[__ Science __ ] Can Creationists Accept Evolution?

[BroRoyVa79]

Turns out, his hunch was right; genetics has confirmed the family tree of common descent first detected by Linnaeus. But Darwin was a very careful scientist, and did not declare this to be a fact. He just didn't know.
.....
Even many Jewish theologians in ancient, medieval and modern times knew that the Bible was often not literal history.

Genesis As Allegory | My Jewish Learning

Genesis as Allegory. Creationism and Evolution in Judaism. Science and Judaism. Jewish Science. Jewish Ideas and Beliefs

www.myjewishlearning.com

Couple things cause you tend to go off in tangents irrelevant to the point at hand.
1) My general response to you was about your misrepresentation of AIG and other Creationists. I have no intention of going back and forth with you about Evolution vs. Creation. I've explained my position on the matter.
2) I'm aware that some in the Christian-sphere lean more toward materialism and naturalism as their explanatory philosophies when looking at nature. So, reminding me that Georges Lemaitre is the father of the big bang theory is no different from me saying, again, this is the musings of men about reality.
3) Again, I find myself repeating this, but men are fallible, fickle about their observations and conclusions about reality and nature proper. Science itself is not a tool in which you can discover absolute truth as it's a practice that implores forever investigation and questioning of existing theories, thus, it can never get to conclusions that can ever be considered absolute. So, I've always found it bizarre when people turn to science with some sort of religious fervor.
4) Naturalistic origins science is an absurd concept when you consider how science itself is practiced with a key point being observation. I'm sure you've heard this before given your hostility with Creationists, but you cannot observe the beginnings of anything: universe, solar system, stars, life. It's all assumptions. Even recently they discovered a handful of galaxies not fitting into their belief system on how the Big Bang should work. But, as I was telling a friend who brought this to my attention, they will find another rescue device, as they did before with the ridiculous Inflation theory.

I'm just showing you what he said:
There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.
Charles Darwin, last sentence of On the Origin of Species

Yes, and the "or into one" is the point. You want to remain hung up on the "few forms" but that doesn't invalidate the fact Darwin also said "or into one" as in one common ancestor. This is you splitting hairs and caught up in semantics to maintain the narrative that AIG are intentionally maliciously misrepresenting him. I've shown that's not the case, you've shown in your attempt to try to say I'm wrong that's also not the case because in your quotes you keep posting the "or into one" form is there in the statement. It doesn't matter that Darwin thought it might be either or at the time. This is the last time I'm going to deal with this issue.

As you see, the text itself tells us that it's not a literal account.

The Text does not.

Where it speaks of mornings and evenings before the sun, which by definition, one must have to have mornings and evenings.

Again, your acceptance of the current naturalistic belief system of how the universe, light, etc. came into existence has no bearing on the text. Mankind will change it's views when Mankind being fickle finds something else that Mankind believes forces them to change their views. For crying out loud, we do astronomy sitting on our planet looking out into the universe with cameras, telescopes, and radar. Yes, some of that translates to us doing the math to figure out how things move, etc. and figuring out what some things may be made of through comparison with using those tools on things here on Earth, but it shows the great limitation on us and our science.

 

[BroRoyVa79]

As you see, YE creationism is a modern revision of scripture, no older than the Seventh Day Adventists, who invented it.

It was not Seventh Day Adventists who created it. Most of the Church fathers interpreted Genesis 1 literally. You mentioned St. Augustine above, but despite his allegorical approach, he believed the Flood patriarchs lived to be around 900 years old. He also clearly said in The City of God, Book 12, chapter 12 that, "As to those who are always asking why man was not created during these countless ages of the infinitely extended past, and came into being so lately that, according to Scripture, less than 6000 years have elapsed since he began to be, I would reply to them regarding the creation of man, just as I replied regarding the origin of the world to those who will not believe that it is not eternal, but had a beginning, which even Plato himself most plainly declares, though some think his statement was not consistent with his real opinion.["

That statement alone shows Augustine believed that 6,000 years hadn't passed since the creation of man. Old Earthers like to invoke him because of his allegorical interpretations, but ignore things like that.

And why do you get to decide when it's history and when it's allegory? Because man believes in YE creationism and you believe in man? That's not a good excuse for me.

I don't treat Genesis 1-11 as allegory. So, this does not apply to me. I treat it as history since it was written that way.

Well, let's see what Jewish sources have to say about that...
But, as Steven Katz notes…, "In Jewish religious thought Genesis is not regarded as meant for a literal reading, and Jewish tradition has not usually read it so." In fact, as we shall argue below, even the compilers of the Bible do not seem to have been concerned with a literal reading of the text. They were prepared to have at least parts of it read non-literally.
...
Whatever the intention of the individual accounts of creation may have been, it is clear from the Bible as a whole that its compilers were not overly concerned with the details of the creation story in the first chapter of Genesis. They incorporated several accounts of creation in the Bible even though no two accounts agree in detail with Genesis 1 or with each other. Genesis 1 describes the creation of the world in six days. The second account of creation is the story of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden (Genesis 2).

Several other accounts are found in poetic form in Psalms, Proverbs, and Job. Genesis 1 says that man was the last living creature created; Genesis 2 says that he was the first. Genesis 1 speaks of the prehistoric waters in purely naturalistic terms and says that God merely commanded them to gather in a single spot so that dry land could appear.

But in poetic passages the ancient waters are personified as rebellious sea monsters which threatened to swamp the dry land, until God subdued them and created the seashore as a boundary which they were prohibited from crossing.

The most notable difference between Genesis and all the other accounts is that none of the others mentions the idea that the world was created in six days. This idea–which is the centerpiece of the whole creationist movement–was apparently not considered important enough in the Bible to be repeated in other accounts of creation.

