Hi Kurieuo! I'm sorry I haven't responded to you yet. I stopped paying attention to this forum maybe a week or so after I posted, after seeing only minimal serious interaction with what I had posted. Your post on Dec 22nd was exactly what I was hoping to interact with when I made my post, and I thank you for taking the time to do so. Thank you also for providing your background; it helps to be able to relate to you as a person and a brother in Christ before engaging in discussions when I know we will have differing views, because despite our differences we share a common hope that I can see more clearly when I know you better. I'd rather get started acknowledging that before we start sorting out differences of interpretation, and I hope it will result in a fruitful discussion for both our sakes.
I also note that there has been a lot of discussion since you posted that, primarily between yourself and Jac3510, which I have found interesting to see his perspective as well. I appreciate his method of questioning to see which interpretation he believes in, of questioning both the errors he sees in OEC as well as YEC. Jac, I would be delighted to discuss with you the problems you see in YEC as well. I hope you will find that I am open to addressing flaws in my own interpretation in an honest manner, since I do see difficulties with my interpretation (such as for instance, the light time travel question) yet hold YEC because I deem it to be the best fit for what the Bible actually says.
Kurieuo, when you talk about your lack of education in biology, or exposure to evolution, I honestly don't see how you can claim that to be in your favor. Personally I think the more you can learn about the scientific and historical background to the ideas being contested, the better equipped you will be to understand your own position as well as the positions you reject. I wish I had had more education in such matters as geology and astronomy, not less, even though I think I got about as good of an education in them growing up as I could expect, having had some great science teachers especially in high school. At any rate, I'm sorry you were thrown off of YEC by the tape by Ken Ham, but I would encourage you to give him a second chance; I know he is prone to making some rather forceful remarks about opposing viewpoints, but in what I have seen of him, he always means them with Biblical intentions. He truly believes that OEC or theistic evolution are harmful viewpoints for Christians to hold (while not denying that a Christian can hold them and still be saved), and therefore out of concern for those who hold them, make such remarks. But if that still does not strike you as being accurate to what you observed, I still would encourage you to look at the premises of YEC without letting that personal experience get in the way.
Before responding directly to your arguments, I'd like to address two things.
First, let's discuss epistemology a bit first. Actually I think I'd like this to be addressed prior to any discussion over creation itself.
How do you learn about history?
Suppose to draw a neutral example we wanted to study how the Sistine Chapel was painted.
It is useful whenever studying history to distinguish between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources and circumstantial evidence.
If Michaelangelo himself wrote an account of the painting, a diary while he was painting, or wrote letters concerning the painting, these would be considered primary sources.
One level down from that: if someone else watched as he painted and wrote similar documents, they would also be considered primary sources, but not as useful to us as Michaelangelo's own documents, because in this case we can see the specifics of
what happened but not as much of the motivations behind it.
Secondary sources would be biographies of Michaelangelo, or external accounts of how the Sistine chapel was painted. In other words, anything that used primary sources for its sources.
Tertiary sources would be articles and sources that used the material above as its sources, and is therefore hardly worth considering for any serious study.
Now, to look at circumstancial evidence: the Sistine Chapel itself is actually circumstancial evidence! Circumstancial evidence is any evidence, either physical or written accounts, that were not direct witnesses to the event in question or are unable to speak for themselves. Therefore any material things, which includes the Sistene Chapel, the object of the event, is still circumstantial evidence. Written accounts of other people describing the Chapel, both before and after painting who did not witness the painting itself, is also circumstantial evidence. If we had material evidence concerning the amount of paint that was used, the sort of supplies that were used, etc, that is also all circumstancial evidence.
Now, what is the role of each of the above materials in studying the event of painting? The answer is that written sources must be analyzed in the light of several factors, the most important of which include primacy (whether it is a primary source or not), reasons to lie/exaggerate, and corroboration with other sources and the circumstantial evidence.
So in other words, the role of the circumstantial evidence serves primarily to validate testimony, but is only one factor among many in doing so. Of course the Sistine chapel can still be studied for its artistic value on its own, but that is not the purpose of the current inquiry. If we want to learn how it was painted, the only reason we would have for studying it on its own is if no written source texts existed or if all that existed were discredited. The relevent thing about this is that you cannot presuppose the non-existence of source material, establish an interpretation of the circumstantial evidence, and then check this interpretation against a source that you then consider. It has to be the other way around: you consider the interpretation you expect given the authority of a source material, then see if that interpretation fits the evidence.
