In Dr. Margaret Helder's presentation, "How Christians Respond to Secular Science (March, 2012), we are given a fairly typical sample of the claims of Young Earth Creationism or YEC. I believe such representations polarize and ghettoize our faith as well as misunderstand the nature of modern science.
In an initial installment I show how Helder misrepresents established evolutionary theory ("random processes" played out over time), exaggerates claims for the impact YEC has had on present scientific consensus, and demonstrates her paramount concern for a creationist publishing industry. I conclude these are evidence that she is part of a propagandist rather than scientific enterprise. I stand by these initial conclusions because I believe they survive mere denials (contra Zylstra).
In this installment, I would like to take issue with Helder's rather unscientific view of scientific theory and consensus. In the next installment, I hope to offer a layman's critique of Helder's view that the Cambrian Explosion is fatal to evolutionary theory.
"Like a nuclear reaction that achieves critical mass, creationists over the internet are encouraging each other. Sometimes people who support a literal understanding of Scripture, are nevertheless nervous about creationist interpretations of nature. Such people fear that if/when a single creationist argument is found not to be supported by data, then the whole position may be discredited. Some people might indeed abandon their literal interpretation of Genesis on such a pretext. But this response, declares Kurt Wise, is not reasonable. The creationist position is a unified model. It stands whatever individual components may be lost. As Dr. Wise remarked: “We all MUST realize that the strength of the young-age creation model is not in any given argument, but rather inthe explanatory power of the model AS A WHOLE (p. 3; emphasis hers).
Helder is here accurately describing how Young Earth Creationists form their version of scientific consensus. It appears to be quite populist and uncritical of its own weaknesses. It also confuses a unified model like creationism with a unified theory like evolutionary theory. Ironically, the definition Dr. Wise uses to explain the "unifying power" of Young Earth Creation (details might be weak/lost/changeable but the whole is persuasive) is actually the definition of "explanatory impotence" (cf. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explanatory_power).
Scientifically speaking, models are not theories. Models can be as small as a simple computer simulation or as great as a philosophical world view. Unlike a scientific theory, models can even be used to replace direct measurement and experimentation. They exist in scientific circles mostly to illustrate, visualize, simulate, encourage investigation in some aspect of empirical reality. By their very nature, models generally are not falsifiable. They are simply better or worse (helpful or unhelpful) representations of reality. A genuine scientific theory, on the other hand, MUST be based on direct measurement, investigation and experimentation.
By suggesting that neo-darwinian evolution is merely one model of interpreting reality, Helder (via Dr. Kurt Wise), has minimized the enormous difference between creation science and evolutionary science. In one fell stroke, she appears to grant YEC equal legitimacy with evolution and a sort of immunity to criticism that no creationist would permit for evolutionary science. Yet we must remember that Dr. Wise has gone on record saying that no amount evidence could ever persuade him to change his creationist view point (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_Wise). That is the one advantage a model has over a well-established scientific theory. A model can survive any and all demands for evidence so long as people prefer it for whatever reason.
Let me quote Todd Wood, the Young Earth Creationist and DNA researcher whom Helder has quoted approvingly in her paper:
"Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well."
Dr. Todd Wood gets the difference between scientific theory and modelling and he has the decency to say evolutionary theory qualifies as true science even if he disagrees with it in places. He certainly admits in many of his blogs that despite his excellent training and specialized knowledge, creation science has a long way to go before it can depose evolutionary theory as one that has the best correspondence with all the known data. His honesty reveals itself again in the following statements:
"I hope you can see better now how I think about creation. I accept the basic creationist dogma for reasons of faith (which will be discussed in a future post) and a some empirical observations. What is largely lacking from creationist biology are the low level theories that connect the model of creation to the empirical data... As I see it, we need five low level theories in creationist biology: design, imperfection, speciation, systematics, and biogeography." (toddcwood.blogspot.ca/2009/10/nature-of-explanation.html)
What is dishonest in Helder's paper is an impression that all the "hard science" necessary to depose evolutionary theory as a valid scientific theory has already been done. How can this be reconciled with statements such the following admission? "Rather than trying to disprove evolution theory, with its constantly changing scenarios, creationists instead should concentrate on the positive details of their own model." (p.3, par. 3)
Ignoring this advice and armed with a very slanted view of what constitutes a good theory, Helder launches into the mysteries of the Cambrian explosion and the defeat of secular science.
