How can I comprehend creationism as anything other than a lack of faith?

[thisisciaran]

I feel there's a deeper level to all of this back and forth about evolution, but it's something very challenging.

It's about our basic relationship with truth itself, and it starts from an observation. That observation is this - our comprehension of truth will always stand ready to be overthrown by some deeper revelation.

And not because truth contradicts itself - it never does - but because truth is infinitely more profound than any comprehension we might ever have of it. God the Father is ultimate truth, He is the eternal font of revelation that never runs dry. And this means there will always be profundities underneath the most profound possible things we know, discoveries that will atomise all we understand by revealing a deeper coherence.

The laws of God do not end with the laws of human behaviour set out in the Bible. There are other laws, the deep laws of reality itself, and their depth and profundity is as eternal as the God who created them. In this way, truth is perfect - God is perfect. He is the font of eternal, glorious revelation that never runs dry, an unending source of revelations of forever compounding potence and majesty.

Secular science is not the pursuit of truth. It looks like it is, but cannot be. It is instead the pursuit of facts, and facts are not the same as truth.

Facts are flat pieces of contained information that fit inside your current frame of reference. Revelation is the thing that obliterates your frame of reference. The revelation of truth is the thing that obliterates your current frame of reference and opens a wild horizon of untouched possibility and power. Facts are the attempt to reduce the world to flat and controllable certainties. Truth is a much deeper and bigger kind of thing than any collection of facts. Truth is always new, truth is eternal, truth is alive. Truth became a man and died on a cross to buy back a world fallen into the worship of lies. Truth cares. Truth loves. Truth fights. Truth saves.

The book of Ruth is one of the simplest books in the Bible. It's really only about one thing - "Wherever you go, I will follow." And to serve God is to follow God, to follow truth, wherever it leads, however wrenching it may be. No matter how it jeopardises whatever comprehension we have constructed. To follow God is to lose control of your heart to your love of truth, to lose control of your life to your love for that neverending glory. To be reconciled to God is to have the honour of following that horizon, of living that life, that wild adventure. That is what it means to walk with God, and seek Him. And He loves to be sought by humanity. I think perhaps it is what He wants the most.

But can't atheists follow truth?

Can't atheists let their passion for truth overcome their ability to control the direction of their own lives?

Can't atheists love that hard? Live that hard? Believe in truth that much?

The answer is no.

Why not?

Because the central truth of human life is that all human goodness is a lie. Our moral pride, our vanity as we admire our own goodness - this is the heart of sin. The knowledge of good and evil which is passed down generation to generation since the fall - it lets us glory in our own fraudulent goodness, and show ourselves how 'good' we are by how much we find to condemn other people. It is a charade of goodness constructed from pieces of hate. It is the broken cistern that we drink from. And so hate and lies flow out of our rotten hearts, and we are all slaves to the serpent that slithers and corrupts. Through our worship of ourselves, the devil twists us inside, twists us into becoming horrific behind the pretty masks we concoct. And in this vanity we become so horrifying we cannot bear to see the real truth of ourselves.

An atheist must always hide from this. They cannot admit that their own moral glory is a lie, that as Jesus said - God alone is good. And so they have to control their pursuit of truth, limit their comprehension of truth, stop themselves from seeing truth too deeply, because they must keep this appalling secret from themselves so they can live their lives. And that's the secular world. A world of lost people - lost in its own moral arrogance.

And so no atheist can never love truth uncontrollably. They can never let go, and truly surrender to a life devoted to seeking it, no matter where it leads. Because it leads to something they cannot bear to see.

The fact that we Christians can bear to see it is not because we are better than atheists. It is because we have been pulled like burning sticks from the fire. God did something. Something happened to make the most terrible possible news - the truth of who we are - into the most amazing possible news - the truth of how much we have been forgiven. For as Jesus said: those who have been forgiven much love much. And all who are in the blood of Christ have been forgiven much indeed.

And so you have these two quite distinct relationships with truth.

One, a relationship of control. Where you only interact with set, contained, specific facts that fit inside your current understanding. Where you never look deeper in case you see something that upends your identity, your own idea of you. You keep it safe by building a fortress of cynicism around it, by being ungenerous and mean-spirited toward any idea that undermines it. You zero in on the faults and failings of anything that threatens it, and never appraise those things at their strongest and best.

This is, I would say, a pretty complete description of how atheists appraise Christianity.

But there is another relationship you can have with truth, relationship two. A relationship of uncontrollable love. This is where you allow your love of truth, of the power of truth, the glory of truth, the possibility and fire of truth, to overwhelm everything you are. You love so much you cannot help but follow it - like Ruth - wherever it leads.

And when this is your approach, the way you appraise the things set against you entirely inverted. You consider challenges to your position with deep generosity. You consider those things only at their strongest and best, judge them only by the standards they set, overlooking all their flaws and failings.

Because if there is something true in them that actually can blow apart your current understanding - that's amazing. Exhilarating. Intoxicating. What could it be? What might you see? What deeper truth is there to find?

If your heart is for your own self, your own identity, then you'd push away anything that might disrupt it. But if your heart is for truth, you would delight in that disruption. You would hunt for it, seek it, pray for it, beg for it - show me the truth that blows apart all I know from a depth I never knew existed. Let me see you that deeply, my Lord and God.

And if you appraise something with extreme generosity and total forgiveness, that's the only way you can be sure you won't miss any deep truth it might contain.

But if it's not true, then a lie is just as much a lie at its strongest point than it is at its weakest.

And if we give something the best possible hearing - and it still fails utterly at its strongest point - then our counterattacks no longer snap at its heels. We can do something different. We can drive a stake through its beating, black heart.

An ungenerous appraisal of an enemy means that if there is deeper truth in what they say, you will never see it. And if it is a lie, all you will ever do is whine about side-issues that miss the central point. Your cowardice and lack of faith severs you from truth, and renders you useless at combating falsehood.

And so I believe that the hallmark of someone who has truly given their heart to the pursuit of truth - the pursuit of God - is that they will always consider any enemy in the most generous possible light. Only those reconciled to God through Christ can do it. But all truly reconciled to God through Christ will leap to do it.

Because it is not becoming for followers of Christ to fight as the atheists fight - to be ungenerous or mean-spirited. Not because it's morally wrong. But because it is weak.

And weakness is not of enormous use to those who are called upon to fight a war, and win it.

I believe in evolution because I follow truth wherever it leads. And I follow truth because I can't do anything else. I literally could not be a creationist, because I let my heart fall in love with truth to such a degree that I gave up my own capacity to control my own life direction. I cannot hold myself at a set level of comprehension, hold my identity in a fixed and static position. I might try, but it doesn't work. I just get overwhelmed by the glory and wild potential of truth itself, of God Himself - and I consider the very best of ideas at their best. Not because I'm so good, but because this alone is the way to find truth and to find falsehood. It seems insane to me to do anything else.

This is not a boast, because I have done nothing to earn this love or deserve it. God won my heart through His grace and His sacrifice, because it was Christ's blood that cleared the way, allowing me to seek truth even when the truth of me is so appalling and wretched.

No atheist could think like this, could love like this, could live like this.