Therefore, because of my views on the historicity of the resurrection, I consider the Bible to be a primary source for all history that it is relevent to, which includes the creation of the earth. Therefore the creation itself, being circumstantial evidence for that event, should be interpreted by the source material first, and then be checked to see if the actual evidence is consistent with this interpretation. Someone who is an atheist would logically not consider the Bible to be a primary source, but would also delegate it to being circumstantial evidence, and so therefore consider all circumstantial evidence equal. Hence you have theories like naturalistic evolution, which is the result of considering the circumstantial evidence of science applied to living beings as the only evidence for the existence of those creatures.
I think you can agree with me on everything I have stated thus far; the thrust of this is to show the proper role of the evidences from science and how they can apply to the study of scripture. We both agree that scripture is a primary source since it is inspired by God; why is that?
For me, that belief is centered in the resurrection; I have come to the conclusion through the above sort of reasoning that the resurrection is a historical event. I'm sure you have as well. Therefore, the claims of Christ are justified as being the creator of the universe, and I can establish his authority in speaking on both historical and spiritual matters. He furthermore confirmed the Jewish doctrines of the inspiration of the Old Testament throughout his ministry so I therefore accept it to the same degree that I discern he would have.
To that extent, the passages that Jesus quotes are from both "historical" books and "poetic" books. What is acceptable exegesis from these two genres? He clearly regards people mentioned as being actual historical people and not metaphors, and establishes the perseverance of the accuracy of the text throughout history. Yet his statements alone are not enough to build a consistent exegetical principle from. In cases where he or the apostles do not specifically reject the exegetical principles of those around him, I submit it is sufficient to look to the standards for Second Temple Judaism for interpreting their own scriptures. How would they look at historical and poetical books? I have formed an opinion since studying New Testament culture and other Ancient Near Eastern literature, but I will grant you that my knowledge in this area is not sufficient to establish this beyond doubt, so if you can provide counterexamples sufficient to establish the consistent rejection of this idea I will be happy to retract this part of my argument. That is that the historical books of the Bible are actual history that were perfectly capable of being understood at the time, using language of appearance but not using allegory. Poetical books were meant to convey moral messages, sometimes liturgically retell a historical incident that is already well known, or be an instance of prayer. Often the "moral message" sort was intentionally made up much like a fairy tale that the listener and teller both knew were not historical. So I am unlikely to accept historical arguments from poetry, which Old Earth Creationists seem to do quite often. Specifically, passages from Job and various psalms are often used, Psalm 104 in particular. In the case of Job, we have a clear cut case of the moral wisdom story which has no significance whether the event actually happened or not. I do not feel there is any reason to argue for or against its actual historicity; nothing outside the book of Job requires the event to be historical - in fact, the only other direct reference is James 5:11 which is also not concerned with the historicity of the account, only the patience exemplified in the character of Job. The only historical reference in the book itself is that Job lived in Uz, which we cannot be certain if it was a real city or not - perhaps it was intentionally a fake city? Now regardless of whether the account is historical or not, we can establish things from the story itself, just as with any literature: the nature of life around them, the sort of creatures and events that a hypothetical person in that time and place might have experienced, etc. But we cannot use the poetical speeches of God to establish doctrines about history. While the book of Job is also an inspired book of the Old Testament, that does not mean that a first century Jew would have actually used that for historical purposes. To say so is akin to claiming that the parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man in the book of Luke establishes the doctrine that when good people die they go into the arms of Abraham! Clearly Jesus in the parable is using a figurative device for the afterlife in order to make his point, and not expecting us to take teaching from the device. Similarly, Psalm 104 is clearly a song of praise that parallels Genesis 1 in structure, but that does not mean it parallels it in history! As either you or one of the articles you've linked to admits, the presence of the ships clearly rejects that idea.
Sometimes I think Old Earth Creationists are more "fundamentalists" or "extreme literalists" than YECs are, despite the seemingly odd incongruity that it's the YECs that hold to the 6000 year old Earth. More on this later.