Next -- the value of mystery and careful investigation.
Thanks for noticing I did not personally accuse my brother of promoting falsehood or buffoonery. I hope you can allow me my opinion that my brother is hurting the name of Christ and the cause of science.
In this thread secular scientists and non-YEC Christian thinkers have been accused of lying, twisting the evidence, denying Christ, compromising their faith, creating outlandish myths, and destroying the minds and souls of young people. Individuals like Ian Juby are being put forward as examples of confronting such persons with the light.
So how are we supposed to talk about our brothers who happen to use public podiums and publications to promote more confusion? I would happy to speak with people on that score because it's on point in this thread -- "Creation vs Evolution: impact on witness and faith".
I'm only doing this once. I do not want to get distracted from my intention which is to demonstrate, from a layman's point of view, how Helder is doing a disservice to the understanding of science and why many are abandoning the faith because they don't want to be associated with YEC "science" or American -styled fundamentalism (contra Zylstra who is convinced that it's evolution and folks like Dawkins who are making unbelievers of us).
Because it seems this matters a lot to you, I will clarify what I meant by writing that Helder misrepresented established science and evolutionary theory. The context of my conclusion was Helder's condemnation of the Royal Tyrrell Museum's sign, remember? The museum had the audacity to quote Job 12:8, making it appear that both the Bible and nature teach evolution. Helder had every right to say that the museum abused the Scriptures by taking one line from Job while leaving out the completing thought made in that passage. It was a clever misrepresentation and I'm glad the museum took it down.
I simply pointed out that what’s good for the goose is what’s good for the gander. If the museum was wrong for taking a little snippet out of the Bible and making it seem to support evolutionary theory, then Helder is even more wrong – hypocritical, in fact -- to go on and summarize evolutionary theory as time and chance and “random processes”. It’s why I hauled out the memory of Charles Darwin whose main contribution to evolutionary theory wasn’t a theory of time or a theory of randomness but his break-through idea of natural selection. That idea is alive and well-evidenced in the museum and at the heart of the scientific enterprise. By leaving this critical piece out of her initial descriptions of evolution, like the museum did of Job, she not only misrepresents evolution but proves herself hypocritical.
Hope you get it now. Don’t fall on your sword too soon. I have more to say that might interest you in the following installments.
In a Genesis Week video, Ian Juby called into question Pat Robertson's commitment to Christ. At the very least, he gives Robertson an opportunity to fall in line before he proves himself an apostate. Juby used a saying of Jesus in Mark 10:6 to correct Robertson for not believing people lived with the dinosaurs in the Garden of Eden. He's my comment on that text and how it's used by YEC.
“But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’ (NIV)
A "test" of orthodoxy among young earth creationists is pointing out how Jesus himself believed human beings existed from the very beginning of earth's history. That is, the Son of God believed the first chapters of Genesis should be taken as for a literal, scientifically feasible account of exactly how the universe began. Confronting old earth notions with Jesus' inerrant literalism would crush further argument, after all. We are told we have only two choices: accepting Jesus' view of a young creation or rejecting Christ as a reliable guide to truth.
Really?
Great care is needed when pressing a sacred text into service as the last word on questions which were not part of the text's original situation. For example, when the apostle Paul instructed husbands to love and wives to submit, did he really intend anything more for gender roles than that all God's children need to submit to one another for Christ's sake and to submit to his peace in all things? Was Saint Peter intending to be dismissive of democracy when he said, "Fear God. Honour the king"? Many Christian monarchists have thought so in the past. Simply put, people sometimes make too much of a text -- ignoring its context, commonsense, and sound theology -- so that it can be conscripted into some agenda.
