Evidence for God from Science

Jac3510 wrote:Do you think that any self-respecting YEC would bother submitting themselves to your little test? The premise is downright offensive, as if the only reason a person would hold the position is due to ignorance of the prevailing model's reasoning. That's the kind of attitude that keeps the divide far and wide.

The premise above isn't my position. A YEC could fall into one of at least two distinct categories:

• 1 Misunderstands/misrepresents science while promoting a young Earth.
• 2 Interprets scripture to supersede science.

(I'm tentatively leaving out the possibility that YECs are scientifically correct.)

I almost never meet YECs, hence the reason for my topic question.

I don't have any issue with case #2, which is a logically consistent position. In fact, I have more respect for those in case #2, than for a Dawkins or Hitchens, who should know better than to misuse science to make untenable statements about God.

I'm concerned (as some others seem to be) about how many fall into case #1.

I know many of the students I teach who come from YEC households do so without examining evidence and will often accept the idea that the universe is young simply by default. They are perplexed when I show them other creation models.

The adults that I have spoken to about this fall into much the same category. I think for many Christians to even suggest that it could be old is such an anathema to them that they don't bother to study the science, because it is so comforting to simply accept that there is science out there to back up what they think is the best view out there. Let's face it, it's far easier to simply click on the ICR webpages and others and read about how fossil dating is incorrect and accept it on face value instead of reading through the methods (that often would take up more time and energy). I think the vast majority *do* fall into that category....why bother investigating it, the sources I like tell me what I want or what I think has to be true.
And it doesn't do much good to have the Atheists contribute to the cause by perpetuating the idea that the age of the earth and the evidence for microevolution has established the reason for rejecting God, as if they get to lay claim on truth.

I agree about the importance of #2, but many don't think through the possibiliyt that an OE framework does fit within scripture.

This is just my thoughts on this subject. If I can program a virtual world on my computer in a week's time, I believe that God could create the Earth in that much time as well. As for the age question, when I create plants in my virtual world, they aren't saplings. When I create animals, they aren't babies. No, the trees are fully grown and the animals are all running around. I would create mountains and valleys, oceans and rivers. I want to use my virtual world now, not wait around for everything to develop. And so, if God did make the world in a week, he would not have started all the animals as babies. Nor would the all the trees be mere saplings. And if that were the case with the plants and animals, why not the Earth as well?

harth1026 wrote:This is just my thoughts on this subject. If I can program a virtual world on my computer in a week's time, I believe that God could create the Earth in that much time as well. As for the age question, when I create plants in my virtual world, they aren't saplings. When I create animals, they aren't babies. No, the trees are fully grown and the animals are all running around. I would create mountains and valleys, oceans and rivers. I want to use my virtual world now, not wait around for everything to develop. And so, if God did make the world in a week, he would not have started all the animals as babies. Nor would the all the trees be mere saplings. And if that were the case with the plants and animals, why not the Earth as well?

The issue isn't whether God "could" do it in a week. The issue is whether He did.

hart wrote:If I can program a virtual world on my computer in a week's time, I believe that God could create the Earth in that much time as well

This is not a question of "can", but a question of"did". If God can? Shoot, He could have done things in an instant. Nobody is questioning Go'd ability, it is examining the testimony of HIs creation that reveals what He did.

Whoops, Canuckster too the words right out of my mouth!!

zoegirl wrote:

hart wrote:If I can program a virtual world on my computer in a week's time, I believe that God could create the Earth in that much time as well

This is not a question of "can", but a question of"did". If God can? Shoot, He could have done things in an instant. Nobody is questioning Go'd ability, it is examining the testimony of HIs creation that reveals what He did.

Whoops, Canuckster too the words right out of my mouth!!

It's humbling to stumble on a good answer every now and then and to know my good friend zoegirl came up with it too ..... there's hope for me yet!

Whoa....great minds think alike...I was thinking *exactly* that ... about you of course.

IgoFan wrote:

Jac3510 wrote:Do you think that any self-respecting YEC would bother submitting themselves to your little test? The premise is downright offensive, as if the only reason a person would hold the position is due to ignorance of the prevailing model's reasoning. That's the kind of attitude that keeps the divide far and wide.

The premise above isn't my position. A YEC could fall into one of at least two distinct categories:

• 1 Misunderstands/misrepresents science while promoting a young Earth.
• 2 Interprets scripture to supersede science.

(I'm tentatively leaving out the possibility that YECs are scientifically correct.)

I almost never meet YECs, hence the reason for my topic question.

