That's known as the "canopy theory", originally proposed by Kent Hovind.

Eh, he might have talked about it a lot, and shot rubber bands at the audience just before cracking jokes about tattoo-sporting pagans. But he certainly did not invent the notion. (By the way, does anyone know if he's still in the federal clinker for coming up with "Biblical" reasons, contra the actual Bible, not to pay income taxes?)

Most believers in Biblical creation no longer hold firmly to this theoretical concept. It's an older idea, from older creation-believers' literature.

Instead of developing a canopy theory and resulting in numerous gigantic physical impossibilities that God would have to manually override for Earth's early history, wouldn't it make far more sense to just look for another interpretation?

As Ithilwen noted, yes, absolutely -- but don't look to anti-God or God-ignoring beliefs to fill in the gap.

If the canopy theory cases problems, just try believing that God "created" via an evolutionary process including billions of years of death, suffering and disease, then pronouncing everything "very good," then blaming Adam and Eve for supposedly bringing death/suffering into the picture, and then not letting His people find out His "real" creative method until the last two centuries!

I would say, yes, but then I'm not a fundamentalist (e.g. I don't think that the earth is 6,000 years old).

As The Black Glove said, "fundamentalism" is a vague and unwise term to use here. Moreover, that ain't the definition of "fundamentalist," bro. The historical definition of "fundamentalist" was a person who adhered to mere Christianity, the simple facts of the Gospel. Of course, the term has been hijacked far beyond its original intent. Someday I think Christians can take it back, but not today (that's another topic anyway).

The more I read and study, the more I'm convinced that fundamentalism is in left field.

Wouldn't that technically be the "far right" field? (Liberal Protestantism is in left field. )

But! seriously. If you mean what I think you mean, then I'm not sure why you're even worried about the Isaiah 6: 9-10 passage about God having an uber-will that some people not get saved. Do what most default "Christians" do and just pretend you didn't see that. Or, at worst, say "well, that's the Old Testament version of God, and I believe in a 'God of love." Either way, simply stop thinking about it. But I happily note that you have not done that. Instead, you have prompted this great discussion and tried to search the Scriptures. If I've read you right, congratulations! You are thinking and acting like (the historical definition of) a "fundamentalist."

Of course, to you the term could mean treating "minor" issues of belief (like baptism, end-times events, or denominational particulars) as just as essential as major issues of belief (such as God's nature, the Gospel plan, and Who Jesus was and His death and resurrection). Or it could mean nothing less than stupid legalistic ideas about movies, music, or dress codes. If that's the case, then I agree those must be rejected.

For more about the problems of American "fundamentalism" as a specific movement under that name, consider listening to Phil Johnson's sermon "The Failure of Fundamentalism".

Anyway, moving on.

I appreciated your points about holiness, yet I would point out that many "rules" set up by professing fundamentalists "neglect the weightier matters" of the Law, as Christ pointed out about the Pharisees. They also do what the Pharisees did: worry overmuch about "food" from outside themselves, rather than the state of their sinful hearts, and add fake laws on top of the real Law, or even replace the real Law with fake ones.

Ultimately, things like our dating of the earth or St. Paul's "endless genealogies" aren't going to be much help in Final Judgment.

True. Belief about creation is, with caveat, a "secondary issue."

But I need to point this out: If someone thinks it's not important to figure this out, or that somehow Godless "science" and the Bible can mesh, then I need to warn them not to think about it too much. Here's why. If you think about it too much, you'll get a headache. How could God take millions/billions of years to "create" and yet fault Adam and Eve for bringing sin and suffering and death into the world? How could He call this creation "very good"? As The Black Glove pointed out, how can we possibly view Adam as a historical, literal figure on whom the whole concept of Christ the "last Adam" is founded? What have we to anticipate in the restored Creation, when Creation from the beginning was full of death, disease, and destruction (as shown in all fossils!)?

When one starts questioning all that, one is believing in Scripture and the Gospel in spite of one's inconsistent belief about a supposed "theistic evolution" origin of the world and man. That's why I warn people, if they want to go that direction, not to think about it that much.

But I hate saying that! By contrast, someone who delves into both 1) the inevitable conclusions of the Biblical literature/historical record of Genesis and their implications for Scripture's Story, 2) the absurd results of when people try to impose anti-God, Biblical-ignoring conceptions of "science" to mean un-observable, untestable events, one can do a lot of thinking and will find consistency in belief. But, one will also find plenty of howling laughter and even unprofessional behavior from anti-God activists who don't want their "science" messed with. So take your pick.

