One one hand, I am often accused by Christians of being an “evolutionist” because I believe that the creation is billions of years old. On the other hand, atheists accuse me of being a science denier because I doubt Darwinism. As one with training in chemistry and physics from an accredited University. It seems like I would have to check my brain at the church door to believe in a thousands-of-years old world. (However, a scientific possibility remains plausible.) Bishop Ussher’s goal was admirable but misguided given recent Ancient Near East scholarship and archeology. The date of creation is not in the Bible, rather it’s an extrapolation more akin to date-setting the rapture than exegesis. Paul said atheists are without excuse by what has been made (Rom 1:20). However, if God made a young earth look so old just to fool the atheists, it seems as if they have a viable excuse. In light of Romans 1:20 the “appearance of age” argument I often hear from young earth creationists (YEC) disparages God’s character. I do not accept the negative implications young earth creationism imposes on a Holy God who does not lie.
YEC effectively turns Yahweh into a trickster, who is fooling scientists with deceptive data. However, that does NOT make me a “theistic evolutionist” – the proper term is “progressive creationist” or perhaps “intelligent design theorist.” Neo-Darwinism as defined by Richard Dawkins and his crew is incoherent and self defeating. Without pre-existing reproducing life, Darwinism never gets off the ground, it explains adaptation at best, not origins. It’s a faith position the way atheists hold it.
I am far more challenged by Francis S. Collins, M.D., Ph.D., the director of the Human Genome Project and an evangelical Christian — who promotes the Gospel. His book “The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief.” –presents a case for “theistic evolution” — which seems almost contradictory given the Dawkins definition (it seems incoherent as well because nothing is “theistic” about a random process).
However, the word “evolution” is notoriously imprecise and is usually used in equivocation fallacies like when micro-evolution is used as evidence for macro-evolution and basically proves nothing but adaptation and breeding to promote certain traits is even in the Bible. So small changes within a phenotype over time are NOT evidence for common ancestry.
Worse yet, is abiogenesis (life from non-life) — the darwinist will always attempt to end the discussion by announcing its an entirely different subject and quickly steer the conversation as far away as possible. I refuse to follow the red herring – my REAL issue is with NATURALISM leading to atheism / agnosticism.
Naturalists make appeals to evidence when asserting the superiority of their atheistic worldview. Without abiogenesis naturalistic evolution has NO viable chance of being true, and there’s conspicuously no evidence for abiogenesis– special pleading about a primordial mythological “RNA World” aside — there much more evidence to the contrary — the best theory naturalists seem to have is “aliens seeded life on earth” which does not even answer the origin of life question, but rather pushes it out into space, where no life has been observed, — I call it “aliens of the gaps” reasoning but in science is a real theory called Panspermia and advocated by Nobel Prize winner Francis Crick and Richard Dawkins too— this is naturalism as a religious faith, not science.
I object to naturalist evolution for theological reasons but mostly from mathematical proofs showcasing the massive improbabilies involved in intelligent life evolving by random mutation and natural selection. When you realize that virtually nothing feasible has come from centuries of abiogenesis research, the neo-darwinian tale resembles Greek mythology more than science.
Yet Dawkins and his kind, call Christians “delusional” for believing in a Creator God. So I am posting this article, that might anger some of my brothers in Christ. I I am now convinced that to God my intellectual honesty is more important than being right. Yes, the discussion on evolution is very important… but as my chemistry teacher at NCSU, Kay Sandberg PhD Organic Chemistry. once advised me “Cris, do not let your opinion about origins ever get in the way of the fact that Christ died for your sins.” — That’s right a science teacher at one of the top engineering schools in the USA, gave me that wisdom.
Now I am on thin ice, very thin in Baptist circles, and some seminaries would fire me for even suggesting the possibility that this verse might be a metaphor for a process – elements like carbon forming into a carbon based body which has a soul breathed into it.
“Then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.”(Genesis 2:7)
It creates problems with other passages but quiet a few conservative scholars do not find them unsurmountable exegetically, take a look at BioLogos.org for that material. I find Brian Godawa’s articles and movie reviews to be thought-provoking and, often, personally convicting.
