Jonathan, thanks for your comment. I think the importance of having these discussions in the open, is to discover communally what the issues are, and what is true and what is not true, particularly about our attitudes towards scientific investigation and pursuits, and how it is affected by our worldview and how it affects our worldview. I think our global mission is impacted by our respect and attitude towards one another, and I think in general, Norman's attitude was pretty good. But there are times when his bias reveals itself. It is important to realize that inaccurate and dishonorable characterizations of fellow Christians is something that happens on both sides of this discussion.
For that reason, the details become important. And it is important beyond two people having a private discussion, to realize that often attitudes are common among a larger group of people. For example, when people accuse YEC of propogandizing, it certainly needs to be put into the context of the propoganda of evolution in school textbooks, Time magazine and national geographic, which they are up against. Another example is Norman's reference to "parasitic science". People who are unaware of what this implies will feel that it puts YEC in its place. But actually, it is a meaningless pejorative term, used by those who do not understand science. Scientific endeavors almost always refer to and depend on work done previously by others. In that context, parasitic makes no sense. In a scientific context, an experiment that results in a "no" answer is just as valid as an experiment that results in a "yes" answer. Evolutionists constantly argue, correctly, that science corrects itself, by which they mean that a later experiment or investigation can refine or correct the perceptions derived from a previous experiment. Many science papers have been written which do nothing more than act as a literature review, compiling, summarizing and analyzing and comparing results from other research papers on a particular subject. In fact, Dawkins book does this to some extent. So the term "parasitic" is meaningless, other than to cast a biased pejorative denigration on the work of some scientists or writers, compared to other writers. I simply wish to clarify this for readers who may be confused on this term.
Often, Norman has called me a YEC. But I don't think I have ever said I was a YEC. I am definately against accepting "mud to man" evolution, and that is a starting point for me. I think neither science nor scripture proves this type of evolution. But at this point I am open to some type of time shift, or the possibility of longer days at least prior to day four, or a longer first day; however, I will not defend longer days, since I think those who presently support longer days or even a "symbolic" interpretation of Genesis 1, mostly have their minds closed to other scientific or extraordinary possibilities. I prefer to have an open mind, which I believe will lead to more interesting scientific conclusions in the future. So even though I might not conclusively be a total YEC, I still prefer to defend YEC, or at least question the OEE (old earth evolution) assumptions. I find much contradictions and slippery weasel stuff in the OEE scenarios, and more faithfulness and open-mindedness in the YEC positions. Maybe there is something in between, but in the meantime I prefer science which does not put God or parts of scripture on a dusty shelf or in the trash bin.
There is no doubt that there is a war going on for the minds and hearts of children, young people and young scientists. There is no doubt that the evolution debate is a major and primary weapon in this war. We cannot stick our heads in the sand and pretend this is not so. We must frame our position in the context of God's primary claim on our lives. And we must pray that God will give us the wisdom to discern and discover His handiwork in this area of our lives.
Norm, the article you posted was incredibly biased against even a discussion of creation vs evolution. The author does not even want the debate, nor the discussion. His article was faith based (faith in evolution), and intolerant, and full of fear that if discussion occurred that average minds would reject evolution. This simply adds credibility to the argument that evolution is mere myth, since if it wasn't, evolutionary scientists would not be so afraid of scrutiny.
Part of the reason that the apostles appointed seven men (assistants) which we now call deacons, is in order to delegate certain work, to allow them to carry out their own particular calling. It is also for that reason that in most larger churches, deacons and elders meet separately to carry out that work. In trying to put them back together again for classis, are we not nullifying that designation of tasks and callings? Do we also want to send elder delegates to the local deaconal conferences, etc.? Just some questions to think about.
In some smaller churches, elders/deacons fulfill dual roles due to the nature of the size and scope of work. But I'm not sure that this makes sense at classis or synod. Maybe it does, maybe not. However, regardless, the decision for this should at minimum be left up to the local church. If there are three delegates per church, the church should decide who they are to be.
I think you are barking up the wrong tree, Keith. Local congregations have the authority to decide. They could decide to accept the advice of a regional pastor advisor even today. And they could decide to reject the "assumed authority" of a "non-bishop" bishop in the future. So why not work with what is there?
Jeremy, Canada signed the Kyoto accord, and yet has been less successful in reducing emissions than the USA, which did not sign the accord. So now Canada has not signed the renewal of the accord; and hopefully it will be more successful in reducing emissions. However, Canada's emissions are primarily based on consumption in other parts of the world, particularly in the USA, and so these emissions ought to be attributed to USA consumption. This applies to both oil and livestock. But lets not nitpick. Yes, there is still some more land to be open pit mined, but it is a relatively small portion and small area compared to future bitumen supplies. Most bitumen is too deep to surface mine.
