Creation ping list
See my profile for info
Posted on 05/21/2005 8:47:33 AM PDT by wallcrawlr
If we are to believe Vanity Fair columnist Christopher Hitchens, people who believe in creationism – the belief that the designed universe actually has a Designer – are idiots.
I can almost see Mr. Hitchens smiling under his tousled hair saying, "Yeah, Falwell. That's right."
In a recent Wall Street Journal article titled, "Why I'm Rooting Against the Religious Right," Mr. Hitchens defines the conservative Christian faction as a "creeping and creepy movement" that is "trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent."
That is certainly a simplistic – and wildly exaggerated – way to define the efforts of religious conservatives who want to preserve their rapidly disappearing rights in this great land. In appearing on the daily talk shows to promote the article, Mr. Hitchens has specifically gone to great lengths to define creationism as "nonsense" and to belittle those who dare to disbelieve that the universe just randomly appeared.
Well, even though our era's fashionable intellectuals seek to disparage those who embrace biblical truth, I want to proudly state that I am a creationist.
In fact, Liberty University will be co-hosting a Creation Mega Conference, in concert with Ken Ham and Answers in Genesis, July 17-22 on the Liberty campus in Lynchburg, Va.
I would like to use this column to personally invite Mr. Hitchens to come to Lynchburg to attend the conference so that he can learn that creationism is not just the whim of a bunch of snake-handling mountain evangelists.
This conference will be led by an assemblage of brilliant men, scientists who have dedicated their lives to the study of the earth and its history.
The conference features an impressive list of speakers from a wide range of disciplines. Topics will include everything from human origins and Noah's Ark to fossils and the big bang.
Speakers will include Dr. Werner Gitt from Germany, Dr. Jonathan Sarfati from Australia and Dr. John Whitcomb, co-author of "The Genesis Flood" with Dr. Henry Morris, who will also be one of the speakers. (This book is largely credited with establishing the modern creationist movement.)
Liberty University's own Dr. David DeWitt says this Creation Mega Conference is especially designed to equip Christians to defend the Genesis account of creation and biblical authority. Pastors and teachers will be given information that they can use to teach others. Parents will be shown how to counter evolutionary arguments that their children might be exposed to in school or on television. Young and old will be encouraged in their faith as they see evidence that supports the truth of the Bible.
By the way, Dr. DeWitt has been publishing and been doing research on Alzheimer's disease for more than a decade. He will be one of the featured speakers at the Creation Mega Conference, speaking on "Molecular Evidence for Creation."
The Liberty faculty and our guest speakers hope many people who are skeptical about creation will come to the conference to see high-quality, scientific presentations supporting biblical creation. They may be very surprised by what they see.
Dr. DeWitt believes that biblical authority and origins are two of the most pressing issues for the Christian church today.
Answers in Genesis founder Ken Ham, who will be the moderator of our Creation Mega Conference, often states, "If you can't trust the Bible's history, how can you trust its morality?" Christians must be equipped to defend their faith and be prepared to give an answer to everyone who challenges them on their views.
Readers who are interested in creation or have questions about origins are encouraged to join us for the conference July 17-22.
Visit our website to learn more about this special event or to register to attend.
And Mr. Hitchens, I'll be looking for you in July. If you're going to beat us up all the time, I encourage you to at least come and see what we really believe and on what we base those sincerely-held beliefs!
Creation ping list
See my profile for info
They are no bigger idiots than the folks who believe in bigfoot or flying saucers and include some of my best friends so lay off.
belittling people: its a strategy they must all read from the evo talking points play-book
The esteemed Rev. Falwell apparently does not know the meaning of the word, "allegory". According to the Bible, the parables used by Jesus were highly effective in teaching morality, ethics, etc. Were they "true" stories? I doubt it, but neither were Aesop's Fables, yet they also help convey life's lessons in an easily digestible form.
IMO, the Genesis accounts of Creation are allegory. Nevertheless, the Bible is full of valuable lessons.
I've seen Creationists do the same things on many of these threads. If you are without sin, then you can cast the first stone.
