Posted on 02/26/2017 3:49:04 PM PST by Slyfox
All that is a fascinating story in itself, and given some account in A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom by Andrew Dickson White. I discovered this work only in recent years, and it contains many particulars about the historical role of Bible belief, of which I was not aware, quite aside from butressing this or that point of view.
Some have gone so far as to speak of the evolution of natural law, which is in our experience fixed. I couldn't say if this is what your Chemistry Professor had in mind.
But I would ask in addition, with regard to particle physics, most prominently atomic physics and photons, but extending to the muon neutrino and other exotica, where does all this fit in a Biblical view? Did this whole "zoo" exist prior to Creation of the World? Is it to be understood that this was God's clay used to form the world? That hardly seems possible, since they are governed by their own very fixed and rigid laws.
I suppose "let there be light" would take care of photons, but that only intensifies the exegitical problem, I think, since the heaven and the earth have already been created.
Just to be honest, I wouldn't suppose that any of the "hard core" advocates have ever considered this issue ... so surprise me.
In the first of the biblical accounts light is created and the distinction between day and night thereby made on the first day, while the sun and moon are not created until the fourth day. Masses of profound theological and pseudo-scientific reasoning have been developed to account for this—masses so great that for ages they have obscured the simple fact that the original text is a precious revelation to us of one of the most ancient of recorded beliefs—the belief that light and darkness are entities independent of the heavenly bodies, and that the sun, moon, and stars exist not merely to increase light but to "divide the day from the night, to be for signs and for seasons, and for days and for years," and "to rule the day and the night."
So there you go. How soon we forget.
"A precious revelation" ... I like that. I didn't remember it.
“...where does all this fit in a Biblical view?”
I have never heard anyone claiming the Bible is a science textbook. Or that “let there be light” marks the creation of light. The “six” days of creation does not involve the creation of the world. Genesis 1:1 is not part of the six days of creation. The six days involve reclamation and creation of living things.
Do you really believe that there are no more “exotica” left to discover?
LouieFisk: “LouisIana”.
Sorry for that gross typo. This tablet has an automatic word completion function which sometimes does the very unexpected.
Yes, I catch most of those, but obviously not all.
LouieFisk on Darwin root of evil: ** “People who *may* (ahem, strawman) claim that are wrong; it’s the source belief system of much evil, but not all.
Mankind has little trouble in finding enough excuses and reasons to commit wrong.” **
Indeed, so-called Darwinism is not the source of evil, but can be used for evil purposes by evil people.
For simple analogies, consider swords or guns.
By themselves neither good nor evil, but can be used for either purpose, depending on human intentions.
I’m saying, blaming “Darwinism” for evil is like blaming guns for crime.
dr_lew: “that is a fascinating story in itself, and given some account in A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom by Andrew Dickson White. “
My argument here is that properly understood, science and Bible are not necessarily in conflict, because each deals with different aspects of reality.
Science, by definition, does not address supernatural, divine or spiritual events, while the Bible is all about those, saying nothing about natural science.
The Creator is Supernatural... This flesh 'age' also called by Peter the world that is *NOW* has a time ending signature affixed. Once all 'souls/spirit intellect' created, willingly take this flesh journey, this age (world) comes to an 'supernatural' end.
Gravity is 'natural', but only the effect is visible to the naked eye. It is what the naked flesh eye cannot see that old Darwin totally and completely ignored. This obsession with the flesh is stuck out in the middle of nowhere and without any method of going anywhere.
Flesh returns to the dust from which it came, but, the soul/spirit intellect returns to the Maker that sent it. There is such a black hole in evolution that it will soon be rendered useless.
Does the word 'created' in Genesis 1:1 have a different meaning than the word 'made', in the original Hebrew? I will let you check that out... because IF your mind is already set in stone about what Moses penned, there is no point for me to take the time to give you the different dimensions of instruction used throughout the Bible..
