Apologies for the length of this post, but I wanted to be slightly more thorough. In thinking how best to go about presenting a reply to some of the posts that have been featured in this group, I thought maybe it would be wise to start with my own theology (which, as I have mentioned elsewhere, I feel at least vaguely qualified to talk about...). Then I will talk about how I apply my theology to the text and the evidence, and discuss why exactly I have ended up defending the position I do. Hope you enjoy, and that I dont come across as too much more of a nut job than you already thought I was. Briefly, one of my main theological positions is that we are not spiritual beings trapped in a physical body, nor physical beings who happen to have a spirit, but that we are in fact physical-spiritual beings, with both the spiritual and the physical elements of our existence being vital to who we are. I feel that when we emphasis the spiritual over the physical, or vice versa, we lose some of the balance that makes up who we are. To me, this seems to fit well with the way God uses physical actions, physical sacrifices, and acted-out lessons in the bible to portray spiritual truths, or reflect spiritual forgiveness. There is an element in which the natural reflects the spiritual, and the spiritual reflects the natural. This is also shown in the fact that Jesus, upon his resurrection, didnt turn up as a ghost or a nebulous spirit, but ate with his disciples, and even instructed them to touch the nail holes in his hands if they doubted that he was alive. In the same way, I believe that in some sense our physicality will survive our deaths, that we will not be merely spirits in heaven, but will have a physical (albeit glorified) body as well. We are not just physical, nor just spiritual, but both. Another thing that I feel shows this connection between the natural and the spiritual is the way in which most churches still practice communion and/or baptism. Although many churches now see these as purely symbolic actions, I suspect that even within those churches there are numbers of believers who feel there is some vaguely mysteriously spiritual aspect to them as well - some reason why we continue to practise these actions beyond mere tradition. A second aspect of my theology that it might be important to bring up is the idea that the bible has been written as a living word, in that it can speak to all cultures at all times. I do agree that understanding the culture/s that the bible was written in/to is a very important thing, and that there are various genres within the bible itself that also need to be considered. But I dont think we can point to any particular passage and suggest that the ONLY valid interpretation is what the original audience understood. We can see this within the pages of the bible itself, when various prophecies concerning the overthrowing of kings, or judgment of nations etc found themselves ALSO prophecying the first (or second) coming of Jesus. Even within one of the most discussed passages in this group, we find a prophecy about Jesus in the words spoken in cursing the serpent, that the offspring of the woman will crush the head of the serpent while the serpent strikes at his heel. Moving from bible times onwards, one of my favourite stories is about the Binumarian tribe in Papua New Guinea to whom the boring genealogies in Matthew were the convincing proof that the gospel was real, as no one bothers to write down the names of spirit beings... They must have been real! This was after the translator had left these list of names until the end of his translating, as he didnt think they were all that important. To me, when I think about us being physical-spiritual beings, the story of Genesis comes most alive if I read it in a literal sense. Here we dont have a spiritual element being added in to a pre-existing physical being, but we see God shaping the physical and breathing the spiritual, with humanity not receiving life until BOTH elements are present. In the same way, when I hear of Adam and Eve being told they will die upon eating of the tree, I understand it as being both a physical AND spiritual death, as only one of those elements being taken away doesnt fully account for what humanity is (Paul seems to have the same understanding in Romans, that physical and spiritual death both are the result of sin. His understanding of what Jesus has done for us seems to entail saving us from both deaths, even while acknowledging we still face a physical death because of our sins. Explicitly in Romans 8.10: even though your body is subject to death because of sin... ). A literal reading of the Genesis story is also to me the easiest way to understand the origin of sin, and the fallen nature of humanity. With literal ancestors falling, the curse of both mortality and imperfection have a literal origin, and with those ancestors being the first (only) humans it makes sense as to the universal nature of that curse. If there were other people around, with the only difference being that they werent homo divinus - as in, hadnt connected with God in some form - then the fact that they were also judged as fallen based on the actions of Adam and Eve is not just at all (see Ezekiel, a man shall die for his OWN sins, and Romans, through one man sin entered the world). Questions would also be raised (as I have elsewhere) as to the nature of the soul, and fallenness, in other humanoids such as Neanderthals, whom it is now believed interbred freely with Homo sapiens. Firstly, if they COULD interbreed, how can we consider them a separate species? Secondly, if they DID interbreed but werent descended from Adam and Eve, did they have souls? Did their children have souls, or half-souls? Were their children fallen because of the Adam lineage, or not accountable for their sins because of their Neanderthal lineage? I do not believe a literal reading of the creation story is a dishonest reading of it either. Although I understand that we must see it first in its original context, I do not believe that it was ONLY written to be applicable to that one culture and time. I have higher expectations for scripture, because the purpose of scripture is higher. If we can see prophecies of Jesus in the first chapters of the bible when Jesus was not to appear for thousands of years, I