Accordingly, it’s important to READ Francis Collins carefully and make an effort to understand his reasoning and the evidence behind it, BEFORE assuming he is misled by his naturalistic scientific training (which is still on the table). But real science is EVIDENCE BASED and is usually well reasoned. For example, we are communicating over the internet which assumes truths derived from the wackiest (but most reliable) theories in the world of science, called quantum mechanics and thermodynamics — both can seem so awesomely contradictory that many successful scientists have committed suicide over the nature of reality, according to real observational science.
“Ludwig Boltzmann, who spent much of his life studying statistical mechanics, died in 1906, by his own hand. Paul Ehrenfest, carrying on the work, died similarly in 1933. Now it is our turn to study statistical mechanics. Perhaps it will be wise to approach the subject cautiously.”
David L. Goodstein, States of Matter, (Mineola, NY: Dover Publications, 2002) pg. 1
When it comes to the implications presented by thermodynamics and quantum mechanics, naturalists seem to prefer death to science.
Read Quantum Enigma : Physics Encounters Consciousness if you really want to rock your understanding of the world we really do live in. There is strong evidence subatomic particles can be in two places at the same time. Even worse, a light photon can behave like a particle or a wave, depending on if a person observes it… how could human consciousness affect the nature of physical reality in a naturalistic universe? Quantum mechanics is considered the most proven theory in all of science – all computer technology is absolutely dependent on it being true – yet it presents enigmas that are downright illogical — hence the suicides by brilliant mathematicians and physicists when they faced its implications.
I am convicted that, although I will always be a creationist of some stripe, a simple hand-wave type dismissal when it comes to the theory of evolution, common ancestry is laziness on my part. It makes one seem ignorant and it actually misrepresents God, just as much as the atheist. Why? Do you really understand the science? I cannot say I am even a marginal biologist. Francis Collins is a Christian but was competent enough to be hired to direct the human genome project. Collins has the Holy Spirit and a PhD in science, he says the evidence is compelling from the genome that God used an evolutionary process to form our physical bodies. Collins deserves a fair hearing from Christians but most will label him a heretic or liberal. I am ashamed to say I purchased his book The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief over a year ago but haven’t made the time to read it, (I have a easy excuse because I read most of the day for my work as an apologist, writer, and researcher). I also work with many scientists at Cocoon Resources a group of Christians investing in transformational energy, medical, pharmaceutical, and biotech inventions–through a Christian worldview ethic. I value intellectual honesty, if I am wrong about evolution I would like to know, even if it makes me feel a bit foolish about my former opinions). God reveals himself two ways: Natural Revelation (Romans 1:20) and special revelation (2 Timothy 3:16). They both need to be interpreted by experts to be properly understood. If they disagree, someone’s interpretation is incorrect, either the biblical exegesis is in error, as Galileo learned the hard way, or rather the interpretation of natural revelation (science) is faulty.
I am not “coming out” as an evolutionist but rather admitting a level of prideful incompetence. I have been quite vocal against Darwinism – I still believe naturalism is incoherent — but I have a feeling Collin’s perspective might lead me to an ethical conviction, mainly because I am hardly qualified to speak with authority concerning the evidence from genetics. Collins seems to believe it is decisive that something like evolution was involved in creating our physical bodies.
Collins: Why this scientist believes in God
By Dr. Francis Collins
Special to CNNAdjust font size:Editor’s note: Francis S. Collins, M.D., Ph.D., is the director of the Human Genome Project. His most recent book is “The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief.”
ROCKVILLE, Maryland (CNN) — I am a scientist and a believer, and I find no conflict between those world views.
As the director of the Human Genome Project, I have led a consortium of scientists to read out the 3.1 billion letters of the human genome, our own DNA instruction book. As a believer, I see DNA, the information molecule of all living things, as God’s language, and the elegance and complexity of our own bodies and the rest of nature as a reflection of God’s plan.