- According to N. T. Wright, the literal vs. metaphorical debate is almost exclusively American. At any rate, it doesn't sound like it's a serious debate in England.

Well, that doesn't make them better or worse, now does it? It only means they have a unique cultural background, different issues to debate, or are naive.

I do believe this debate over many parts of Scripture can be plain old silly and illustrate a false dichotomy. Why shouldn't a narrative of Scripture, such as the creation account, be both metaphorical and literal history? Marriage, after all, is modeled after Christ and His Church (Ephesians 5), but no one uses that to say that human marriages are "only metaphorical" and not also literal! Or, to paraphrase Dumbledore from Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, "Of course it's all inside your head, Harry. But why should that mean it's not also real?"

- The need to categorize things into literal truth and lies seems like a modern affectation.

On the surface this sounds like "postmodernism." I'm not sure what you mean. Truth is truth. Lies are untruth. Scripture sorts between the two in all the areas God believed we needed to know about. What He hasn't told us, we leave open, but we can also seek out truth and fairly well conclude what is and isn't true.

Our popular modern definition of the word "myth" means simply "untrue", a thing to be thrown away as useless; our ancestors gave the word "myth" a much deeper meaning.

Though I don't know this about my specific ancestors ( ), I think I can agree. "Myth" may be historically true or not. But either way, a good myth will show something true about our world, even if it is not literally true. Context matters.

- John Calvin wrote: "[...] the Bible is to be interpreted in view of the fact that it is an accommodation of Divine truths to human minds: God the infinite communicating with man the finite... We must be careful, then, not to push accommodating language about God and His nature to literal extremes. God does not have feathers and wings (e.g., Psalms 17:8); nor is He our literal Father in the same sense our earthly father is."

Great quote. At the same time, other theological factors preclude trying to force the creation narrative of Genesis to fit admittedly anti-God, outside-of-science notions of how the world and humans came to be.

- C. S. Lewis wasn't a fundamentalist. This can probably be best seen in Reflection On the Psalms, probably my favourite of his non-fiction. There's also an interesting chapter in The Problem of Pain called "The Fall of Man" where Lewis speculates on the Fall in light of (gasp!) human evolution.

Yep. Lewis Fail. He should have kept the alternative-creation imaginings to his fiction. And yet even he, in his fiction, speculated a literal Adam and Eve (cf. Perelandra). Moreover, though in Mere Christianity he argued that the streets of gold in Heaven simply couldn't be literal, he came much closer to reflecting Scripture's truth in The Last Battle by picturing a "New Heavens and New Narnia." (For our world, Scripture does not forecast merely Heaven, but a New Heavens and New Earth, as the universe where all God's people live forever.) It just goes to show how sometimes, deep down what we suspect to be true -- and even put into our creative works -- is sometimes more true than what we feel we Really Should believe, and what all the smart people say!

Again, Lewis was a master doctrine-wrangler and thinker not because of his false default acceptance of biological evolution, but in spite of it. God protects people from their own reducio ad absurdum. We can only be glad Lewis didn't spend a lot of time thinking about the contradictions. But we do know he explicitly rejected the philosophical foundations of evolution (as shown most clearly in the Ransom Trilogy). By now I'm sure he has it all straightened out, with help.

Indeed. I said earlier, how I felt that our ancestors understood myth so much better than we do. That's why, among other reasons, I think that the need to categorize things like the Creation narrative into either the Historically/Scientifically/Literally True Box or the dust bin is a modern affectation.

The trouble in this case is that historical narrative is exactly what we have in front of us. That's the genre of Genesis. We have the marks of historical narrative: genealogies, lifespans, geographic references, tables of nations, accounts of battles. You're barking up the wrong tree here because the genre of Genesis is not myth.

- John Calvin wrote: "[...] the Bible is to be interpreted in view of the fact that it is an accommodation of Divine truths to human minds: God the infinite communicating with man the finite... We must be careful, then, not to push accommodating language about God and His nature to literal extremes. God does not have feathers and wings (e.g., Psalms 17:8); nor is He our literal Father in the same sense our earthly father is."

