Show Outline with Links
Consider Logos Online
Logos really is a trusted name in classical Christian education. That is the case for our flagship school here in Moscow, and it is also true for Logos Online.
Bible Reading Challenge
The Ladies Fellowship of Christ Church have been working through the Bible together. They have put together a remarkable compilation of women from around the world reading through the Proverbs.
Not Exactly an Open Road . . .
More here.
Online Eduction
No, that is not an oxymoron. Here’s a helpful paper from NSA’s Chris Schlect.
I thought your book of the month might be Pearcey’s new book. Still a good choice; and I’ll read Pearcey’s regardless yet I might also purchase this one. I have read a bit of Lewis and would go with option 2 but I can be persuaded otherwise. I think it important that we not try and defend Lewis belonging to our Christian sub-tribe because of his popularity. I have seen wrong attempts at this. Yet I think there is something to Bergman’s claims. Lewis appears to accept evolution in Mere Christianity though he does mention that some thoughtful men think… Read more »
Bethyada, he is also claimed by the folks at Biologos and the people at the Discovery Institute. I think you are right that people should be cautious. But I also wonder why it is important. I think Lewis would have been the first to say that, as a nonscientist, his acceptance of any scientific theory was not based on his own analysis–or personal understanding–of the evidence.
Indeed, Lewis nails it here (H/T Wile): “To the biologist, Evolution is a hypothesis. It covers more of the facts than any other hypothesis at present on the market, and is therefore to be accepted unless, or until, some new supposal can be shown to cover still more facts with even fewer assumptions.” I know far more geology and paleontology than biology and the establishment of the antiquity of the earth is much firmer by those sciences, in my opinion, but I would be overjoyed if the YEC folks showed that their “new supposal can be shown to cover still… Read more »
Hey Demo, I know we had this conversation a while back and it ended rather tensely, and I am certainly not trying to resurrect any tension, but I am puzzled by you saying you are willing to be convinced. Can I ask, without seeming to be cantankerous, why the Biblical text alone does not convince you? Those of us who hold to the historic position are simply prioritizing Scripture over supposition. To reach a conclusion of deep time, we must add supposition to observation. So it is not a matter of looking for more or better evidence, it is a… Read more »
Don’t know but sometimes the direction matters. I came to creationism via the science and while I now find the Scriptural arguments at least as, if not more, compelling, this wasn’t the pathway to my position. It was what didn’t fit that was helpful to me, not all the arguments of how compelling the story of evolution is. For example radiodating is very compelling. It makes complete sense from a scientific perspective. But the fact is it was so often wrong. Radio carbon in coal and diamonds dispute it so we have 2 methods using the same theory (essentially) contradicting.… Read more »
This is actually a very common pathway to believing creation. The divide between the positions is which set of data is prioritized. You held tight to the assumptions inherent in those dating methods (original composition, consistency of decay rates, environmental preservation), most of which are un-observable. Over time you began to lose faith in the truth of those assumptions, and eventually adopted the working assumptions of Scriptural revelation. Is that a fair approximation? The point of note is that it was not more or better evidence that changed your mind. It was observing reasons to doubt one set of assumptions… Read more »
That is too detailed. Better to say I did not have a strong consistent theology and evolution was assumed. I don’t think I was an evolutionist but I was open to the idea of an ancient earth (I think). I read a range of Christian material including stuff that questioned the existence of Adam, but found creationist material more compelling when I discovered it. I probably was convinced by the science because I was more interested in the science, and there was more material from this perspective. As my theology interest grew my interest in arguments from Scripture grew. I… Read more »
I’m afraid I dont have time to litigate this in detail, though I certainly don’t mind you asking and I am unworried about tension. The simple answer is that I disagree that there is a simple historical position here, indeed as we have discussed before you believe that the earth moves while to luther and calvin (in his early days, he later version of his commentary in Genesis signals a possible change in approach) believed that this approach was demonic. I know you are convinced that the cases are different, but I am convinced that it is due to your… Read more »
Don’t feel any need to litigate in detail. I was just trying to figure out why you said you were trying to be convinced, when you know the crux of the debate is not amount or quality of evidence. It is the prioritization one set of data over the other. Why not just say that instead of acting like your brothers who disagree with you are just too hardheaded to look at the evidence. It backhandedly insults them, by insinuating that they are denying facts. I guess I am not sure how I am misunderstanding the role of evidence. The… Read more »