I did not always embrace these perspectives. As a graduate student in physical chemistry in the 1970s, I was an atheist, finding no reason to postulate the existence of any truths outside of mathematics, physics and chemistry. But then I went to medical school, and encountered life and death issues at the bedsides of my patients. Challenged by one of those patients, who asked “What do you believe, doctor?”, I began searching for answers.
I had to admit that the science I loved so much was powerless to answer questions such as “What is the meaning of life?” “Why am I here?” “Why does mathematics work, anyway?” “If the universe had a beginning, who created it?” “Why are the physical constants in the universe so finely tuned to allow the possibility of complex life forms?” “Why do humans have a moral sense?” “What happens after we die?”
>
About Cris Putnam
Chris;
The scriptures say nothing about how old the creation is, that is the Earth, the universe, etc. It intimates that it’s quite old. It does say though, that man is somewhere in the vicinity of 6 or more thousands of years old. That is, man created in God’s image. Not His physical image, because He has no physical image. But in His image with regards to His love, justice, honesty, etc. Man, if he existed earlier, wasn’t in God’s image. Adam was the first perfect human in God’s image, and he caused man no end of suffering, at the hands of Satan’s deception and challenge to God and to man. Believing in one word of what any man made religion teaches is tantamount to rejecting God the Almighty, just as Adam did. The scriptures tell us that all religions of man are false and works of the flesh, even saying they are the whore of Babylon, destined for destruction in the beginning of the great tribulation. Science isn’t opposed to God, nor is God opposed to science. The scriptures are filled with scientific and medical information most of which man is only beginning to understand. Religions lie, God’s inspired word doesn’t, nor does God.
Dear Chris,
There has been debate upon this non-answerable question since the beginning of time. I have wondered as well concerning life/death and what is it’s purpose? These questions haunted me the more I searched for answers. Now at the age of 30 I was given the answers. We incarnate upon this plane a number of times in order to learn specific lessons needed for our future. These can be enjoyable, but always educational first. Yes, there is a difference between “Ascenders/Descenders” and that is where some differences arise. The over-all purpose though still is for experience and learning! The main purpose though of our creation is to manifest eventually a being who can manifest an entire creation, much like this one, and carry it through until it’s final “Judgment Day” so to speak! This creating being done specifically by the seven fee-male units that make-up the other spiritual half of our make being. These fee-males seem to have more patience, understanding, stick to it ness, etc. than any male that I have ever met. They are tireless in their pursuit of perfection, and will always seem to succeed at everything eventually in time? The eight of us (1 male and 7 fee-males) will eventually be given a planet to begin this scenario of creation upon in time. Then we will be the God/Gods of old referred to in the stories/texts of that planet of evolving beings. This will be our own creation, and we will see to it that our created children experience for themselves everything that we have been through here. I have now relaxed in my efforts to debate the standard philosophies and hope only for those that are still in search of a truth that will suffice for this lifetime. Having faith at times does not seem to work for me, since I have been raised to find the truth, to the best of my efforts. You too sound like one of those eager to know, and that is wonderful in it’s self. If you haven’t yet, please take a look at the video I have done explaining the new-molecular South-spun Electron Fluid Concept that now dove-tails w/ the famous Seven Year Cellular Rebuild Cycle in your own body! This video is (at) http://youtu.be/YWApeCYob1U (and) http://youtu.be/F054MSUzgHU (and) http://youtu.be/4_kdxwGkSWU I always have tried all of my life to understand the essence of it all, though education is still lacking in the areas now most important to a true understanding. Send me your thoughts and questions when they arise. Peace and power to you now my brother.
I am not sure what you mean by “Non answerable question.” People on both sides are confident they have an answer, which is more related to worldview than data on both sides. You seem to be advocating eastern pantheistic theology — which I believe will lead ONLY to eternal punishment as Jesus clearly taught. ““Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many.”(Matthew 7:13) I do not only look for truth in God’s natural revelation, like science, but special revelation God speaking through inspired ancient authors like Matthew above. I see no reason whatsoever to take your word about the afterlife, over that of Jesus’ disciple. I encourage you to look at the evidence that Jesus rose from the dead and take Him at his word.