So anyway, if we had a passage in the Old Testament that said unambiguously that all animals ate only plantlife (I know this is not the case obviously or we wouldn't be having this discussion), how would we evaluate this? It is important to consider exactly what our circumstantial evidence is. We can observe animals eating meat today - that is circumstantial evidence. We have historical accounts of animals eating meat from extrabiblical sources as well. These would fall into two categories: those which are contemporaneous to the statement in the Bible and those that are not. Ones which are contemporaneous would be considered alternate primary sources, ones that are not would be considered circumstantial evidence. The reasoning is that the claim is time specific, so an account only speaks to the same event if it is at the same time. For the contemporaneous accounts, if we have already established the authority of scriptures as being by God, then we have the clear comparison that the scripture trumps the alternate source on the basis of authorial reliability: God is more reliable than man. For non-contemporaneous accounts, we can apply the same reasoning to discount the account in the worst case scenario, but we also have the possibility that both are true and that something changed inbetween. Such would clearly be the case between the scripture and now.
So in conclusion, I do not think it is necessary to defend the scientific feasibility of the change from all herbivorous to possible carnivorous activity, before other Christians that is. Since we both accept the Bible as authoritative and feasible, it stands to reason that if you are correct, that's fine, and if I am correct, then there is some logical explanation why that is the case. For instance, I do not have a consistent explanation for the circumstantial evidence that can be summed up in the distant starlight problem, but it is important to note that the circumstantial evidence is NOT the same thing as saying that the light has travelled for x million years; the circumstantial evidence is the observed data itself, such as the measured speed of light today and the observed angles of the stars in the sky, from which we derive the inference of the latter, and it is entirely possible that we are leaving something out of our reasoning, or it is entirely possible that there is some way a wave can travel for billions of years within a thousand year old universe. Similarly, I do not think it necessary to defend Young Earth Creationism from alleged contradictions within poetical books of the Bible, because I don't find a contradiction between a historical account that says one thing and a poetical account that seems to say another.
With regard to the comment I made earlier about Old Earth Creationists ironically being more of "fundamentalists" than Young Earthers, what I was referring to when I said I would get back to that point incidentally is the dogmatism I see regarding creation and evolution in Old Earthers. I find that Old Earthers often will argue against various things that Young Earthers say by appealing to an idea that God finished his creative works on the 6th day of creation and so some of the theories Young Earthers have come up with regarding changes either at the fall or since then cannot be possible. Perhaps God's creation was "complete," but how does that imply that God could no longer interacts with his creation in a transformative manner? The discussion draws precise parallels to the arguments between Isaac Newton and Gottfried Leibniz over the nature of creation: Newton believed in an ordered and finished creation but also believed that God was continually magisterial over it and interacted with it; Leibniz agreed with Newton on the perfection of original creation but claimed Newton was being inconsistent in claiming that God still interacted with it, because that implied that it was not perfect to begin with. Newton still stuck with his views because he could not reject the idea that God was Lord - that is, he was an active ruler, not a watchmaker as many Deists later claimed Newton to have supported. I believe that Leibniz's argument rests on imposing Platonic ideals artificially on scripture; the God of the Bible is not Plato's ideal deity, and the finished creation was "very good" and perfect in a sense but not so perfect that it could not be marred by sin, and also the perfection entailed God's interaction rather than prohibited it. So why is it that so many Old Earthers reject the idea of speciation and natural selection, and that living creatures today may have had common ancestors with creatures they cannot interbreed with now, but may have been able to before? I would like to know, Kurieuo, what you believe in this respect. It is one thing to say that all living things did not come from a common ancestor, it is quite another to say that no two living things that cannot interbreed today did not come from a common ancestor. I am afraid that your lack of study in biology and evolution in this case is a hindrance for certain. As I was growing up, I had for a certain period desired to be a geneticist as I was quite fascinated by genetics, heredity, and DNA. You cannot say that species cannot be reproductively or geologically isolated and then evolve seperately to the point where they are no longer able to interbreed with each other, because that can be disproven scientifically. It's quite unlike the question of the age of the Earth, which is rather a historic question and therefore a primary historical source is more reliable than any scientific evidence. Personally I believe that the idea that natural selection applied to species will result in shifts in a gene pool over time, possibly eliminating traits, possibly resulting in speciation due to two groups not being able to interbreed, is a scientifically testable and provable assertion, and it may indeed happen much faster than secular evolutionists believe possible, especially since that would help with the circumstantial evidence we have about the number of animal species we have today as compared to the historical source attesting to the dimensions of Noah's ark. Of course I do not put my faith in such an idea, it is just one possibility that the circumstantial evidence seems to be consistent with as far as we know now, and if natural selection in this way were to be refuted, that would have nothing to do with the validity of Noah's ark. But anyway, it seems to me like Old Earthers in a misguided attempt to be faithful have got their epistemology quite mixed up; they are denying the scientifically provable aspects of "evolutionary theory" and asserting the scientifically unprovable parts of it, which makes them at odds with both YECs (who deny the scientifically unprovable parts but support the scientifically provable) and Naturalists, who often assert both the scientifically provable and unprovable as a single theory. I have noticed that there seem to be an awful lot of geologists and astronomers as compared to those in the life sciences in the Old Earth camp; could it be that this is because they are less familiar with the biological sciences, who would recognize precisely this error?