Reclamation is the beginning of restoration, which wouldn't happen until the forest is at the previous mature stage. But the landscape won't be exactly as it was before, although the intent is to replicate to some degree the similar uneven terrain. In some ways, you might even call it a giant oil spill cleanup, since the soil will have less oil in it than it did before the mining. There are some small portions already reclaimed with vegetation growing. New technology which removes the need for tailings ponds is also being developed. Things are never static.
So a church may divest of oil stocks. What are they doing investing in business opportunities anyway? Why don't they invest in missions instead, which is what the money was probably intended for. But if we shouldn't invest in fossil fuel industries, then why should we invest in churches which usually burn these fossil fuels in their inefficient furnaces, and paint with fossil fuel paints, and use fossil fuel created carpeting and chairs, and transport their sunday school kids in fossil fuel powered buses and vans, and inevitably have their pastor driving a fossil fuel powered contraption in order to make visits to members and new attenders, as well as driving or flying to classis and synod and mission fields in Honduras? Just asking.
Great points, Dan. It's of course important to protect the flock, and professors should not forget that. On the other hand, as Christians, we know it sometimes will be tough. Tough to live, tough to stand up to temptation and mockery, and tough to witness. I agree that a certain degree of humility is also necessary for creationists. Well, you said "serious humility". And yes, true, perhaps. But don't you find that often serious humility translates as timidity? I would not like to see that.
And that can impact our global mission. If we do not have good answers for Genesis 1, and Genesis 11, and Exodus 8-11, we will begin to be very timid in explaining why John 1, or John 11, or John 20:31 are valid. Especially for those working in the scientific community. The global impact is then greatly diminished. The global mission is then inhibited and reduced.
We assume so often that our global mission is all about reaching out in missions or aid to foreign lands. Yet at home and in Europe our church attendance has dropped to to 25-35% of the population. Much of this is due to affluence, or irrelevant leadership, and to a great deal of excess humility translated as timidity. But some of it is also due to ceding certain precepts and territory to Christ denying principles, values and philosophies, including the philosophy of natural history. It is ironic that while we confess and proclaim that God is lord of all of life, we often too easily allow certain disciplines and certain philosophies to kick God out of the picture, or to put God on the shelf in the back of the closet.
I don't think we have to apologize, even though being humble, about seeking good answers to scientific ore real questions about how our perception of the universe and its parts fits with what God has revealed in scripture. We know that when Christians are accused of being "flat earthers", that is not a scientific nor a valid claim, but it is made by Satan in order to discredit the followers of Christ. The fact that the bible talks about the "circle of the earth"(Isaiah 40) is an inconvenient fact, and more conveniently ignored in the quest to discredit God. It is relevant to the discussion on evolution to demonstrate the disconnect between scripture and those who discredit it. But whether christians actually did believe or not in a flat earth at one time, is irrelevant to the truth or untruth of the theory of evolution or seven day creation. Yet it is often brought up, which simply demonstrates again how much of this discussion is often not about science, but about discrediting scripture, and discrediting God.
As Christians we need to provide tools for each other to demonstrate the power of Isaiah 40, the realithy of Genesis 1, and the significance of Genesis 11. And this includes looking at the rocks and fossils from the perspective of the power and majesty of God. How God can use the natural laws which He created and installed in the universe in such a magnificent and fantastic manner to bring about what we see today, in ways we can barely imagine.
The verse in scripture that says something like, "the people say that things are proceeding as they have always done, going on as they always have, so where is the coming of Christ? of that great day of the Lord?" warns of the fallacy of uniformitarianism.
" Above all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. 4 They will say, “Where is this ‘coming’ he promised? Ever since our ancestors died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.” 5 But they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens came into being and the earth was formed out of water and by water. 6 By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. 7 By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly. "
A certain type of uniformitarianism can be lethal. Fatal.
Marie, thanks for your comment. You can see that there is a divergence of opinion on whether acceptance of evolution leads to a decline in faith or not, especially among the average person on the street. That was my main reason for starting this blog in the first place. You see, if evolution seems to make Genesis One, or Genesis 1-11 a mere myth, then much of the foundations of our faith, such as one man bringing sin into the world (requiring Christ to redeem us), become very questionable. It makes the early prophecies of a redeemer very questionable. This is why people like Dawkins are not ambivalent about christianity, but actually hate it and love to denigrate and despise it by pointing out how evolution contradicts it. They rejoice in the fact that evolution is an indicator for them that scripture is merely a man-made imperfect invention, instead of being the inspired word of God. This context is what underlies the discussion of the details; how does evolution jive with scripture; how can we reconcile the two?