I don't have any issue with case #2, which is a logically consistent position. In fact, I have more respect for those in case #2, than for a Dawkins or Hitchens, who should know better than to misuse science to make untenable statements about God.

I'm concerned (as some others seem to be) about how many fall into case #1.

First, people can fall into both categories. They aren't mutually excusive. Second, people on both sides can fall into #1, changing, of course, the idea that they are defending. Third, I would expect that all conservative OECs fall into #2 as well. We all believe that Scripture is the absolute authority and that science can't contradict it. One of the main complaints that YECs have is that it seems to them that OECs are interpreting Scripture THROUGH the lense of science. To this, OECs reply that they are doing no such thing, that they are intepreting Scripture through its own lense, and it just so happens that (certain parts of) modern science back their claims.

So, any way you look at it, you've misunderstood motives all the way around. As a matter of fact, there are people on both sides (as is the case in ANY argument) who hold their position because they just assume it and have never stopped to understand the other position. Further, their are people on both sides who have looked at the other side, both the science and the exegesis, and have come to contrary conclusions. I'm telling you, whether you intended it or not, your question was so phrased as to imply that the only reason you could possibly see that someone would hold to YEC is if they simply didn't understand science and/or were misusing it. As you didn't intend that, I'm sure you can see the obvious offence in it, just as much as if someone were to say that the only reason you could possibly hold to OEC/evolution (whatever your position) was because you just didn't understand the Bible. Such arguments aren't constructive.

zoe wrote:I know many of the students I teach who come from YEC households do so without examining evidence and will often accept the idea that the universe is young simply by default. They are perplexed when I show them other creation models.

The adults that I have spoken to about this fall into much the same category. I think for many Christians to even suggest that it could be old is such an anathema to them that they don't bother to study the science, because it is so comforting to simply accept that there is science out there to back up what they think is the best view out there. Let's face it, it's far easier to simply click on the ICR webpages and others and read about how fossil dating is incorrect and accept it on face value instead of reading through the methods (that often would take up more time and energy). I think the vast majority *do* fall into that category....why bother investigating it, the sources I like tell me what I want or what I think has to be true.
And it doesn't do much good to have the Atheists contribute to the cause by perpetuating the idea that the age of the earth and the evidence for microevolution has established the reason for rejecting God, as if they get to lay claim on truth.

I agree about the importance of #2, but many don't think through the possibiliyt that an OE framework does fit within scripture.

I think you are contradicting yourself, zoe, if not explicitly then perhaps you're just crossing your wires a bit.

1. You make a consistent case, as pretty much everyone does, that the OEC reading of the Bible is perfectly natural and literal. I suspect to bolster that case, you would point to the many testimonies of people who just naturally understood the Bible that way (Ross comes to mind). Thus, we should be able to reject the YEC claim that their position is th emost natural, if not the only natural way to read the text. This, of course, simultaneously reduces the prima facie exegetical appeal of YEC while raising the same for OEC.

2. But here, you make a big deal about the number of people who are "perplexed" at the OEC model. Not just perplexed, but your students didn't even know it existed! For them, the "natural" way to read the text is YEC. But that falls into the argument the YECs make that you flatly deny in (1).

It seems to me that you can't have it both ways. If (1) is true, then (2) is purely anecdotal; statistical anomalies, if you will, that can in no way be said to be representative of the YEC community as a whole (much less of the larger Christian and nonChristian population). But if (2) is true in that it DOES accurately represent YEC and general Christian populations, then the YEC argument that the YEC position is the most natural reading of the text proves to be true. Of course, just because that argument is true, in such a case, doesn't mean that the position itself is true, but I don't believe you'd want to give that up either.

Canuckster wrote:The issue isn't whether God "could" do it in a week. The issue is whether He did.

A wonderful stock response, Canuck, which is, of course, true as far as it goes. But it misses the point of the argument YECs make here. If you agree that God "could" do it (as we all do), then ALL of the evidence for an old-earth goes out the window as invalid. The question becomes what God DID do, and for that, one can only appeal to Scripture rather than science. I've been around long enough to know that OECs do not consider the scientific evidence irrelevant, and it would be disingenous to claim that they do. Secondary, perhaps, but irrelevant, absolutely not.

In the end, it doesn't really matter for the same reason I pointed out to IgoFan above. We all consider the Bible to supercede science. If the Bible teaches OEC, then it teaches OEC, and it doesn't matter what science says. If the Bible teaches YEC, then it teaches YEC, and it doesn't matter what science says. If YEC, then YECs can choose to try to answer the scientific evidence (which an honest person should do to the best of his ability). On that ground, harth's answer is perfectly acceptable. I don't believe he submitted it as evidence that YEC is true. He submitted it as a basis for shrugging off scientific proof of an old earth in a philosophically/theologically justifiable way. As the entire point of this thread is one's justification for shrugging off that very evidence, then his remarks are very relevant. What God actually "did" do is another discussion entirely, one that cannot rely on science, but instead only on revelation.