But when we hold tight to a flat, literal comprehension of Genesis, how can we say it is God we seek? How is it God we're protecting? It seems to me we're instead protecting ourselves. We are not following truth where it leads - somewhere unknown, and scary, with wide open possibility, the possibility to do and discover even deeper things that glorify God in even deeper ways. It seems that instead we are burying our talents. We are staying at the safe level of comprehension we control so our identities do not get disrupted. We are prizing our identities over the deep discoveries of truth. We prize ourselves over God. I cannot see anything else that it can be.

This is a very challenging thing to say, and I do not say it lightly. Nor do I claim to be a better Christian or have a deeper faith. We are all hemmed in by the limits of our courage. It is always scary to consider something extremely challenging in a super-generous way. This is only compounded by the shrieking arrogance of militant atheists who deluge the world with their facile comprehension of truth and biology. It is entirely understandable why a Christian would flinch away in fear, and throw up a wall of cynicism to protect our identity.

But it is not identity that saves. It is Christ.

When we are generous with an extreme challenge, we have to put that identity in danger. Generosity in appraisal is not just an act that jeopardises the comprehension we have of the world, it also endangers the 'me' that arises from that set, static comprehension.

And so we need faith. Faith that there is something there to find. Faith that God is real, and He won't go away if we move beyond the static understanding we have right now. Faith that there will be no contradiction in whatever truth we end up finding. We have to believe that there will be something to find, something amazing. And perhaps more than all of this, that God will have a place for us. That He will give us something new to be at that deeper level, something more wonderful than we could even imagine from a shallower depth.

New clothes, if you want to put it like that.

When I look at creationists and those who deny evolution, I cannot but be struck at how ungenerous they are with evolutionary theory. How much they zero in on faults and failings. How much they seek to criticise and subject it to standards other than its own. How they leap to speak of the gaps it doesn't explain, rather than face the power of the things it does. It is as if they need to belittle it and comprehend only a smaller, weaker version of it, because if they truly considered it with generosity, courage, and faith, and gave it the best possible hearing, they would lose who they are.

But because they focus on the weak points of it, their attacks against it are themselves laughably weak.

This is indistinguishable to me to the way atheists interact with Christianity, and their reasons. Atheists do not give Christianity a generous hearing, but instead focus like lasers on abuse, corruption, and any kind of gaps, failings or flaws they can find.

What does that say about an atheist's faith in atheism? That they only dare consider the weakest possible forms of Christianity? What does it say about how strong they believe their own ideas to be?

But then by that token, what does it say about how strong a creationist's faith in God is, if they do not dare consider the strongest and best of evolution?

How can this be understood except as a lack of faith? And that's my question. How can I comprehend creationism as anything other than a lack of faith?

Now while this might (might!) upset people to hear, I would just point this out.

That whatever you have to say in response to it, I've kind of backed myself into a corner. I cannot criticise you. I cannot snipe. I cannot zero in on the weak points of any creationist riposte, because I've just pinned my colours to the generosity mast.

So take heart. If I start looking for the worst and weakest in your answers, I destroy the credibility of my own position. And so you can be assured that if you do disagree, I will hear your disagreement in the most generous possible spirit I can muster, give it the benefit of every possible doubt, overlooking every flaw and failing, and considering only the strongest of it.

Not because I'm so good. But because if what you say is true, I want that truth more than anything, and if I consider your words in the strongest possible light, I will not miss any truth they may contain.

And if what you say is false, I have no interest - and no need - to snipe at weak points. A lie is just as much a lie at its strongest point as it is at its weakest. Generosity allows me to knock out the best of what you say, and not just the worst. So that's my approach.

But I also hope that the faith that unites us will allow us to have this crucial discussion in frankness and fullness, with nothing held back on either side - but in mutual love and respect. Passions run high here because we care about God. And that unites us as brothers and sisters in Christ. I am not above anyone, and my life of faith is as much limited by my own halting bravery as anyone else's is.

And so if we are to disagree over issues we all passionately hold, I hope we can do that a little better than the secular world around us.

What say you?

 

[Vambram]

Thank you for a long and reasonable post on this subject. However, I cannot and will not believe in theistic evolution simply because there is zero Scriptural passages in the Bible that teach macro-evolution.

 

[BobRyan]

I feel there's a deeper level to all of this back and forth about evolution, but it's something very challenging.

Step 1. Read the Bible (See Gen 1-2, See Ex 20:11)
Step 2. Believe the Bible
Step 3. Admit that Moses was not a Darwinist
Step 4. Admit that the newly freed slaves at the foot of Sinai in Ex 20 - were not going to creatively "imagine" Darwinism INTO the text of Ex 20:11 or Gen 1-2.

It's about our basic relationship with truth itself

Amen. Jesus said "I AM the WAY the TRUTH and the Life" John 14. His Word can be trusted.

, and it starts from an observation.

Indeed - we observe what God's Word says.
We observe that rabbits don't come from water, dust, rocks , gas. Rather infinite God would be needed just as His text says.

Secular science is not the pursuit of truth. It looks like it is, but cannot be. It is instead the pursuit of facts, and facts are not the same as truth.

In fact -- it is "The best guess of man about the things that we see and the cause for the way things behave as they do"

Facts are flat pieces of contained information that fit inside your current frame of reference.

Incomplete facts exist because because humans are not infinite in knowledge, and must imagine/guess when it comes to gaps in our ability to reproduce something in the lab and explain every part of it.

Revelation is the thing that obliterates your frame of reference. The revelation of truth is the thing that obliterates your current frame of reference and opens a wild horizon of untouched possibility and power.

True. Divine revelation can see facts that are not seen by simple observation alone in the same way that a child in a Calculus class cannot see all the various steps to understanding how to solve a given problem without an actual text, and actual teacher to demonstrate how it is done.

The book of Ruth is one of the simplest books in the Bible. It's really only about one thing - "Wherever you go, I will follow." And to serve God is to follow God, to follow truth, wherever it leads, however wrenching it may be. No matter how it jeopardises whatever comprehension we have constructed. To follow God is to lose control of your heart to your love of truth, to lose control of your life to your love for that neverending glory. To be reconciled to God is to have the honour of following that horizon, of living that life, that wild adventure. That is what it means to walk with God, and seek Him. And He loves to be sought by humanity. I think perhaps it is what He wants the most.

If we delete almost every detail from the book of Ruth we can simply state as you have said above "God is good, follow where God leads, trust God".

But the book of Ruth does not show the future judgment, or the second coming, or the immortal body or the heavenly sanctuary of Heb 8 etc. Many details of the Gospel are not in the book of Ruth.

But can't atheists follow truth?

Can't atheists let their passion for truth overcome their ability to control the direction of their own lives?

Can't atheists love that hard? Live that hard? Believe in truth that much?

The answer is no.

No lost sinner can as we see in Rom 3:11-20. Not even if they were raised in a Christian home.

I believe in evolution because I follow truth wherever it leads.

IF in real life - I could pour water , dust and rocks into bowl - expose that primordial mix to sunlight and then sure enough I see first bacteria, then amoeba then so-on until rabbits popped out... well then... I would simply be "following the truth" wherever it leads - via observation.

Turns out - that does not work in real life and simply applying the mantra of "beeellions and beellions" in a generous hand wave does not solve the problem in real science. You might as well put it in a box with a sign on it "Miracles go here" -- particularly if you want to say it all happens in 7 evening and mornings

I literally could not be a creationist

You have free will - you can choose as you wish.

But so far in your post -- you fail to show us that Moses was teaching darwinism or that the text does not mean what it says.