Norman claims that some of young earth science actually adversely affects the faith of some christians due to unseemly tactics etc. And I agree that sometimes this happens. Sometimes our methods and our personal credibility hurt our positions. We need to remember this, and stress honesty, integrity, and detail. But it is a bit disingenuous to imply that evolutionists do not also often use unseemly tactics. In my experience, vitriol and personal attacks are much more common by evolutionists, including by people like Dawkins.
But, somehow, the discussion still needs to occur. We need to trust that the truth will come out. In some way, this will and does already affect our faith, and the faith perspective of many people. When people use the phrase, "survival of the fittest" in reference to some stupid action by a drunk driver or the business practices of a ruthless businessman, they are using that phrase in the context of a value system that is supported by the evolutionary theory which supposedly brought about the existence of the human race. Evolution is never merely a scientific theory, no matter how much people may want to insist it is. It is also a world and life view, coloring our actions and our perspective. And it is a considerably different world view than the one that scripture gives us.
So, do YEC cause christians to leave the faith? Or does acceptance of evolution theory remove the foundation of our faith? Which is it? or which is more likely more often?
If we refined evolution to be evolution within certain "kinds", and if we acknowdged, as Todd Wood does that evolution did not create human beings, then perhaps there is a tenuous co-existence. But, we must be aware that the general scientific community, including Dawkins and his kind, are not at all satisfied with such a co-existence. They will not only disagree; they will say it is unscientific to postulate such a compromise co-existence. It is not creationists who are against science, but it is the rabid evolutionists who claim that YEC are not interested in science. The fact is that YEC also find science very fascinating, because it is part of God's created world. But they do not feel the need to adopt the entirety of the rabid evolutionist definition of science to include the necessity for "mud to man" evolution.
When YEC make the detailed arguments, such as about the Coelanth fish, or about various fossil footprints, or about the way layers of sediment can form, or about polystrate fossils, or about missing layers of "time", or about clear unconformities, or lack of natural erosion in deep rock layers, or about genetic probabilities and disimilarities, YEC are indicating that they are very interested in science, and that they are objectively pointing out problems with evolutionists interpretation of the evidence. Norman's "young man" says that Christianity does not allow for science, but obviously that is not true. There are many Christian scientists. So why does he say it? Is it because he doesn't like the struggle or the way evidence is interpreted differently, or the way previously accepted conclusions are challenged? So often people claim that christianity does not like science, merely because it challenges evolution. To me this is a clear indication of antithesis. It is also a clear indication of how evolutionists do not really enjoy the theory being foundationally challenged, and so they switch the terms "evolution" and "science" as if they were synonyms, which they are not. So if some people are turned off by the YEC examination of the evidence and the way they argue against the evolutionist position, then perhaps it is because their minds are already turned off to alternate explanations, or perhaps the whole discussion is simply too difficult to comprehend and understand.
But, you must know, that this evolutionary perspective has greatly influenced human behaviour in the past, both for the assumed superiority of some races, as well as the assumed superiority of intellect and physique of some groups of people. If humans are merely animals, as the theory suggests, then it has a huge impact on our value system. As christians and scientists we cannot pretend that this is not an issue. And if we ignore this issue, then we are failing to be witnesses in this world of how God relates to us, and how we relate to God.
There is also the possibility of an OEC position (old earth creationist), which accepts an older age but without macro-evolution (mud to man). But this position seems to be considered less often.
I hope that clarifies a bit what this is all about.
First, we need to trust God. I know that sounds like a stupid oversimplification, but it is so important, that it can never be forgotten nor neglected. It is God's kingdom, not ours, and we seek God's glory, not our own (personal nor denominational). So, the issue of bringing God's word is not separate from denomination, but always it is first God's word, then perhaps denomination. The more we focus on denomination, the less the denomination will benefit.
We do not plant churches just so we can say we have more churches, do we? do we? Aren't we planting churches so that no lambs and sheep will be lost? So that God's word speaks more clearly? So that is what we should focus on first.
In a "planting" situation, we plant God's word. To bring in the lost. Then we use God's word to encourage the saved. Bringing new believers to a greater knowledge of love and grace in Jesus is good, necessary. But in essence, it is the same purpose for old believers; a greater knowledge of love and grace in Christ. Just at a different stage. And we know how quickly and urgently new believers capture this knowledge, often not taking it for granted, nor being complacent like "old" believers.
The new church plant should be a natural consequence of the mission effort. And I certainly do not agree with the nonsense of having a group that has been worshipping together, being called an emerging church for ten or twenty years. That is simply absurd, hierarchical, autocratic, and egotistical. The normal situation would be perhaps about three years, maybe less. This sounds scary sometimes. But only if you put on unreasonable expectations. And remember, we need to trust the Lord.