Genesis As Allegory | My Jewish Learning

Genesis as Allegory. Creationism and Evolution in Judaism. Science and Judaism. Jewish Science. Jewish Ideas and Beliefs

www.myjewishlearning.com

I'm aware there are scholars, rabbis, etc. who see Genesis as allegory. They are in error. As I said, the structure of Genesis 1-11 is not in allegorical. Plus, if you look at Katz's and Tigay's words above, he speaks of compilers, he and I are in clear disagreement on a many of things as I consider Moses to be the author of Genesis and not compilers who put together the text over several years or something.

Either way, I take your two experts and raise you one Hebraist, Dr. Stephen Boyd:
Are the First Chapters of Genesis History
Is the Book of Genesis Meant to Be History?
Is the Book of Genesis a Historical Narrative or Poetry?
How we Know Genesis is Narrative

We can sit here and go back and forth with scholars all day long. There are Hebraists, Ancient Near Eastern scholars, Hebrew language experts, Hebrew culture and religious experts that all say Genesis is not written as allegory, poetry, etc. I've told you as someone who went to school and studied Hebrew and Greek that Genesis is not written in that way.

I've read my fair share of Rabbis that have weird interpretations of scripture. Just because they're Jewish and their Rabbis doesn't make their words true no different than a Pastor who starts getting bizarre about their interpretations.

Again, Exodus 20:11, God says he created everything in six days and rested on the seventh. Are you going to now tell me that parts of the Exodus narrative are arbitrarily allegorical to fit your interpretive needs as well? This is also a clear example that YEC is not modern as Moses wrote it in Exodus which was arguably written somewhere between 1440-1400 BC.

 

[Barbarian]

As you see, YE creationism is a modern revision of scripture, no older than the Seventh Day Adventists, who invented it.

It was not Seventh Day Adventists who created it.

Yep, it was:

George McCready Price and ‘Flood Geology’​

During the first two thirds of the twentieth century, during which most Christian fundamentalists accepted the existence of long geological ages, the leading voice arguing for the recent creation of life on earth in six literal days was George McCready Price (1870-1963), a scientifically self-taught creationist and teacher. Born and reared in the Maritime Provinces of Canada, Price as a youth joined the Seventh-day Adventists, a small religious group founded and still led by a prophetess named Ellen G. White, whom Adventists regarded as being divinely inspired. Following one of her trance-like "visions" White claimed actually to have witnessed the Creation, which occurred in a literal week. She also taught that Noah’s flood had sculpted the surface of the earth, burying the plants and animals found in the fossil record, and that the Christian Sabbath should be celebrated on Saturday rather than Sunday, as a memorial of a six-day creation.

Shortly after the turn of the century Price dedicated his life to a scientific defense of White’s version of earth history: the creation of all life on earth no more than about 6,000 years ago and a global deluge over 2,000 years before the birth of Christ that had deposited most of the fossil-bearing rocks. Convinced that theories of organic evolution rested primarily on the notion of geological ages, Price aimed his strongest artillery at the geological foundation rather than at the biological superstructure. For a decade and a half Price’s writings circulated mainly among his coreligionists, but by the late 1910s he was increasingly reaching non-Adventist audiences. In 1926, at the height of the antievolution crusade, the journal Science described Price as "the principal scientific authority of the Fundamentalists. That he was, but with a twist. Although virtually all of the leading antievolutionists of the day, including William Jennings Bryan at the Scopes trial, lauded Price’s critique of evolution, none of them saw any biblical reason to abandon belief in the antiquity of life on earth for what Price called "flood geology." Not until the 1970s did Price’s views, rechristened "creation science," become fundamentalist orthodoxy.

History Topic: George McCready Price and Flood Geology

History Topic: George McCready Price and Flood Geology

counterbalance.org

You mentioned St. Augustine above, but despite his allegorical approach, he believed the Flood patriarchs lived to be around 900 years old.

Yes. St. Augustine realized that the creation story was figurative, but did not believe in an ancient Earth.

I don't treat Genesis 1-11 as allegory.

Because man believes in YE creationism, and you believe in man? That's not a good excuse for me.

I'm aware there are scholars, rabbis, etc. who see Genesis as allegory. They are in error.

Their arguments are more persuasive than your beliefs. Sorry. As you see, your new doctrines are those invented by the Seventh-Day Adventists in the 1900s. And they are not supported by scripture or by physical evidence.

 

[Barbarian]

1) My general response to you was about your misrepresentation of AIG and other Creationists. I have no intention of going back and forth with you about Evolution vs. Creation.

If not, you're in the wrong place. That's what we're talking about here.

I'm aware that some in the Christian-sphere lean more toward materialism and naturalism as their explanatory philosophies when looking at nature.

If you do, one of us does. Neither of those philosophies are part of science, which is not, and cannot be, ontologically naturalistic.

Again, I find myself repeating this, but men are fallible, fickle about their observations and conclusions about reality and nature proper.

About religious doctrine, too, as the acceptance of Seventh-Day Adventist doctrines (like YE creationism) by many fundmentlists shows.

Hebrew culture and religious experts that all say Genesis is not written as allegory, poetry, etc.

As you see, many of them do say that it is. I get that you don't want to believe that it is. And it won't cost you your salvation if you don't. So maybe that's the best you can do at this point. Unless you make an idol of your new doctrines, it won't hurt you.

 

[Highway54]

God himself has limits and has no problem with those limits. If I may turn tables, it’s only our less than infinite minds that imagine He insists on having no limits.

This is not minor because the God of Abraham et al has particular ways He acts and works. Moses knew those ways. As did all of them. Knowing God means knowing those ways although they are beyond finding out. Nevertheless there are very consistent ways He works. He is not subject to our insisting He is beyond understanding.

We can hardly comprehend that we had a beginning so that’s no surprise. We cannot comprehend Him hearing billions of prayers to Him at the same time. But we can comprehend His joy in a man repenting and receiving forgiveness. We can comprehend truth. The concept isn’t beyond us.

Knowing God means knowing those ways although they are beyond finding out. Nevertheless there are very consistent ways He works. He is not subject to our insisting He is beyond understanding.