Which is "the rub".

But when we hold tight to a flat, literal comprehension of Genesis, how can we say it is God we seek?

No matter how many pejoratives one chooses to use - the fact that your argument totally ignores every detail in Gen 1-2 and in Ex 20:11 is "hard to miss". You cannot claim to have a better understanding of the text - by showing a method/argument that totally ignores it.

As some point you need to warm-up to the text if you are claiming to have a better understanding of it. So far your post shows that your actual position "needs" to ignore the text.

That speaks volumes.

================

BTW it is exactly the same as Jesus' bodily resurrection and ascension into heaven - that happened "IN REAL" life - in REAL nature but cannot be caused to happen in a lab.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Facts are flat pieces of contained information that fit inside your current frame of reference. Revelation is the thing that obliterates your frame of reference. The revelation of truth is the thing that obliterates your current frame of reference and opens a wild horizon of untouched possibility and power. Facts are the attempt to reduce the world to flat and controllable certainties.

Facts are not the attempt. Facts are fragments of truth, if they are indeed facts and not simply beliefs. Either way we use them to build our frame of reference. But once we have constructed a frame of reference, we cling to it and don't want to let it go sometimes in spite of revelation and real facts. So yes, we try to control our certainties. Religious people do it also all the time. My approach and interpretation of the Bible is part of our frame of reference. It is pretty hard to persuade any religious person, no matter what kind , to alter their frame.

Truth is a much deeper and bigger kind of thing than any collection of facts. Truth is always new, truth is eternal, truth is alive. Truth became a man and died on a cross to buy back a world fallen into the worship of lies. Truth cares. Truth loves. Truth fights. Truth saves.

The fulness of truth is almost impossible to grasp with our intellect but the intellect is programed to work on it, construct it in a frame of reference. But some much lies beyond that frame and so faith is also required..

 

[thisisciaran]

Thank you for a long and reasonable post on this subject. However, I cannot and will not believe in theistic evolution simply because there is zero Scriptural passages in the Bible that teach macro-evolution.

Well, thank you for your kind words. And I hope you won't be too upset with me for picking you up a little on this.

Here's my understanding of what you've said. You cannot believe in theistic evolution for one reason. It's the same reason that you will not believe in it. So there's two different things there. You're unable to, and also unwilling.

And the reason for both is just one thing: that there are no scriptural passages that support macroevolution.

This seems very strange to me. Not just wrong, but strange. Something doesn't fit here. I can't make sense of it.

Macroevolution is the word for what is more commonly, in scientific circles, called speciation. Not merely how one species adapts to become a better version of itself, but how more dramatic shifts happen. How did a whale, for instance, evolve from something not a million miles away from a hippopotamus? That kind of thing.

It is entirely true that there is a gap in evolutionary theory around this. It's the pain-point of secular evolutionary scientists, because - largely driven by Richard Dawkins - they flatly deny that there's any discrepancy between classic evolutionary theory and the fossil record. They are lying. There's no other way to describe it. And they're lying in a way that's genuinely ridiculous. Richard Dawkins has two achievements to his career as a biologist. The first was to steal Robin Triver's groundbreaking work on the unit of selection and pass it off as his own in his ideological screed The Selfish Gene. He was never stupid enough to explicitly claim that he came up with the central idea, but he phrased it as if he did, never mentioned Trivers at all, and then sort of just let everyone believe it was his breakthrough. It was not. The second major success of his career was to essentially bully a globally reknowned geologist (Stephen Gould) into silence for his work in showing that evolution moves in fits and starts, not a smooth rate of constant transition, which is what Darwinian theory would predict. And it does move in fits and starts. Apart from one instance, right at the start, called the Cambrian explosion, where life profilerated at incredible speed, and behaved exactly as Darwinian theory would predict.

It is tempting to leap upon this and say - "Aha! Evolution has a gap! The whole thing is a lie!"

I believe that to be a Satanic temptation. You might think that's ridiculous, shrill. You might even think I'm joking, or overstating things to make a point. I assure you I am not.

Just because the atheists are lying, denying, and trying to bully people into silence over this gap in the theory doesn't mean the gap proves the theory wrong.

It just proves the theory incompletely captures the truth of what's happening.

And you can't say "Well, get back to me when you've finished it!" That's not how discovery works, or insight, or ideas. All ideas are incomplete, because no idea can ever perfectly encapsulate the fullness of all truth. And that's because the fullness of all truth is God the Father.

You can see this dynamic in literally any area of science. Do we say that as Christians we do not believe in Newton's laws of motion because they don't explain black holes? Or do we say we don't believe in Einstein's theories of relativity because they don't explain dark matter?

Because we can- and what that means is we push away the uncertainty to keep our current beliefs stable. Which is - honestly - exactly what real secular scientists actually do. A man called Thomas Kuhn wrote a book about it. They push aside any discrepancies so they can preserve the theories they've built their identities on. They care more about holding their identities in place than they do about discovering something amazing.

And that's what stands to be done here. A fascinating gap between Darwinian theory and the fossil record. A gap that only appears several million years after the first blossoming of life. That's madness, that's chaos! Well... do we believe? Do we believe in the coherence of God, do we believe in the coherence of creation? Do we believe that all accords to God's laws? Because if we do, that means there can only be one thing happening here: new laws we've never seen stand to be discovered. That's awesome, that's intoxicating. That calls to the heart, truth calling out to humanity - seek me, find me.

If that's not God's voice, I don't know what we're supposed to be worshipping.

The point is this - how are we reacting to the gaps in whatever current understanding we have of anything? Whether scientific, personal, artisitic, anything? How? By going: AHA! YOU'RE WRONG! I'M RIGHT!

Because that to me is a complete abandonment of any interest in the deeper revelations that are always there to find. And if you don't care about those deeper revelations, the depths of truth we have yet to discover, that says to me you don't care about God. And that's why I call it Satanic. I cannot comprehend it any other way, because it is the very embodiment of abandoning any interest in truth, desire for truth, hope in truth, or belief in the deep, glorious revelations of truth, so you can strike a pose about how very right you are, and admire yourself for being right. I cannot for the life of me see anything else to it. Pride that crushes our desire for truth. I am theologically unaware of anything more Satanic that this. That is the original sin of Lucifer himself.

And that may seem like overstating the case, but I don't see how.

But to come back to your words, you say something else. You're saying that there are zero scriptural passages that support macroevolution.

Well, I mean - okay. But then... there are zero scriptual passages that support Newton's laws of motion, or Einstein's relativity. Or Ohm's theory of electrical resistance, or Dmitri Mendeleev's periodic table that forms the foundation of Chemistry. Do you believe nuclear bombs don't work because there's no scriptural backing for the radioactive decay of Uranium 235?

You might say I'm being facetious, but how? Are you saying that we can and will only consider scientific theories that have explicit scriptural passages backing them? Or is it just this one particular theory?

That seems to me insane. And honestly, a total perversion of the nature of scripture itself. Honestly, this doesn't seem like a benign mistake to me. To suggest we should circumscribe our comprehension of God's creation inside the comprehension of the world of the authors of the Bible is a flagrant and blasphemous rejection of the deep mysteries, glory and power of God. This seems to me something truly odious, and repugnant. It would sever us from an uncontrolled love of truth, because we would always have to leash our desire for truth - for God - so that we never discover anything that takes us deeper in our comprehension of the world than... who?