You can't use this from Calvin as an illustration of your point: what Calvin is saying is that the language which God uses is our language and that all God-talk, at some point, breaks down because we are finite creatures talking about an infinite God. But it also has nothing to do with whether the history contained in Scripture is accurate as history. Calvin is commenting on the ancient debate over whether language about God is univocal or analogical.

I've never understood the hostility towards humans and chimps descending from a common ancestor.

Because in Scripture, man is described as a special creation.

This got busy in a hurry. I just address a few issues.

"Earth, center of the universe". Physically, the earth is not in the center of the universe. It's not the center of our galaxy. It's not the center of the solar system. But one thing all scientists are starting to realize is via the (I believe it's this one) the fine-tuning argument, that everything in the universe was made to support exclusively us. This is posing a lot of problems for atheistic evolution.

Dr. Ransom, though I agree that Kent Hovind did off the deep in that regard, his creation arguments are quite solid. Shows we are all human and have faults. But that's close to ad hominum and I think you know better.

Humans and apes with common ancestors: Got a lot on that. Yes, we are a special creation. That's one part. Here is the rest of it. What about Adam being formed from the dust and Eve from Adam's rib? If apes and humans had the same ancestor, that part of Scripture is junk. The 98% accuracy of the two DNA chains is only true for 2% of the chain. Needs to be better than that. The whole 'homology' argument is circular reasoning in the same way of using the word you are trying to define in your definition.

I can go on for hours here, but I need to be back to my book (writing).

his creation arguments are quite solid.

Some of them are, and some of them are just plain quackery -- enough in my view to disqualify him as a reliable source in creation discussions, I believe. Worse still is (was?) his independent streak, refusing even to discuss his plain scientific errors with others and allow him to be sharpened. Unfortunately that's common in some sectors of Christianity.

Some years ago, Answers in Genesis wrote a list of "Arguments We Think Creationists Should Not Use." That material is still available here. Oddly enough, Hovind used -- and presumably would still use -- many of those arguments. Yet according to a later article (since unavailable on the AiG site, and elsewhere too, it seems), Hovind wrote a long piece in which he took the AiG article personally and tried to write a rebuttal; AiG in turn easily counter-rebutted him, though with some regret, but with wisdom to see that allowing quack stuff to go on spreading does not benefit to the cause of the Gospel or of science.

Anyway, all this is definitely not a hill on which I would die. It's just a reminder of the recent history, and of the need to sharpen all arguments.

One thing I do know for certain. The only place the enemy wants us the most is isolated. He can take his time that way. I will admit I've not heard of Kent Hovind joining up with others for various issues. Even creationists, Dr. Charles Jackson of Creation Truth Foundation, doesn't agree with everything Hovind says, but he frequently asks believers to pray for him. Dr. Jackson reports that he's never seen anyone else debate three PhD atheist biologists at one time better. For me, with Kent Hovind, Dr. Jackson, Ken Ham, Hugh Ross, and all the others, I try to treat them as I do any preacher. "Let God's Word be the truth and every man a liar." I try to take only that which does not conflict with Scripture. As I am fallible myself, this is not easy, but that's the approach I try to take.

I absolutely agree with allowing our arguments to be tempered. The mind can do some amazing things like run off on a rabbit trail that has nothing to do with anything, or chase a goose that is not there. We need to surround ourselves with solid believers who are willing to step up and correct you. And that being said, you (me too) need to be humble enough to be teachable. Then God can use us not just in spite of our flaws but often through our flaws.

I think it also fair to mention that the issue of origins, interesting as it is, is only a tiny part of the Christian doctrine of creation.

TBG

While that is true, it is not a tiny part like you can take a piece of pie and it won't impact much. It is a part in the very foundation of the Christian faith. That little bit of clay in the iron at the feet can topple the whole statue. That's the reason I take the OEC/YEC/Evolution debate so seriously. How many interpret Genesis has by and large greatly impacted how they interpret the rest of Scripture, including the accounts of Christ. Those who take Genesis 1 a figurative, tend to take all of Genesis 1-11 as figurative and when it comes to Adam's sin, there is no play room. What Adam's sin impacted is what Christ's blood redeems. Paul makes that very clear. And most of the time, those who've proclaimed an OEC view have two different views on this. What Adam's sin impacted is different from what they believe Christ's blood redeems. If Adam's sin only affected his spirit, then Christ's blood only redeems the spirit. This is one of the reasons I can't accept OEC. I can't get OEC to wrap around that issue.