He of course comprehends us, but we comprehend Him in what he wants us to know.

 

[BroRoyVa79]

As you see, YE creationism is a modern revision of scripture, no older than the Seventh Day Adventists, who invented it.


Yep, it was:

George McCready Price and ‘Flood Geology’​

During the first two thirds of the twentieth century, during which most Christian fundamentalists accepted the existence of long geological ages, the leading voice arguing for the recent creation of life on earth in six literal days was George McCready Price (1870-1963), a scientifically self-taught creationist and teacher. Born and reared in the Maritime Provinces of Canada, Price as a youth joined the Seventh-day Adventists, a small religious group founded and still led by a prophetess named Ellen G. White, whom Adventists regarded as being divinely inspired. Following one of her trance-like "visions" White claimed actually to have witnessed the Creation, which occurred in a literal week. She also taught that Noah’s flood had sculpted the surface of the earth, burying the plants and animals found in the fossil record, and that the Christian Sabbath should be celebrated on Saturday rather than Sunday, as a memorial of a six-day creation.

Shortly after the turn of the century Price dedicated his life to a scientific defense of White’s version of earth history: the creation of all life on earth no more than about 6,000 years ago and a global deluge over 2,000 years before the birth of Christ that had deposited most of the fossil-bearing rocks. Convinced that theories of organic evolution rested primarily on the notion of geological ages, Price aimed his strongest artillery at the geological foundation rather than at the biological superstructure. For a decade and a half Price’s writings circulated mainly among his coreligionists, but by the late 1910s he was increasingly reaching non-Adventist audiences. In 1926, at the height of the antievolution crusade, the journal Science described Price as "the principal scientific authority of the Fundamentalists. That he was, but with a twist. Although virtually all of the leading antievolutionists of the day, including William Jennings Bryan at the Scopes trial, lauded Price’s critique of evolution, none of them saw any biblical reason to abandon belief in the antiquity of life on earth for what Price called "flood geology." Not until the 1970s did Price’s views, rechristened "creation science," become fundamentalist orthodoxy.

History Topic: George McCready Price and Flood Geology

History Topic: George McCready Price and Flood Geology

counterbalance.org

No, it wasn't. You keep ignoring Exodus 20:11, Moses wrote that down thousands of years ago and it takes Genesis at its word as a six day creation.

Another example of an early Church father prior to the existence of Seventh Day Adventist. Polycarp wrote in the Epistle of Barnabas in 70-100 AD, thousands of years before Price was even born: "“Attend, my children, to the meaning of this expression, ‘He finished in six days.’ This implieth that the Lord will finish all things in six thousand years, for a day is with Him a thousand years. And He Himself testifieth, saying, ‘Behold, to-day will be as a thousand years.’ Therefore, my children, in six days, that is, in six thousand years, all things will be finished. ‘And He rested on the seventh day.’”

Another example, Hippolytus of Rome wrote in the Hexaemeron, or Exegetical Fragments about 200 AD, again, thousands of years before Price was even born: "For as the times are noted from the foundation of the world, and reckoned from Adam, they set clearly before us the matter with which our inquiry deals. For the first appearance of our Lord in the flesh took place in Bethlehem, under Augustus, in the year 5500; and He suffered in the thirty-third year. And 6,000 years must needs be accomplished, in order that the Sabbath may come, the rest, the holy day ‘on which God rested from all His works. ‘For the Sabbath is the type and emblem of the future kingdom of the saints, when they “shall reign with Christ”, when He comes from heaven, as John says in his Apocalypse: for “a day with the Lord is as a thousand years.” Since, then, in six days God made all things, it follows that 6,000 years must be fulfilled.’”

So, that's two early church fathers in the 1st-3rd centuries AD. Thousands of years before Seventh Day Adventists were formed in the mid 1800s. I've read this kind of thing from atheists. I suggest you stop taking talking points from them if that's what you're doing.

Yes. St. Augustine realized that the creation story was figurative, but did not believe in an ancient Earth.

Thus, your claim that young Earth is a modern thing is false.

Because man believes in YE creationism, and you believe in man? That's not a good excuse for me.

No, because once again to repeat myself, all of the authors, Prophets, Apostles, and Jesus treat Genesis as history. Genesis says it created the world in six days. Taking the genealogies and counting them, and yes I'm aware they're not meant for that, and no, there aren't mountains of missing names or generations, but taking the genealogies and counting roughly from Adam, you get a young Earth and universe. You do not get millions and billions of years. A concept of a young creation has been something in Church history for thousands of years. It was only a controversial thing when Darwin, Lyell and company decided long geological ages where a thing and the scientific community who wanted to kick off and do away with Genesis accepted it and went full-philosophical-naturalism with it.

Their arguments are more persuasive than your beliefs. Sorry. As you see, your new doctrines are those invented by the Seventh-Day Adventists in the 1900s. And they are not supported by scripture or by physical evidence.

Same can be said for you and your beliefs. You choose to let man's musings of the world influence how you view the Bible rather than let God's word be true on the matter.
I've shown one Hebraist specialist that disagree with that. You can watch Dr. Boyd's videos as he instructs through the text and explains linguistically and the structure of the text how it's not to be taken as allegory and instead historical narrative.
It's known that there are a segment of Rabbis into Jewish mysticism and they add stuff to the text that's not there. This was the issue Jesus was dealing with while He was arguing with the Pharisees and Sadducees, they were adding stuff the law and making it difficult for people to reach God or taking away guilt for favors. Jesus got on them for that. Yet, they continued to do this with the Kabbala and Talmud, etc.
I've given you reasons from a linguistic perspective that Genesis is not allegory. Everyone you present to me wants to read Genesis as allegory so they can compromise with man's belief about the natural world and not look foolish in the face of the acceptance of science.

As Paul said (emphasis mine):

1 Corinthians 1: 20 Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. 22 For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, 24 but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

While man's musings of the natural world can bring some understanding to God's work, God's supernatural activity is generally foolishness to the natural man who can only process things through a materialistic understanding of nature.