People in the bronze age? What are you saying here?

And indeed, you say there's zero scriptural passages that support macroevolution. That's true. But then... there's zero scriptural passages that support microevolution either. And so why distinguish? You believe in one theory unsupported by scripture, but draw the line at another part of that same theory? How are you divvying this up?

I really hope you understand that I am not trying to provoke you or belittle you. I genuinely am attempting to comprehend what you are saying and give it the best possible hearing - this is the best I can make of it.

What am I not seeing about what you are saying?

 

[Job 33:6]

Thank you for a long and reasonable post on this subject. However, I cannot and will not believe in theistic evolution simply because there is zero Scriptural passages in the Bible that teach macro-evolution.

There are also zero scriptural passages in the Bible that teach a spherical earth and heliocentrism.

Are you a flat earther?

 

[Job 33:6]

Well, thank you for your kind words. And I hope you won't be too upset with me for picking you up a little on this.

Here's my understanding of what you've said. You cannot believe in theistic evolution for one reason. It's the same reason that you will not believe in it. So there's two different things there. You're unable to, and also unwilling.

And the reason for both is just one thing: that there are no scriptural passages that support macroevolution.

This seems very strange to me. Not just wrong, but strange. Something doesn't fit here. I can't make sense of it.

Macroevolution is the word for what is more commonly, in scientific circles, called speciation. Not merely how one species adapts to become a better version of itself, but how more dramatic shifts happen. How did a whale, for instance, evolve from something not a million miles away from a hippopotamus? That kind of thing.

It is entirely true that there is a gap in evolutionary theory around this. It's the pain-point of secular evolutionary scientists, because - largely driven by Richard Dawkins - they flatly deny that there's any discrepancy between classic evolutionary theory and the fossil record. They are lying. There's no other way to describe it. And they're lying in a way that's genuinely ridiculous. Richard Dawkins has two achievements to his career as a biologist. The first was to steal Robin Triver's groundbreaking work on the unit of selection and pass it off as his own in his ideological screed The Selfish Gene. He was never stupid enough to explicitly claim that he came up with the central idea, but he phrased it as if he did, never mentioned Trivers at all, and then sort of just let everyone believe it was his breakthrough. It was not. The second major success of his career was to essentially bully a globally reknowned geologist (Stephen Gould) into silence for his work in showing that evolution moves in fits and starts, not a smooth rate of constant transition, which is what Darwinian theory would predict. And it does move in fits and starts. Apart from one instance, right at the start, called the Cambrian explosion, where life profilerated at incredible speed, and behaved exactly as Darwinian theory would predict.

It is tempting to leap upon this and say - "Aha! Evolution has a gap! The whole thing is a lie!"

I believe that to be a Satanic temptation. You might think that's ridiculous, shrill. You might even think I'm joking, or overstating things to make a point. I assure you I am not.

Just because the atheists are lying, denying, and trying to bully people into silence over this gap in the theory doesn't mean the gap proves the theory wrong.

It just proves the theory incompletely captures the truth of what's happening.

And you can't say "Well, get back to me when you've finished it!" That's not how discovery works, or insight, or ideas. All ideas are incomplete, because no idea can ever perfectly encapsulate the fullness of all truth. And that's because the fullness of all truth is God the Father.

You can see this dynamic in literally any area of science. Do we say that as Christians we do not believe in Newton's laws of motion because they don't explain black holes? Or do we say we don't believe in Einstein's theories of relativity because they don't explain dark matter?

Because we can- and what that means is we push away the uncertainty to keep our current beliefs stable. Which is - honestly - exactly what real secular scientists actually do. A man called Thomas Kuhn wrote a book about it. They push aside any discrepancies so they can preserve the theories they've built their identities on. They care more about holding their identities in place than they do about discovering something amazing.

And that's what stands to be done here. A fascinating gap between Darwinian theory and the fossil record. A gap that only appears several million years after the first blossoming of life. That's madness, that's chaos! Well... do we believe? Do we believe in the coherence of God, do we believe in the coherence of creation? Do we believe that all accords to God's laws? Because if we do, that means there can only be one thing happening here: new laws we've never seen stand to be discovered. That's awesome, that's intoxicating. That calls to the heart, truth calling out to humanity - seek me, find me.

If that's not God's voice, I don't know what we're supposed to be worshipping.

The point is this - how are we reacting to the gaps in whatever current understanding we have of anything? Whether scientific, personal, artisitic, anything? How? By going: AHA! YOU'RE WRONG! I'M RIGHT!

Because that to me is a complete abandonment of any interest in the deeper revelations that are always there to find. And if you don't care about those deeper revelations, the depths of truth we have yet to discover, that says to me you don't care about God. And that's why I call it Satanic. I cannot comprehend it any other way, because it is the very embodiment of abandoning any interest in truth, desire for truth, hope in truth, or belief in the deep, glorious revelations of truth, so you can strike a pose about how very right you are, and admire yourself for being right. I cannot for the life of me see anything else to it. Pride that crushes our desire for truth. I am theologically unaware of anything more Satanic that this. That is the original sin of Lucifer himself.

And that may seem like overstating the case, but I don't see how.

But to come back to your words, you say something else. You're saying that there are zero scriptural passages that support macroevolution.

Well, I mean - okay. But then... there are zero scriptual passages that support Newton's laws of motion, or Einstein's relativity. Or Ohm's theory of electrical resistance, or Dmitri Mendeleev's periodic table that forms the foundation of Chemistry. Do you believe nuclear bombs don't work because there's no scriptural backing for the radioactive decay of Uranium 235?

You might say I'm being facetious, but how? Are you saying that we can and will only consider scientific theories that have explicit scriptural passages backing them? Or is it just this one particular theory?

That seems to me insane. And honestly, a total perversion of the nature of scripture itself. Honestly, this doesn't seem like a benign mistake to me. To suggest we should circumscribe our comprehension of God's creation inside the comprehension of the world of the authors of the Bible is a flagrant and blasphemous rejection of the deep mysteries, glory and power of God. This seems to me something truly odious, and repugnant. It would sever us from an uncontrolled love of truth, because we would always have to leash our desire for truth - for God - so that we never discover anything that takes us deeper in our comprehension of the world than... who?

People in the bronze age? What are you saying here?

And indeed, you say there's zero scriptural passages that support macroevolution. That's true. But then... there's zero scriptural passages that support microevolution either. And so why distinguish? You believe in one theory unsupported by scripture, but draw the line at another part of that same theory? How are you divvying this up?

I really hope you understand that I am not trying to provoke you or belittle you. I genuinely am attempting to comprehend what you are saying and give it the best possible hearing - this is the best I can make of it.

What am I not seeing about what you are saying?

Are you aware that Genesis describes an ancient near east cosmology?

 

[thisisciaran]

Step 1. Read the Bible (See Gen 1-2, See Ex 20:11)
Step 2. Believe the Bible
Step 3. Admit that Moses was not a Darwinist
Step 4. Admit that the newly freed slaves at the foot of Sinai in Ex 20 - were not going to creatively "imagine" Darwinism INTO the text of Ex 20:11 or Gen 1-2.

I want to just zero in on your step 2 for a second.

Because there's something dramatically different about the way you and I understand that word 'believe'. And perhaps it cuts to the heart of this whole thing.