Most Christians around the world accept evolution and it doesn't seem to destroy their faith.

I'd be interested to hear your evidence for this last statement. You may be right that the majority of Christians today (that is, Christians in Korea, China, Africa, and Latin America) would believe evolution, but I would be careful in making this categorical statement.

Maybe "most" was too strong of a word, but they definitely are the majority. Here's my evidence: Statistics courtesy of Pew Forum.

58% of Catholics accept evolution.
54% of Orthodox accept evolution.
51% of Mainstream Protestants accept evolution.
24% of Evangelicals accept evolution.

Evangelicals only account for 300 million of the 2.3 billion Christians worldwide (according to this source), so they aren’t statistically big enough to counter the majorities in the other 3 major groups. The more powerful point, really, is that evolution is almost completely accepted by Christians in every developed country except the United States.

Or there’s this way of putting it: the number of Christians in the world that accept evolution is about the same as the number of Christians who believe in a Bible with only 66 books.

The evidence that we have is that organisms adapt biologically to changing conditions. The question is whether, over a significant enough period of time, complex organisms can mutate in a beneficial way that can be passed on to descendants.

We definitively know that that can happen, even amongst humans. For example, people in the village of Limone Sul Garda, Italy have a mutation which gives them better tolerance of HDL serum cholesterol. As a result, this family has no history of heart attacks despite their high-risk dietary habits. This mutation was traced to a single common ancestor living in the 1700's, but has now spread to dozens of descendants. Genetic samples from this family are now being tested for potential treatment of patients of heart disease. Another example of new variance is the Glycophorin A somatic cell mutation which has been identified in some Tibetans, which allows them to endure prolonged periods at altitudes over 7,000 feet without succumbing to apoplexia (altitude sickness). A similar mutation was found amongst the high altitude natives in the Andes. I think you get the gist. I could list dozens of examples, but I don’t want this to be a novel-length post.

While these changes are subtle, what they do show is examples of information being added to our DNA. Such an event is highly important, as creationists often think that we have never seen the emergence of new genetic information by natural processes. This is definitely false.

If one wants to see more dramatic change amongst living organisms, simply look at life that reproduces more rapidly. That is why bacteria are the best examples of evolution; their generations are so brief that we can observe significant microbial evolution within our lifetimes.

Even if we admit this premise, there still remain the challenges of proving a) that such processes happened in the past b) that humans are the result of such processes.

How are crime cases solved? In order to prove someone committed a crime in the past, one must look at the evidence left behind. It’s the same with macroevolution in the past. The fossil record shows a definite progression of more basic life forms from the Cambrian area branching off into all various sorts of life types and dying off in various mass extinctions, allowing for waves of amphibians, reptiles, and recently mammals to dominate the earth. Questioning carbon dating is trivial as it is only accurate up to 50,000 years. A dozen other different types of radiometric dating are used for longer time periods. Even if they’ve managed to rationalize the existence of dinosaurs, I would wonder what the YEC’s explanation is for all of the fossils of these creatures, and these, and these, and these, and these, and these. Did they ALL die due to the Great Flood or climate changes afterwards? Much of Noah’s valiant effort to save every living creature must’ve been in vain, then.

As for humans being a result of said process – what is one to make of h**o heidelbergensis, h**o erectus, h**o rhodesiensis, h**o floresiensis, h**o rhodesiensis, h**o habilis, & friends? There have been thousands of potential transitional fossil forms discovered that can connect humans and apes to their common ancestor. Wikipedia has an excellent chart of a couple dozen of the most notable finds.

Quite a bit of chronological snobbery, this: "maybe people needed this back when they were children, before science. But now we're grown-ups."

Yes, it's a modern fallacy to believe people in the distant past were primitive, even stupid. "We're much more intelligent and important because we got science". No.

You are only half right, Warrior. It’s a fallacy to think that people from a few thousand years ago were stupid. It’s not a fallacy to think that their worldviews were primitive compared to the ones we have now. I only ever stated the latter.

Dictionary definition of primitive: Relating to, denoting, or preserving an early stage in the historical development of something.