It is more reasonable to believe that the earth is not 15 million years old. There is no purpose in it.
when one understands that Jesus and His atonement is the centrality of God’s creation, then the biblical text makes sense in relation to a young earth.
Jaz “There is no purpose in it” and what is your authority to make such a claim as a finite human? How do you know that? I could come up with scores of purposes an eternal being who never ages might have. Timelessness it is 15 million actual years to us human observers for an omnitemporal God is literally now, and so is every other microsecond he allows. This passage is not trying to help you calculate Days times a thousand YEARS to reveal an enigmatic date — it iS a literary device, a metaphor, Peter is telling us that time is not an issue to an eternal God – a day might as well 1000 years, that’s how Yahweh sees time. He finds it trivial. We really do not get it, because time for us finite beings is limited. I’m not trying to disparage you. I respect your zeal to defend what you honestly believe the text teaches and implies. But its based on misreading and poor English translation. I used to think similarly to you, then I took Hebrew language classes as well as biblical studies explaining the OT genres, the massive three thousand year old gap in vocabulary and massive 3000 year old worldview chasm. You can not just translate all of that ancient content into modern English which assumes a scientific worldview that moses would have looked at you perplexed by your scientific concerns — we need to put the original inspired authors’ intention for his ancient readers ahead of issues th Bible was ambivalent about (God could have easily dated the creation but chose not to, because he was not teaching Moses science)– so the meaning of the text is the authors intention for AHis ancient readers- it’s written for our benefit but Moses was not writing to us moderns about science questions, so our job is to study ancient culture, vocabulary, grammar, and the historical context — we learn new things constantly. PLEASE CHECK THIS OUT Lecture — I promis even if you disgree you will learn from a true Hebrew Bible scholar and Christian, who is amentor and fiend GENESIS 1 MIKE HEISER
There is no evidence within the inspired word of God to indicate that the Earth is of ANY age. But it could be trillions of years old as well as it could be 30,000 years old. But there is fossil evidence of an Earth that is many many millions of years old. And why do you say that Jesus is the centrality of God’s creation? He IS God’s FIRST creation, and ONLY first hand creation according to the scriptures. Everything else is said to have been created by Jesus using his Father’s holy spirit. The scriptures don’t say that Jesus is the centrality of God’s creation, that is your assumtion.
I said; (Jesus and His atonement is the centrality of God’s creation) The prophets foretold of His Messianic Ministry, even In Gen The word says; “He would Crush the serpent’s head” and this atonement was not to be for the Jews alone but for all creation.. The act of creation in Gen took 6 days and that God rested on the 7 from “all His works” and we have the genealogy of Adam through to Jesus and his atonement… Sin entered with the first Adam unto Jesus the second Adam who dealt with it by the atonement. One cannot just throw the lineage of man, tribes and languages and their sinfulness aside to accommodate Millions of years unto the Atonement.. and Jesus is not God’s first creation He is God’s only begotten Heb 1:5, Jesus is God’s image in the flesh. He is the “First Born’ of creation Col 1:15 in His resurrected state Rom 8:29. and that is the word of God and not my assumption.
Cris,
you might also find interesting the conclusions about Creation presented by another geneticist , Dr. John Sanford. His book, and talks on, the subject of Genetic Entropy, are quite illuminating.
God’s word is the issue and that means Hebrew grammar is a really important issue your ignoring, what if you’re translation is wrong? GENESIS 1 MIKE HEISER
Cris,
I would also recommend Dr. John Sanford’s book. Although knowing your a busy man I would like to direct you to a very good clear concise DVD on the historical aspect of this topic that you can go through fairly quickly.
I presented it to several progressive creationists and saw several light bulbs go off in their heads. It’s an aspect of church history completely missed by most.
Here is the link to Dr. Terry Mortenson’s lecture: https://answersingenesis.org/store/product/millions-of-years/?sku=30-9-500
My problem is the in the Hebrew grammar, this isn’t helpful.