 

[BroRoyVa79]

If not, you're in the wrong place. That's what we're talking about here.

In context of my original post in this place, I answered the OP question and replied about thoughts on the misrepresentation of AIG by some who don't seem to like AIG and YE Creationists. You chose to reply to me because I quoted you specifically. I didn't quote you anywhere about your musings on Evolution v. Creationism because I've had those arguments in the past and I choose to approach the topic based on what the Bible says and not what a bunch of secular scientists who process the world through the philosophy of naturalism say. I'm not a scientist as I've said. I can read and understand science journals, etc., but I'm not going to try to sit here and argue scientific jargon as it's outside my expertise. I read Creation science journals, Creation writings, people like Michael Behe, Stephen Meyer, Jonathan Wells, etc. the rest of the Old Earthers sometimes for my own benefit. For the Old Earthers, mostly read them when they're talking about the problems in naturalistic theories of evolution. I don't read them to go back and forth with someone on the science jargon, but to get information to point to the holes in the theories of science that people embrace with religious fervor and to have an answer for open minded people looking for answers to make the Bible make sense in a world where everything is explained through philosophical and scientific naturalism as if the supernatural never existed and God can't do miracles.

Yes, the creation of the universe and the world is a miracle. Thus, I see no reason I have to limit my acceptance of that event to processing it through philosophical naturalism in which modern science is indoctrinated in.

If you do, one of us does. Neither of those philosophies are part of science, which is not, and cannot be, ontologically naturalistic.

Yes, ontological naturalism has been ingrained in the process of science today. Many scientists of yesteryear, Newton, Boyle, Lavoiser, Euler, Faraday, et al were supernaturalists that examined nature while allowing a supernatural explanation to remain an ultimate option. Today, scientists abhor the supernatural and don't look for the supernatural in their explanations. The outliers don't make the rule.

So, when Christians lean toward secular man's musings of nature, they are leaning toward secular man's ontological philosophies of explaining said nature. Yes, many of said Christians try to handwave away the origins of man's musings about nature and insert God into the mix and say "this works" but it doesn't make sense because in doing so they usurp what God said in His word for something that started without God in sight. Yes, even if some of these theories were first pondered by believers in the past. They've been hijacked by man's naturalistic philosophies today.

And not all of the theories are on equal footing. Origins science specifically is the problem or any view of man through a material lens that scoffs at the concept of the supernatural interacting with and manipulating natural phenomena beyond the limitations of what man can do and observe in nature.

About religious doctrine, too, as the acceptance of Seventh-Day Adventist doctrines (like YE creationism) by many fundmentlists shows.

Already showed you that the concept of YEC goes back thousands of years. So, you can stop repeating this Seventh-Day Adventist atheistic, Old Earther talking point thing.

I only adhere to religious doctrine that I can exegetically read out of the Bible as in let the Bible tell me what it means. Not religious doctrine that I eisegetically read into the Bible, as in Genesis is allegory, or I see a gap magically between Genesis 1:1 & 1:2, etc. because I want to embrace evolution, millions of years, billions of years, big bang, etc.

As you see, many of them do say that it is. I get that you don't want to believe that it is. And it won't cost you your salvation if you don't. So maybe that's the best you can do at this point. Unless you make an idol of your new doctrines, it won't hurt you.

YEC is not new. Literal reading of Genesis when taken in context of the whole of the Biblical narrative makes sense.
You need to figure out what to do with Exodus 20:11, Romans 5:12-21, genealogy of Christ in Luke etc. other passages that treat Genesis 1-11 as History and not allegory. And also tell me you're not trying to read Genesis 1-11 as allegory to accommodate modern man's musings on reality. That, sir, is new doctrine.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

He of course comprehends us, but we comprehend Him in what he wants us to know.

I would have to think about that but my suspicion is he’d like us to comprehend a lot more than we do but our own lack of obedience is the limiting factor.

 

[Barbarian]

In context of my original post in this place, I answered the OP question and replied about thoughts on the misrepresentation of AIG by some who don't seem to like AIG and YE Creationists.

As you see, AIG frequently misrepresent things like evolution and scientific theories.

You chose to reply to me because I quoted you specifically. I didn't quote you anywhere about your musings on Evolution v. Creationism because I've had those arguments in the past and I choose to approach the topic based on what the Bible says and not what a bunch of secular scientists who process the world through the philosophy of naturalism say.

Scientists who are also people of faith are rather used to AIG referring to them as "secular scientists who process the world though the philosophy of naturalism." Again, a rather unChristian misrepresentation.

Yes, the creation of the universe and the world is a miracle. Thus, I see no reason I have to limit my acceptance of that event to processing it through philosophical naturalism in which modern science is indoctrinated in.

You don't seem to be able to shed yourself of the habit. As you've been reminded, science can't even attempt to "process it through philosophical naturalism." You've been so indoctrinated in that false idea that you can't seem to get over it, and it's tied to a fear of evolution as God's creation. Plumbing, for example, is also methodologically naturalistic, but YE creationists are not afraid of plumbing, because their new doctrines don't deny the fact of plumbing.
Neither plumbing nor science can deal with anything supernatural. But plumbers and scientists can. This is another issue that causes YE creationists anxiety.

Here's a place to begin finding some peace over this:

Metaphysical Naturalism Vs. Methodological Naturalism (Differences) | OptimistMinds

In this guide, we will discuss metaphysical naturalism vs. methodological naturalism. We will talk about some of the main differences and we will also see

optimistminds.com

Many scientists of yesteryear, Newton, Boyle, Lavoiser, Euler, Faraday, et al were supernaturalists that examined nature while allowing a supernatural explanation to remain an ultimate option. Today, scientists abhor the supernatural and don't look for the supernatural in their explanations. The outliers don't make the rule.