You raise a number of interesting points, Richard.
I agree that proof of God's existence is based on circumstantial evidence, and on eyewitness acounts. Not on the basis of a repeatable scientific experiment. The proof is seen in faith. We see the proof by our faith.
"When kids lose their faith..." of course, we confess (by scripture) that God does not lose anyone who belongs to Him, so perhaps they never had that faith to begin with, although they thought they did, and others thought they did. I'm reminded again of Charles Templeton, a preacher and a friend of Billy Graham. But I would say that it does not have to do with their view of church; it has to do with their view of God, and of themselves. We are not christians first of all because of what we think of the church, although the church may be a place or group where we learn about God, and are brought closer to Him. The church does not mean much by itself until we understand who God is, and what Christ has done for us.
To say that the presence of God is more important than the truths about Him, is a bit hmm, a bit obfusicating, don't you think? I mean, the presence of what God? Why would He be present? Why not distant? or, if present, why would that be a good thing and not a bad thing? You see, we cannot understand the presence of God without understanding who He is. And that means knowing what is true about God.
To say that God is present, means understanding that God is active, and that our lives are not accidental random events, which is to understand a much different presence than the pantheistic notion that God is equal to what He has created. God could be just as distant even though nearby, if our relationship to Him is not imbedded in His purpose for us, and our response to Him.
The problem with God's presence being real, is that we need to have an understanding of God. The problem is that if God did not really create us good, or with the capacity to obey and love, and repent, if we are mere accidents of random events and natural selection, then our relationship with God is similar to us being a sitcom on television, and God watching. Or our relationship is similar to us being rabbits in the forest, or carrots in the garden, and God simply harvesting us, even though He doesn't really need us, nor intend any future for us, nor really have a reciprocal relationship with us. So that is kind of an existential problem.
From a logistical and apologetics point of view, it is impossible for God to be real if God does not exist. We would call that mental illness. But yes, if God is real, and can be experienced, then we need to know who God is, what has he done, and what does He intend and desire for us. Otherwise we are deceived by our experience, and we are creating God, rather than being God's creatures.
A practical problem is that if scripture told the story of creation and Noah's flood as mere fables, to teach us lessons without the backing of reality, but with the substance and weight of 'Sleeping Beauty", or "Aesops Fables", then it becomes for us difficult to differentiate the resurrection from a moral fable, and it becomes difficult for us to give more weight to the parables of Jesus, or the prophecies of the day of judgement, the day of the Lord. Nor can we then differentiate God's commands for us apart from the moral and ethical judgements of society. Even while our faith may prevail, our witness becomes weaker and timid.
For that reason, I believe God wants us to place Him and His scriptures into the context of the discussion of origins. I believe that God wants us to realize that He is in control of current happenings and natural events even today. That just as God reveals himself to us in nature, in the ordinary things of plants and animals and rocks and weather and bodies in space, so He also reveals himself to us in natural history, in earthquakes, volcanoes, tsunamis, hurricanes. If we ignore God when we look at these things, our eyes will be darkened and we will see dimly.
And if our eyes are darkened, we will not be able to share the light of the Word, and the light of the World, with the world. And that will impact our global mission.
What's interesting also is how thick a single geological layer of rock can be. For example, carboniferous rock (often limestone) can range from 300 ft to 42,000 ft. thick. 42,000 ft is more than the height of mount Everest. One layer, formed over a period of only 60 million years (out of 4,000 million). Displacing most other layers completely. Does this fit with a uniformitarian approach?
We know, and have seen in certain places, hundreds of feet of sediment laid down in less than one year. This is also evident in the fossil record. Sediments can be laid down very quickly, and layered by water. Yet, the geo-evolutionary perspective presented is always that of mountains slowly eroding to form sediment that eventually layers over the flat lands and creates more fossils. Which type of sediment formation have we actually seen more of?
"who in their writings habitually misquote " Norm, a shotgun approach to what is a virtual slander, does not help anyone. I don't doubt that YEC are human, and have made mistakes, and will make some mistakes in the future. Your other link provided some good discussion. This comment is not useful.
Posted in: Creation vs Evolution: Impact on Witness and Faith
Jonathan, thanks for your comment. I think the importance of having these discussions in the open, is to discover communally what the issues are, and what is true and what is not true, particularly about our attitudes towards scientific investigation and pursuits, and how it is affected by our worldview and how it affects our worldview. I think our global mission is impacted by our respect and attitude towards one another, and I think in general, Norman's attitude was pretty good. But there are times when his bias reveals itself. It is important to realize that inaccurate and dishonorable characterizations of fellow Christians is something that happens on both sides of this discussion.