I'm not sure of your link between trusting Bible history and Jesus parables. Of course parables from Jesus arent true, accurate, historical events...he was teaching a lesson using a short simple story.
Thinking that Falwell doesnt understand allegory is again a leap I wouldnt make. Id think he does and has discerned that Genesis isnt one.
Using your language "esteemed" and "apparently"...was that supposed to be sarcasm?
To look at any of the presented evidence and make state it as scientific fact is a bit premature. Both Creationism, ID and Scientific Naturalism are not repeatable and no one has observed any of the cited experiments that would allow for the theory to progress to any level beyond theory. Why can't we leave it at that and go seeking without the dichotomy?
It would seem much more constructive for both sides to continue to present waht evidence they find without the slanted personal opinions interjected.
I am on the ID ping list and I get pinged to a lot of these thread but refuse to post because there is a lack of civility here. Good points and counter-points are posted by many poster but most of them are then addended to include someone far reaching personal opinion based on their mantra which then becomes a deviation from the original intent of the thread.
Also, thought you might like to read this, based on your first post. It's long but worth the read.
Happy FReepin'
“Orthodox evolutionism” and the patristic teaching. In what I have written about Adam and Eve, you will note that I quoted holy Fathers who interpret the text of Genesis in a way that might be called rather “literal.” Am I correct in supposing that you would like to interpret the text more “allegorically” when you say that to believe in the immediate creation of Adam by God is “a very narrow conception of the Sacred Scriptures”? This is an extremely important point, and I am truly astonished to find that “Orthodox evolutionists” do not at all know how the holy Fathers interpret the book of Genesis. I am sure that you will agree with me that we are not free to interpret the Holy Scriptures as we please, but we must interpret them as the holy Fathers teach us. I am afraid that not all who speak about Genesis and evolution pay attention to this principle. I firmly believe that the whole world outlook and philosophy of life for an Orthodox Christian may be found in the holy Fathers; if we will listen to their teaching, we will not go astray.
And now I ask you to examine with me the very important and fundamental question: how do the holy Fathers teach us to interpret the book of Genesis? We cannot do better than to begin with St. Basil the Great, who has written so inspiringly of the Six Days of Creation. In the Hexaemeron he writes:
“Those who do not admit the common meaning of the Scriptures say that water is not water, but some other nature, and they explain a plant and a fish according to their opinion. They describe also the production of reptiles and wild animals, changing it according to their own notion. When I hear ‘grass,’ I think of grass, and in the same manner I understand every- thing as it is said, a plant, a fish, a wild animal, and an ox.. And since those who wrote about the nature of the earth, each contradicted the other, I shall not agree to accept our view of the creation of the earth as being due any less respect only because the servant of God Moses did not speak of shapes, did not say that the circumference of the earth is approximately 180,000, did not measure the distance of the earth’s shadow and how this shadow, falling upon the moon, produces eclipses. Since Moses left unsaid, as useless for us, things in no way pertaining to us, shall we for this reason believe that the words of the Spirit are of less value than the foolish wisdom of those who have written about the world? Or shall I rather give glory to Him Who has not kept our mind occupied with vanities but has ordained that all things be written for the edification and guidance of our souls? This is a thing of which they seem to me to have been unaware, who have attempted by false arguments and allegorical interpretations to bestow on the Scripture a dignity of their own imagining. But theirs is the attitude of one who considers himself wiser than the revelations of the Spirit and introduces his own ideas in pretense of an explanation. Therefore, let it be understood as it has been written” (Hexaemeron, IX, 1).
Clearly, St. Basil is warning us to beware of explaining away things in Genesis which are difficult for our common sense to understand; it is very easy for the “enlightened” modern man to do this, even if he is an Orthodox Christian. Let us therefore try all the harder to understand the sacred Scriptures as the Fathers understood them, and not according to our modern “wisdom.” And let us not be satisfied with the views of one holy Father; let us examine the views of other holy Fathers as well.
