okay, I guess it's all just opinion anyway'? Surely you can see that when a Christian makes particular claims in the name of Christian faith (which is what is done with young earth creationism), then other Christians who know better have every right, and, indeed, every responsibility to speak up and point out what they know regarding the errors in reasoning and the errors in information. I know that if you consider this with the example of earth orbiting the sun you understand the correctness of what I'm pointing out. And that is what is amazingly curious to me is that the very same principles that are obvious to all in the context of a simple example (earth's orbit) somehow become incomprehensible and even argued against when transferred to the context of another example, in this case, the age of the earth. While the age of the earth is certainly not known with any superbly high degree of precision (meaning we cannot know that the earth is precisely 4,557,882,194 years, 3 months, 23 days, 17 hours, 11 minutes, and 6 seconds old), what is known for a genuine fact is that the earth has existed far longer than just 6,000 years. The age of the earth is not entirely conjectural, and no one should claim that it is entirely conjectural for the simple reason that that is an incorrect claim. Geologists have good reasons for believing that the earth is approximately 4.6 billion years old, understanding that this is an approximate age. But the fact that this age is an approximate one does not mean that it is merely conjectural, and the age estimate's nature of being an approximation certainly does not imply that 6,000 years somehow remains within the realm of possibility. Why would anyone think that accepting such factual information about the world means that is somehow questioning God or questioning that God is? Why would the point even be raised? I do not understand this. God made the world however He chose to make it. What we then discover about the world that God made, when we examine this world carefully and objectively, is simply the nature of the world that God made. Surely, God could and can have made an infinite number of different kinds of worlds. But that is not the issue. The issue is what is the nature of this world, our world, the world that we are in. The earth orbits the sun, not the other way around. To accept this fact about the world does not have anything to do with questioning what God could or could not have done and it has nothing to do with questioning God's existence and it has nothing to do with taking away from faith or deciding that the nature of world is somehow more ultimately important than salvation by the gospel. It simply has to do with pointing out aspects of the nature of the world we live in that have been learned through scientific examination of the world. Those Christians who accept the fact that the earth orbits the sun are not out proclaiming that God is dead or that 'heliocentrism' is more important than the gospel. But if someone came forward and started claiming that this fact is wrong, and they did it by claiming that such a geocentric belief is critical to our faith and that anyone who believes otherwise must, after all, really be under the influence of atheistic ideas, then it would be abundantly obvious that fallacious 'reasoning' was being used. Yet this is precisely the same kind of 'reasoning' that is used when discussing the age of the earth. Since it is clear that such claims are erroneous in the context of earth's orbit, pray tell what makes such claims correct simply by being shifting into the context of discussing the age of the earth? With regard specifically to our salvation, does the issue of the earth's antiquity have any relevance? Obviously it does not. Neither does the issue of the earth's orbit. These are merely things we have learned about the world we live in, using the process of scientific inquiry which we have developed based on our curiosity and also to improve our lots in life (which is what we are told to do by God in Genesis). The conflict has been created entirely by those who claim that the Bible teaches something about the world, that it has not existed more than about 6,000 years, that we know by objective examination of the world itself is manifestly false. I grant you that people who are simply not aware of and not familiar with the results of such objective examinations are not going to be much persuaded by what they simply do not know. But then, please tell me, what gives them the right to question, in any way whatsoever, the faith of those who do accept this objective information about the world that God has made?