have no problem with a passage being written in such a way that it could be taken at face value by modern audiences. No, I do not think it is a scientific account, but I do think it is a straightforward one. Even within that culture, I do take some exception to the argument that the story could only have been written in response to the myths of the surrounding nations. If the true story pre-dated the myths of the surrounding nations, is it any wonder that we would see similarities in those myths? If it turns out that King Arthur or Robin Hood were real men, then any actual account of their lives would hold more weight than the myths that were later written about them, even if these hypothetical true accounts were passed on orally, and only committed to print at a later date. There is also to me a question of how the Hebrews thought God had created the world. The argument is often raised that God was not trying to present a creation narrative and therefore we shouldnt expect to find one, but my question is, when the Hebrews were asked how did God create the world? what would their answer be? According to the laws given on Sinai, I have to assume the answer would be the same way as written in the Genesis account, as the Ten Commandments explicitly state remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy...for in six days The Lord made the heavens and the earth...but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy. If we are to assume that the early Hebrew culture had a somewhat less advanced worldview, then I wonder why we assume they would divide the spiritual lessons of the text from apparent physical ones. Wouldnt the original audience have seen this as not just a figurative story, but also as an account of an event? As I have stressed numerous times the fact that I read the Genesis account literally does not mean I ignore any spiritual or theological truths within it. As I have already stated, I see spiritual and physical truths as intricately linked, and have no problem with seeing huge symbolic significance within the account, even as I continue reading it as a real event. The only real issues people seem to have with reading the Genesis account literally (other than believing it does not reflect the reality of how the world and life was formed, or believing that its only purpose was in response to surrounding myths) is over individual words and their alleged ambiguity. For example, arguments are given that the word translated as day might not mean a literal day, that raqiya could imply a solid firmament, or that there is a clashing order of events between chapters 1 and 2. All of these are arguments that can be debated, but I still would allege that the over all thrust of the story seems to imply a literal creation over a six day period. All can also be argued against, and have been at various times (I wont focus on these arguments during this post, but briefly, just to show there are arguments possible: day combined with morning and evening can easily imply a literal day, and is understood thus scripturally in Exodus; raqiya can also imply something being stretched out, a term used for the heavens (shamayim) in psalm 104.2, with raqiya being equated with shamayim in gen 1.8 he called the raqiya shamayim, plus some translations write raqiya as expanse which has no real issue; the addition of past tenses in some translations do away entirely with the alleged clash of order - eg. God HAD made the animals....). Some of those textual problems still might be open for debate (Im still pondering the raqiya stuff myself), but as above, the thrust of the story seems to lean towards being a straightforward account able to be read literally, and the words used allow for a modern understanding to be read into it, EVEN IF (and I stress the hypothetical nature of this) the original audiences understood parts of it differently. Brief recap here: I find reading the creation story literally to be the most theologically satisfying way I can read it, explaining not only Gods authority over the gods of the surrounding cultures (as a more figurative reading suggests) but also explaining a literal origin for the world, life, mortality, and universal sin, defining in what ways we are different from the animals, and the original purpose of putting humanity on the earth. It also shows why there is a need for the redemptive work of Christ, and exactly where the separation between God and humanity came from. Reading it in this way also strengthens my own understanding of the physical-spiritual connection, in the sense that the story shows the creation of both simultaneously, and implies that we are both spiritual and physical. So, taking all of that, I look at the evidence around me, and ask does this theory of origins fit with the evidence? There are many things to ponder, of course: I could be wrong, my textual understanding could be wrong, the text itself could be wrong.... And all of those are things I need to consider. But when I look at the evidence, I find that my own understanding of the theory I hold to seems to interpret the evidence well, and satisfyingly. Basically, if we have a theory that we feel should fit the evidence (and my own theological tying of physical to spiritual implies that there should not be a disconnect) we should come up with hypothesises based on what we would expect to see if it was true. This is the same basic principle that evolutionists use as well. Both views have predictions, both views discuss whether the evidence supports these predictions, and if things emerge that may not easily fit their views, both views have the ability to adapt certain elements to see whether their theory can still work, if perhaps in a different way than originally hypothesised. This is how things such as the version of flood theory I posted a link to recently get developed: the theory is submitted that the vast flat erosionless strata found at various locations around the world could be deposited by flood waters, questions are asked concerning parts of it, adjustments are made (thus the author points to two other flood theories that he feels dont fit the evidence as well), and a theory that makes sense of the evidence available is produced. In the same way, evolutionary theory also suggests how life could emerge, asks questions concerning