“when you know the crux of the debate is not amount or quality of evidence.” I would strongly contest this. It is absolutely a matter of amount and quality of evidence. Presuppositionalism won’t get you past this unless you believe that God made the world completely incomprehensible. “not to mention an entire history of interpretation” Prior to Copernicus I know if not one theologian who disputed the immobility of earth. Augustine didn’t hold to a “literal” 6-day creation (though he did hold to a literal 6-day creation…) Origin expressed belief that each of the 6-days was 1,000 years, though he… Read more »
“Presuppositionalism won’t get you past this unless you believe that God made the world completely incomprehensible. ” We all hold to some type of presuppositional framework. That is inescapable. But I am going to insist that the crux of the debate is which evidence is weighed. Moses said, “For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.” If you argue that creation did not take place in six days, then “you… Read more »
“If you argue that creation did not take place in six days, then “you believe that God made the [Scriptures] completely incomprehensible.” As I have made clear elsewhere I think this badly distorts the way scripture speaks and teaches. I don’t think appealing to the history of interpretation is the way these debates should be settled, however, it is good to bring in the voice of other witnesses. If you hold that a denial of six days of creation in a narrow creaturely timebound sense makes the scriptures “completely incomprehensible” then you hold that Augustine, Irenaeus, Origen, Cyprian and others… Read more »
Here is another example of what I was getting at in the other post. “I am convinced that it is due to your place in history.” We are both in a place in history, and it just happens to be approximately the same. But your statement here insinuates that you are able to transcend this trap and I am not. YE creationists can read and try to imagine the world from another’s perspective with the same abilities as you, assuming a comparable intellect. Are you somehow seeing something we are not? If so, name that tune. It is subtly arrogant… Read more »
“But your statement here insinuates that you are able to transcend this trap and I am not.”
Not at all, my point is that one issue is long settled in the Christian community. Only cranks don’t accept the movement of the earth (there are some). The antiquity of the earth was nearly settled in the late 19th century, but it was revived by 7th-day Adventists, so it is still a live debate. It is a point at issue. That makes a big difference in the way it is approached.
But the assumption behind this is that the Bible does in fact teach geocentrism. It quite simply does not. To claim that I believe this simply because of the time period I am in, rather than seeing the text of Scripture differently, is to assume you see something I don’t. Again name that tune. The Scriptures you cited in our last conversation simply do not conclude what you want it to conclude. My arguing that point has nothing to do with the point in history in which we live. It is a debate over the meaning of a text in… Read more »
Now you are moving the goal posts. You brought up the history of interpretation – but the history of interpretation has been far more varied for the “literal” 6 24-hour day creation than for the moveability of the earth (prior to the scientific discoveries calling each position into question). “But the assumption behind this is that the Bible does in fact teach geocentrism. It quite simply does not. ” I agree that it does not, and I do not believe that it teaches the modern YEC position either. I believe in the perspicuity of scripture, but I don’t believe that… Read more »
I should hasten to add that there is also a difference between the observable locations of the heavenly bodies, and the non-observable assumptions inherent in the age debate.
Agreed jill, Lewis would have minimised his opinion on this matter, and noted that he was not a scientist.
I think what made me think was that although I was aware of Lewis’ positive comments in various books, his negative comments gave me pause.
I know a variety of Christians who think that the age of the earth is billions of years but are otherwise somewhat creationist, and others that subscribe to evolution. I like the Discovery Institute even though they subscribe to deep time. But I think BioLogos is just plain false teaching.
False in which way, Bethyada? Does the falsity lie in the evidence they present as provisionally valid, or does it lie in the assumption that any scientific finding that contradicts a YEC reading of Genesis can be harmonized with a belief in God as creator?
I contrasted people and institutions I disagree with for this very reason. I believe they are incorrect in what they believe.
False teaching meaning false teachers. I am a little cautious about the term teacher because one needs to read what a specific author writes. And a guest author may not be a false teacher. But false in the sense of John’s warning to avoid.
Jay Wile, who is – in my opinion – the best of the bunch among the YEC crowd, has a few posts that make me very wary of Bergman’s honesty. Lewis does appear to have had a healthy skepticism, but he also continued to believe that evolution was a matter of scientific inquiry and should not be the subject of dogmatics.
Also, Acworth’s biological ideas were crankery.