Sincerely, --- In BereanSpirit, Larry Stanley wrote: > --- In BereanSpirit@y..., Scott Tucker wrote: > >> All I can say is that discussion about the Bible and science was >> (and still is) edifying to me. Maybe there are a few others. >> >> --Grace and Peace, >> Scott Tucker > > Scott: > > I find it 'interesting', but not something that should be argued > over. If christians want to discuss the various aspects of the > bible and time, as well as the way the whole thing fits together, > offering their own OPINIONS (not yelling, emphasis, sorry) then I > think that is great. > > But we all need to remember that God is the ultimate force in > this universe. Time means nothing to Him, so why should we fight > about it? > > I am more then willing in the event that I am discussing with an > unbeliever, and they fall back on creation vs evolution to deal > with that, and show both biblical and scientific proof of the > fact of the bible without giving away any of it's true meaning. > > I think every christian should be able and willing to do that. > But, we have to remember that what ever we say, if it is not from > the bible, is simply conjecture. We do not know how long the > planet existed before the sun was created. > > Nor do we know how long God's day was. He could have set up the > 24 hour sabbath just for us, because a sabbath that lasted 3 > million years could have been out of our depth. > > God is. That is the thing. Anything else is just conjecture. > > Like I said, I find this discussion interesting. It is even > educational. But we all need to remember that most of it is just > opinion. Including the various ways in which God created the > world. He did it. We don't have to know how. > > Larry
|
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BereanSpirit/message/30960
From: Steve Heiden Dear Larry, I've been waiting for your return. I hope you had a good journey. I appreciated your response, and I thank you for your kind words. I completely agree with you that this issue is not one that should be a 'fight' among brothers and sisters in Christ. I don't think that the issue of the antiquity of the earth is something which members of the Christian family should divide over or become antagonistic about. At the same time, I must admit to you that sometimes I do feel frustration when a person who is advocating the young earth creationist position demonstrates what seems to me to be an exceedingly extreme reluctance to genuinely consider the detailed, relevant, objective information about the physical world. Don't get me wrong. I'm more than happy to discuss the Bible, and that is indeed what we must discuss. But since with this issue of antiquity we are dealing with aspects of the physical world, this means that we can also — and must — objectively examine those characteristics of the physical world which are relevant to the issue. These are two sides of the same coin of truth. So I look at the matter as something that we must discuss, because we have to dig into the matter to see what's really up with it. I understand that young earth creationists typically go at it from a different approach than I do. I believe that the traditional young earth creationist interpretation is wrong, but I don't consider that those who follow that interpretation have somehow compromised their faith in doing so, for which we must question their status as 'good Christians.' However, though certainly not all young earth proponents take such an approach, it is also just as certainly true that a significant contingent of young earth proponents do take the approach that anyone who does not accept the young earth view has compromised his faith and is a questionable Christian. (Some in the church have even advocated that we must treat those who reject the young earth view as false teachers and must withdraw from them.) So while I don't approach this as a fight, I'm aware that many do, because they consider this almost as a matter of 'life and death' with respect to our Christian faith. With high stakes like that, I understand their motivation for approaching it in the way that they do, even while I disagree that that motivation is correct with respect to this issue. I approach this issue as a discussion where we must consider the details and pore over the relevant information in seeking to understand how it all gels together in a consistent fashion. I consider those who disagree with my own conclusions as simply being people who disagree with me on this issue, but I do not question their faith or think that I need to withdraw from them in any manner. I have friends who hold to the young earth position, and we absolutely disagree on the issue, but they are still my friends. We are saved by the gospel (Rom. 1:16-17; 1 Cor. 15:1-4; 1 Tim. 3:16), and we demonstrate the genuineness of our faith by our deeds and how we treat our neighbors (Mark 12:28-34; Luke 10:25-37; Gal. 5:6-26; Titus 2:1-14; James 1:25-2:26; 1 Tim. 2:10, 5:4). With respect to our salvation, the issue of the age of the earth is nothing more than an irrelevant hobby we pursue by the inquisitiveness of our God-given intelligence. (However, I say this in the context of my awareness that God made us stewards of the earth, and the scientific process, as part of our objectively investigating and learning about the world, is an aspect of this kind of responsibility.) I further agree with you that so often the Bible is used to 'prove something' (with 'proof texts,' even!), even though using the Bible in the manner it is being used seems to me to be far afield from correct usage. This is a hermeneutics issue, and I often find the method of proof texts (in other words, scripture out of context) being used as bricks in some edifice of traditional doctrine. But the bricks are mud, and the rain of truth tends to cause these constructions of the human mind to melt back into the ground of human traditions they came from. It seems like it is so easy to get caught up with 'the way we do things' and 'the way we think' as being the only correct way to do things and to believe, not realizing how much within our minds God's Word has become enmeshed with our merely human traditions and ideas.