For you - and please tell me if I'm wrong - what it means is that you take the words totally at face value. And that means that anyone who does not do that, is a lesser Christian to you.

I believe the opposite. I believe anyone who takes any of the Bible only at face value is a lesser Christian. I believe that every miracle is also a message. I believe that every event is also an illustration of some deeper truth - and the deeper truth is almost always the real point. And yes, I believe 100% in the literal truth of the death and resurrection of God's son Jesus - but I also believe that the crucifixion and resurrection has a deeper message and more profound meaning than anything else that's ever happened in human history. Even now a good pastor can rock me back on my heels with some new revelation about the cross that never even occurred to me to consider, and it's like I see it all over again, from a new depth. God's glory is always new - and that is why.

Refusing to consider the deeper profundities, or even to factor in their existence? I cannot comprehend that as an act of love for God. It seems far more to be an act of love for self. To hold your own understanding at a set level so you can keep your identity stable, and admire yourself for your own glory as a superior Christian.

And no, none of us are above pride. None of us are perfect people. And God's blood forgives all sins (all sins but one, of course). But to build your faith on a denial of the possibility of deeper meaning in Genesis?

That is a very extreme problem.

I respectfully come back to the question I posed at the start of the thread. How can I comprehend that as anything other than a lack of faith?

Amen. Jesus said "I AM the WAY the TRUTH and the Life" John 14. His Word can be trusted.

Amen.

Indeed - we observe what God's Word says.

We observe that rabbits don't come from water, dust, rocks , gas. Rather infinite God would be needed just as His text says.

Amen. I 100% agree. Rabbits don't come from water, dust and rocks. No evolutionary theorist anywhere, in the entirety of the history of the theory, has ever suggested that anything like that has ever happened.

And this is a striking illustration of exactly what I said in my original post.

Atheists look at Christianity with mean-spiritedness because they are afraid. They're afraid if they heard Christianity out with a generous heart, they might find something real in it. They might change. They might have to give up their atheism.

I actually had that exact conversation once with a real atheist I used to live with - he gave me the standard screed zeroing in on all the abuse and failings of the Church, and then I said - okay, let me give you my take on what Christianity is all about. He literally stopped me halfway through - no word of a lie - saying this: "I don't want to hear this because I might end up believing it."

His entire atheism was only held together by his ability to see only the worst and weakest of Christianity. .

What does that say about how much he actually believed in atheism? If he needed to only ever see the case for Christ in its worst and weakest form? How much faith did he have in the truth of what he believed?

I would say - very obviously - little or none.

When you distort evolutionary theory into a form which is the worst possible form anyone could ever make of it - massively weaker and more ridiculous than any scientist has ever advanced - and then reject that weak and ridiculous version with passion and intensity - how are you different from that atheist?

If you actually had faith in creationism, why would you need to reduce evolution to its worst and weakest form? What's the point? If you had faith in the genuine truth of the literal interpretation of Genesis, why the need to only confront a cartoon version of evolution? If you really believed in creationism, would you be so afraid to consider the strongest possible version of evolutionary theory at its absolute strongest? Giving it the benefit of every possible doubt, overlooking all its flaws, and forgiving all its failings? If you genuinely believed that evolution is a lie, you would not act this way, because a lie is just as much a lie at its strongest point than it is at its weakest.

But you don't. So what does that say about how much you actually believe in creationism? If you need to only ever see the case for evolution in its worst and weakest form? How much faith are you displaying in the truth of what you believe?

And so my original question stands, and I would suggest - stands a little taller than it did before you started talking. How can I comprehend creationism as anything other than a lack of faith?

In fact -- it is "The best guess of man about the things that we see and the cause for the way things behave as they do"

Incomplete facts exist because because humans are not infinite in knowledge, and must imagine/guess when it comes to gaps in our ability to reproduce something in the lab and explain every part of it.

This is extremely striking. You seem to be suggesting - and stop me if I'm wrong here, tell me if I'm reading this wrong - that the human drive to understand truth is worthless, and only motivated by arrogance alone.

That is what you seem to be suggesting here, by dismissing the entire search for a deeper understanding of the world in this way. It seems you suggest curiosity and discovery are weaknesses driven only by pride. You seem to be condemning the act of pioneering the frontiers of knowledge, that drive to discover the profound simplicities that underlie God's creation. The laws that He set before the dawn of time, the laws of physics, the laws of life, the laws of all the things we don't even know we don't know yet.

Of course many secular scientists are driven by vanity. They are secular. Vanity is all they have. But does that mean that discovery itself is a sin?

The discovery of the profound coherences that underlie the universe unleashes amazing power - the power of God. The power of His laws, His simplicities, the elegances of His creation. Is this a sin to you?

It honestly, honestly seems to me that your point here is that searching the unknown is a weakness of weak people. And I am struck by how dismissive you are of discovery - the discovery of the power, depth, elegance, and creation of God.

I'm challenging you hard here, but do not take this for disrespect. We are all brothers and sisters in Christ. I hope I am not twisting your words. I am more than open to being wrong about what you mean here. Am I wrong about what you mean?

True. Divine revelation can see facts that are not seen by simple observation alone in the same way that a child in a Calculus class cannot see all the various steps to understanding how to solve a given problem without an actual text, and actual teacher to demonstrate how it is done.

And yet, truth to you seems to be merely facts. That's it. That's all you seem to be aware of. Set pieces of flat, contained information that have no depth to them, no deeper revelations beneath. We are to believe them entirely, never looking deeper (making us a Good Christian) or do anything else at all, and that means we are inferior.

You say you agree with me here. But I cannot agree with you. Your comprehension of the power and glory and majesty and depth of truth - where is it?

And also how humble we should be in the face of the scale of God's creation? Humility and wonder in the face of all the things we don't know we don't know? Where is that?

If we delete almost every detail from the book of Ruth we can simply state as you have said above "God is good, follow where God leads, trust God".

But the book of Ruth does not show the future judgment, or the second coming, or the immortal body or the heavenly sanctuary of Heb 8 etc. Many details of the Gospel are not in the book of Ruth.

This is mind-melting to me.

You seem to think that I'm somehow insulting the book of Ruth by highlighting the central simplicity that it illustrates. Or that to say there's a central simplicity somehow reduces it to a single 'fact' that therefore isn't as good as lots and lots of facts.

This raises a serious question over how much you value profound truth.

And then what? You say the book of Ruth isn't relevant because it doesn't have an account of the second coming?

But let's think about the future judgement, the second coming, the immortal body and the heavenly sanctuary (etc!).

At what point in any of those events is it less important for us to follow God?

So that single, central thrust of the book of Ruth - wherever you go, I will follow - highlights a deep elegance running through the life and heart of all Christians that stretches out into eternity.

And yet it doesn't seem to even be a blip on your radar screen. It's just one more sentence, in a book of sentences, one more fact on a pile of facts
.
Which all goes to underline, and I say this with respect - that a faith that never goes deeper than the literal is a weak faith. A weak faith that gains nothing of peace, wisdom, insight or power from all the depths it is happy to ignore. And all it gains in return is the ability to strike extreme poses so it can admire itself for how Christian it is.

This to me is a catastrophic failure of faith.

No lost sinner can as we see in Rom 3:11-20. Not even if they were raised in a Christian home.

Amen.

