Historical Creationism: Literal Genesis, Old Earth

[Bradskii]

I agree that it is incredible to think that tens of thousands of people are all conspiring to hide the truth and deliver lies.

But as a counterpoint, consider past scientific theories that were generally believed.

That's not a counterpoint. It's a different matter entirely. The second point is talking about a lack of knowledge. The first is pointing out that tens of thousands of people (I would say that the number runs into the hundreds of thousands) had to conspire to actively lie about something.

The second point is a given. We should all admit that there are gaps in our knowledge. The first is not credible by any stretch of the imagination. You're doing yourself a disservice by comparing the two.

 

[Ophiolite]

I wonder about the ethics of trying to push
an epiphany on the benighted.

I worry about it with almost every post, but I fear that is just a form of patronising arrogance that thinks my rhetoric is skillful enough to break through the barriers.

 

[AV1611VET]

Study the increased knowledge of this Creation that science has opened to us.

Study how the Earth itSelf, as created by God, is not static but is dynamic and for-ever changing and evolving. The Earth can not lie so is worth the study.

This is your answer to my questions?

Everything is dynamic?

Sooo ... since everything is dynamic ... I'm supposed to believe science doesn't change?

I have a feeling you didn't read my questions right.

 

[AV1611VET]

The huge resistance to knowledge from those with rigid (and infallible) beliefs is probably proportionate to the shattering effect it would have to discover it was all nonsense.

Ya ... I'll bet there was a lot of shattering that went on when Pluto got demoted.

What was the look on their faces, when they found out that, for 76 years, it was all nonsense?

 

[Job 33:6]

I agree that it is incredible to think that tens of thousands of people are all conspiring to hide the truth and deliver lies.

But as a counterpoint, consider past scientific theories that were generally believed. There is an interesting YouTuber, SeeThePattern, that takes deep dives into oddball and abandoned theories (among other things). Here is one he did on the expanding earth theory an an alternative to plate tectonic theory. I can't find a link to it right now, but I recall perusing a really old book in my college library that discussed in great detail how the earth used to be hotter, and thus larger, and that all the plate boundaries we now understand to be subduction zones are because the earth is smaller, and thus "wrinkled." And here is the first of a multi-part theory that explores thinking about luminifarous aether and light propagation over many many generations.

And think about the Greeks, and their teaching about matter and how the universe was composed. They were well intentioned, hard working, fiercely competitive and yet still wrong.

This is not to say that mankind should not try to figure things out, or that experimental evidence should not be sought and explained. But I think we should always keep in the back of our mind that we might be thinking about things incorrectly.

As another example, the theory of quantum mechanics postulates that matter exists in a state of superposition until a measurement "collapses the waveform", and there is hot debate about the idea of "realism" -- that things exist independent of measurement. This was the origin of Einstein's question to Bohr of whether the moon exists when not being observed. See more here. Quantum field theory, a subsequent theory which is generally believed, holds that there is reality independent of observation and conflicts in places with older quantum theory.

All this is to say, that just because a large number of people follow a theory, doesn't mean that something later will come along and cast all those prior facts into a new understanding. This is good, but it should keep us humble.

Best wishes,
Kevin

I'm a geologist. I hear these kinds of concerns somewhat often. And for many years, I had spent time talking about Earth sciences with the church. Trying to navigate the subject.

But, in more recent years, I've preferred a different approach. The Bible will always take precedence over what scientists say. Let's be honest, if the Bible says something, then it doesn't matter if 99% of geologists say otherwise, because the Bible is God's word. And so, to help remove some of the confusion, id say that it's worth examining what it is that the Bible is actually talking about in Genesis.

And one of the more blunt observations we could make of Genesis is that it has an ancient near east context, and describes an ancient near east cosmology.

It's just not really about science or geology, at all.

 

[Estrid]

I'm a geologist. I hear these kinds of concerns somewhat often. And for many years, I had spent time talking about Earth sciences with the church. Trying to navigate the subject.

But, in more recent years, I've preferred a different approach. The Bible will always take precedence over what scientists say. Let's be honest, if the Bible says something, then it doesn't matter if 99% of geologists say otherwise, because the Bible is God's word. And so, to help remove some of the confusion, id say that it's worth examining what it is that the Bible is actually talking about in Genesis.

And one of the more blunt observations we could make of Genesis is that it has an ancient near east context, and describes an ancient near east cosmology.

It's just not really about science or geology, at all.

To me the "otherwise" of what the Bible says
appears most unclear, with a huge range of
opinions none of which can be validated.

 

[essentialsaltes]

l this is to say, that just because a large number of people follow a theory, doesn't mean that something later will come along and cast all those prior facts into a new understanding. This is good, but it should keep us humble.

I agree that it does apply.