For that reason, the details become important. And it is important beyond two people having a private discussion, to realize that often attitudes are common among a larger group of people. For example, when people accuse YEC of propogandizing, it certainly needs to be put into the context of the propoganda of evolution in school textbooks, Time magazine and national geographic, which they are up against. Another example is Norman's reference to "parasitic science". People who are unaware of what this implies will feel that it puts YEC in its place. But actually, it is a meaningless pejorative term, used by those who do not understand science. Scientific endeavors almost always refer to and depend on work done previously by others. In that context, parasitic makes no sense. In a scientific context, an experiment that results in a "no" answer is just as valid as an experiment that results in a "yes" answer. Evolutionists constantly argue, correctly, that science corrects itself, by which they mean that a later experiment or investigation can refine or correct the perceptions derived from a previous experiment. Many science papers have been written which do nothing more than act as a literature review, compiling, summarizing and analyzing and comparing results from other research papers on a particular subject. In fact, Dawkins book does this to some extent. So the term "parasitic" is meaningless, other than to cast a biased pejorative denigration on the work of some scientists or writers, compared to other writers. I simply wish to clarify this for readers who may be confused on this term.
Often, Norman has called me a YEC. But I don't think I have ever said I was a YEC. I am definately against accepting "mud to man" evolution, and that is a starting point for me. I think neither science nor scripture proves this type of evolution. But at this point I am open to some type of time shift, or the possibility of longer days at least prior to day four, or a longer first day; however, I will not defend longer days, since I think those who presently support longer days or even a "symbolic" interpretation of Genesis 1, mostly have their minds closed to other scientific or extraordinary possibilities. I prefer to have an open mind, which I believe will lead to more interesting scientific conclusions in the future. So even though I might not conclusively be a total YEC, I still prefer to defend YEC, or at least question the OEE (old earth evolution) assumptions. I find much contradictions and slippery weasel stuff in the OEE scenarios, and more faithfulness and open-mindedness in the YEC positions. Maybe there is something in between, but in the meantime I prefer science which does not put God or parts of scripture on a dusty shelf or in the trash bin.
There is no doubt that there is a war going on for the minds and hearts of children, young people and young scientists. There is no doubt that the evolution debate is a major and primary weapon in this war. We cannot stick our heads in the sand and pretend this is not so. We must frame our position in the context of God's primary claim on our lives. And we must pray that God will give us the wisdom to discern and discover His handiwork in this area of our lives.
Posted in: Creation vs Evolution: Impact on Witness and Faith
Norm, the article you posted was incredibly biased against even a discussion of creation vs evolution. The author does not even want the debate, nor the discussion. His article was faith based (faith in evolution), and intolerant, and full of fear that if discussion occurred that average minds would reject evolution. This simply adds credibility to the argument that evolution is mere myth, since if it wasn't, evolutionary scientists would not be so afraid of scrutiny.
Posted in: Diakonia Remixed and Experience of Deacons at Classis
Part of the reason that the apostles appointed seven men (assistants) which we now call deacons, is in order to delegate certain work, to allow them to carry out their own particular calling. It is also for that reason that in most larger churches, deacons and elders meet separately to carry out that work. In trying to put them back together again for classis, are we not nullifying that designation of tasks and callings? Do we also want to send elder delegates to the local deaconal conferences, etc.? Just some questions to think about.
In some smaller churches, elders/deacons fulfill dual roles due to the nature of the size and scope of work. But I'm not sure that this makes sense at classis or synod. Maybe it does, maybe not. However, regardless, the decision for this should at minimum be left up to the local church. If there are three delegates per church, the church should decide who they are to be.
Posted in: Some Denominations Have Bishops; We Have Article 17
I think you are barking up the wrong tree, Keith. Local congregations have the authority to decide. They could decide to accept the advice of a regional pastor advisor even today. And they could decide to reject the "assumed authority" of a "non-bishop" bishop in the future. So why not work with what is there?
Posted in: Climate Change - Wither Now?
Jeremy, Canada signed the Kyoto accord, and yet has been less successful in reducing emissions than the USA, which did not sign the accord. So now Canada has not signed the renewal of the accord; and hopefully it will be more successful in reducing emissions. However, Canada's emissions are primarily based on consumption in other parts of the world, particularly in the USA, and so these emissions ought to be attributed to USA consumption. This applies to both oil and livestock. But lets not nitpick. Yes, there is still some more land to be open pit mined, but it is a relatively small portion and small area compared to future bitumen supplies. Most bitumen is too deep to surface mine.