Hmm... I notice that none of those scientists you mentioned, actually put any supernatural factors into their theories. They did believe in a creator much as many modern scientists do. But modern scientists don't put supernatural factors into their theories any more than Darwin or Newton did. Even though, as you learned Darwin supposed that God created living things.

Plumbers don't consider the demons of blockage or the creation of water in their work, even if they believe there Is a Creator. Newton didn't consider the creation of matter in his theories, even if he accepted the fact of a Creator. Until you get why this matters, you'll continue to be unhappy with faith as well as science.

Already showed you that the concept of YEC goes back thousands of years.

Turns out, YE creationism, as it exists today, was the invention of a SDA "prophetess." It was spread to fundamentalists by the missionary work of George McCreedy Price. Until that time, most evangelicals were OE creationists.

I only adhere to religious doctrine that I can exegetically read out of the Bible as in let the Bible tell me what it means.

Everyone supposes that they do, but the text itself tells you that the creation story is not a literal history. It doesn't mean that you aren't a good Christian for your beliefs. It's not a salvation issue. But you are wrong, and most of the world's Christians accept Genesis as a figurative account.

 

[Barbarian]

And while some ancient Christians did think the creation week was 6,000 years of time, this clearly conflicts with your new doctrine that it was six 24-hour days. And as you have seen, even Jewish theologians knew that the creation story was not literal time periods.

As I said, it won't harm your salvation, unless you make an idol of your doctrines and insistent that other Christians must believe them to believe God.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

The problem is it’s a repeated story of drink the evolution Koolaid or you’re out. It’s not one time. And scientists are otherwise ready to be unethical. They steal and lie and the epidemic of non-repeatable papers is growing and they know it.

The scientists I know trust other scientists the least of all people. They are about as ethical as used car salesmen or politicians. They lie and steal, way too many of them.

 

[Highway54]

That's a confusion between adaptation possible for an individual, and adaptation due to natural selection acting on reproductive success of the individuals in the population.


Well, that is an error Darwin made. You see, he argued that if you took Africans to England, in a few generations, they'd be just like Englishmen. Because Mendel's discoveries were not yet known widely, most scientists still thought acquired characters could be inherited. Aside from short-term epigenetic changes, that doesn't happen. But over a longer time, it could be that such adaptation might occur if natural selection were strong enough.

There is a difference between getting a tan and mutations making one's offspring darker as a result of mutation and natural selection.

Of course it is irrelevant Barbarian, the Bible states that God created us according to our kind, evolution teaches a single cell spontaneously came to life, and like cells do divided and became all the species we have, which would mean two things, new species would be coming on the scene, and we would all be the same kind, therefore able to reproduce with anything. Fact is that is not happening. God ceased creating in the neighborhood of 6k yrs ago, and we can only reproduce within our kind/species.

 

[Highway54]

I would have to think about that but my suspicion is he’d like us to comprehend a lot more than we do but our own lack of obedience is the limiting factor.

You might find this interesting Dorothy Mae , Daniel was a highly favored person of God maam, and God used him to reveal many miraculous things, however God did not allow him to understand the very book that He had him record, but He allows us to Dan 12:4

 

[BroRoyVa79]

As you see, AIG frequently misrepresent things like evolution and scientific theories.

I don't see any of this misrepresentation. We disagree as per this discussion shows.

Scientists who are also people of faith are rather used to AIG referring to them as "secular scientists who process the world though the philosophy of naturalism." Again, a rather unChristian misrepresentation.

I don't believe you to be this obtuse about things which leads me to believe this is your misrepresentation of ministries like AIG. If you are truly someone who believes in evolution and reads all of their literature, peer review journals, listen to lectures, etc. Then you know that evolution is presented in the secular sense through naturalistic philosophy to the world. That's not "a rather unChristian misrepresentation" that's reality. Yes, there are believing scientists, that much is obvious, but you and I both know they're not the majority in the mix.

You don't seem to be able to shed yourself of the habit. As you've been reminded, science can't even attempt to "process it through philosophical naturalism." You've been so indoctrinated in that false idea that you can't seem to get over it, and it's tied to a fear of evolution as God's creation. Plumbing, for example, is also methodologically naturalistic, but YE creationists are not afraid of plumbing, because their new doctrines don't deny the fact of plumbing.
Neither plumbing nor science can deal with anything supernatural. But plumbers and scientists can. This is another issue that causes YE creationists anxiety.

Here's a place to begin finding some peace over this:

Metaphysical Naturalism Vs. Methodological Naturalism (Differences) | OptimistMinds

In this guide, we will discuss metaphysical naturalism vs. methodological naturalism. We will talk about some of the main differences and we will also see

optimistminds.com

Here you go: The philosophy of science
Empiricism is a key component of science and the importance of observation. The above article defines it as: "set of philosophical approaches to building knowledge that emphasizes the importance of observable evidence from the natural world." They define natural world as "All the components of the physical universe — atoms, plants, ecosystems, people, societies, galaxies, etc., as well as the natural forces at work on those things. Elements of the natural world (as opposed to the supernatural) can be investigated by science."

That. Is. Philosophical Naturalism. Per the Sandford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

"The term “naturalism” has no very precise meaning in contemporary philosophy. Its current usage derives from debates in America in the first half of the last century. The self-proclaimed “naturalists” from that period included John Dewey, Ernest Nagel, Sidney Hook and Roy Wood Sellars. These philosophers aimed to ally philosophy more closely with science. They urged that reality is exhausted by nature, containing nothing “supernatural”, and that the scientific method should be used to investigate all areas of reality, including the “human spirit” (Krikorian 1944, Kim 2003).​

​

So understood, “naturalism” is not a particularly informative term as applied to contemporary philosophers. The great majority of contemporary philosophers would happily accept naturalism as just characterized—that is, they would both reject “supernatural” entities, and allow that science is a possible route (if not necessarily the only one) to important truths about the “human spirit”."​

Either you don't understand what philosophical naturalism is or you're being disingenuous with this consistent denial that science does not process things through naturalism. But I'm sure you're going to run off and find some other link that supports your confirmation bias on the issue to maintain your narrative.

