Evidence for God from Science

Yes K. It sounds horrible.
I see this thread is on dangerous course.
Mentioning Satan, his tool... Jac may be stabbed now.
On the other hand, you are stabbed seeing people running away because of YEC.

I hope and pray this thread will not turn really nasty.

Thanks Hana,

Don't worry, I don't intend to press the matter beyond making my views known. Jac can have final comments.

It really wasn't intended to be mean spirited.
Likewise I'm sure Jac also doesn't mean to be nasty in believing those who believe death existed pre-fall reject the Gospel (or have a different gospel -- which is kind of the same thing). I'm actually not sure how that plays out salvation-wise. Might be for an interesting discussion.

I suppose it's more that matters of truth can be nasty.
But, as long as respect is intended rather than playing some game.
And I'm not playing games by making those comments, but to me they're matters of truth.

Noone wants to be nasty, yet we are nasty. Lol.

(Or at least sound nasty.)
(I made it as a general statement now. What I see in the world.)

I know you do not want to be nasty.

With my YEC friends I have absolutely no doubts they believe that their intentions are for the good. I really honestly see that. I have had a number of charitable exchanges. I have noticed a common thread in their approach, however.

One friend who I get along with very well, we are quite close actually, has pressed me hard theologically on the YEC front. I am not to strong theologically in this area, so I ended up side stepping gracefully by saying I have to research it further, which moved the conversation into the science where he had to ultimately side step. We stood there smiling at one another full well knowing we attempted to move each other into our strong suits with regard to this topic. It was rather funny actually. Two cheeky grins, brotherly love and respect as such for what had just played out.

Ultimately I have had no hard feelings with my brothers nor received it from them either and that's the way it should be. At worst, a few odd looks here and there.

Really its really just not a primary discussion whenever we meet.


Cheers!

I appreciate the comments, squib. As I said before, no hard feelings on my end. I suspect we're in broader agreement than much of our previous discussion would indicate. It simply remains important for me people (in this case, Audie) not draw the conclusion that philosophy in and of itself necessarily results in certain conclusions, whereby they (she) create(s) a reductio ad absurdem whereby philosophy as a whole is impugned. Her argument seemed to be:

1. Philosophy necessarily leads to YEC
2. YEC is wrong
3. Therefore, philosophy is wrong/useless

I think we would both say ta (1) is wrong. Perhaps we might disagree as to why it is wrong, but that's another point. It does, however, dovetail well into the point that K was making. I don't have any problem whatsoever with Christians who think YEC is wrong making the kind of claims K has just above. That's just the nature of truth generally and theology in particular. At the end of Job, God says He is angry at Job's three friends because they essentially said false things about Him. I'm hardly so post-modern as to pretend that truth is inclusive and doesn't matter. And as an aside, this is also why I don't root Christian unity in doctrinal agreement. Rather, I root it in charity and humility--the ability to love, care for, and support each other in spite of our theological disagreements. So, per Hana's concern, I don't feel "stabbed" at all.

With that said, I don't think that atheists and unbelievers reject Christ because of YEC. It's an easy argument to make (that they do). But like other so-called objections, I think all that is really just a smokescreen. The idea that people would place their faith in Christ if only Genesis could promoted evolution or an old earth or whatever other scientific idea you want is just absurd. The stumbling block is the Cross of Christ and the implicit notion that they are sinners who need being saved by a gracious God. I also think the claims of schism are unsubstantiated. There are far more serious theological differences than YEC/OEC. The Calvinism/Arminianism debate comes to mind. The Lordship Salvation/Free Grace convtroversey. Whether or not you can lose your salvation. Dispensationalism/Covenant Theology. I know that there are some YECs who take their arguments too far. OECs often interpret those exaggerations as YEC attempts to make YEC theology part and parcel with the gospel itself. But, if I may be frank, I think much of the schism, to the extent that it exists, must be laid at the feet of OECs. Take this very thread. I am very serious when I say I have absolutely no hard feelings. But look at what happened. Who was assaulted? Whose character was assassinated? Who is making the accusations of schism? Who is engaging in the mockery, no matter how humorous and light hearted it is intended to be? I emphasize AGAIN that I'm not angry or hurt by any of that. I'm just trying to point out where the hostility is coming from. And it seems to me that all of that that has a common root, also illustrated in this thread. OECs strike me as terribly worried about what nonChristians think about them. They are worried about being regarded as fools.