IF in real life - I could pour water , dust and rocks into bowl - expose that primordial mix to sunlight and then sure enough I see first bacteria, then amoeba then so-on until rabbits popped out... well then... I would simply be "following the truth" wherever it leads - via observation.

Turns out - that does not work in real life and simply applying the mantra of "beeellions and beellions" in a generous hand wave does not solve the problem in real science. You might as well put it in a box with a sign on it "Miracles go here" -- particularly if you want to say it all happens in 7 evening and mornings

And here we are again. You are engaging with the very worst possible version of evolution you can imagine. A version that, again, literally no evolutionary theorist would ever defend.

Why not look at the strongest version of evolution, not the weakest? Or do you believe your creationism would crumble? Does the survival of your creationism necessitate you only considering the weakest possible version of evolutionary theory? Because if it does, then how can I understand you as a man of faith?

How can anyone? How can anyone look at you and say - this man actually believes the things he says - when you must protect those things from serious challenge by hiding away from the strongest form of the thing you challenge?

You have free will - you can choose as you wish.

There is a point where you are so in love with God that you have gone beyond your ability to control your life choices. You go where you're sent, you can't do anything else.

But then by God, I mean truth itself, God the Father, ultimate, living, eteranl truth. The truth that became man and walked among us. The truth that is an infinite fountain of majesty and power - the majesty and power of revelation. The revelation of God's laws and coherences, the blazing horizons of possibility and freedom they open up.

That's what I fell in love with. And no, I can't unfall. And no matter how hard it is, I must follow. And I love that I must.

And I do not feel like a slave. I feel like a bondservant, as Paul described. A bondservant was a freed slave who chose to go back into enslavement to a master because that master was so glorious and good. And so yes, I have free will. But there are free choices you can't take back. And my choice was to give my heart so deeply that I can't stand against the feelings that flow out of it.

I go where I am sent.

And the idea that I would abandon the deep profundities of reality to reduce my faith only to the most superficial, literal interpretation of the Bible? I am not lying - I honestly cannot do that. My heart would not let me. It is too in love with God.

***REPLY TRUNCATED BY FORUM, CONTINUES IN NEXT RESPONSE***

 

[thisisciaran]

But so far in your post -- you fail to show us that Moses was teaching darwinism or that the text does not mean what it says.

Moses didn't teach Darwinism, that is true. Well spotted. And I'll go further - I think Moses truly believed in a 6 day creation.

But then, so what?

If you're saying that Moses's level of understanding was absolute and final, and there were no revelations that Moses didn't know yet? That is blasphemy. Straight up, I'll respect you enough to say it to your face. Because the only way Moses could have had total and perfect knowledge of all of God's laws - such as evolution - is if Moses's personal insight was the equal of the Holy Spirit of God.

That Holy Spirit alone knows the full depths of the Father. That is what the Bible says. Even Jesus does not know the full depths of what the Father knows. We know this because Jesus told us this. There are things the Father didn't tell the Son - like the date of judgement.

So the only way Moses not teaching (or personally being aware of) the law of evoltuion could prove that evolution wasn't real is if Moses had total and perfect knowledge of all God's laws, known and unknown.

That is blasphemy. You are raising up Moses to the level of God. I doubt Moses would appreciate this.

But then - this whole thing perfectly illustrates the precise in my original post.

When you care nothing for the depths of truth, when the wild, glorious possibilities of truth mean nothing to you, when the glory of that wild horizon does not sing to your heart, does not call you, and inspire you, and fill you with hope - when all you have are facts, those contained little fragments of truth you totally understand and completely control - then what is any of this to you? What is God to you? What is your faith?

A flat, cold, brittle construction.

No matter how many pejoratives one chooses to use - the fact that your argument totally ignores every detail in Gen 1-2 and in Ex 20:11 is "hard to miss". You cannot claim to have a better understanding of the text - by showing a method/argument that totally ignores it.

Two things. Firstly - I challenge you with the greatest respect. We both believe something that deeply matters to us. That's a good thing. Feelings run high because this is important. Good. It should be important. But the highest form of respect I have for anyone is to give them something straight. To be direct. Not to tippy-toe around the issues like I'm talking to someone desperate to be offended.

I challenge directly because I hope - hope to God - that if I were wrong on something this crucial, someone would give me the respect to challenge me directly. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you - that is how I discuss anything. And if I am being stark in what I say, please see the respect contained in that: I believe you are a strong enough man to take it.

And also? Because I might be wrong. So I want to make my position clear enough that it can be challenged in turn. And challenged directly, with courage. Which is - in all fairness - what is happening here. I am absolutely being treated with respect. I find your response deeply respectful because you believe in my heart enough to give me both barrels. Good. Come at me.

But what you suggest here is this: that if someone does not take a totally literal view of Genesis, or believe that Moses is a perfect man with total knowledge of all things, then they are - in your words - totally ignoring every detail in Geneisis 1-2 and in Exodus 20:11.

Which brings us right back to that same issue. It seems to me that depths of truth - the entire dimension of power and glory that lies unknown in creation, depths there to be discovered in every part of the Bible, the deep revelations of God - it seems to me that these depths simply do not exist in your universe.

It is as if you are completely unaware of the possibility of their existence.

Which brings me back to the first question I asked, and I ask it again.

How can I comprehend creationism as anything other than a lack of faith?

As some point you need to warm-up to the text if you are claiming to have a better understanding of it. So far your post shows that your actual position "needs" to ignore the text.

My position is that the text is the beginning of a relationship with God, and not the end.

That speaks volumes.

I sincerely hope so.

================

BTW it is exactly the same as Jesus' bodily resurrection and ascension into heaven - that happened "IN REAL" life - in REAL nature but cannot be caused to happen in a lab.

I honestly had to pause at this one and read it several times to make sure I was understanding what you were saying.

I still can't quite understand it. I hope I don't understand it, because if you're saying what it looks like you're saying, I am stunned.

You seem to be saying that the inability create reproducing life in a laboratory test is exactly the same - exactly the same, your words - as not being able to reproduce Jesus's personal resurrection after dying on the cross, in a laboratory.

Um, I uh....

Okay... uh.

Right.

It seems to me that there might be - and you know, I'm just shooting from the hip here - but I feel that there might - MAYBE, just MAYBE- be another reason we can't reproduce the resurrection of Christ in a laboratory other than this.

I could be wrong.

Perhaps you can find a scriptural reference to blow me out of the water on that one while we're both digging around in the text.

 

[Vambram]

There are also zero scriptural passages in the Bible that teach a spherical earth and heliocentrism.

Are you a flat earther?

That is incorrect.
And I am most definitely NOT a flat earther.

 

[thisisciaran]

Facts are not the attempt. Facts are fragments of truth, if they are indeed facts and not simply beliefs. Either way we use them to build our frame of reference. But once we have constructed a frame of reference, we cling to it and don't want to let it go sometimes in spite of revelation and real facts. So yes, we try to control our certainties. Religious people do it also all the time. My approach and interpretation of the Bible is part of our frame of reference. It is pretty hard to persuade any religious person, no matter what kind , to alter their frame.

It's not that you're wrong in what you say, but - with respect - I think there's something about facts that you're missing.

Fragments of truth, yes - but how are we selecting those fragments? What are we doing with them?

My answer would be that to get facts from truth we eliminate everything, except that which we cannot possibly doubt.