Demo, I had just finished reading this about ten minutes before you posted:
https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j29_1/j29_1_58-60.pdf
I wish that people on either side of the controversy would agree to stop quote-mining!
Thanks jill, I hadn’t read that letter. It was helpful. Let’s hope that Bergman took Wile’s advice before writing the current book. But I would like to be a little provocative. Looking at Wile’s complaints I can only really agree with the first. By quoting Lewis in full Wile shows that he is correct and Bergman mistaken. But the subsequent one’s while technically correct miss what Lewis is saying and I suspect that Bergman may be getting it in a way. For example Lewis asks his father for the source of the quote true enough. But the question is why?… Read more »
I think we cannot know what Lewis would have ended up thinking (my biologist ex-husband managed to train me never to use words like “belief” in connection with hypotheses and theories). I think it is equally possible that further research in biology would have lessened his skepticism (as long as evolutionary theory does not set out to explain anything outside its province). But I think he would have been fascinated by the explosion in knowledge about astronomy, and even if he had abandoned any acceptance of common ancestry, I have a hard time believing he would have taken a YEC… Read more »
I am not claiming Lewis. He thought what he thought. But one can potentially trace trajectories over time in his writing. I don’t know of evidence that he was a YEC. I don’t even think he was an inerrantist. Yet I think Lewis was more than willing to adopt unpopular ideas. He had already done this in times past. On your second question, it depends on what you mean by creationism. Evolution and creationism broadly defined are mutually exclusive, but between them encompass all possibilities. Logically then we have A and B of which A is not B and B… Read more »
It is indeed difficult. I see a conflict between YEC and any scientific theory which requires deep time. Of course, a requirement for a literal interpretation of Genesis excludes acceptance of quite a few findings and theories, not just in biology. On the other side, an acceptance of philosophical materialism makes any theistic belief impossible. But I think evolutionary biologists who do this are theorizing beyond their data. I don’t follow your conclusion that if B fails, then A succeeds because it presupposes only two possible explanations. Suppose that using Haldane’s famous example, we find the pre-Cambrian rabbit (although I… Read more »
Well there are theories that allow time dilation, but in general deep time does not go with creationism. And the earth is only 6000 years old whatever the age of the universe.
Generally creatures are made by God or are self creating. That lacks detail but illustrates the mutual exclusivity.
Haldane’s rabbit has been found, of sorts, but the theory just mutates to accommodates to accept the data.
This, or any other controversy.
Quote mining is bad, but character assassination is even worse. I really bristle when I read AIG besmirching the memory of men like Cuvier and Buckland because they don’t like the outcome of their inquiry.
I don’t like consciously dishonest handling of evidence, even in a good cause. I don’t blame people who say that Hitler studied Darwin and was influenced by the Origin of Species if they have heard it from the pulpit and no one has told them otherwise. But, if you know that there is no direct evidence for this assertion, you can’t honestly go on making it. Funnily enough, we do have solid evidence that Winston Churchill both read and commented on Darwin, but that fact is never mentioned in anti-Darwin literature. Even so, it is entirely irrelevant which makes me… Read more »
You do realise that it is not reading nor commenting on Darwin that matters?
It is whether you are influenced by him.
Yes, but influenced how? And if what he said should turn out to correspond with reality, does the question of influence matter? Suppose that natural selection/common ancestry is truly how life arose on earth, and further suppose that a perversion of this theory led people astray. Would anyone seriously suggest that the theory should have been suppressed? Should Einstein have kept quiet about relativity? Could any science be possible if scientists had to consider whether misguided people might be influenced by their research? But my point is that influence is always argued only one way, and that is not intellectually… Read more »
If people believe in any theory and act in ways that are clearly consistent with the theory, then it is not unreasonable to criticise the theory. An example is communism which was believed and enacted in several countries. The death toll can, in part, be attributed to the evil of the theory.
Bethyada, I can’t see that. The only question to apply to a theory is: is it supported by the evidence? If not, the theory should be discarded even if it produces good behavior among those who accept it. If the evidence supports it, it is immaterial how it makes people behave. Some people used Malthus and Ricardo to justify heartless treatment of the poor–can we say that their behavior casts doubt on the validity of the Iron Law of Wages? I think that quantum mechanics offers a dreary and unsettling view of reality. Thinking about it makes me depressed. If… Read more »
I agree, people invalidly use popular theories to justify their behaviour.