Here’s an example of what I mean: the ancient Greek mathematicians were truly excellent at what they did, and I have no doubt that they were incredibly smart. But they were also quite limited by the knowledge of the time. For instance, they didn’t have algebra so they tried to solve everything geometrically. Pythagoras couldn’t write his theorem out like a2 + b2 = c2. He would have to state it in words, “in a right triangle the square of the hypotenuse is equal to…” etc. Archimedes couldn’t use an infinite sum to approximate the value of pi. Instead, he spent years trying to find it by calculating the areas of many-sided polygons. Although we respect their ideas and some of the concepts they introduced us to, we would not teach many of their methods of math in a modern classroom.

I don’t think this is chronological snobbery at all. I fully accept that people centuries in the future will look at our current understanding of relativity and quantum mechanics as primitive. But those areas are at the cutting edge of science. The cosmological concepts in question from the Genesis narrative are things the human race nailed down long ago. The earth is not the center of the solar system, the sky is not a dome, and so on. These are things we have proven beyond a shadow of doubt and I don’t ever expect our species to retract those statements in the future.

But one thing all scientists are starting to realize is via the (I believe it's this one) the fine-tuning argument, that everything in the universe was made to support exclusively us. This is posing a lot of problems for atheistic evolution.

Everything in the universe? I haven't heard that before. Everything in the solar system might be just right for life on earth, but beyond that, celestial objects are rather irrelevant. The Andromeda galaxy and quasars don't affect our lives in the slightest, except giving our telescopes more things to look at.

I would think the exact opposite is happening. As we realize just how big the universe actually is, we are realizing just how many other planets there are. The existence of a couple quadrillion other planets seems to pose a lot of problems for the fine-tuning argument, not the other way around.

(By the way, does anyone know if [Kent Hovind]'s still in the federal clinker for coming up with "Biblical" reasons, contra the actual Bible, not to pay income taxes?)

He is indeed. He is scheduled for release from prison on August 11, 2015.

If the canopy theory causes problems, just try believing that God "created" via an evolutionary process including billions of years of death, suffering and disease, then pronouncing everything "very good," then blaming Adam and Eve for supposedly bringing death/suffering into the picture, and then not letting His people find out His "real" creative method until the last two centuries!

Heheh. That actually doesn’t sound totally implausible, given just how much God has let us discover how the universe really works in recent times. In the days of yore, it was common knowledge that diseases and ailments were the work of deities (and there is still one infamous Christian denomination that holds onto that belief to this day). I think most of us have gotten over worrying about committing sacrilege when praying to God that our sickness is cured, and then promptly going to the doctor.

I think it also fair to mention that the issue of origins, interesting as it is, is only a tiny part of the Christian doctrine of creation.

I agree with Fencer here, I think it’s very important because it sets a precedent. While the creation story may be somewhat frivolous in the grand scheme of things, the fall of Adam and Eve is definitely a fundamental part of the Christian doctrine. The whole reason we got started on this topic is because you mentioned evolution are something that you think is impossible to reconcile with your faith, since from your perspective it is saying that Adam and Eve never existed. Conversely, evolution is one of the fundamental parts of modern biology, and most scientists don’t think highly of certain Christian leaders telling layman left and right that evolution is a giant lie. It’s a definite point of friction that has emerged between the two camps, and a significant one.

Briefly on mutations: the issue is not as much whether mutations can be passed onto descendents, or even whether an organism can (in theory or in practice) have a "beneficial mutation." The issue is whether, in an organism, mutations add any new, original information. That's what you would need for evolution to work. It is required. But it has never been seen or observed. Only mutation through loss of genetic information has been observed, meaning the parent had more information, the child had less.

But all this is about the observable, testable present anyway. How the world and humans came to be is not even within the realm of science. No Christian should be intimidated by those who wrongly claim otherwise.

This also shows as irrelevant the observations about science's progress with disease diagnosis and so on; these are within the purview of actual testable, operational science, not origins beliefs. Furthermore, professing Christians who fell into mystical notions about demons, disease and such did so by adopting the pagan beliefs around them and becoming mystical and superstitious, and often also rejecting what Scripture actually said. If they'd paid attention to the Bible, they would not find evidence that all sicknesses are caused this way. Thus, I don't see how rejecting the Bible more — especially in favor of today's modern mystical ideas that "everyone knows" — will solve the problem!