But what proportion of the truth of any situation can you not possibly doubt? Of all the things going on in front of you, in your family, work, calling, anything - how much of any of that is totally impossible to question?

It's easier to see this when you make it personal. What proportion of you as a person can anyone be totally, unimpeachably certain about? The answer is obvious. An incredibly tiny amount.

Think of all your hopes, dreams, struggles, desires. All the things in you that could never be reduced to absolute iron certainty. If someone was only willing to see those things about you that they couldn't possibly doubt, only valued those things, and ignored everything else about you like it did not exist or had no value, would you be happy about that? Would you call that love?

An obsession with facts is very toxic. If you look at how the secular world (especially the secular news media) operates, it is exactly this. Reduce everything down to the tiniest [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] of iron-hard fact-fragments, and then assume that's all there is to it. And for some mysterious reason, the secular world keep colliding with reality in the most brutal and bruising of ways. Whatever could be the cause of this mystery?

The interesting question is this: why would anyone do that? Why would anyone seek to reduce the world down to only those things they couldn't possibly doubt? And then ignore everything else? Push all truth away, save those tiny bits they're certain they can't be criticised for believing?

An obsession with facts isn't about truth, it's about you. When your life is based on you and your identity, on self, on protecting the self from any mistakes or errors, facts become like gold. Facts alone matter. Reality is irrelevant, only facts are desireable.

Indeed, in a life based on self, truth is very dangerous. Truth always contains profound revelations that can overthrow all you understand, and demand a total reworking of you baseline comprehension of life. That would wrench your identity. When your life is based on pride, arrogance, self, you'd avoid that like the plague.

And so it's a very good way to see quite deeply into what's really going on with someone, and see it quite fast. Are they blind to deeper truth? Have they pushed the possibility of deeper truth away? Do they ignore the fact they are ignoring it? Do they zero in on faults and failings in the things they oppose? If they do, you have a pretty good idea of why. There's only one thing this is protecting, and it's not God.

Or is someone far more curious than they are defensive? Do they give their opponents a good hearing? Do they give them the benefit of the doubt? Are they always aware that there are deeper revelations to seek, which will overturn all they know? Do they hunt those revelations with delight and desire? If so, you know that's a person who cares for truth, more than they care for their own identity.

When you care about truth, facts are the starting point for deeper delving into something. When you care about self, facts are the end point, the goal, a world built out of iron-hard bricks that nobody can ever dislodge. It is a prison. A cage. A cage that separates a person from truth - separates a person from God - using tiny little bits of truth to evade ever having to seek the big, deep breakthroughs.

In the end, it is the hallmark of someone who does not believe truth has value. Who does not believe truth has beauty and power, worth and glory.

Who, when you get right down to it, does not believe in God.

You say that people - the religious especially - often cling to their facts. You are of course correct. But I think while that's understandable for a pagan, or a secular person, for a Christian to do so is deeply, deeply shameful. God is truth. We are called upon to love God and deny ourselves. Anyone who loves truth, instead of themselves, delights in being wrong. Delights in seeing how they're wrong, discovering the deeper glories that blow apart their current understanding of things. Anyone who delights only in being right, in pushing away any possible discovery that might undermine their certainties - such a person does not love truth.

Such a person does not love God.

The fulness of truth is almost impossible to grasp with our intellect but the intellect is programed to work on it, construct it in a frame of reference. But some much lies beyond that frame and so faith is also required..

I see what you're saying, but I see it differently to this. I believe that the fullness of truth is and always will be forever beyond human comprehension, because the fullness of truth is ultimate truth, God the Father.

But - this does not mean we cannot discover Him.

He loves to be sought, He loves to be found. He tells us to seek Him over and over. And He loves and rewards those who do. And the greatest of all rewards is a new revelation of His deeper nature. No, we'll never discover the fullness of Him, but that just means that our discoveries will never end, and never stop getting more glorious and spectacular, and we will never stop growing in power, and in love.

What else does it mean to walk with God?

 

[Job 33:6]

That is incorrect.
And I am most definitely NOT a flat earther.

What passages have you ever read that say that earth is a sphere or that it orbits the sun? Isaiah 40:22? The "circle" of the earth?

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said:

But so far in your post -- you fail to show us that Moses was teaching darwinism or that the text does not mean what it says.

Moses didn't teach Darwinism, that is true. Well spotted. And I'll go further - I think Moses truly believed in a 6 day creation.

Where did Moses get the idea of a 7 day creation week according to scripture?

This is the Bible answer to that question
2 Tim 3:16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,

But then, so what?

If you're saying that Moses's level of understanding was absolute and final, and there were no revelations that Moses didn't know yet?

Moses' is writing under direct inspiration from God on the topic of origins and the time frame for it - Even you admit that he specifically teaches a literal 7 day creation week for the origin of all life on Earth.

His is a monotheistic view of the one true God (no polytheism) and a literal 7 day Creation week. Where after that creation, mankind fall's into sin and the protoevangelium is given in Gen 3 predicting the saving of mankind.

That is blasphemy.

You have free will of course - and can say anything you wish.

But to the rest of us- your conclusion appears to lack a logical argument.

the only way Moses could have had total and perfect knowledge of all of God's laws - such as evolution - is if Moses's personal insight was the equal of the Holy Spirit of God.

God can say "I did xyz in 7 days" clearly enough for you to get the point - without having to first turn you into infinite God.

I think a lot of people would quickly admit to the logic in my statement above. No matter your apparent opposition. (opposition for reasons totally unclear at this point.)

That Holy Spirit alone knows the full depths of the Father.

No doubt - and yet we can all accept the incarnation of God the Son as Jesus , the crucifixion in one literal day, the literal resurrection on the third day - without having to first BE "infinite God - having the explanation of all physical laws in the universe".

I don't see how this is even a little bit confusing.

The only way Moses not teaching (or personally being aware of) the law of evoltuion could prove that evolution wasn't real is if Moses had total and perfect knowledge of all God's laws

nonsense.

God can "tell Moses" whatever he wants and even you claim to be able to read Moses' text and understand that the message God gave Moses was about a literal 7 day creation week.

Ex 20:11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.

That is God writing it with His own finger. Conveying facts, details so easy to understand both Moses and you admit to knowing what the text says.

That is blasphemy. You are raising up Moses to the level of God.

I find a certain paucity in your logic just then.

What is more - when I point out to you that your entire effort to align scripture with your view - consists of entirely ignoring and dismissing the text you claim to have some higher/better view of.

Again - a transparent detail in your posts so far.

When you care nothing for the depths of truth, when the wild, glorious possibilities of truth mean nothing to you

"Sanctify them in Thy TRUTH - Thy WORD is Truth" John 17:17.

Your argument seems to put this as "thy teaching on evolutionism not at all found in Gods Word - is truth".

But here you merely "assume" that point. you need to prove it.

Two things. Firstly - I challenge you with the greatest respect. We both believe something that deeply matters to us. That's a good thing.

Indeed - I believe the Word of God and we BOTH admit that it teaches a 7 day literal creation week as it doctrine on the origins of all life on Earth.

Feelings run high because this is important. Good. It should be important. But the highest form of respect I have for anyone is to give them something straight. To be direct. Not to tippy-toe around the issues like I'm talking to someone desperate to be offended.

Well I am certainly not trying to tippy-toe regarding the facts about this subject.