Let's set aside for a moment the idea of kenosis (Philippians 2:5-8) and how Christ's incarnation limited his knowledge before his eventual ascension. When our Lord pointed to the "beginning of creation", were questions of paleontology and geology at the center of his attention? From the context it appears they were not. He was responding to test questions pertaining to matters of marriage and divorce. He isn't entertaining questions of natural science but reminding his inquisitors of Moses' precise instructions and what the Creator originally intended for married living.
If we insist Jesus answer questions about science and the age of the earth, we might find him actually contradicting the creation account. Literally speaking, male and female are the beginning of God's creation according to our Lord. This makes Adam and Eve creatures of the First Day of God's creative work -- not the Sixth, the Day it was ending.
But that's only if Mark 10:6 actually portrays Jesus as a YEC.
Marie! Thanks for your interest. I've been trying to demonstrate from a layman's point of view that much of young earth "science" is actually destroying the faith of bright, curious minds who are extremely disappointed with YEC tactics and explanations. I've been trying to do this not by attacking John and his positions personally, though I know he is a YEC, but by using Helder's paper "How Christians Respond to Secular Science" as an example of what is not helpful.
Two days ago, after I invited a bright young man to read this discussion, he emailed me: "I read as much as I could before losing interest. How can he throw so much science out the window? .... I've lost the passion for debate on this subject. I feel at ease with my paradigm. I feel it makes sense. I can't say that I felt that way with a Christian paradigm...Science could allow for a god, but Christianity doesn't allow for science. End of story in my opinion."
This is what I am afraid of.
I would also point to the experiences of brilliant, science-minded Christians like Todd Wood and Glen Morton who get repeatedly slammed for being, well, good scientists. (i.e. http://www.icr.org/article/3132/ ). John began this thread by saying that it's Dawkins and evolution who are destroying faith. I disagree. Christians have had to deal with Bible-defying scientific claims and eloquent atheism for a many centuries. It's American fundamentalism, with its false scientific shibboleths, that is driving many people away from the camp of faith in Christ.
I have two installments left in my critique of Helder's paper. The last will include some "so what" conclusions.
I'm surprised that you didn't really deal with any of these vaguenesses . It would have been so easy for you. Now you want to get to the real tough stuff. I feel flattered. BTW I encourage you to rethink your definition of ad hominem. You are making it seem that it's unethical to call someone on deliberate misrepresentations of subjects we are presently discussing. If you want some examples of real ad hominem attacks, I know exactly where I can find them.
"...he was refering to the Genesis event, right? In the beginning. Yes, the entire week of creation was part of that beginning, the beginning of how the earth operates and is maintained."
No. Jesus wasn't referring to an event. They were not discussing events. Jesus was referring to the Torah, specifically the Book of Beginnings and the Book of Deuteronomy. Jesus was referring to Moses, as mentioned in the context, as opposed to various Jewish schools of thought about divorce. By referring to "the beginning of creation" Jesus is lifting the question of divorce to matters of Torah and the beginnings of marriage. Torah trumps Mishna.
"You could argue that the beginning was before the week of creation, but then you are misappropriating the meaning of the word in order to argue with Jesus, right?"
No. I am not trying to misappropriate the word nor am I trying to argue with Jesus. I'm arguing with YEC's use of Jesus. When you make a saying of Jesus a matter of science and the age of the earth (as if these are the point of what he is saying), it's youself and YEC who misappropriate his words. I pushed the science/literalism angle to absurdity to make this point. If Jesus is literally talking about the scientific timing of male and female creation, then the logical conclusion is that male and female were created at the "beginning of creation". Again, if the literal sense of the creation story is the real issue, then the story itself has a literal sequence -- beginning with the first day and ending on the sixth. I don't mind Jesus correcting the order a little. What's a few days? Jesus is the living Torah, afterall, and the living Torah trumps Moses. But do remember this is a reductio ad absurdum designed to keep you honest about Jesus and his supposed literalism.