Intellectual Honesty, Evidence, & Evolutionary Theory ….. & Carl Satan’s….. Oops I mean Carl Sagan’s BILLIONS & BILLIONS of Years of a universe. LOL !!! Oops I mean Lots Of Lies… God Bless…
13.7 Billion last I heard, for the eternal God, I don’t think it concerns Him much, like does it does you.
So we are to believe that at the time Jesus was here with disciples, He knew creation was billions of years old, and not just 4,000 years old. And, we are also to believe that Jesus, who absolutely knows how old creation is, did not bother to tell them about this: knowing this would become quite an issue in 20th and the 21st century. I’m sorry, but that makes no sense. God Bless…
Charles; on the other hand you have dispensationalists believing in a literal 1000 year reign of Christ, denying that the Kingdom of God is eternal within the context of a new heaven and a new earth.
Yes jaz, some Christians believe in Dispensationalism, and others do not. But in either case, the belief in the Doctrine of Dispensationalism, or the rejection of the belief in Dispensationalism, was derived from their respective interpretation of the Bible, and their belief that the Bible is the word of God: and that Truth can only come from God. As we all know, Christians do not all hold the same teachings; but they all hold that Truth can only come from God. The issue I see with science telling us the origin of creation, and the creation being billions of years old, is, that science derived this from their own understanding, with no need of God for Truth. God Bless…
Chris,
You need to get back on track brother. Thank God for his Word! Get back in the word of God because it looks like you’re being dragged into the deceptions of the world.
Evolution is a complete lie. Man was created from dust to a complete man in less than one day. The reality we currently perceive is temporary. Created for a brief purpose. When you try to explain creation based on only seeing three dimensions you imbark on a vain journey of deception.
How about getting back to Christ and Christ crucified? Is he not worthy? Do you really want to set him aside so you can rub shoulders and be respected by worldly intellectuals?
Our vanity will easily lead us astray especially when we start to see ourselves as “intellectuals”. When we start to idolize something we start to look for ways to validate that which we idolize.
Remember brother, lean not to your own understanding but in all ways trust in God.
For the poster that said God has no physical image, we’ll God’s image transcends both physical and spiritual.
This should help you get going back in the right direction…
Col 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.
Col 1:16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him.
Col 1:17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
Col 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent.
Col 1:19 For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell,
Col 1:20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.
Col 1:21 And you, who once were alienated and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds,
Col 1:22 he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and above reproach before him,
Col 1:23 if indeed you continue in the faith, stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the gospel that you heard, which has been proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of which I, Paul, became a minister.
Fred
God’s word? Oh really Fred? Can you read it? Or maybe you depend on scholars to translate it into English and interpret the Hebrew grammar issues for you. My REAL issue with creationism is based in Hebrew grammar – which is a really important issue you’re likely ignoring,watch this and maybe you’ll be convicted. I was GENESIS 1 MIKE HEISER
I should have known better than to bring this topic up, in the middle of writing a new book with Tom Horn – the true sequel to Petrus Romanus, What bothers me is that your answers are not addressing my issues, If you don’t know Hebrew grammar, then we can’t even talk about the issues. Watch Hesier’s Genesis 1 video I’m not a Hebrew Bible PhD and semitic language expert, but Mike is, I think it is wise to listen to Mike because he is after what the text actually meant to the inspired author and what he intended his ancient audience to understand — it was by an ancient Israelite Moses inspired to write to ancient Israelites.
There are actually MANY Biblical Hebrew scholars out there that prove a day is a day using the Biblical Hebrew text. Just reading the text should also prove it to the average person.
“So the evening and the morning were the first day.” ends the text of each day of creation AFTER He creates light and calls it “day” and dark is called “night”. Relate that to the obvious experience you encounter yourself every “day”.
Obvious aside, you really have to dabble in tom foolery to get around the text. Unless you are supporting a preconceived notion, then you can make stuff up.
The biggest issue with “intelligent design” is that you have to do some severe contortions to explain the origin of sin. According to the Biblical account Adam and Eve were perfect, sinless and walked with God in the Garden of Eden. AFTER they disobeyed God they realized their nakedness and the effects of sin and death set in.