Sincerely, In BereanSpirit, Larry Stanley wrote [7/7/01 9:43 pm; http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BereanSpirit/message/29835 ]: --- In BereanSpirit@y..., Steve Heiden wrote: >> Dear Larry, >> >> Please grab another soda... > > Ok, I got a Dr Pepper. Lets see. Man, I hope it is not a fight, I > really hate fighting with brothers and sisters. > > >> What I find 'interesting' (actually, it always seems amazingly >> curious to me) is that Christians are not only willing to grant >> that we discover facts about the world through scientific >> examination, but we routinely take such objective facts about >> the world entirely for granted, such as that the earth orbits >> the sun. > > Oh, I do. I try to use the scientific method of deduction on most > stuff. My wife hates me for it, too. > > But, taking anything for granted is not a good idea. We see > people all around us who take things for granted, the earth. the > water, Jesus, the church. Never a good thing. > > >> How can it be wrong to argue about, >> or at least engage in rational discussion for the purpose of >> pointing out, that it is totally incorrect to claim that "what >> ever we say, if it is not from the bible, is simply conjecture" >> or that 'we can't really learn anything about the world by >> scientific examination.' > > Ok, I am notorious for this. I write what I think, and often I > think something that doesn't get written right. Right? > > I never meant to say that anything we can't find in the bible is > conjecture. What I meant was, that while trying to use the bible > to prove our conjectures, we often misuse it to prove something > that either is not important in the grand scheme of things, or it > is something that we will never know the answer to in this life. > > I believe that man has the potential to create life from a test > tube. It has been done, repeatedly. That is not conjecture. But > trying to figure out how God did it from the bible is trying to > prove why is yellow. It doesn't work, and it won't matter. > > >> These are incorrect ideas, so when people express them, it seems >> to me, simply on the basic principle of respecting truth, that >> those who understand that such sentiments are wrong and >> understand why they are wrong should speak up and point out the >> erroneous nature of the claim. > > To me, truth is truth. God created the universe. How, when or > even why is not that important, and can't be proven through the > bible. But, I still want to know all these things. So, I study > philosophy, biology, history, science, humor, to discover more > about God. I find that more often then not, they don't conflict > in many places. [snip] >> Surely you can see that when a Christian makes particular claims >> in the name of Christian faith (which is what is done with young >> earth creationism), then other Christians who know better have >> every right, and, indeed, every responsibility to speak up and >> point out what they know regarding the errors in reasoning and >> the errors in information. > > Absolutely. In fact, I encourage it. But what I don't encourage, > is fighting, sniping and attacking between brothers and sisters > over something that, between Christians is not important. After > thinking about it, I can see where the non-Christian could use > this stuff (age of the earth) in his reasoning, so, we should be > ready to defend the truth of the bible past it. > > But, we still do not need to fight and have bad feelings among > us. [snip] >> Why would anyone think that accepting such factual information >> about the world means that somehow questioning God or question >> that God is? > > I have no idea on that one. I never had a problem with it. > > >> Why would the point even be raised? I do not understand this. >> God made the world however He chose to make it. What we then >> discover about the world that God made, when we examine this >> world carefully and objectively, is simply the nature of the >> world that God made. > > Well, I have this little problem. I think God made man in His > (God's) image. To me, that means God is curious, has a sense of > humor, enjoys a good mystery (even if he does know the ending) > and that all works in us as well. God put this planet here. He > put a desire for knowledge in us. To me, to not search out > answers would be almost sinful. [snip] >> The earth orbits the sun, not the other way around. To accept >> this fact about the world does not have anything to do with >> questioning what God could or could not have done and it has >> nothing to do with questioning God's existence and it has >> nothing to do with taking away from faith > > Exactly. Trusting science and seeking knowledge does not have to > mean a hatred for God and His power. [snip]
|