"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." Then we get a description of how that happened. We get the beginning of everything, of separation of earth and water, of light, of stars, plants, animals, fish, and humans. All of that week was a beginning, according to scripture."
None of this is what the rabbis were discussing. In fact you have hijacked their discussion. Perhaps you wish Jesus would have expounded a little more on the days of creation in the gospels but he didn't. Doesn't this give you any pause?
"You say that Jesus knowledge was limited, including about the process of creation. But this contradicts what John 1 says about Jesus being there in the beginning, with God. That Jesus himself was the Word by which the creation happened. Now yes, Jesus did indicate sometimes that somethings related to judgement and his own return were known to the Father only. But this doesn't mean that therefore He had to forget what He was involved in before."
Actually I set that idea aside for the moment. Instead I encourage you to learn the meaning of kenosis, the well-attested notion in Scripture that the Son of God voluntarily stripped himself of his omniscience and omnipotence in order to become the suffering servant of redemption. It might open up a whole new world of understanding about his incarnation for you. To sully this with our present debate would be a shame.
I really don't want to argue every text raised in this discussion, though it is tempting. I'm just concerned that our Lord is made out to be the posterboy for today's Young Earth Creationism. I also don't object to Juby's right to disagree. I object to his hermeneutics as well as his "science".
Thanks, Allen. However, it's not just Google and the internet that can hamper deep (critical) thinking. It's also polarized thinking, hedonized thinking, reactionary thinking, politicized thinking, pragmatic thinking, secularized thinking, and slothful thinking. These may or may not be aided by the internet.
On the other hand, some of my deepest moments of insight were midwived by resources that only the internet could synergize.
Posted in: Creation vs Evolution: Impact on Witness and Faith
In Dr. Margaret Helder's presentation, "How Christians Respond to Secular Science (March, 2012), we are given a fairly typical sample of the claims of Young Earth Creationism or YEC. I believe such representations polarize and ghettoize our faith as well as misunderstand the nature of modern science.
In an initial installment I show how Helder misrepresents established evolutionary theory ("random processes" played out over time), exaggerates claims for the impact YEC has had on present scientific consensus, and demonstrates her paramount concern for a creationist publishing industry. I conclude these are evidence that she is part of a propagandist rather than scientific enterprise. I stand by these initial conclusions because I believe they survive mere denials (contra Zylstra).
In this installment, I would like to take issue with Helder's rather unscientific view of scientific theory and consensus. In the next installment, I hope to offer a layman's critique of Helder's view that the Cambrian Explosion is fatal to evolutionary theory.
"Like a nuclear reaction that achieves critical mass, creationists over the internet are encouraging each other. Sometimes people who support a literal understanding of Scripture, are nevertheless nervous about creationist interpretations of nature. Such people fear that if/when a single creationist argument is found not to be supported by data, then the whole position may be discredited. Some people might indeed abandon their literal interpretation of Genesis on such a pretext. But this response, declares Kurt Wise, is not reasonable. The creationist position is a unified model. It stands whatever individual components may be lost. As Dr. Wise remarked: “We all MUST realize that the strength of the young-age creation model is not in any given argument, but rather inthe explanatory power of the model AS A WHOLE (p. 3; emphasis hers).
Helder is here accurately describing how Young Earth Creationists form their version of scientific consensus. It appears to be quite populist and uncritical of its own weaknesses. It also confuses a unified model like creationism with a unified theory like evolutionary theory. Ironically, the definition Dr. Wise uses to explain the "unifying power" of Young Earth Creation (details might be weak/lost/changeable but the whole is persuasive) is actually the definition of "explanatory impotence" (cf. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explanatory_power).
Scientifically speaking, models are not theories. Models can be as small as a simple computer simulation or as great as a philosophical world view. Unlike a scientific theory, models can even be used to replace direct measurement and experimentation. They exist in scientific circles mostly to illustrate, visualize, simulate, encourage investigation in some aspect of empirical reality. By their very nature, models generally are not falsifiable. They are simply better or worse (helpful or unhelpful) representations of reality. A genuine scientific theory, on the other hand, MUST be based on direct measurement, investigation and experimentation.