Scripture purports to give a testimony of One Who not only witnessed the event and recorded an alleged history, but initiated that event. Either accept it or reject it, but if you're a Christian, there is no need to feel such pressure from those who reject Christianity and substitute "science."

Again:

operational science: diagnoses diseases, makes smartphones, launches rockets, and so on, all based on the present and exercise of the scientific method.

origins "science": un-observable, un-testable beliefs about the past, with attempts to find evidence to fit these presuppositions.

Both "evolutionists" and "creationists" believe in the first kind of science proper. There is no distinction there; that's why it's silly to bring up "creationists believe in a flat Earth" kind of "reasoning." Yet both also fall into that second category: neither is "more scientific" than the other when it comes to origins, because the question is outside of science proper. The only difference is that Christians have the Word of One Who claims to have witnessed and initiated the creation. They put their faith in this Word as authentic. Others do not have this word. But they put their religious faith just as eagerly in the words of other humans.

I agree with TBG that origins, science, debates and all that are only one fruit of Biblical creation belief. Perhaps the more crucial truth and beauty that grows from this Story is that this means the Creator owns us. And that, really, is the root of attempts to deny Him.

(EDIT a couple of hours later ...)

My, how very timely.

Oh, boy where do I start on this one.

First off, appeal to majority. The majority has been wrong a great number of times. In Jeremiah, he was the ONLY prophet that got the message that the Exile was going to be for a long time. EVERYONE else thought it was going to be short. I just talked in my Bible study this morning about the history of 'old age of the earth' and how it got into the church. It began in Europe 200 years ago, before Darwin, went to the seminaries and spread from there. It was an attack on the authority of Scripture, starting in Genesis (Charles Lyell deliberately used misinterpreted data about Niagara Falls to demonstrate the earth was older than the 6000 years that it teaches). As I mentioned before, put some clay into the foundation, the whole things starts to topple. I'm going to be very blunt here (and I'm going to further research the details of this), the origins of evolution and OEC (along with TE and the other variations) were not providing an alternative view of Genesis but a blatant attack on the authority of Scripture.

On your example of 'beneficial' mutations. They are only beneficial in that particular situation and setting. Take them outside that situation, that mutation definitely becomes dangerous. This is not NEW information. It's distorted original information. It was there to begin with. And to take the leap of faith (and it's a major one) to say 'add up' little mutations here and there over long periods of time, eventually we'll get a new species, is truly....I don't have the right word to describe it. What evolution never says is that each generation in between MUST survive with these 'gradual changes'. The changes are instant. Once the egg and sperm meet and the genes mix, it's a done deal. That creature has what it takes to survive or it doesn't. The idea that fist became land animals is impossible. The gill breathing system and lung breathing system must each work completely. No room for intermediate steps. If the system doesn't work for a matter of minutes, the creature dies.

Fossil record: Knowing the history of what I've seen 'modern' paleontologists do, I have major questions. I read an article a while back (I don't remember where it was) that indicated strongly that there are actually only about 1/3 of dinosaur species that we have 'identified' today. The other 2/3 were young versions of the adults or ones that didn't grow as big. There is a whole lot assumed about these creatures when the only evidence we have is bones.

Missing links: The humans ones you gave are all humans. Not half-human, half-monkey, all 100% human. Aborigines were slaughtered so their skulls could be used to demonstrate human evolution. There is more genetic diversity within the major human races of Caucasian, Hispanic, Asian, African, Native American, etc, than there is between the 'races'.

Ancient Knowledge and Technology: No we wouldn't use their methods of teaching as we do today. But they knew how to do stuff we can't do today. We still don't know how the pyramids were built. Yes, we would do things differently but that doesn't make them 'less advanced'. We can't build roads or buildings that will last 2000 years or more. We have a hard enough time getting them to last 50 years.

Fine-tuning: This is why a little clay in the foundation really messes things up. Genesis 1. Day 4. God made the sun, moon, and stars to be signs of the times and guides. Before compasses and GPS, how did people navigate? They used the stars. The stars were also the tool God used to tell the Magi that the Messiah had come. They knew from Daniel's prophecy when to be looking, but they knew from watching the sky. A lot more useful than just mere 'artwork' to look at. These views that we get don't happen anywhere else. From another planet, all the stars would look differently.