Reclamation is the beginning of restoration, which wouldn't happen until the forest is at the previous mature stage. But the landscape won't be exactly as it was before, although the intent is to replicate to some degree the similar uneven terrain. In some ways, you might even call it a giant oil spill cleanup, since the soil will have less oil in it than it did before the mining. There are some small portions already reclaimed with vegetation growing. New technology which removes the need for tailings ponds is also being developed. Things are never static.
So a church may divest of oil stocks. What are they doing investing in business opportunities anyway? Why don't they invest in missions instead, which is what the money was probably intended for. But if we shouldn't invest in fossil fuel industries, then why should we invest in churches which usually burn these fossil fuels in their inefficient furnaces, and paint with fossil fuel paints, and use fossil fuel created carpeting and chairs, and transport their sunday school kids in fossil fuel powered buses and vans, and inevitably have their pastor driving a fossil fuel powered contraption in order to make visits to members and new attenders, as well as driving or flying to classis and synod and mission fields in Honduras? Just asking.
Posted in: Creation vs Evolution: Impact on Witness and Faith
Great points, Dan. It's of course important to protect the flock, and professors should not forget that. On the other hand, as Christians, we know it sometimes will be tough. Tough to live, tough to stand up to temptation and mockery, and tough to witness. I agree that a certain degree of humility is also necessary for creationists. Well, you said "serious humility". And yes, true, perhaps. But don't you find that often serious humility translates as timidity? I would not like to see that.
And that can impact our global mission. If we do not have good answers for Genesis 1, and Genesis 11, and Exodus 8-11, we will begin to be very timid in explaining why John 1, or John 11, or John 20:31 are valid. Especially for those working in the scientific community. The global impact is then greatly diminished. The global mission is then inhibited and reduced.
We assume so often that our global mission is all about reaching out in missions or aid to foreign lands. Yet at home and in Europe our church attendance has dropped to to 25-35% of the population. Much of this is due to affluence, or irrelevant leadership, and to a great deal of excess humility translated as timidity. But some of it is also due to ceding certain precepts and territory to Christ denying principles, values and philosophies, including the philosophy of natural history. It is ironic that while we confess and proclaim that God is lord of all of life, we often too easily allow certain disciplines and certain philosophies to kick God out of the picture, or to put God on the shelf in the back of the closet.
I don't think we have to apologize, even though being humble, about seeking good answers to scientific ore real questions about how our perception of the universe and its parts fits with what God has revealed in scripture. We know that when Christians are accused of being "flat earthers", that is not a scientific nor a valid claim, but it is made by Satan in order to discredit the followers of Christ. The fact that the bible talks about the "circle of the earth"(Isaiah 40) is an inconvenient fact, and more conveniently ignored in the quest to discredit God. It is relevant to the discussion on evolution to demonstrate the disconnect between scripture and those who discredit it. But whether christians actually did believe or not in a flat earth at one time, is irrelevant to the truth or untruth of the theory of evolution or seven day creation. Yet it is often brought up, which simply demonstrates again how much of this discussion is often not about science, but about discrediting scripture, and discrediting God.
As Christians we need to provide tools for each other to demonstrate the power of Isaiah 40, the realithy of Genesis 1, and the significance of Genesis 11. And this includes looking at the rocks and fossils from the perspective of the power and majesty of God. How God can use the natural laws which He created and installed in the universe in such a magnificent and fantastic manner to bring about what we see today, in ways we can barely imagine.
The verse in scripture that says something like, "the people say that things are proceeding as they have always done, going on as they always have, so where is the coming of Christ? of that great day of the Lord?" warns of the fallacy of uniformitarianism.
" Above all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. 4 They will say, “Where is this ‘coming’ he promised? Ever since our ancestors died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.” 5 But they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens came into being and the earth was formed out of water and by water. 6 By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. 7 By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly. "
A certain type of uniformitarianism can be lethal. Fatal.
Posted in: Creation vs Evolution: Impact on Witness and Faith
Marie, thanks for your comment. You can see that there is a divergence of opinion on whether acceptance of evolution leads to a decline in faith or not, especially among the average person on the street. That was my main reason for starting this blog in the first place. You see, if evolution seems to make Genesis One, or Genesis 1-11 a mere myth, then much of the foundations of our faith, such as one man bringing sin into the world (requiring Christ to redeem us), become very questionable. It makes the early prophecies of a redeemer very questionable. This is why people like Dawkins are not ambivalent about christianity, but actually hate it and love to denigrate and despise it by pointing out how evolution contradicts it. They rejoice in the fact that evolution is an indicator for them that scripture is merely a man-made imperfect invention, instead of being the inspired word of God. This context is what underlies the discussion of the details; how does evolution jive with scripture; how can we reconcile the two?