various parts of the theory as further evidence questions elements of it, and adjustments are made as a result, leading to a theory that makes sense of the evidence available. This is why I get frustrated when out-of-date or misleading interpretations of YEC arguments are brought forward as proof that YEC is wrong. Even the fact that some YEC supporters still believe things that the more scientifically literate YEC reject should not be used as proof that YEC is false. Im sure there are evolutionists out there who still believe that Haeckels embryo drawings are proof of evolution, but that fact is not enough to disprove or rubbish the claims of evolution (nor should it be). It does also frustrate me somewhat when it is claimed that YEC scientists are not scientists because they come to the evidence with a pre-existing theory. Unless you are a pioneer in a particular field (and usually even then), you will ALWAYS come with a pre existing theory, and the evidence you encounter will either convince you of its authenticity - or at least plausibility - convince you that it is an inaccurate theory, or force you to examine the theory more closely in certain areas. When you look at some of the in depth articles that YEC scientists write (and yes, I KNOW there are a lot of light weight articles out there as well, but the same can be said for any viewpoint) you can see people making assumptions, looking at evidence, revising their theory, debating alternative explanations.... All the same things that any scientist should do. At this point, I do want to admit something: evolutionary theory is in some ways the more appealing theory because it explains more than YEC theory does, naturalistically. YEC requires a creator in order to work, whereas evolutionary theories do not. To me, this is not a concern, because I fully accept that there is a creator, and as a result, am quite happy to hold to a theory that requires for that creator to exist. I feel that, allowing for the existence of a creator, YEC is better able to explain more of the evidence than evolutionary theories. However, if the existence of a creator is denied, I accept that evolution would be the only alternative theory that could potentially work - even though I do not believe it fits the evidence as well as YEC does. Evolutionists develop a theory based on the writings of Darwin and his predecessors, asking if we take his theory at face value, what evidence would we expect to see to support it being true? What the YEC viewpoint does, is develop a theory based on a text, saying if we take this text at face value, what evidence would we expect to see if it is true? What YEC would expect to see includes: huge variety within created kinds but with limits on their variety, the possibility of rapid speciation along with other creatures remaining virtually unchanged, and worldwide evidence of a catastrophic flood. This is not a theory of fixity of species, so adaptation is possible, but it doesnt allow for the ultimate evolution of simple cellular organisms into complex humanity. Now, this is where interpretation comes in. Whenever we come to evidence, we bring the theory we hold, and we ask whether the evidence fits into the theory or not. And certain pieces of evidence might fit more than one theory, which is where we get the interesting phenomenon of both sides claiming certain evidence as proof of their own theory from. It happens quite a lot! The evidence for the flood is a good example. A more mainstream geological theory looks at the evidence and sees millions of years, whereas YEC flood theory looks at the same evidence and sees a catastrophic but relatively quick event. To me, the fact of the flat strata, and the need for rapid burial of creatures in order to form fossils leans towards the catastrophic event, as opposed to a gradual increase that would suggest we should see more erosion, and less fossils. But I can also see how people can interpret the evidence to fit their own theory... I just feel the theory I subscribe to fits the evidence better ;) The same thing can be found in the evidence for evolution. Evolutionists look at the rapid adaptation and mutation possible in various life forms (usually bacteria just because of their reproductive rate) and see evidence of evolution. YEC look at the same evidence and see evidence of rapid speciation and adaptation possible within a larger kind. Evolutionists would argue (and do even within this group) that the two kinds of evolution are the same... Josiahs red to blue text example is a great example of this. Now, I want to point out, that this is a perfectly legitimate viewpoint, and I can see why you hold it. It makes good sense of the evidence available, because if a small change is possible, why wouldnt a large one be possible over time using these small changes? I completely get it, and understand the logic behind it. Im not trying to dismiss or rubbish it at all. But at the same time, the YEC viewpoint that says all we have seen is evidence of change within a kind is also a valid viewpoint based on the evidence. I refer again to dog breeders: in the hundreds (thousands?) of years humanity has been breeding dogs, we have found we can only push the breeds to a certain point before we can push them no further. We have bred huge dogs and tiny dogs, dogs with pug faces, long hair, short hair, no hair... But we have only ever bred dogs. If we want to get extra genetic material into the gene pool, we are forced to introduce it by cross breeding with another dog, or maybe a wolf. The actual evidence of dog breeding is that mutation is possible based on pre-existing material, but that mutation of something completely new is not. We have never bred a dog with feathers, for example, because feathers would be new material. One argument I saw raised at one point is that bacteria that previously have had a particular enzyme but have lost it in subsequent generations can get it back later on, and that fish with no eyes can grow eyes in the next generation, arguing that if evolution can happen in one direction, it can surely happen in the other direction, that new information is shown as possible due to these example. But I hope we can all understand why that doesnt show this at all. If a man is born with no arms, and marries a woman with no arms, and they have