Still, consequences of theories are evidence. The mass slaughter under communist atheists is an argument against communism and atheism.
Communism, certainly, but I am not sure about atheism. If the bad behavior of some atheists disproves atheism, what can be said about the historic bad behavior of some theists? I have encountered that argument too often among my unbelieving friends to want to use its opposite! Lack of belief in a God who makes moral demands on us can certainly make a bad man worse. Zealous but mistaken beliefs about God can also make a bad man worse. That makes it hard for me see human behavior in general over time as evidence either way, and doing it purely… Read more »
I think this should be done on a community level, not an individual level. Religion is a corporate, communitarian, foundational activity (or should be, our me myself and my faith Christianity is pretty much impotent for this reason). I think it is very reasonable to look at the societies that have practiced Islam, or buddhism, or atheism/statolatry, or christianity for generations and compare the outcome. Of course our comparison is going to presume a moral standard so we shouldn’t expect things to be radically commensurable.
Individual practitioners’ behavior patterns are much weaker evidence.
I think I understand that, and I don’t mean to be persistent but I am still struggling with the logic here. Assume two non-Christian tribes, each with a belief in a mountain-top deity, an afterlife, and a moral code. One tribe’s concept of their god and his requirements makes them brave, truthful, and kind; the other’s makes them cruel and treacherous. How could we use the first tribe’s virtue as evidence for the objective existence of their particular mountain-top deity, or vice versa? The only way around that might be to say that the first tribe’s grasp of divine truth… Read more »
My comment wasn’t directly addressing the truth or falsity of a belief (though your comment, which i responded to did, so I should have been more clear). I am just point out that cult precedes culture. What people believe, and the rituals they engage in really matter and really are formative. The fact that Aztec beliefs lead to a culture where they tear out peoples hearts to welcome the sun each morning is not evidence that their beliefs are wrong. If atheistic beliefs lead to the view that human life is unimportant then that isn’t evidence against atheism, it is… Read more »
Perhaps, but note demo’s reply.
But even if you just accept the communism argument, this illustrates my point.
@OKRickety To follow up on your recent comment, if the host doesn’t mind. If polygamy is sinful, then I would suppose that each extra marriage is sin and the ongoing relationship is sin. In other words, your argument in the case of homosexual “marriage” also applies to polygamy (when polygamy is believed to be sin). I have no idea why I am not succeeding in communicating my concern about your approach. I suspect the primary obstacle is the involvement of “marriage” in these two scenarios. I tried to remove it by considering examples of a heterosexual couple cohabiting and a… Read more »
bethyada, Although marriage is not critical to the reason for my original reply to you, it has clouded the discussion, so I will discuss it at some length. I am going to define “God-accepted marriage” to be what is biblically defined as acceptable to God, and “state-accepted marriage” to be what is legally acceptable to the state. Those may overlap but do not in all cases. For example, it is clear that polygamy was a form of God-accepted marriage in the Old Testament, but I think it is most likely today that polygamy is still God-accepted marriage but not His… Read more »
I’ll try and clarify my position as I still think you misunderstand me. Even if it is a sin to become polygamous today, I think the marriage that a man and a (second) woman get into is a God-sanctioned marriage (GSM). That is it was a sinful situation to get into but it is not a sinful situation to stay in. I would say that if the man tried to divorce his wife to return her to singleness and him to one marriage then he would be trying to reverse something he could not reverse, and in doing so he… Read more »
bethyada, “I would say that if the man tried to divorce his wife to return her to singleness and him to one marriage then he would be trying to reverse something he could not reverse, and in doing so he would be committing further sin. … He would be doing the opposite of what Levirate marriage was trying to prevent.” I think you are trying to apply the principle of levirate marriage where it does not belong. In Ezra 10, there is the example of the prophet Ezra doing the opposite of your proposal when he has the leaders take… Read more »
OKR, would you say the same thing if ending the second marriage means committing injustice against a person who married you in good faith? I am thinking of a divorced Catholic who civilly (or in a Protestant church) marries a non-Catholic. She made vows to the second husband who had every reason to believe she had thought through the implications of her decision. When her conscience begins to trouble her down the road, does her desire for restored communion with the Catholic church justify her breaking that second set of vows? I think that if it were me and the… Read more »
Jordan Peterson quote