The Bible NETWork ~ Impacting the World for Christ one post at a time!

Jordan,

I think it is imperative to understand the differences between biological and geological evolutiuon. An important distinction also has to be the requirement to put biological evolution into the subsets of micro-evolution (intra-species) and macro-evolution (trans-species).

To say that no type of evolution has occurred is simply ludicrous. What we, as Christians, must do is recognize what is acceptable in light of scripture and what is not. Biological macro-evolution is not acceptable within orthodox Chrisitanity. We can come to this recognition from scripture, philosophy and science since they tell us the same thing.

From what I can see, there are no legitimate Old Earth Creationists that believe in macroscopic biological evolution. There are two reasons for this. First, the scripture will not allow for it. Second, the 4.5 billion years that they believe the earth has been in existence does not give enough time for probability theory to achieve the recognized diversification that we observe.

Your comment on "what may come" is disheartening to me. Sometimes the slopes are slippery when they are manufactured on errant theology. What you find in the OE crowd is a very robust defense of special creation, not a compromise. If you would like resources to that effect, send me a PM.

One paradox that perplexes me about the YE position is the rapid seciation after the global flood. In a nutshell, if there were a limited number of animals that were present on the ark, then all subsequent variations of these "kinds" would have had to have "evolve" from this limited gene pool. It seems to me that the YE position actually has a basis in requiring evolution to a scale that not even the Darwinists are comfortable with. This also seems to cut into the "Theistic Evolution" issue as well. Have you ever thought about this?

I would direct you to trying to understand the OE position before you dismiss it. From my perspective, it is the only position that truly takes a literal perpective of scripture and a recognition of the natural revelation and the interpretations thereof. See Psalm 19 for reference to the author and value of both revelations.

Ultimately, one has to realize that YE Creationism is a theological position that is supported entirely by a specific reading of the text and does not allow for any alternative interpretations of scripture that are valid and recognized as respectable. Please do not build a house of cards on a "pet" interpretation. This can be very damaging to your faith (ie - Bart Ehrman).

I tried to look on the AIG site for the video log that you mentioned, but I could not find it. Send me a link, cause I would love to see it. My inclination is that it will not be there long because it is simply a slippery slope for AIG. This idea would be an affront to their dogmatism. Please provide a link.

God Bless,
Mark

What Church council established the heresy of macro evolution....o.O

Rene,

He didn't say it was "heresy". Rather he said it is not "acceptable within orthodox Christiantiy". Then he explained how he came to this conclusion.


You are the only one throwing heresy around.
Blessings,
Randy.

Thanks Randy.

Ok lets play the word game for awhile...if it's not orthodox then what is it?

A different interpretation?

_________________
Cobra (the car, not the poisonous reptile)
all scripture is NRSV unless otherwise noted

Well I agree Cobra that there are different interpretations but the word orthodoxy implies (I think) the "true" position on an issue....not just another opinion.

Like the orthodox position some centuries ago was that the sun circled the earth, which was at the center of the universe?

And an unwillingness to accept that orthodox position was grounds for excommunication from the church?

And believing something other than that orthodox position was heresy?

_________________
Cobra (the car, not the poisonous reptile)
all scripture is NRSV unless otherwise noted

Not enough space to have your Response in entirety up mark.. i apologize!

Of course, and i am fully aware of the two different, "styles" of evolution.

Of course it is ludicrous and i am sorry i came across that way, I believe Macro-evolution, has not happened, we have never observed a frog give birth to a non-frog, or a hen give birth to a duck. Although we do see, big ducks, small ducks, brown and green ducks.

I did not mean to dishearten you, this is just my opinion, If you search in AIG "Young earth" you will come to an article called "Young earth- not the issue!" which discusses how Young Earth is not the key issue, it is simply the authority of the Word, that is all I personally am after, which has led me to my YE belief system.

It has slid through my mind, flipping through my "Answers Book" from AIG i found an article that is on their web page that may be helpful.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... als-spread

Also this does not require a macro evolution, but merely micro evolution, now dont get me wrong, that is still something, but it is something we do observe, and at the rate of multiplication (as read in the article) there are plenty of chances for these changes to occur. In Darwin's Black Box, i would call these changes, the 1 foot jumps he speaks of in the beginning, rather to the mile long jump that macro evolution claims.

I would be more than happy to read anything you would like to share, while i do believe in a YE, and upholding bible authority, one thing we can agree on that the message we all should be teaching, even inside the science community is the good news of Jesus Christ. So again if there is something you would like to show me I will read it, although i will be using sites like AIG to compare ideas.


Specific reading? I wouldn't say that at all, It takes the approach of a YE to the biblical text and applies it, would an OE perspective have YE ideas in it? how could that be possible?

I would not call my belief a pet interpretation, its what i was brought to Christ through, when i was 16, (currently 17), and it has yet to fail me.

For his Glory
God Bless
Jordan
Gorship

_________________
To Live is Christ, To Die Is Gain

Disagreeing with an interpretation is not denying authority of scripture.

Gorship writes:

That is important. But you are not supporting the authority of the Word, but the authority of an interpretation. And that interpretation is not consistent with the rest of scripture, not even the next chapter.

For more information, see this thread:

viewtopic.php?f=154&t=6113

_________________
Cobra (the car, not the poisonous reptile)
all scripture is NRSV unless otherwise noted

I think it is a stretch to simply look at speciation in the context of large and small ducks. Did all ducks come from an duck "kind" or did all/most birds come from an avian "kind"? I think if you acepted the ark to be filled with all animals of the sub-species level, you would still have too many animals to put on the ark. If, on the other hand, you had only primary species, then you would be in the dilemma of having a large amount of intra-species evolution that is on such a large scale that it does not seem plausible. I am not saying God could not do this, but I see no direct evidence from scripture that He did.