And to your link, methodological naturalism is still a form of naturalism. This is splitting hairs with semantics. Yes, something philosophers like to do, but often to the detriment of overcomplicating obviously simplistic things. Still, I wonder if you even skimmed the article you linked because in the first two paragraphs under methodological naturalism they say this:

"Methodological naturalism is not a “doctrine” but an essential aspect of the methodology of science, the study of the natural universe. If one believes that natural laws and theories based on them will not suffice to solve the problems attacked by scientists – that supernatural and thus nonscientific principles must be invoked from time to time – then one cannot have the confidence in scientific methodology that is a prerequisite to doing science”, according to Lawrence Lerner from chem.tufts.edu.​

​

The term ‘naturalism’ doesn’t have a precise meaning in contemporary philosophy but important representatives such as John Dewey or Ernest Nagel attempted to close the gap between philosophy and science. They argued that reality is exhausted by nature which meant there was no possibility of considering supernatural phenomena as existent or part of reality. However, the scientific method is said to be needed to investigate all the areas of reality, including those concerning the human spirit."​

I mean, that's exactly what I said is happening with science, that it's focused on the natural world and only the natural world.

Under Metaphysical Naturalism they say this:

"Metaphysical Naturalism is also known as Ontological Naturalism and one of the central thoughts is that spatiotemporal entities must be identical to or metaphysically constituted by physical entities. Therefore, many metaphysical naturalists adopt a physicalist attitude to mental, biological and social phenomena. As indicated in plato.stanford.edu, “They hold that there is nothing more to the mental, biological and social realms than arrangements of physical entities.”​

​

Metaphysical Naturalism is also defined by humanist Paul Kurtz under the following premises:​

• Nature is best accounted for by reference to material principles, which can include mass, energy, and other physical (or chemical) properties.
• Holds that spirits, deities and ghosts are not real.
• There is no ‘purpose’ in nature."

Again, proving my point on this one. While Metaphysical and Methodological Naturalism may seem to be saying different things, they're essentially saying the exact same things. They both hold to the position that reality is only composed of physical entities or materialistic (physical) things. That. Is. Naturalism.

Hmm... I notice that none of those scientists you mentioned, actually put any supernatural factors into their theories.

Johannes Kepler, not one of the men I listed initially, is one who coined the phrase in regard to studying the world and indicating that scientific research, ideas and whatnot were "thinking God's thoughts after Him." Yet, he is still considered a "natural philosopher" by way of, and I believe you should know this having read Darwin, many scientists before the that term was coined in 1834, were considered to be "naturalist." Either way, you just made a hasty generalization by saying "none of those scientists mentioned" and, no, I'm not going through a history lesson of all of the early Christian or Religious scientists who may have or may not have invoked the supernatural in their theories. Many of them did. Many of them didn't. So what. That wasn't the point.

They did believe in a creator much as many modern scientists do. But modern scientists don't put supernatural factors into their theories any more than Darwin or Newton did. Even though, as you learned Darwin supposed that God created living things.

There are more modern scientists than those who don't put supernatural factors into their theories. By the way, that's called naturalism.

Plumbers don't consider the demons of blockage or the creation of water in their work, even if they believe there Is a Creator. Newton didn't consider the creation of matter in his theories, even if he accepted the fact of a Creator. Until you get why this matters, you'll continue to be unhappy with faith as well as science.

First of all, this is absurd. Second of all, a good plumber would be smart to consider "the demons of blockage" if other supernatural factors were manifesting around the blockage or naturalistic factors couldn't explain the blockage as in it wasn't normal, or seemed to just be non-natural. I don't know, like something coming from nothing. See how that works?

I'm not ignorant to how science works, but I haven't raised human musings on a pedestal and placed it equivalent with the works of God or above the works of God. That's the only difference, it appears.

To be continued...

 

[BroRoyVa79]

Turns out, YE creationism, as it exists today, was the invention of a SDA "prophetess." It was spread to fundamentalists by the missionary work of George McCreedy Price. Until that time, most evangelicals were OE creationists.

No, it wasn't. Already showed you early Christians believed the creation weak was six days and that time had only progressed 6,000 years to their time from creation. You're choice to consistently ignore it is your own disingenuous tactic in this conversation. Yet, you choose to keep attacking YECs, claiming they're maliciously, intentionally being disingenuous.

And while some ancient Christians did think the creation week was 6,000 years of time, this clearly conflicts with your new doctrine that it was six 24-hour days. And as you have seen, even Jewish theologians knew that the creation story was not literal time periods.

Another example of you ignoring things in favor of maintaining a narrative. I've shown that early Christians, to include those who wrote the New Testament and believers who wrote the Old Testament, believed in a six day creation and many believed that up until their time, only 6,000 years had progressed. It is not a new thing.

Everyone supposes that they do, but the text itself tells you that the creation story is not a literal history. It doesn't mean that you aren't a good Christian for your beliefs. It's not a salvation issue. But you are wrong, and most of the world's Christians accept Genesis as a figurative account.[/I]

You repeat yourself a lot. As if repeating stuff despite me giving an answer to it will somehow make the thing you repeat true. The text itself does not say that the creation story is not literal history. Your interpretation of the text does. I read scripture exegetically not eisegetically. I don't read into the text what I want to be there. Again, you keep making this claim that scripture doesn't interpret Genesis as literal when in Exodus 20:11 God says " For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy." And everyone else in the Bible, authors, Prophets, Apostles, and the Lord Jesus, treat Genesis as literal history. The text (the Bible) itself does not give any evidence to your claim that the text says that the creation story is not literal. Stop saying this like it's true.

As I said, it won't harm your salvation, unless you make an idol of your doctrines and insistent that other Christians must believe them to believe God.