So there would have to be death and decay for evolution to occur. When did decay begin? Did God create a sinful creation? Was his first amoeba created in the presents of sin? How did it reproduce and die off? How did natural selection take place without decay? The Law of Thermodynamics says decay is a constant of anything that produces energy.
Cris,
While I still hold (basically) to what I consider the literal six day creation account, I am glad to know that there are scholars who hold to theistic evolution are wrestling and thinking deep on these issues. I believe that one’s belief on the age of the earth ought not to be a barrier to faith in Christ. I acknowledge that I have not read much that is out there from those in the TE camp (Admittedly this is predominantly because I am comfortable with the answers given by those on my side and therefore haven’t felt much of a need to examine the arguments for TE), but I hope that those who argue for it would look at the issue of the Imago Dei and not simply write off or minimize the concerns that TE diminishes the nature of the creation of man. I have a friend who is a Bible believing TE who in essence mocks this concern as if it were childish. I found his approach in that regard to neither be helpful for dialogue nor did it provide any satisfactory answer to the concern. We are still friends though, we just clearly disagree on this. Blessings on your research, I think I might have to check out your next book when it comes out.
In Christ,
Dan Kitinoja
James Ussher (or Usher; 4 January 1581 – 21 March 1656) was the Protestant Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of All Ireland between 1625 and 1656. He was a prolific scholar and church leader, who today is most famous for his chronology that sought to establish the time and date of the creation as “the entrance of the night preceding the 23rd day of October… the year before Christ 4004”; that is, around 6 pm on 22 October 4004 bc according to the proleptic Julian calendar.
The first debate, I went to was between an evolutionist, whom I don’t recall his name, and and a Young Earth Creationist (YEC), Duane Gish; Wikipedia- “In the early days of Gish’s debates, fellow creationist Henry Morris III wrote, “evolutionists were caught somewhat by surprise when a qualified speaker—complete with a working knowledge of the relevant literature and research—challenged their worldview … Soon spokespersons for evolution publicly recommended that evolutionists not debate Duane Gish because they would surely lose.”
His debating opponents said that Gish used a rapid-fire approach during a debate, presenting arguments and changing topics quickly. Eugenie Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education, dubbed this approach the Gish Gallop, describing it as “where the creationist is allowed to run on for 45 minutes or an hour, spewing forth torrents of error that the evolutionist hasn’t a prayer of refuting in the format of a debate.” She also criticized Gish for failing to answer objections raised by his opponents. The phrase has also come to be used as a pejorative to describe similar debate styles employed by proponents of other, usually fringe beliefs, such as homeopathy or the moon landing hoax.
Gish was also criticised for using a standardized presentation during debates. While undertaking research for a debate with Gish, Michael Shermer noted that Gish used similar openings, assumptions about his opponent, slides, and even jokes. Although Shermer said he was not an atheist and was willing to accept the existence of a divine creator, Gish attempted to prove that Shermer was indeed an atheist and therefore immoral. Massimo Pigliucci, who debated Gish five times, said that he ignored evidence contrary to his religious beliefs. One opponent accused Gish of stonewalling arguments with fabricated data.”
Gish and the YEC”S in many ways act’s just as ungodly in their attitude toward unbelievers, and Ray Coward and Ken Ham certainly fit into this category. What kind of a wittness is this to the world? They definitely do not ‘proclaim the truth in love, (respect, cocern convincing, help manner).
One of the if not the largest hurdle, is that Christians, (Creationist), cling only on to Genesis 1, 2, 3, manly Genesis 1, where there are scripture after scripture telling over and over about God creation with extra information through out the Bible. One of the main topics here is death.
What kind of death?
For man:
Genesis 2:16-17
“And the Lord God commanded the man, ‘You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.’”
Romans 5:12
Death Through Adam, Life Through Christ
“Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned.”
For creation:
Romans 8:20New International Version (NIV)
“For the creation was subjected to frustration, (futility), not by its own choice, but by the will of the One who subjected it, in hope”