One of the standard patristic commentaries on the book of the Genesis is that of St. Ephraim the Syrian. His views are all the more important for us in that he was an “Easterner” and knew the Hebrew language well. Modern scholars tell us that “Easterners” are given to allegorical interpretations, and that the book of Genesis likewise must be understood in this way. But let us see what St. Ephraim says in his commentary on Genesis:
“No one should think that the Creation of Six Days is an allegory; it is likewise impermissible to say that what seems, according to the account, to have been created in the course of six days, was created in a single instant, and likewise that certain names presented in this account either signify nothing, or signify something else. On the contrary, one must know that just as the heaven and the earth which were created in the beginning are actually the heaven and the earth and not something else understood under the names of heaven and earth, so also everything else that is spoken of as being created and brought into order after the creation of heaven and earth is not empty names, but the very essence of the created natures corresponds to the force of these names.” (Commentary on Genesis, chap. 1).
These are still, of course, general principles; let us look now at several specific applications by St. Ephraim of these principles.
“Although both the light and the clouds were created in the twinkling of an eye, still both the day and the night of the first day continued for 12 hours each.” (Ibid.)
Again: “When in the twinkling of an eye (Adam’s) rib was taken out and likewise in an instant the flesh took its place, and the bare rib took on the complete form and all the beauty of a woman, then God led her and presented her to Adam.” (Ibid.)
It is quite clear that St. Ephraim reads the book of Genesis “as it is written”; when he hears “the rib of Adam” he understands “the rib of Adam,” and does not understand this as an allegorical way of saying some- thing else altogether. Likewise he quite explicitly understands the Six Days of Creation to be just six days, each with 24 hours, which he divides into an “evening” and “morning” of 12 hours each.
I have deliberately taken St. Ephraim’s simple commentary on the book of Genesis before citing other, more “mystical” commentaries, because such a simple understanding of the book of Genesis above all offends the modern “enlightened” mind. I suspect that most Orthodox people, not too well-versed in the holy Fathers, will immediately say: “This is too simple! We know much better now. Give us holy Fathers that are more profound.” Alas, there are no Fathers “more profound” for our modern wisdom, because even the most mystical Fathers understand the text of the book of Genesis just as simply as St. Ephraim the Syrian! Those who wish to find greater complexity in the writings of the holy Fathers are influenced by modern Western ideas, which are totally alien to the holy Fathers of the Orthodox Church.
Now let us look concretely at the question of the “duration” of the Six Days of Creation. I believe that this question is secondary to those that are raised by the theory of evolution, but it would be well for us to learn what the holy Fathers think of it, particularly since here we begin to realize what a great difference exists between the patristic and the modern Western theory of creation. Irrespective of how we regard them, these “Days” are entirely beyond our comprehension, since we only know the mortal “days” of our fallen world; how can we even imagine those “Days” in which the creative power of God acted so mightily! Saint Augustine says it very well: “It is very difficult, even impossible for us to imagine what those days were like.”
The holy Fathers themselves did not say too much concerning this matter, because, undoubtedly, it was not a problem for them. It is basically a problem for modern man, who attempts to understand God’s creation by means of the laws of nature of our fallen world. The holy Fathers apparently accepted the fact that the duration of those Days did not differ from our own familiar days, while some of them even indicate that their duration was 24 hours, as mentioned by St. Ephraim the Syrian. But there is something in those Days which is extremely important for us to understand, and which relates to what you have written concerning the “instantaneousness” of God’s creation.
You write: “Since God created time, to create something “instantly” would be an act contrary to His own decision and will…. When we speak about the creation of stars, plants, animals and man we do not speak about miracles - we do not speak about the extraordinary interventions of God in creation but about the ‘natural’ course of creation.” I wonder if you are not substituting here some “modern wisdom” for the teaching of the holy Fathers? What is the beginning of all things but a miracle? I have already showed you that St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Gregory the Theologian, and St. John Damascene (and indeed all the Fathers) teach that the first man Adam appeared in a way different from the natural generation of all other men; likewise the first creatures, according to the sacred text of the Genesis, appeared in a way different from all their descendants: they appeared not by natural generation but by the word of God. The modern theory of evolution denies this, because the theory of evolution was invented by unbelievers who wished to deny God’s action in creation and explain the creation by “natural” means alone. Do you not see what philosophy is behind the theory of evolution?