Statements like this ignore the plethora of people saying that evolution ruined their faith and its the reason they left God or had problems coming to God. While yes, I know theistic evolutionists and old Earthers help bring some of those people to God, I have seen some of them inevitably say, they can't reconcile Old Earth and Evolution with the scriptures. So, this can harm the salvation for some. Plus, as I've pointed out, this creates theological problems later on down the line and trust issues with the integrity of the word. If, for some reason, the Genesis account is not trustworthy, then why should the rest of the Bible be trustworthy. While, sure, someone can come to Christ without having to believe in YEC, OEC, Theistic Evolution, Gap Theory, Framework Hypothesis, etc. any theological origin theories, they will eventually be met with these issues in their walk and for some, it has become a salvation issue as it pushes them away when they find themselves either unable to reconcile evolution with scripture regardless of the existing old earth theories, or finding someway for them to reconcile it with scripture, even if it's a compromise.

So, to say it's not a salvation issue is tone death.

And I worship no idols. I've noticed you been hurling insults my way at some point during this conversation. I've not one hurled insults your way. Perhaps you considered me saying you put man's authority and musings about reality over God's word an insult, but that's not intended to be an insult. It's just a fact of what is happening. Either way, at this point, to continue this conversation with you since you like to repeat things as if repeating them makes them true and you like to ignore things, would be a worthless endeavor. So this will be my last reply.

Good day. God bless!

 

[Barbarian]

The scientists I know trust other scientists the least of all people.

Give that most scientists are less likely to commit crimes than your average person, that seems very unlikely. In all my years in science, I never saw anything like that.

They are about as ethical as used car salesmen or politicians. They lie and steal, way too many of them.

I get that you would like us to believe that. But I've spent a lifetime in science among them. And I know better.

 

[Barbarian]

Of course it is irrelevant @Barbarian, the Bible states that God created us according to our kind

He did. You just don't approve of the way He did it.

evolution teaches a single cell spontaneously came to life

No. Not part of evolutionary theory. Darwin, for example, thought that God just made the first living things.

which would mean two things, new species would be coming on the scene, and we would all be the same kind, therefore able to reproduce with anything.

No. It's observed that speciation means other populations don't interbreed with the new species. Closely related species can sometimes hybridize in captivity, but don't in nature.

God ceased creating in the neighborhood of 6k yrs ago, and we can only reproduce within our kind/species.

That's wrong too. Speciation continues. And hybridization is still sometimes possible with closely-related species.

 

[Barbarian]

I don't see any of this misrepresentation. We disagree as per this discussion shows.

It's just a fact. As you see, AIG for example admits that new species evolve from older ones, but pretends it's not evolution. As you know, evolution is a change in allele frequencies in a population, or less technically, descent with modification. Which is what speciation is.

Scientists who are also people of faith are rather used to AIG referring to them as "secular scientists who process the world though the philosophy of naturalism." Again, a rather unChristian misrepresentation.

I don't believe you to be this obtuse about things

I personally know many scientists who are devout Christians. No point in denying it to me.

If you are truly someone who believes in evolution and reads all of their literature, peer review journals, listen to lectures, etc. Then you know that evolution is presented in the secular sense through naturalistic philosophy to the world.

Now, that's a misreprentation. "Naturalistic philosophy" is the idea that nothing exists but nature. As you learned, that's not how science works. It does not and cannot make such an assumption, being limited to investigating the physical universe. This is why scientists of all faiths, and even those with no faith at all, can do science.

And to your link, methodological naturalism is still a form of naturalism.

In the sense that it assumes natural processes have natural causes, without denying that there might be other causes. This is why Christians can do science. Science neither affirms nor denies God. Because it can't. Plumbing assumes that plumbing problems have natural causes without denying that there might be other causes. Plumbing neither affirms nor denies God. Because it can't. The difference is YE creationists are not scared of plumbing.

AIG desperately attempts to conflate science with ontological naturalism, because their new beliefs conflict with God's creation. And science investigates His creation, learning more about it. Why not just accept creation as He did it?

Plumbers don't consider the demons of blockage or the creation of water in their work, even if they believe there Is a Creator. Newton didn't consider the creation of matter in his theories, even if he accepted the fact of a Creator. Until you get why this matters, you'll continue to be unhappy with faith as well as science.

First of all, this is absurd. Second of all, a good plumber would be smart to consider "the demons of blockage" if other supernatural factors were manifesting around the blockage or naturalistic factors couldn't explain the blockage as in it wasn't normal, or seemed to just be non-natural.

Yep. Just as a good scientist would have to consider the possibility of supernatural effects if he witnessed what clearly was miraculous. What you don't get is that plumbing and science can't consider the supernatural, but plumbers and scientists can. Until you understand what methodological naturalism means, this will be an impossible problem for you.

I'm not ignorant to how science works,

You still don't get how methodological naturalism works. This is why you feel the need to conflate it with ontological naturalism. And why you accept the doctrines of an adventist "prophetess" over His word.

You've put human musings on a pedestal, and accepted it as equivalent to the word of God.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

You might find this interesting Dorothy Mae , Daniel was a highly favored person of God maam, and God used him to reveal many miraculous things, however God did not allow him to understand the very book that He had him record, but He allows us to Dan 12:4

Why do you think he didn’t understand it? He certainly was not allowed to write more than he did being told the book was to be sealed. He received the understanding of dreams. I don’t think we can say he didn’t understand it. I don’t we can make a case either way.

And since there are wildly differing theories as to the meaning, it’s pretty clear He isn’t allowing all of us to understand it. He can’t be behind all of us understanding it if we don’t even think close to each other in interpretion.