a child with no arms, would we consider that evolution, or a genetic mistake? And if their armless child married another armless person, and they produced a child with arms, would we call that evolution, or the mistake being worked back out, because in the end, people are supposed to have arms. Once again, if the childs child was born with WINGS we would be talking about new material being introduced, as no other human has ever been found with wings... It is not a normal version of humanity. Another example I remember earlier in this group (but cant seem to find it presently) was the example given of a single celled organism, that, upon the introduction of a predator, joined with other single celled organisms to form a new multi celled organism, thus demonstrating how single celled life could theoretically evolve into multicellular life. But to me this shows the same sort of behaviour shown by wildebeests, or starlings, in the face of a predator. Grouping together to better defend against a predator is not the same as evolving into a new species, and unless that new multicellular organism subsequently produces the same multicellular organism when it reproduces, it has not really made a new species at all. The question should also be asked, what happens once the predator has been removed from the area? Does the new multi celled organism survive, or does it revert to its single celled state? Human evolution has been raised a bit, and as Ive already touched on, I would consider Neanderthals to be humans based on the evidence that they interbred with Homo sapiens. At one point someone argued that we wouldnt expect to see such a large group of mutated humans, but I dont see why not. Pygmie tribes and the tall African tribe (Maasai?) both exist, and we dont assume that they arent human just because they look a little different, or even have slightly different genes (if they do). I still feel the alleged differences between Homo sapiens and other humanoids are more troublesome for a TE worldview than a YEC one, simply because accepting them as somehow less human than humans raises the theological questions above. Of course, some of the alleged human ancestors would also be apes rather than humans, and that doesnt trouble YEC either, as variety among apes is also to be expected. It is interesting that the participant in the Creationist Road Trip who wrote the article I put a link to pointed out that even the evolutionary scientist who was showing the skull progress from ape-like ancestor to man admitted that the skulls werent of creatures he believed evolved into one another at all, only that they were somehow related. Of course, the question could be asked why would God create a creature like a monkey or an ape that is so humanlike in appearance? This isnt technically a question that needs to have an answer, but I like to think that God created such creatures so that we could feel a closer connection to the world we were supposed to look after. If all the creatures on earth were insects, we would be less likely to feel any feelings of warmth towards them, we would be more likely to see ourselves as above them, and them as no concern of ours. By allowing some of his creations to vaguely resemble us, God reminds us to show our humanity to them, and by extension, the rest of creation. Another argument that has been raised is that we can see gradual progression in fossils. On the surface this looks good, and once again I completely understand why people can believe this to be the case, but I dont think that surface similarities can be shown to definitively prove common ancestry. A few years ago scientists discovered that horses are more closely related to bats than to cows genetically, meaning that bats and horses are assumed to have a closer genetic ancestor than horses and cows. Therefore any similarities between a cow and a horse would evolutionarily speaking have to be seen as coincidence, as two separate evolutionary events without any cross over, even though looking at hypothetical fossils of both creatures, it would be easy to assume they must be more closely related. I also find it interesting that when focus is put on the movement of one particular bone, say, the remainder of the creature is not always taken into account. The progression of creatures with more vestigial legs, for example, works its way down to whales showing the gradual movement of bones in the hind legs... But if you look at (for example) the skulls you see vast changes over the same amount of time (especially in the last step, where a blue whale skull looks almost nothing like the previous example!). Plus, when the different fossils are compared to scale they are often vastly different, which means that there had to be huge changes in skull shape and over all size during the same time period it took for the relatively minor leg change to occur (Note: I am allowing the assumption that all fossils provided as evidence are complete). Why is it that the tiniest change that proves common descent among these creature takes so long, yet the rest of the creatures appearance can shift so dramatically in the same period? Is it possible instead, as with horses and cows, that the similarities in appearance between these creatures is perhaps less demonstrative of common descent than we would like to think? Once again, I completely understand why evolutionary theory exists. I believe it makes good sense of the evidence available, and is DEFINITELY a huge step up from the previous fixity of species theories that prevailed in the time of Darwin. I dont think people who hold to evolution are idiots, and neither do I believe that holding to evolution will send you to hell! However, both theologically and evidentially, I feel that the theory I support has great explanatory power as well. I do not feel that I ignore evidence that is presented to me, but I ponder it and debate how it fits into the theory I hold, or if the theory I hold needs to adjust. In some areas - particularly theologically but also evidentially - I even feel that the theory I hold to has greater explanatory power than the alternatives, and that is why I feel confident in holding to it. I hope this thread doesnt turn into any sort of flame war. God bless!
Posted on: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 04:05:30 +0000