God bless

Canuckster wrote:
The issue isn't whether God "could" do it in a week. The issue is whether He did.

A wonderful stock response, Canuck, which is, of course, true as far as it goes. But it misses the point of the argument YECs make here. If you agree that God "could" do it (as we all do), then ALL of the evidence for an old-earth goes out the window as invalid. The question becomes what God DID do, and for that, one can only appeal to Scripture rather than science. I've been around long enough to know that OECs do not consider the scientific evidence irrelevant, and it would be disingenous to claim that they do. Secondary, perhaps, but irrelevant, absolutely not.

In the end, it doesn't really matter for the same reason I pointed out to IgoFan above. We all consider the Bible to supercede science. If the Bible teaches OEC, then it teaches OEC, and it doesn't matter what science says. If the Bible teaches YEC, then it teaches YEC, and it doesn't matter what science says. If YEC, then YECs can choose to try to answer the scientific evidence (which an honest person should do to the best of his ability). On that ground, harth's answer is perfectly acceptable. I don't believe he submitted it as evidence that YEC is true. He submitted it as a basis for shrugging off scientific proof of an old earth in a philosophically/theologically justifiable way. As the entire point of this thread is one's justification for shrugging off that very evidence, then his remarks are very relevant. What God actually "did" do is another discussion entirely, one that cannot rely on science, but instead only on revelation.

God bless

I disagree that the evidence goes out the window. That assumes a dualistic point of view that either one relies upon the physical evidence or the revelation of God and I don't accept that argument. I agree in practice, an OEC position relies to an extent upon the common belief, as supported by science that the earth in fact gives every evidence of being old. Some today may and do even begin there and then reason backwards to form a hermeneutic that in turn interprets scripture through that lens.

However, an OEC position predates modern science and so it would be a mistake to assume that is the foundation of it. Further, revelation through the creation itself, while subject to the primacy of Scripture if you accept inspiration and inerrency, "should" assume that nature will be in agreement as both descending from the creator/revealer God.

Assuming an exclusive, all or nothing point of view is an unhealthy approach in this instance, in my opinion.

blessings back,

bart

Canuckster1127 wrote:I disagree that the evidence goes out the window. That assumes a dualistic point of view that either one relies upon the physical evidence or the revelation of God and I don't accept that argument. I agree in practice, an OEC position relies to an extent upon the common belief, as supported by science that the earth in fact gives every evidence of being old. Some today may and do even begin there and then reason backwards to form a hermeneutic that in turn interprets scripture through that lens.

However, an OEC position predates modern science and so it would be a mistake to assume that is the foundation of it. Further, revelation through the creation itself, while subject to the primacy of Scripture if you accept inspiration and inerrency, "should" assume that nature will be in agreement as both descending from the creator/revealer God.

Assuming an exclusive, all or nothing point of view is an unhealthy approach in this instance, in my opinion.

blessings back,

bart

I don't see how you haven't supported by view. It is true that OEC predates modern science. Thus, it is not dependant on modern science at all. Modern science is entirely irrelevant to the discussion. The simple reason is this:

Suppose an YEC proves that the Bible says the earth is young. Then does it matter AT ALL what science says? Of course not. You would then be in the same boat as YECs are--ignoring science or trying to answer the questions presented by modern science. On the other hand, suppose an OEC proves the earth is old. Then does it matter AT ALL what science says (with reference to the YEC debate)? No. The only thing science can tell you, in that sense, is how old the earth is; but notice, that presumes that the YEC framework has already been disproven biblically.

In other words, the problem here isn't with science or lackthereof. It is with the biblical framework. In other words, does the Bible present a young or old earth? You know very well that the answer to that question isn't just a matter of dates--it has to do with the theology of death, sin, Adam's headship over man, etc. The framework, then, is a theological framework that claims a historical basis.

Unfortunately, though, science can say nothing to the biblical framework. To say that we can study science and then take our understanding of science to the Bible is to fall prey to the very accusation that YEC makes of OEC. You start with the Bible first, without reference to science, and let it provide its own framework. You think interpret science through that framework. In that case, all scientific evidence for an old earth is utterly useless in claiming that the biblical framework is OEC. That has to be proven on exegetical, not scientific, grounds.