 

[Barbarian]

And while some ancient Christians did think the creation week was 6,000 years of time, this clearly conflicts with your new doctrine that it was six 24-hour days. And as you have seen, even Jewish theologians knew that the creation story was not literal time periods. I see you ignoring these fact to maintain your narrative, but they won't go away.No, it wasn't.For example the creationism presented by evangelicals at the Scopes Trial was OE creationism. It was the form of creationism accepted by 19th century evangelicals like the Baptist evangelist Charles Spurgeon:
"In the 2d verse of the first chapter of Genesis, we read, “And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.” We know not how remote the period of the creation of this globe may be—certainly many millions of years before the time of Adam. Our planet has passed through various stages of existence, and different kinds of creatures have lived on its surface, all of which have been fashioned by God. But before that era came, wherein man should be its principal tenant and monarch, the Creator gave up the world to confusion."
Charles Spurgeon The Power of the Holy Spirit 1855

YE is a very modern revision of creationism:

During the first two thirds of the twentieth century, during which most Christian fundamentalists accepted the existence of long geological ages, the leading voice arguing for the recent creation of life on earth in six literal days was George McCready Price (1870-1963), a scientifically self-taught creationist and teacher. Born and reared in the Maritime Provinces of Canada, Price as a youth joined the Seventh-day Adventists, a small religious group founded and still led by a prophetess named Ellen G. White, whom Adventists regarded as being divinely inspired. Following one of her trance-like "visions" White claimed actually to have witnessed the Creation, which occurred in a literal week. She also taught that Noah’s flood had sculpted the surface of the earth, burying the plants and animals found in the fossil record, and that the Christian Sabbath should be celebrated on Saturday rather than Sunday, as a memorial of a six-day creation.

Shortly after the turn of the century Price dedicated his life to a scientific defense of White’s version of earth history: the creation of all life on earth no more than about 6,000 years ago and a global deluge over 2,000 years before the birth of Christ that had deposited most of the fossil-bearing rocks. Convinced that theories of organic evolution rested primarily on the notion of geological ages, Price aimed his strongest artillery at the geological foundation rather than at the biological superstructure. For a decade and a half Price’s writings circulated mainly among his coreligionists, but by the late 1910s he was increasingly reaching non-Adventist audiences. In 1926, at the height of the antievolution crusade, the journal Science described Price as "the principal scientific authority of the Fundamentalists. That he was, but with a twist. Although virtually all of the leading antievolutionists of the day, including William Jennings Bryan at the Scopes trial, lauded Price’s critique of evolution, none of them saw any biblical reason to abandon belief in the antiquity of life on earth for what Price called "flood geology." Not until the 1970s did Price’s views, rechristened "creation science," become fundamentalist orthodoxy.

History Topic: George McCready Price and Flood Geology

History Topic: George McCready Price and Flood Geology

counterbalance.org

Yet, you choose to keep attacking YECs, claiming they're maliciously, intentionally being disingenuous.

Most aren't. But some, as you have seen, have intentionally misrepresented the truth and what scientists say. As you just read, I suggested that AIG is misrepresenting what science says out of ignorance rather than malice.

And everyone else in the Bible, authors, Prophets, Apostles, and the Lord Jesus, treat Genesis as literal history.

None of them actually said it was a literal history. You merely re-interpreted their words to make it so.

Everyone supposes that they do, but the text itself tells you that the creation story is not a literal history. It doesn't mean that you aren't a good Christian for your beliefs. It's not a salvation issue. But you are wrong, and most of the world's Christians accept Genesis as a figurative account.

You repeat yourself a lot.

Often, when a student doesn't get something, repetition helps. And it's a critical thing for you to understand as a Christian. Don't let the issue of YE doctrines affect your salvation. There are people who have made an idol of YE and insist that one must be a YE to be saved. In fact, God doesn't care what you think about the way He made things. That's not what matters.

The text itself does not say that the creation story is not literal history.

Nor does it say that it is. You've merely added that to it to make it more acceptable to you.

Statements like this ignore the plethora of people saying that evolution ruined their faith and its the reason they left God or had problems coming to God.

It usually works the other way. Here's the testimony from a former YE geologist, who learned that what he had been taught in ICR graduate school was false:

But eventually, by 1994 I was through with young-earth creationISM. Nothing that young-earth creationists had taught me about geology turned out to be true. I took a poll of my ICR graduate friends who have worked in the oil industry. I asked them one question.

“From your oil industry experience, did any fact that you were taught at ICR, which challenged current geological thinking, turn out in the long run to be true?”

That is a very simple question. One man, Steve Robertson, who worked for Shell grew real silent on the phone, sighed and softly said ‘No!’ A very close friend that I had hired at Arco, after hearing the question, exclaimed, “Wait a minute. There has to be one!” But he could not name one. I can not name one. No one else could either. One man I could not reach, to ask that question, had a crisis of faith about two years after coming into the oil industry. I do not know what his spiritual state is now, but he was in bad shape the last time I talked to him.

And being through with creationism, I very nearly became through with Christianity. I was on the very verge of becoming an atheist.

Why I Left Young-Earth Creationism

In memory of Glenn Morton (1950-2020), Peaceful Science is republishing his personal account and testimony of leaving Young-Earth Creationism.

peacefulscience.org

Glenn Morton was one of the lucky ones. There are many others whose faith was destroyed by YE doctrines. They ask if the YE revision of the Genesis account is not trustworthy, then why should the rest of the Bible be trustworthy.

So, to say it's not a salvation issue is tone death.

To say it's not a salvation issue it to trust God in what He says will matter at Judgement. You're putting your faith in man's revision of His words. Why not just listen to what He says to you?
Matthew 25: 34 Then shall the king say to them that shall be on his right hand: Come, ye blessed of my Father, possess you the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. 35 For I was hungry, and you gave me to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me to drink; I was a stranger, and you took me in:

36 Naked, and you covered me: sick, and you visited me: I was in prison, and you came to me. 37 Then shall the just answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry, and fed thee; thirsty, and gave thee drink? 38 And when did we see thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and covered thee? 39 Or when did we see thee sick or in prison, and came to thee? 40 And the king answering, shall say to them: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it to one of these my least brethren, you did it to me.
...
46 And these shall go into everlasting punishment: but the just, into life everlasting.

This, He says, is what determines your eternal home. Why not just trust Him? Men will lead you astray, but He will not. Trust Him.