Alas, then, that so many of the creationist think tanks require employees to sign a statement of belief that prevents them from expressing a new understanding, if they should somehow acquire one.

 

[Astrophile]

I agree that it is incredible to think that tens of thousands of people are all conspiring to hide the truth and deliver lies.

But as a counterpoint, consider past scientific theories that were generally believed. There is an interesting YouTuber, SeeThePattern, that takes deep dives into oddball and abandoned theories (among other things). Here is one he did on the expanding earth theory an an alternative to plate tectonic theory. I can't find a link to it right now, but I recall perusing a really old book in my college library that discussed in great detail how the earth used to be hotter, and thus larger, and that all the plate boundaries we now understand to be subduction zones are because the earth is smaller, and thus "wrinkled." And here is the first of a multi-part theory that explores thinking about luminifarous aether and light propagation over many many generations.

And think about the Greeks, and their teaching about matter and how the universe was composed. They were well intentioned, hard working, fiercely competitive and yet still wrong.

This is not to say that mankind should not try to figure things out, or that experimental evidence should not be sought and explained. But I think we should always keep in the back of our mind that we might be thinking about things incorrectly.

As another example, the theory of quantum mechanics postulates that matter exists in a state of superposition until a measurement "collapses the waveform", and there is hot debate about the idea of "realism" -- that things exist independent of measurement. This was the origin of Einstein's question to Bohr of whether the moon exists when not being observed. See more here. Quantum field theory, a subsequent theory which is generally believed, holds that there is reality independent of observation and conflicts in places with older quantum theory.

All this is to say, that just because a large number of people follow a theory, doesn't mean that something later will come along and cast all those prior facts into a new understanding. This is good, but it should keep us humble.

Best wishes,
Kevin

The difference between creationism and abandoned scientific theories is that the abandoned scientific theories that you cite have been replaced by other naturalistic theories, not by supernatural or religious ideas. The opponents of evolution, on the other hand, want to replace a scientific theory by a supernatural idea or a religious doctrine.

 

[Astrophile]

My problem is that when I start with the scientific method and see how far one can go with it, I quickly hit a wall.

My experience, as an astronomer, is exactly the opposite. When I have started with the scientific method and applied it to physical phenomena, I have found that however far I go, the method makes previously obscure phenomena much clearer, at least within the limits of my own intelligence. When I try to use non-scientific methods, they lead me into obscurity and confusion.

 

[Estrid]

The difference between creationism and abandoned scientific theories is that the abandoned scientific theories that you cite have been replaced by other naturalistic theories, not by supernatural or religious ideas. The opponents of evolution, on the other hand, want to replace a scientific theory by a supernatural idea or a religious doctrine.

Another huge difference was that said
theories corresponded with the existing
data, facts known at the time.

Creationism has had no data any of the time.
It's been high centered for millenia.

 

[Job 33:6]

My experience, as an astronomer, is exactly the opposite. When I have started with the scientific method and applied it to physical phenomena, I have found that however far I go, the method makes previously obscure phenomena much clearer, at least within the limits of my own intelligence. When I try to use non-scientific methods, they lead me into obscurity and confusion.

This is so true. And it's honestly a shame that...

I'm a Christian evangelical, but also a scientist, and it's very clear that, in the scientific side of things, it's clear cut and clean. And I think that it could be clean on the faith or religious side of things too, but the scientific method isn't really applied to hermeneutics as it should be imo. It wouldn't be called the scientific method, it could be called something else. But the church largely struggles to establish a grounding in which to define rules of interpretation of scripture.

And in some cases, it could be possible to establish rules.

But there's so much emotion, and at least in America there is a lot of distrust for authority. Even Christian authority. To the extent that there's little order. And a lot of obscurity as a result (in addition to supernatural concepts already being obscure on their own).

Like, a lot of PhD Bible scholars have made it very clear that Genesis has nothing to do with the age of the earth. But there's so much distrust in authority, and so many deep emotions and traditions that, they unfortunately go largely ignored.

Here are a few examples:

The Book of Genesis explained by Dr. John Walton

Dr. John Walton Explains the book of GenesisPlease Like, Share, and Subscribe...--------- MORE CONTENT FROM CHIP ---------------------------------------...

www.youtube.com

Lots and lots of scholars of protestant camps in particular. And many support the theory of evolution as well. Yet for some reason they go unnoticed? It's just strange. Similar to ignoring scientific authority, Hebrew Bible scholars are similarly just ignored. For reasons that just aren't always clear to me. Maybe in part for cultural reasons, or maybe related to a tribal kind of mentality.

 

[AV1611VET]

To me the "otherwise" of what the Bible says appears most unclear, with a huge range of opinions none of which can be validated.

I guess you're SOL then, aren't you?

(Short On Luck)

 

[AV1611VET]

Creationism has had no data any of the time.

All the data you need is summed up in one word: "nihilo."