Norman claims that some of young earth science actually adversely affects the faith of some christians due to unseemly tactics etc. And I agree that sometimes this happens. Sometimes our methods and our personal credibility hurt our positions. We need to remember this, and stress honesty, integrity, and detail. But it is a bit disingenuous to imply that evolutionists do not also often use unseemly tactics. In my experience, vitriol and personal attacks are much more common by evolutionists, including by people like Dawkins.
But, somehow, the discussion still needs to occur. We need to trust that the truth will come out. In some way, this will and does already affect our faith, and the faith perspective of many people. When people use the phrase, "survival of the fittest" in reference to some stupid action by a drunk driver or the business practices of a ruthless businessman, they are using that phrase in the context of a value system that is supported by the evolutionary theory which supposedly brought about the existence of the human race. Evolution is never merely a scientific theory, no matter how much people may want to insist it is. It is also a world and life view, coloring our actions and our perspective. And it is a considerably different world view than the one that scripture gives us.
So, do YEC cause christians to leave the faith? Or does acceptance of evolution theory remove the foundation of our faith? Which is it? or which is more likely more often?
If we refined evolution to be evolution within certain "kinds", and if we acknowdged, as Todd Wood does that evolution did not create human beings, then perhaps there is a tenuous co-existence. But, we must be aware that the general scientific community, including Dawkins and his kind, are not at all satisfied with such a co-existence. They will not only disagree; they will say it is unscientific to postulate such a compromise co-existence. It is not creationists who are against science, but it is the rabid evolutionists who claim that YEC are not interested in science. The fact is that YEC also find science very fascinating, because it is part of God's created world. But they do not feel the need to adopt the entirety of the rabid evolutionist definition of science to include the necessity for "mud to man" evolution.
When YEC make the detailed arguments, such as about the Coelanth fish, or about various fossil footprints, or about the way layers of sediment can form, or about polystrate fossils, or about missing layers of "time", or about clear unconformities, or lack of natural erosion in deep rock layers, or about genetic probabilities and disimilarities, YEC are indicating that they are very interested in science, and that they are objectively pointing out problems with evolutionists interpretation of the evidence. Norman's "young man" says that Christianity does not allow for science, but obviously that is not true. There are many Christian scientists. So why does he say it? Is it because he doesn't like the struggle or the way evidence is interpreted differently, or the way previously accepted conclusions are challenged? So often people claim that christianity does not like science, merely because it challenges evolution. To me this is a clear indication of antithesis. It is also a clear indication of how evolutionists do not really enjoy the theory being foundationally challenged, and so they switch the terms "evolution" and "science" as if they were synonyms, which they are not. So if some people are turned off by the YEC examination of the evidence and the way they argue against the evolutionist position, then perhaps it is because their minds are already turned off to alternate explanations, or perhaps the whole discussion is simply too difficult to comprehend and understand.
But, you must know, that this evolutionary perspective has greatly influenced human behaviour in the past, both for the assumed superiority of some races, as well as the assumed superiority of intellect and physique of some groups of people. If humans are merely animals, as the theory suggests, then it has a huge impact on our value system. As christians and scientists we cannot pretend that this is not an issue. And if we ignore this issue, then we are failing to be witnesses in this world of how God relates to us, and how we relate to God.
There is also the possibility of an OEC position (old earth creationist), which accepts an older age but without macro-evolution (mud to man). But this position seems to be considered less often.
I hope that clarifies a bit what this is all about.
Posted in: Creation vs Evolution: Impact on Witness and Faith
That site is a good summary, Norm. The comments are also interesting.
Posted in: Of Elephants and Rabbits: Church Multiplication
First, we need to trust God. I know that sounds like a stupid oversimplification, but it is so important, that it can never be forgotten nor neglected. It is God's kingdom, not ours, and we seek God's glory, not our own (personal nor denominational). So, the issue of bringing God's word is not separate from denomination, but always it is first God's word, then perhaps denomination. The more we focus on denomination, the less the denomination will benefit.
We do not plant churches just so we can say we have more churches, do we? do we? Aren't we planting churches so that no lambs and sheep will be lost? So that God's word speaks more clearly? So that is what we should focus on first.
In a "planting" situation, we plant God's word. To bring in the lost. Then we use God's word to encourage the saved. Bringing new believers to a greater knowledge of love and grace in Jesus is good, necessary. But in essence, it is the same purpose for old believers; a greater knowledge of love and grace in Christ. Just at a different stage. And we know how quickly and urgently new believers capture this knowledge, often not taking it for granted, nor being complacent like "old" believers.