I will give you one. Jeremiah 4
22 For my people is foolish, they have not known me; they are sottish children, and they have none understanding: they are wise to do evil, but to do good they have no knowledge. 23 I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light. 24 I beheld the mountains, and, lo, they trembled, and all the hills moved lightly. 25 I beheld, and, lo, there was no man, and all the birds of the heavens were fled. 26 I beheld, and, lo, the fruitful place was a wilderness, and all the cities thereof were broken down at the presence of the Lord, and by his fierce anger. 27 For thus hath the Lord said, The whole land shall be desolate; yet will I not make a full end. 28 For this shall the earth mourn, and the heavens above be black: because I have spoken it, I have purposed it, and will not repent, neither will I turn back from it.
FYI ... that word 'sottish' in verse 22 means 'stupid'!!!! The above is not talking about, or describing Noah's flood... This is in reference to Genesis 1:2. What is described beginning in Genesis 1:3 'days' is a mega super environmental clean up to make this earth habitable for the 'creation' of this flesh age. This earth is filled with evidence that all manner of catastrophes took place in eons gone by.
A nice point. Genesis 1:5 is taking note that God's division of the light from the darkness, and the naming of day and night, constituted the first day, i.e. the first diurnal cycle, in our terms.
But that leaves the "beginning" when God "Created the heaven and the earth". So what all did that include? I think the question still remains, "Whence atoms?" from a Biblical point of view.
Also, it kind of leaves the "First Day" in the lurch, creation-wise. So from your observation, there were in fact only five days of creation, plus "the beginning".
But of course, this is all just semantics and rhetoric! "It's what it is."
“So from your observation, there were in fact only five days of creation, plus “the beginning”.”
How so? Get a piece of paper, write down day one, what was referred to (land or water, etc., were not created, just moved around). Continue on thru to sixth.
I would assume the days are not literal.
There could have been billions of years between Gen. 1:1 and the creation days. Old Testament prophets briefly reference a pre-Genesis Earth, populated by nations under the guidance of the one who became Satan. He tried to overthrow God and attacked Heaven (according to the prophets). All that is where John Milton got his plot line for Paradise Lost.
We are expected to believe that aside from a very specific type of chrstian (white, mostly Protestant but with a few Latin Rite Catholics thrown in), the entire world essentially believes in eighteenth century European rationalism and nineteenth century European materialism.
We are asked to believe this by an elite culture that simultaneously claims to be totally enraptured with the "spirituality" of "people of color" and "indigenous peoples." In other words, people who logically should have nothing in common with European rationalists and European materialists. In fact, when "poc/ip" are in the news for whatever reason, Charles Darwin and the alleged universal acceptance of his theory suddenly disappears. There is no "evolution." There is only the "dreamtime," the shaman, the lama, or what-have-you. But when the poc/ip leave the scene suddenly these moonstruck acolytes of The Rainbow Serpent once again become the children of Voltaire.
Now, does this make any sense to anyone? Really? It's exactly like the "heels" in old-time "kayfabe" pro wrestling. Logically, the "heels" should all hate each other, yet among them there is only a peace the like of which this world has never known. Each one claims to be "the greatest" and to hail from "the greatest" place, yet there is never the slightest conflict or argument. Instead, the "heels" spend all their time feuding with humble, non-hostile "babyfaces."
Now obviously this particular "heel stable" is based on the inversion of chrstianity (which would not exist if chrstianity did not exist, btw). The only thing that atheist European scientists and Australian aboriginal shamans have in common is the liberal stereotype that "rednecks hate them." So just as the "Pearl Harbor Jap" teams up with the local evil redneck "bully of the town," the world of only matter in motion teams up with the Rainbow Serpent. Isn't that something? Perhaps one day Vince McMahon will create a heel team of The Scientist and The Shaman. They'd be tailor-made to get heat in the Bible Belt.
Of course, just as ridiculous and illogical is the idea that ultimate meaninglessness can serve as a foundation for totalitarian altruism, and yet very few atheists take the logical position that because the universe is without meaning, it doesn't matter what we do.
It's too bad that it took a slimy organization like the Chalcaedon Foundation to promote this book. Although the article says that the author is a believer in "intelligent design"--theistic evolution with a signature.
I like to watch PBS on Wednesday night. There is "Nature," "Nova" and usually some other neat science show. I call it "Nature Night" and everyone knows that I don't do anything on Wed. night because it is Nature Night.