Father Seraphim Rose
thanks for the ping!
I find it funny even Falwell is too embarrassed to mention the "only 6000 years ago" part
In fact, Liberty University will be co-hosting a Creation Mega Conference, in concert with Ken Ham and Answers in Genesis, July 17-22 on the Liberty campus in Lynchburg, Va.
Registration fees
Individual: $150
Couple: $250 (may be married couple or two people from the same family)
Family: $350 (3 or more; must be from the same family)
Daily rate: $50/person/day
Pastors: $75 ($75 discount)
Groups of 10 or more: $75/person (please call to register)
Youth leader: Free registration with 5 or more students (please call to register)
Cha-Ching
A ____ and his _____ are soon ______
Boy, if a meteor hits Lynchburg July 20, the average IQ of the United States will increase by 10 points!
It's just a darn shame I'll be on vacation.
The real pity is that, unlike a real scientific conference, they won't be accepting contributed papers. I had ideas of drafting up a 250 word abstract containing 90% complete nonsense and 10% biblical verses, and watching it get accepted for presentation. Alan Sokal, eat your heart out!
Furthermore, it appears that the esteemed Dr. Falwell is NOT attempting to put up a 'Straw Man' argument. Instead, he is conveniently inviting the proverbial Straw Man himself TO the conference.
I agree with you completely about the inevitable disintegration of evolution vs creation threads, which is why I seldom post to them anymore. I loathe the fanaticism from both sides of these arguments.
As to repeatibility, the crevo threads are full of interesting references, and I will not rehash what has already been written ad nauseum. However, allow me to say that science and the data collected from carefully conducted experiments are not "proof". They are simply our "best guess" given the tools at our disposal.
I apologize. The Rev. Falwell did not create the red herring...Ken Ham did with his statement:
"If you can't trust the Bible's history, how can you trust its morality?"
Ken Ham throws into his argument supporting a literal interpretation of Genesis the completely unrelated topic of morality as further justification for God creating the Universe in exactly 6 days.
It has been my experience that individuals who resort to such tactics are on pretty shaky ground to begin with...yet many folks buy into the ruse.
You are wasting your talents at university, Sir. A good deal of money is to be made using your aforementioned abstract. ;)
What a beautiful sentence, I wish more of everyone would write that and remember it. Thank you for sharing your thoughts and see you on the threads.
K4
ping
Saw your post in #15 and thought of a book that you might like on the subject of time and literal six day creation. The book is called Starlight and Time by Russell Humphreys, PhD. It shed a new look at some ideas between the conundrum of time and starlight. Some interesting writing and just another piece of the puzzle we all try to solve. The forward is written by Ken Ham but the writings of Dr. Humphreys was a pretty new look using physics. If you do read it FReepmail me and let me know what you think. I have not encountered anyone who has read it and been able to discuss it.
K4
What I find significant is the total omission of IDers. Where are Behe, Meyer and Dembski? Have they outlasted their usefulness? Is the creationist movement going back to good old 'creation science'? That would be an interesting development; Behe in particular, while he was not trusted by mainstream science, was at least accorded some degree of scientific legitimacy. We can argue ID is unscientific and vague; but at least it's not provably wrong (though it is implausible). But creatures like Humphreys are simply figures of fun. Even a non-expert can find the fatal flaws in his analysis of radioactive decay, etc.. And while a lot of physicists can ignore the argument between evolution and ID, putting people like Sarfati and Humphreys front and center stakes out the battle lines with mainstream physics, astronomy, geology, etc..
In fact, looking at the speakers list, they're almost all failed physical and earth scientists, rather than the failed biologists we see hauled out to support ID.
I suppose if you're going to fight science, you might as well fight all of science. But IMHO, it's poor strategery.
(I'm pinging PH, not because I think we should have an evo-list ping, but to make sure Darwin Central notes this curious development.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.