I looked at the AIG article and it really does not aswer what I see as the fundamental questions. I think this article might be a good read for you.
http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/other_papers/rapid_post_flood_speciation.shtml

Mind you that I (nor this author) is doubting the legitimate literal interpretation of scripture. We are just recognizing that the story that the AIG proponents tout as legitimate has a whole lot of issues that are not addressed. As I read the AIG article, I noticed the usual transition of anyone who doubts thier theories is automatically labeled with the secular evolutionists. Their quote:

Quote:

"We should therefore have no problem accepting the Bible as true. Creationist scientific models of animal migration are equally as valid as evolutionary models, if not more so. The reason such models are rejected is that they do not fit in with the orthodox, secular evolutionary worldview."

The reason AIG's models are rejected is that they really don't make any sense. Other Creation models do make sense and are not rejected on scientific grounds.



Thanks for the directions to this article. I have seen it an read it before. The issue is whether the Bible is simple or simplistic. I would claim that the Bible is simple in its message but it is not necessarily simplistic in its approach. To give a short lesson on why this is an issue, let's take the Hebrew word for day (yom) in Genesis 1. While it can be a literal 24 hour day, it in no way is exclusively used that way even in scripture. It is recognized by every legitimate Hebrew scholar that the word has three different meanings similar to our word for day. 1) roughly 12 hour period from sunrise to sunset; 2) a 24 hour period from sunrise to sunrise; or, 3) a finite yet undefined period of time ("back in my day"). The issue of ordinals is brought up many times, but it is just as proper linguistically for their use with the third definition as with the second since the time periods are being distinguished by God's different creative activities during those different periods of time.

My point to you (and any other YE proponent) is: If my approach to interpretation is legitimate (which it is), then why all the fuss? Why can't we (OE) be accepted into the fold of creationists and not be labeled as a quasi-evolutionist? I have said many times, If you don't think my interpretation is legitimate, go study your Hebrew: If you do recognize the merit of my interpretation, quit labeling me as a non-literalist or an compromiser. The reason why I labeled it as a "pet" interpretation is that your position seems to say that most of the science is flawed by interpretation, but only your specific interpretation of Genesis 1 is correct. It is not what the text says, it is an exclusive interpretation of what someone else has told you what the text says.

I do not know exactly what you were asking WRT the OE perspectie having YE ideas in it. Could you expnd that thought for me? I would say I am simply applying the Biblical text as well.

I sincerely praise God that this issue of creationism was part of what God used to bring you to faith in Christ. I am reminded of a couple of verses


I pull these verse because I know I do not have exclusivity on the truth. I am convinced that I will understand things more fully in due time. Until then, we should keep our focus on the truth of Christ. I believe that is your sentiment as well. You will do well to humbly approach the scriptures and the natural revelation (authored by God himself) to apprehend a reconciliation of the two that does not give in to abberent views of either.

God Bless,
Mark

I think this discussion is beginning to show the problem with a theological answer to a biological problem...hermeneutics becomes the standard of science instead of evidence. I can imagine a time when the great battle of "scientific" study of evolution will be a verb form in Genesis. Am I the only one with this problem....

Rene,
You cannot separate the natural revelation from the special revelation. While the Bible is not a scientific text, there is a reasonable expectation that the scripture will not contradict whatever truth is found in science. At the same time, there is no reason to believe that science will disagree with what the scripture tells us is true. Science ceases to be science when the application of the research is used to try to answer the questions of life - physical, chemical, biological, sociological, psychological, historical, etc. The interpretation of science is in the domain of the philosopher of science, not the scientist himself.

Therefore, it is only correct to look at the validity of science to reason through the scriptures. Not to see this is to go down the path of irrational faith. Some think faith is believing in something that cannot be proven, or worse yet, believing in something that has been proven false. I rather think faith is trust based on known truth. The more truth we have, scientific or otherwise, the more robust our faith will be.

I was not intending this thread to ever go into the realm of theistic evolution, but it seems to me that there are two major problems with this idea. The first is that it demeans the special nature of the creation of man from Gen 1:26-27. The second of which calls God's omnipotence into question that He used a trial and error process to create life. It just does not fit into the character of God that I see in the scripture. You may disagree, but I do not think the validity of evolutionary theory would support any type of evolution (macroscopic) and therefore, it is unnecessary to compromise on this issue.

God Bless,
Mark

Theology is theology Mark and if that is not apparent than the whole western concept of a liberal education is meaningless (university). What is going on here (I think) is another attempt to create a worldview similar to the Medieval Scholastic scholars achieved based upon a fundamentalist/conservative (?) theology approach to scripture. It continues to astound me that scholars trained in literally analysis become experts on every possible subject just because he or she "knows the truth" about the Bible. A theologians opinion on evolution is important...but it is still an opinion by a linguist on a topic truly unrelated to his or her training in theology or Biblical studies.

I thought the term "university" was unity through diversity under the idea that everything that was able to be learned impacted and was impacted by theology. Theological studies were not simply a subset of the university, but were the philosophical filter of the university.

What about the scientist who is a theologian by default of his faith? It seems to me that you are saying that it is acceptable for the scientist to speak to theological issues but it is not acceptable for the theologian to speak to scientific issues. What you speak of is very true in our society today, but it is not healthy for either science or theology.

-Mark