By suggesting that neo-darwinian evolution is merely one model of interpreting reality, Helder (via Dr. Kurt Wise), has minimized the enormous difference between creation science and evolutionary science. In one fell stroke, she appears to grant YEC equal legitimacy with evolution and a sort of immunity to criticism that no creationist would permit for evolutionary science. Yet we must remember that Dr. Wise has gone on record saying that no amount evidence could ever persuade him to change his creationist view point (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_Wise). That is the one advantage a model has over a well-established scientific theory. A model can survive any and all demands for evidence so long as people prefer it for whatever reason.
Let me quote Todd Wood, the Young Earth Creationist and DNA researcher whom Helder has quoted approvingly in her paper:
"Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well."
(toddcwood.blogspot.ca/2009/09/truth-about-evolution.html)
Dr. Todd Wood gets the difference between scientific theory and modelling and he has the decency to say evolutionary theory qualifies as true science even if he disagrees with it in places. He certainly admits in many of his blogs that despite his excellent training and specialized knowledge, creation science has a long way to go before it can depose evolutionary theory as one that has the best correspondence with all the known data. His honesty reveals itself again in the following statements:
"I hope you can see better now how I think about creation. I accept the basic creationist dogma for reasons of faith (which will be discussed in a future post) and a some empirical observations. What is largely lacking from creationist biology are the low level theories that connect the model of creation to the empirical data... As I see it, we need five low level theories in creationist biology: design, imperfection, speciation, systematics, and biogeography." (toddcwood.blogspot.ca/2009/10/nature-of-explanation.html)
What is dishonest in Helder's paper is an impression that all the "hard science" necessary to depose evolutionary theory as a valid scientific theory has already been done. How can this be reconciled with statements such the following admission? "Rather than trying to disprove evolution theory, with its constantly changing scenarios, creationists instead should concentrate on the positive details of their own model." (p.3, par. 3)
Ignoring this advice and armed with a very slanted view of what constitutes a good theory, Helder launches into the mysteries of the Cambrian explosion and the defeat of secular science.
Next -- the value of mystery and careful investigation.
Posted in: Creation vs Evolution: Impact on Witness and Faith
Thanks for noticing I did not personally accuse my brother of promoting falsehood or buffoonery. I hope you can allow me my opinion that my brother is hurting the name of Christ and the cause of science.
In this thread secular scientists and non-YEC Christian thinkers have been accused of lying, twisting the evidence, denying Christ, compromising their faith, creating outlandish myths, and destroying the minds and souls of young people. Individuals like Ian Juby are being put forward as examples of confronting such persons with the light.
So how are we supposed to talk about our brothers who happen to use public podiums and publications to promote more confusion? I would happy to speak with people on that score because it's on point in this thread -- "Creation vs Evolution: impact on witness and faith".
Posted in: Creation vs Evolution: Impact on Witness and Faith
I'm only doing this once. I do not want to get distracted from my intention which is to demonstrate, from a layman's point of view, how Helder is doing a disservice to the understanding of science and why many are abandoning the faith because they don't want to be associated with YEC "science" or American -styled fundamentalism (contra Zylstra who is convinced that it's evolution and folks like Dawkins who are making unbelievers of us).
Because it seems this matters a lot to you, I will clarify what I meant by writing that Helder misrepresented established science and evolutionary theory. The context of my conclusion was Helder's condemnation of the Royal Tyrrell Museum's sign, remember? The museum had the audacity to quote Job 12:8, making it appear that both the Bible and nature teach evolution. Helder had every right to say that the museum abused the Scriptures by taking one line from Job while leaving out the completing thought made in that passage. It was a clever misrepresentation and I'm glad the museum took it down.