I challenge directly because I hope - hope to God - that if I were wrong on something this crucial, someone would give me the respect to challenge me directly. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you - that is how I discuss anything. And if I am being stark in what I say, please see the respect contained in that: I believe you are a strong enough man to take it.

And also? Because I might be wrong. So I want to make my position clear enough that it can be challenged in turn. And challenged directly, with courage. Which is - in all fairness - what is happening here. I am absolutely being treated with respect. I find your response deeply respectful because you believe in my heart enough to give me both barrels. Good. Come at me.

ok -- so far so good.

But what you suggest here is this: that if someone does not take a totally literal view of Genesis, or believe that Moses is a perfect man with total knowledge of all things, then they are - in your words - totally ignoring every detail in Geneisis 1-2 and in Exodus 20:11.

actually that is what you say.

What I say is that we know of the miracles of Christ, the incarnation, the bodily resurrection of Christ - the timeline for it, the fact that it happened literally in real history WITHOUT having to first be God, or know all that God knows, or know all the law of the universe. Same goes for the God's literal 7 day creation week for all life on planet Earth that even you admit - is what the text teaches.

I don't see how this part is even a little bit confusing.

Which brings us right back to that same issue. It seems to me that depths of truth - the entire dimension of power and glory that lies unknown in creation, depths there to be discovered in every part of the Bible, the deep revelations of God - it seems to me that these depths simply do not exist in your universe.

Also not true.

My claim is that although we do not know all facts and are not infinite God - yet God is fully capable of describing events in real history and giving us a real timeline for them as He has done with Creation week, the incarnation, the resurrection etc.

How can I comprehend creationism as anything other than a lack of faith?

First you have to listen to what the creationist position actually is -- I have corrected your misinterpretation of it several times so far. I think that if you adjust to those corrections you too will find that this Bible-is-correct position is not "a lack of faith".

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said:

================

BTW it is exactly the same as Jesus' bodily resurrection and ascension into heaven - that happened "IN REAL" life - in REAL nature but cannot be caused to happen in a lab.

I honestly had to pause at this one and read it several times to make sure I was understanding what you were saying.

I still can't quite understand it. I hope I don't understand it, because if you're saying what it looks like you're saying, I am stunned.

You seem to be saying that the inability create reproducing life in a laboratory test is exactly the same - exactly the same, your words - as not being able to reproduce Jesus's personal resurrection after dying on the cross, in a laboratory.

I am saying that just as we can accept Christ's bodily resurrection on the third day -- without first having to reproduce it in the lab before believing it, so also we can accept the stated fact the literal 7 day creation week for all life on Earth. A fact so obviously stated in the Word of God that even you admitted to seeing it.

 

[BobRyan]

What passages have you ever read that say that earth is a sphere or that it orbits the sun? Isaiah 40:22? The "circle" of the earth?

How about the one that says that the boundary between darkness and light on the Earth - is a circle. Job 26:10

That is exactly what we expect to see in the case of the intersection of a sphere with a plane. If the Earth were simply a flat plate then there would be light across all points on the side facing the sun - no "circle at the boundary" between light and dark.

But that does not mean that in the Bible we have been given all the laws of the universe.

 

[Vambram]

Does the Bible teach that the earth is flat? | GotQuestions.org

Does the Bible teach that the earth is flat? Is the flat earth theory presented in the Bible?

www.gotquestions.org

 

[Vambram]

What does the Bible say about creation vs. evolution? | GotQuestions.org

What does the Bible say about Creation vs. evolution? Is Creation vs. evolution a question of science, or a question of sin?

www.gotquestions.org

Atheists who support evolution frequently mock creation and/or intelligent design as unscientific and not worthy of scientific examination. In order for something to be considered a “science,” they argue, it must be “naturalistic.” Creation, by definition, is beyond the rules of the natural world. Since God cannot be tested, so the argument goes, creation and/or intelligent design cannot be considered science. Strictly speaking, evolution cannot be observed or tested any more or less than intelligent design, but that does not seem to be an issue with non-believing evolutionists. As a result, all data is filtered through the preconceived, presupposed, and pre-accepted worldview of naturalism, without alternate explanations being considered.

Neither the origin of the universe nor the origin of life can be directly tested or observed. Both creation and evolution require a level of faith to be accepted. We cannot go back in time to observe the origin of the universe or of life in the universe. Those who adamantly reject creation do so on grounds that would logically force them to reject evolution as well. If creation is true, then there is a Creator to whom we are accountable. Evolution, as often presented today, is an enabler for atheism. Evolution gives atheists a basis for explaining how life developed apart from a Creator God. As such, modern theories of evolution serve as a substitute “creation story” for the religion of atheism.

The Bible is clear: God is the Creator. Any interpretation of science that attempts to remove God from involvement with origins is incompatible with Scripture.

 

[Job 33:6]

How about the one that says that the boundary between darkness and light on the Earth - is a circle. Job 26:10

That is exactly what we expect to see in the case of the intersection of a sphere with a plane. If the Earth were simply a flat plate then there would be light across all points on the side facing the sun - no "circle at the boundary" between light and dark.

But that does not mean that in the Bible we have been given all the laws of the universe.

The boundary between light and dark, that is, the horizon, is a circle. But that has nothing to do with Earth being a sphere. Flat earthers believe that too.

 

[Job 33:6]

What does the Bible say about creation vs. evolution? | GotQuestions.org

What does the Bible say about Creation vs. evolution? Is Creation vs. evolution a question of science, or a question of sin?

www.gotquestions.org

Atheists who support evolution frequently mock creation and/or intelligent design as unscientific and not worthy of scientific examination. In order for something to be considered a “science,” they argue, it must be “naturalistic.” Creation, by definition, is beyond the rules of the natural world. Since God cannot be tested, so the argument goes, creation and/or intelligent design cannot be considered science. Strictly speaking, evolution cannot be observed or tested any more or less than intelligent design, but that does not seem to be an issue with non-believing evolutionists. As a result, all data is filtered through the preconceived, presupposed, and pre-accepted worldview of naturalism, without alternate explanations being considered.

Neither the origin of the universe nor the origin of life can be directly tested or observed. Both creation and evolution require a level of faith to be accepted. We cannot go back in time to observe the origin of the universe or of life in the universe. Those who adamantly reject creation do so on grounds that would logically force them to reject evolution as well. If creation is true, then there is a Creator to whom we are accountable. Evolution, as often presented today, is an enabler for atheism. Evolution gives atheists a basis for explaining how life developed apart from a Creator God. As such, modern theories of evolution serve as a substitute “creation story” for the religion of atheism.

The Bible is clear: God is the Creator. Any interpretation of science that attempts to remove God from involvement with origins is incompatible with Scripture.

There's nothing in the Bible to indicate that earth is a sphere, not anything indicating heliocentrism either. And you don't have to be an atheist to be aware of this. It's just basic acceptance that the Bible was written long before such things were discovered. It's the same reason we don't find passages about the internet, social media, space shuttles, quantum physics, airplanes, electric cars, gravity, atomic theory etc.

Such things just didn't exist back then or were unknown to the original authors.

And a lot of Christians struggle with this basic reality, but it is what it is.

 

[BobRyan]

The boundary between light and dark, that is, the horizon,

in reality from space -- it is a circle.

On a flat plate looking toward the horizon is not 'dark' if you are in the daytime. It is all light.