I don't think we're very far away from one another on this Jac.

I agree if you could, theoretically "prove" that the Bible presents a Young Earth position or Old Earth position for that matter, then as believers who affirm the inspiration and inerrency of the Bible it would follow that science would be presumed inaccurate where it concludes otherwise, and of course, science is by definition limited to only that truth which is materially based. Modern science however is a lot more than just theory, and there's entire predictive scenarios at work upon which many practical technological things rely.

Jacques Ellul made an interesting observation that that which is sacred in one age or culture, tends to make that which replaces it in ensuing ages or cultures sacred as well, and from that the conclusion was drawn by him, very broadly speaking, that western civilization in leaving the theological underpinnings has made sacred science and technology. I think he may have something of a point, and in that context I understand why some from the YEC perspective look at OEC and project their own claims that that position is elevating science over the Bible.

Modern science in that regard however, isn't irrelevent, it's simply corallary. It's not unreasonable to assume that there is a cross-section between revelation through nature and specific revelation through Christ and the Bible. How you set the lens affects the outcome certainly.

I agree with you as well that much of the YEC/OEC divide is one of framework and hermeneutical approach.

The irony I think as well is that the YEC/OEC debate as such isn't the focus of the passages upon which it focuses. We're asking questions that the original audience didn't primarily ask and building upon the conclusions we form as a foundation for moving forward to interpret those and other passages too. I'm seeing that more as I pass through this season in my life.

No, I don't think we are that far apart either. I'm just trying to drive home a point that I think gets overlooked. The simple fact is the supremacy of Scripture. The question is totally hermeneutical. How do I interpret the Bible? If we agree that the Bible is to be interpreted on its own terms rather than through the lens of science, then the bottom line is that science, whatever it says, is irrelevant in terms of what the text says.

To say that we can expect a correlation between what science says and what the Bible says may be true, but do note that is a theological position in and of itself. And if our theological positions should come from the Bible, we are still back to the supremacy of Scripture, and, again, science can't be used to prove that science should correlate the Bible. On the contrary, there is a wing of the YEC camp that absolutely accepts modern science and dismisses it at the same time, precisely because they argue that there is no such correlation. Some may argue that the Fall had dramatic impacts. Others, like harth, argue for an appearance of age.

My point is very simple: at the end of the day, the question is what does Scripture say, not what does Science say. The Bible may be right or it may be wrong. But, either way, it says something, and whatever it said, it said it to 14th century Jews. So, in light of that, forgive me, but I really do not have the ability to care any less, whatsoever, about modern science's claims. They're nothing but correlatives anyway, and I don't use creation apologetics so much in my evangelism anymore. I'm not particularly fascinated by science (but wish no evil and those who are!)--linguistics and philosophy is more my thing.

Science is simply irrelevant to discussing the YEC/OEC debate. It needs to be held on exegetical, not scientific, grounds.

I'd caution that there is no pure, "what the Bible says" answer however because you cannot completely separate our own hermeneutic and epistimological underpinnings.

I fully expect, in theory, that the Bible or revealed truth does match that area that overlaps the creation itself. What some in the YEC camp do, and I suppose some OEC'rs could do in their own context as well, is appeal to Scripture and disregard their own theology or hermeneutic. Truth is truth. If science correctly assertains an answer to the YEC/OEC debate it's no less true for having come from science than it would be for having come through exegetical examination of the scriptures. Our position as Christians I think is to affirm the primacy of Scripture, and I for one do. However, the danger in too flippant an approach to that is to mistake Scripture itself for theology. One is not the other. One is source, and the other is interpretation.

Anyway, good exchange. I think we've pretty much beaten this enough and are now repeating ourselves.

I'd rather not beat the horse any deader, so let me take it in somewhat of a different direction, only because I'm interested in your thought:

I'd caution that there is no pure, "what the Bible says" answer however because you cannot completely separate our own hermeneutic and epistimological underpinnings.

Have you completely separated yourself from your own hermeneutic and epistemological underpinnings enough that you can declare the impossibility of completely separating ourselves from our heremeneutic and epistemological underpinnings?

Jac3510 wrote:I'd rather not beat the horse any deader, so let me take it in somewhat of a different direction, only because I'm interested in your thought:

I'd caution that there is no pure, "what the Bible says" answer however because you cannot completely separate our own hermeneutic and epistimological underpinnings.

Have you completely separated yourself from your own hermeneutic and epistemological underpinnings enough that you can declare the impossibility of completely separating ourselves from our heremeneutic and epistemological underpinnings?

No. I see that as supporting evidence to my position.