I simply pointed out that what’s good for the goose is what’s good for the gander. If the museum was wrong for taking a little snippet out of the Bible and making it seem to support evolutionary theory, then Helder is even more wrong – hypocritical, in fact -- to go on and summarize evolutionary theory as time and chance and “random processes”. It’s why I hauled out the memory of Charles Darwin whose main contribution to evolutionary theory wasn’t a theory of time or a theory of randomness but his break-through idea of natural selection. That idea is alive and well-evidenced in the museum and at the heart of the scientific enterprise. By leaving this critical piece out of her initial descriptions of evolution, like the museum did of Job, she not only misrepresents evolution but proves herself hypocritical.
Hope you get it now. Don’t fall on your sword too soon. I have more to say that might interest you in the following installments.
Apology accepted.
Posted in: Creation vs Evolution: Impact on Witness and Faith
In a Genesis Week video, Ian Juby called into question Pat Robertson's commitment to Christ. At the very least, he gives Robertson an opportunity to fall in line before he proves himself an apostate. Juby used a saying of Jesus in Mark 10:6 to correct Robertson for not believing people lived with the dinosaurs in the Garden of Eden. He's my comment on that text and how it's used by YEC.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URP2WJ6st-E&list=UU23yiJV4Bkagj5dkH-UyHFA&index=1
“But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’ (NIV)
A "test" of orthodoxy among young earth creationists is pointing out how Jesus himself believed human beings existed from the very beginning of earth's history. That is, the Son of God believed the first chapters of Genesis should be taken as for a literal, scientifically feasible account of exactly how the universe began. Confronting old earth notions with Jesus' inerrant literalism would crush further argument, after all. We are told we have only two choices: accepting Jesus' view of a young creation or rejecting Christ as a reliable guide to truth.
Really?
Great care is needed when pressing a sacred text into service as the last word on questions which were not part of the text's original situation. For example, when the apostle Paul instructed husbands to love and wives to submit, did he really intend anything more for gender roles than that all God's children need to submit to one another for Christ's sake and to submit to his peace in all things? Was Saint Peter intending to be dismissive of democracy when he said, "Fear God. Honour the king"? Many Christian monarchists have thought so in the past. Simply put, people sometimes make too much of a text -- ignoring its context, commonsense, and sound theology -- so that it can be conscripted into some agenda.
Let's set aside for a moment the idea of kenosis (Philippians 2:5-8) and how Christ's incarnation limited his knowledge before his eventual ascension. When our Lord pointed to the "beginning of creation", were questions of paleontology and geology at the center of his attention? From the context it appears they were not. He was responding to test questions pertaining to matters of marriage and divorce. He isn't entertaining questions of natural science but reminding his inquisitors of Moses' precise instructions and what the Creator originally intended for married living.
If we insist Jesus answer questions about science and the age of the earth, we might find him actually contradicting the creation account. Literally speaking, male and female are the beginning of God's creation according to our Lord. This makes Adam and Eve creatures of the First Day of God's creative work -- not the Sixth, the Day it was ending.
But that's only if Mark 10:6 actually portrays Jesus as a YEC.
Posted in: Creation vs Evolution: Impact on Witness and Faith
Marie! Thanks for your interest. I've been trying to demonstrate from a layman's point of view that much of young earth "science" is actually destroying the faith of bright, curious minds who are extremely disappointed with YEC tactics and explanations. I've been trying to do this not by attacking John and his positions personally, though I know he is a YEC, but by using Helder's paper "How Christians Respond to Secular Science" as an example of what is not helpful.
Two days ago, after I invited a bright young man to read this discussion, he emailed me: "I read as much as I could before losing interest. How can he throw so much science out the window? .... I've lost the passion for debate on this subject. I feel at ease with my paradigm. I feel it makes sense. I can't say that I felt that way with a Christian paradigm...Science could allow for a god, but Christianity doesn't allow for science. End of story in my opinion."
This is what I am afraid of.