Alright... now to actually get into your responses.
Yet, it is important to state that plants are from a scientific standpoint considered life. ...
I'm not debating that point, I'm saying that they are not
nephesh life, and as such they cannot really die. They can
figuratively be spoken of as dying, in the same way that we can
figuratively speak of the wind dying without actually meaning it loses life. Following the statement I quoted, you continue to provide scripture references without addressing this argument at all, which does little more than Rich's article for me - I understand all these references to the death of plants being figuratively speaking of the plant's death.
The reason I think it is important to speak of this distinction is that by saying that plants are alive in a Biblical sense would imply that my argument arbitrarily picks certain categories of life to assign death to, and not others. Why animals and humans but not plants? But my argument does not depend on something like that, it claims that death is more than a termination of life, but it is something that in some way can be personified as a ruler that we chose by sinning in place of God, and therefore its "will" is imposed on all creation in place of God by our choice; not that death is more powerful than God but that God gave us in our stewardship over creation the ability to choose our master and therefore the master of all we are steward over, and we have chosen, the consequences which apply to all creation. This basis in stewardship was, by the way, the central point of my argument in support of my position, which I noticed you have not responded to yet.
In subsequent paragraphs and indeed later on repeatedly in your posts, you make points drawing from poetic or figurative passages regarding God's ordaining of death of men, (and in your later arguments) of prey for carnivores. You make a similar point in another post describing the act of saying grace before meal in thanking God for our food and not sinfulness. All these points can be addressed together: first, you are again drawing from poetic passages as I already addressed above, and second, all these attributions to God are at the level of sovereign over everything that takes place being used for his greater glory, not at the level of him desiring that from the original creation! After all, I think you as an Old Earther would agree that God did not intend for people to suffer prior to sin, right? If you disagree with that statement, let me know. However, the New Testament teaches us to rejoice not just in spite of our sufferings, but because of them, and to count it a blessing when we are persecuted. Why? For the same reason that God ordains death in this present fallen world and that we thank God for the meat we can eat - because God is Lord over all that takes place even now, despite the fact that these things are not things that would have happened in the pre-fallen world.
Finally, your last point of rebuttal is in regard to my argument that the conversation between God and Adam regarding death need not have been recorded. I like the point you make and I agree with you; Adam would probably not have fully understood what God meant even if God did have an unrecorded conversation with Adam. I think this is really fascinating, although I don't think this is really an argument against my view. To me it means that Adam in choosing sin and therefore death was able to then obtain a knowledge of death that he would otherwise have not had, which God even in a sense did not have - that of experiencing it. However, in that act, God did in a sense experience it, because Adam's choice led to the necessity of a savior, God incarnate, who died knowing the seperation and death caused by sin. Amazing!
, since you likely would have realised my personal story was also an indirect refutation of an implicit claim in your original post that the beliefs of OEC (particularly Day-Age) are based on science rather than Scripture. I can never buy into that false claim since I have myself as a living example of it being false.
Such broad reaching statements require more than quick assertions, especially your statements regarding OECs. Have you read any articles on this site? Have you read any books from Fuz Rana? I dare say such authors are more familiar with biology than your own grandeur in such areas.