To be blunt, I'm not. In the least. And neither was Paul. But this goes back to what I said about Christian unity. I'm okay with all that because, for me, the principle is charity. If, though, you are worried that people are rejecting Jesus because of YEC, because you think that is making Christianity look foolish, then you can't be charitable--not consistently so, precisely because you are concerned with how the faith appears to others. And if that is your primary concern, then you can adopt language like Rich Deem did in which he openly advocates intolerance of YEC in the Church itself. Where is the charity there? It doesn't exist. And THAT goes all the way back to why I responded the way I did. I hope you can see where I am coming from. Remember that I portray this as an inter-family squabble. I leave it at that. For you all, it is much more than that. That's because my central issue is unity in charity. For OECs, the central issue is something like unity in "respectable" doctrine. And what is respectable? Here you get into the charge by YECs that it is "respectable" if deemed acceptable by some strain of modern science, which is to say, that you are submitting the Word of God to secular authority.

And after all that, what if YEC turns out to be how Moses really did understand his own work? There's no debate anymore that is how the Church always understood it. Things only changed in the past 100 years. That doesn't make YEC true in and of itself, of course. But it does say that it deserves more than mere dismissal, and given the gravity of the charges, I think OECs are on very dangerous grounds here. Schism is sin enough. Causing schism is worse, and if OECs are at the root of it (as I think they are), then you have some serious soul searching to do.

A final remark for clarity, I'm not saying that OEC necessarily, by its nature, causes schism. I think there can be unity in charity on this issue. But I think OECs are going to have to change some fundamental ideas about how they the debate.

And once again, I'm not in the least bit hurt or angry or offended or any other such thing. Even if I am right in all of my analysis (and I know you guys will disagree), I still hold this as a matter that charity can cover, and I think I understand enough where you come from. I wish truth was of a different nature, but it isn't, and so I don't really fault you in the positions you hold or how you regard YEC. So what, then, is there for me to take offense at? Better to give each other the grace to be open and honest that pretend a false unity on false premises, as if political correctness was what Jesus had in mind when He prayed we would all be one.

So God bless!

Better to give each other the grace to be open and honest that pretend a false unity on false premises, as if political correctness was what Jesus had in mind when He prayed we would all be one

That I wanted also. But I had a feeling to somehow jump in.
Those woman's feelings...

Hi Jac,

I think we agree a lot more then you realize, we are just coming at it from different angles and at multiple levels (this may have confused the situation, along with me not catching the full context).

I have been coming at this from a general sense for the sake of others, given some here really have not exposed themselves to what we have.

I agree that Audie is exactly using the argument you laid out, which is:

1. Philosophy necessarily leads to YEC
2. YEC is wrong
3. Therefore, philosophy is wrong/useless

And her argument is unsound and also doesn't necessarily follow even if premise 1 were to be completely sound. Just because YEC is wrong, it doesn't follow that philosophy is wrong/useless.

Further to this her argument is philosophical and I believe it is predicated upon a faulty understanding about YEC and Philosophy. (As soon as you are about X it enters into philosophy (second order branch like philosophy of science is about science and I am also meaning this in a general sense for those who don't understand the former).

What is going on is, Audie is doing bad "philosophy" in the general sense if you will, and to attack philosophy is to also cut the very branch one is sitting on! I even posted a video (someone cutting the branch they were sitting on) in the hope Audie could see what she is doing. I admit it was cheeky, but I do that to try and keep things jovial.

I see people regularly wage attacks on philosophy in general...

On a different example, Hawking, attacked philosophy in his latest book when he said "Philosophy is dead", this is a philosophical claim! What a way to refute yourself! He then after that statement, in reality wrote a philosophical book as such (it really wasn't scientific on quite a number of its topics). Philosophers have taken him to task on this ever since.


My main point to Audie in a previous post, is quit attacking "philosophy" when you are making philosophical claims yourself. There is a difference also between good and bad philosophy too...Just like there is good and bad science and so on..

Jac, I think in reality we tackled this from different angles but ultimately were saying the same thing in essence. I just didn't want to get into the specifics as such, some people here may not fully appreciate it like we would and it just clouds the main point. Just trying to keep it understandable for all if you will.

This approach is something I have been trying to learn when talking with other people, because I have often found people in general are simply not on the same page and you can quickly loose them mid discussion.

God Bless

Audie,

I hope you are not offended by the discussion here, what we have said is not about you personally but rather the argument itself. I also hope Jac and myself have represented your claim / argument correctly too.

Cheers

Jac,

Just out of curiosity, if you were OEC, what kind of reaction would that bring from your Free Grace Seminary colleagues?

Is OEC frowned upon at the seminary you attended? Are OECs ostracized?