The new church plant should be a natural consequence of the mission effort. And I certainly do not agree with the nonsense of having a group that has been worshipping together, being called an emerging church for ten or twenty years. That is simply absurd, hierarchical, autocratic, and egotistical. The normal situation would be perhaps about three years, maybe less. This sounds scary sometimes. But only if you put on unreasonable expectations. And remember, we need to trust the Lord.
Posted in: Creation vs Evolution: Impact on Witness and Faith
You raise a number of interesting points, Richard.
I agree that proof of God's existence is based on circumstantial evidence, and on eyewitness acounts. Not on the basis of a repeatable scientific experiment. The proof is seen in faith. We see the proof by our faith.
"When kids lose their faith..." of course, we confess (by scripture) that God does not lose anyone who belongs to Him, so perhaps they never had that faith to begin with, although they thought they did, and others thought they did. I'm reminded again of Charles Templeton, a preacher and a friend of Billy Graham. But I would say that it does not have to do with their view of church; it has to do with their view of God, and of themselves. We are not christians first of all because of what we think of the church, although the church may be a place or group where we learn about God, and are brought closer to Him. The church does not mean much by itself until we understand who God is, and what Christ has done for us.
To say that the presence of God is more important than the truths about Him, is a bit hmm, a bit obfusicating, don't you think? I mean, the presence of what God? Why would He be present? Why not distant? or, if present, why would that be a good thing and not a bad thing? You see, we cannot understand the presence of God without understanding who He is. And that means knowing what is true about God.
To say that God is present, means understanding that God is active, and that our lives are not accidental random events, which is to understand a much different presence than the pantheistic notion that God is equal to what He has created. God could be just as distant even though nearby, if our relationship to Him is not imbedded in His purpose for us, and our response to Him.
The problem with God's presence being real, is that we need to have an understanding of God. The problem is that if God did not really create us good, or with the capacity to obey and love, and repent, if we are mere accidents of random events and natural selection, then our relationship with God is similar to us being a sitcom on television, and God watching. Or our relationship is similar to us being rabbits in the forest, or carrots in the garden, and God simply harvesting us, even though He doesn't really need us, nor intend any future for us, nor really have a reciprocal relationship with us. So that is kind of an existential problem.
From a logistical and apologetics point of view, it is impossible for God to be real if God does not exist. We would call that mental illness. But yes, if God is real, and can be experienced, then we need to know who God is, what has he done, and what does He intend and desire for us. Otherwise we are deceived by our experience, and we are creating God, rather than being God's creatures.
A practical problem is that if scripture told the story of creation and Noah's flood as mere fables, to teach us lessons without the backing of reality, but with the substance and weight of 'Sleeping Beauty", or "Aesops Fables", then it becomes for us difficult to differentiate the resurrection from a moral fable, and it becomes difficult for us to give more weight to the parables of Jesus, or the prophecies of the day of judgement, the day of the Lord. Nor can we then differentiate God's commands for us apart from the moral and ethical judgements of society. Even while our faith may prevail, our witness becomes weaker and timid.
For that reason, I believe God wants us to place Him and His scriptures into the context of the discussion of origins. I believe that God wants us to realize that He is in control of current happenings and natural events even today. That just as God reveals himself to us in nature, in the ordinary things of plants and animals and rocks and weather and bodies in space, so He also reveals himself to us in natural history, in earthquakes, volcanoes, tsunamis, hurricanes. If we ignore God when we look at these things, our eyes will be darkened and we will see dimly.
And if our eyes are darkened, we will not be able to share the light of the Word, and the light of the World, with the world. And that will impact our global mission.
Posted in: Creation vs Evolution: Impact on Witness and Faith
What's interesting also is how thick a single geological layer of rock can be. For example, carboniferous rock (often limestone) can range from 300 ft to 42,000 ft. thick. 42,000 ft is more than the height of mount Everest. One layer, formed over a period of only 60 million years (out of 4,000 million). Displacing most other layers completely. Does this fit with a uniformitarian approach?
We know, and have seen in certain places, hundreds of feet of sediment laid down in less than one year. This is also evident in the fossil record. Sediments can be laid down very quickly, and layered by water. Yet, the geo-evolutionary perspective presented is always that of mountains slowly eroding to form sediment that eventually layers over the flat lands and creates more fossils. Which type of sediment formation have we actually seen more of?
Posted in: Creation vs Evolution: Impact on Witness and Faith
"who in their writings habitually misquote " Norm, a shotgun approach to what is a virtual slander, does not help anyone. I don't doubt that YEC are human, and have made mistakes, and will make some mistakes in the future. Your other link provided some good discussion. This comment is not useful.