I would also point to the experiences of brilliant, science-minded Christians like Todd Wood and Glen Morton who get repeatedly slammed for being, well, good scientists. (i.e. http://www.icr.org/article/3132/ ). John began this thread by saying that it's Dawkins and evolution who are destroying faith. I disagree. Christians have had to deal with Bible-defying scientific claims and eloquent atheism for a many centuries. It's American fundamentalism, with its false scientific shibboleths, that is driving many people away from the camp of faith in Christ.
I have two installments left in my critique of Helder's paper. The last will include some "so what" conclusions.
"
Posted in: Creation vs Evolution: Impact on Witness and Faith
I'm surprised that you didn't really deal with any of these vaguenesses . It would have been so easy for you. Now you want to get to the real tough stuff. I feel flattered. BTW I encourage you to rethink your definition of ad hominem. You are making it seem that it's unethical to call someone on deliberate misrepresentations of subjects we are presently discussing. If you want some examples of real ad hominem attacks, I know exactly where I can find them.
"...he was refering to the Genesis event, right? In the beginning. Yes, the entire week of creation was part of that beginning, the beginning of how the earth operates and is maintained."
No. Jesus wasn't referring to an event. They were not discussing events. Jesus was referring to the Torah, specifically the Book of Beginnings and the Book of Deuteronomy. Jesus was referring to Moses, as mentioned in the context, as opposed to various Jewish schools of thought about divorce. By referring to "the beginning of creation" Jesus is lifting the question of divorce to matters of Torah and the beginnings of marriage. Torah trumps Mishna.
"You could argue that the beginning was before the week of creation, but then you are misappropriating the meaning of the word in order to argue with Jesus, right?"
No. I am not trying to misappropriate the word nor am I trying to argue with Jesus. I'm arguing with YEC's use of Jesus. When you make a saying of Jesus a matter of science and the age of the earth (as if these are the point of what he is saying), it's youself and YEC who misappropriate his words. I pushed the science/literalism angle to absurdity to make this point. If Jesus is literally talking about the scientific timing of male and female creation, then the logical conclusion is that male and female were created at the "beginning of creation". Again, if the literal sense of the creation story is the real issue, then the story itself has a literal sequence -- beginning with the first day and ending on the sixth. I don't mind Jesus correcting the order a little. What's a few days? Jesus is the living Torah, afterall, and the living Torah trumps Moses. But do remember this is a reductio ad absurdum designed to keep you honest about Jesus and his supposed literalism.
"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." Then we get a description of how that happened. We get the beginning of everything, of separation of earth and water, of light, of stars, plants, animals, fish, and humans. All of that week was a beginning, according to scripture."
None of this is what the rabbis were discussing. In fact you have hijacked their discussion. Perhaps you wish Jesus would have expounded a little more on the days of creation in the gospels but he didn't. Doesn't this give you any pause?
"You say that Jesus knowledge was limited, including about the process of creation. But this contradicts what John 1 says about Jesus being there in the beginning, with God. That Jesus himself was the Word by which the creation happened. Now yes, Jesus did indicate sometimes that somethings related to judgement and his own return were known to the Father only. But this doesn't mean that therefore He had to forget what He was involved in before."
Actually I set that idea aside for the moment. Instead I encourage you to learn the meaning of kenosis, the well-attested notion in Scripture that the Son of God voluntarily stripped himself of his omniscience and omnipotence in order to become the suffering servant of redemption. It might open up a whole new world of understanding about his incarnation for you. To sully this with our present debate would be a shame.
I really don't want to argue every text raised in this discussion, though it is tempting. I'm just concerned that our Lord is made out to be the posterboy for today's Young Earth Creationism. I also don't object to Juby's right to disagree. I object to his hermeneutics as well as his "science".
Posted in: R.I.P. Deep Thinking
Thanks, Allen. However, it's not just Google and the internet that can hamper deep (critical) thinking. It's also polarized thinking, hedonized thinking, reactionary thinking, politicized thinking, pragmatic thinking, secularized thinking, and slothful thinking. These may or may not be aided by the internet.
On the other hand, some of my deepest moments of insight were midwived by resources that only the internet could synergize.