Squible wrote:Audie,

I hope you are not offended by the discussion here, what we have said is not about you personally but rather the argument itself. I also hope Jac and myself have represented your claim / argument correctly too.

Cheers

No, Im ok, but at the same time, dont present that which was in fact personal as if it were not. Jac made a peace offer,and I said I accepted it. Which is not the same as accepting the things he chose to make up about me.

And no, you didnt represent it at all well. Fair is fair, neither did I.



I think science / logic / math / philosophy / theology all overlap and blend into eachother. I am not criticizing any of them, let alone is so simplistic a way as you suggest.

I was just asking how it is that with all those fine words, the kite is still down in the sewer?

A person could not come to a more absurd conclusion than YEC if they tried.

Yet the progressions appears to be philosophy proves God, the Bible is Gods inerrant word, study of the word says yec.

Where does this all go wrong?

Jac, one day I will pm you and ask on the list of scientists believing YEC. I am curious about it. Since also about other things, i will postpone this to some one day. Or... Would you be so kind and when having time send it to me? I will keep it and return to it.
Thank you.

Here is an excerpt from a statement by a Dr. K. Wise, a paleontologist / yec.

"On the other hand, I have also learned that evolution is not the only claim of modern science which must be rejected if Scripture is assumed to be true. It is my understanding, for example, that the claim of an old earth denies the veracity of the first 11 chapters of Genesis (e.g., the order of creation, the distinctness of created kinds, the absence of pre-Fall carnivory, the lack of higher animal death before the Fall, the creation of Adam and Eve, the “very good” status of the creation at the end of the Creation Week, the great longevities of the patriarchs, the global nature of the Noahic Flood, the dispersion of people away from the Tower of Babel). This in turn challenges the integrity of any concept built upon these chapters. Yet, it is my understanding that every doctrine of Christianity stands upon the foundation laid in the first few chapters of Genesis (e.g., God is truth, God is a God of mercy and love, Scripture is true, all natural and moral evil on the earth can be traced back to man’s Fall, Christ’s return is global, Heaven is a perfect place with no sin or death or corruption of any sort). Thus, an earth that is millions of years old seems to challenge all the doctrines I hold dear.

Although there are scientific reasons for accepting a young earth, I am a young-age creationist because that is my understanding of the Scripture. As I shared with my professors years ago when I was in college, if all the evidence in the universe turned against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate."

There are a couple of things here that I find noteworthy. One is the open acceptance of profound intellectual dishonesty, the conclusion before any evidence, the rejection of any and all evidence.

Another is his use of the word "seems", as in,"what the word of God seems to indicate".

And finally, his odd statement with no explanation, that "there are scientific reasons for accepting a young earth".

One could with equal truth say there are historical reasons to say the Japanese won WW2. Just look at partial data. Ignore all that is not acceptable within that assumption.

IF someone had a way to disprove evolution, or deep time, then that someone, perhaps a physicist at the U of Beijing, would have let the world know and would have a Nobel as the possibly greatest scientific discoverer of all time.

There are available various lists of scientists who are yecs. In general, they are heavily padded with MDs, engineers, and scientists in unrelated fields. No matter; one scientist with one good solid item could disprove both deep time and ToE. Ten thousand with a religious opinion adds up to zero.

Audie wrote:

Squible wrote:Audie,

I hope you are not offended by the discussion here, what we have said is not about you personally but rather the argument itself. I also hope Jac and myself have represented your claim / argument correctly too.

Cheers

No, Im ok, but at the same time, dont present that which was in fact personal as if it were not. Jac made a peace offer,and I said I accepted it. Which is not the same as accepting the things he chose to make up about me.

And no, you didnt represent it at all well. Fair is fair, neither did I.



I think science / logic / math / philosophy / theology all overlap and blend into eachother. I am not criticizing any of them, let alone is so simplistic a way as you suggest.

I was just asking how it is that with all those fine words, the kite is still down in the sewer?

A person could not come to a more absurd conclusion than YEC if they tried.

Yet the progressions appears to be philosophy proves God, the Bible is Gods inerrant word, study of the word says yec.

Where does this all go wrong?

Audie,

Okay I see in a way where you are coming from now. With regard to personal I simply meant that in the recent post not any prior exchange.

Has science ever lead to wrong / bad / absurd conclusions whether directly from or a flow on from?

squib.

Yep. In the sense you mean, at least. I dont think science does conclusions as such.

When you try too hard for balance, tho, you may fall flat on your face.

Audie wrote:Yep. In the sense you mean, at least. I dont think science does conclusions as such.

When you try too hard for balance, tho, you may fall flat on your face.

I would say that this can happen at the extremes, wouldn't you agree?