I have noticed something. The science types are using the word "evolution" less and they are using "adapted" and go on to explain that the - animal, bird, earthworm - desired to change or improve something and they "adapted" the change. As if the hedgehog actually willed his tail to grow just that much longer because he needed it to be that much longer.
Occasionally, they do use the word "created" which makes me do a mental double take. But, if they use the word "evolved" more than three times my better half gets to hear me scream at the TV.
Voltaire and all his pals did all they could to move our minds away from faith in God and only have us rely on reason. The thing is that we need both Reason and Faith. Reason explains the what, and Faith explains the why. We need the why.
This is pretty much done for us, isn't it? In Genesis, 1: ... 5,8,13,19,23,31 we have the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth days enumerated explicitly, by name.
Now you want to discount the first day and tell me I'm missing something?
... Continue on thru to sixth.
Right, if you discount Day One, ( as you very explicitly and vehemently did, ) then two through six amount to five days of creation ... at most!
I disagree. Faith offers nothing in the way of explanation. Explanation, after all, lies in the domain of reason.
Faith does perhaps offer MEANING, so much as we may understand either faith, or meaning.
I have often thought, half jokingly, that "Math is my religion" . But I think that it is actually a serious idea. And an impetus for this notion is that mathematics is, or represents, the "Mind of God", insofar as it is an ultimate authority, notwithstanding its evidently intricate structure.
... presented for your consideration ...
“Now you want to discount the first day and tell me I’m missing something?”
It is so simple. Amazing.
Day 1: Light, day and night
Day 2: Atmosphere
Day 3: Separated land and sea
Day 4: Plants, planet configurations, etc.
Day 5: Sea creatures
Day 6: Land creatures, man
Day 7: Rest
Within the six “day” nothing is said of creating the Earth. It was already here, and evidently destroyed.
Thank you for your kind words, but I notice you didn't respond in any way to the point I was making, which is that the elite constantly shift between scientific materialism and "indigenous" mysticism based on what they happen to be discussing at the moment.
Just why do you (and so many others) assume that "reason" means that the events in the first eleven chapters of Genesis could not have happened exactly as written? That's not "reason." That is naturalism. Reason tells me that it is ridiculous to inject current physical phenomena into the process of creation (when the phenomena did not themselves exist but were themselves in the process of being created). Reason also tells me it is hypocrisy in the extreme to want to deconstruct Genesis while interpreting such things as the "virgin birth" literally. Funny how none of the theistic evolutionists who love to speculate on "what really happened" during Creation never speculate on how Mary was fertilized or gave birth without fertilization. No sir; that's a "miracle." But Genesis? Couldn't have happened! We all know that such things don't happen, which means they never have! So I suppose virgins give birth and dead people come back to life every day???
You don't know me. I told you that I thought the article was written was interesting. I am not a Genesis expert, nor am I a scientist. Please find someone else's brain to pick.
Agreed.
The Bible teaches that God created nature, rules over it and on occasion overrules it (miracles).
Just mythoughts: "There is such a black hole in evolution that it will soon be rendered useless."
The "black hole" you refer to is simply God's Plan in action.
Natural-science literally can't see that because science is forbidden by definition from looking at such things.
So, for "God's Plan" scientists substitute such words as "coincidence", "random chance", "non-teleological events".
They say that because, as scientists, that's all they're allowed to say.
But you and I are not held by any such restrictions, we are free to see God's Hand and Plan wherever & whenever they appear.
It's only a "religion" if you believe it despite contrary evidence, which as a scientist you are forbidden to do.
Scientists do not "believe", they merely conditionally accept as reliable, data & ideas which can be strongly confirmed until better data or ideas come along.
In fact, math at best is merely a model (think of a model ship) of some parts of reality, it's not the reality (the Ship) itself.
Remember Newton's laws of motion still apply perfectly well, but as Einstein & others point out, they are only a rough approximation of what's really going on.
Thus we can see that our science is imperfect at best, and even if it could be 100% accurate, would still be just a model, not God's created reality.
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.