I've frequently heard the argument that evolution is to biology as gravity is to physics. That is simply not true. A lot of the discoveries we've made in biology have no bearing whatsoever on evolution being the foundation. In fact, the more we learn about biology, the more evolution comes into question. DNA is a major stumbling block to evolution. Homology (the idea that common features came from a common ancestor, and one of the most important foundational pillars to evolution) is a self-circulating definition. We have no way to actually prove anything is homologous. We only get the scientists' word. Even if there were authentic 'missing links' (not one has survived being debunked), there is still no actual linkage between the species, such as DNA changes. Apes to humans have 98% similarity but only in 2% of the chain. DNA self-repairs, which is another blow to evolution.

In reality, I don't care what 'most' scientists think. The Christians leaders who say this also don't care. What do they care about? They care about what the Bible says? If the Bible says 6 days, and he made it in billions of years, then someone is lying. Where I find OEC to be most dangerous is not their interpretation of the Genesis Day, but how and why they make that interpretation. Do we judge Scripture and determine what it says or does Scripture judge us? It should never be 'what can we glean from Scripture'. It should always be, "God what are you telling us?". I'm not YEC because I want to believe in the 24-hour interpretation. I'm YEC because I believe that the Bible is the ultimate authority. When a conflict arises, the Bible is the trump card. The only thing that can interpret the Bible is the Bible in the same way only diamond can scratch diamond. I will not let 'modern science' tell me what the Bible says. The Bible is not a science book but it is scientifically sound. Evolution is NOT science. It poses as science and most people have fallen into the trap of "if you don't believe in evolution, you don't believe in science". I am a scientist by degree and certified to teach physics. I know science. Evolution convolutes the actual science from the interpretation. Evolution can't tell the two apart. I can and so can many others. The real reason evolution is still around is because the only alternative right now is Biblical creation. The two are truly incompatible. I've got a lot more on this as well, but I too don't want to write a novel right now.

To me a possible answer is the idea of relationship. Maybe that's why verses like Jer. 29:11 and Isaiah 43:2 speak to me, and apparently to a lot of other people.

(2a) When thou passest through the waters, I [will be] with thee ...

(11) For I know the plans that I have for you, plans to help you and not to harm you, to give you hope and a future.

Just a thought.

I really don't get the idea of "relationship". I hear it all the time from Christians (especially those of an evangelical or charismatic background) who say, "Oh, yes, I have this wonderful relationship with God". What do they mean by it? Do they have a constant two-way telepathic conversation with him? Often they will say, "He speaks to me through his Word." What they seem to do in practice is to pick short Biblical texts at random (often using some kind of daily reading notes) and then try and make whatever it says fit their present situation or something they're bothered about. To me, it seems like they're using the Bible as a Christianised version of a horoscope, not learning what it says in context.

I've been like that myself - thirty years ago I was the keen evangelical teenager, buoyed along by a large university Christian Union. But as I've grown older I've found that kind of faith to be too shallow. I now get quite angry when (presumably) well-meaning, but insufferably smug, Christians say, "God's got a plan for your life." When many things, including most major life decisions, haven't worked out, you can't be blamed for thinking that God's plans for you are to make you unhappy, take away all hope and at the end of it all, to send you to everlasting torture.

I would love to have a genuine relationship with a loving God. But I'm now rather cynical about ever finding it; and, having worn the proverbial T-shirt, I'm also somewhat cynical about those who claim they have.

To me relationships need to have the element of trust. It helps us resist the apathy, revenge, and other impulses that flow from bad experiences and thwarted hopes and dreams. But I agree that trust with He Whom we have not seen can be hard to develop. It's hard enough trusting and being trusted by the people right in front of us. But just as the Greeks said, "Call no man happy until he is dead" -- because where there's life there can be reversals -- I would say don't give up, because there could be reversals for the better too. Not in the way that makes you (and me) want to smack people, but more in the sense of "please soldier on, you are not alone."

And I agree there are some smug believers out there. Some of them seem to me to be drinking spiritual milk when I'm looking for spiritual jerky. Dick Staub wrote a book called Too Christian, Too Pagan in which he describes how he transitioned from a "don't-ask-don't-tell" Christian with mealy-mouthed platitudes & attitudes into a "type A, goal-oriented, management by objective Christian" with supremely confident platitudes & attitudes.

Given our evangelistic zeal, we can view people as targets for our efforts instead of relating to them as fellow humans created in God’s image. We are embarrassingly capable of becoming ministry machines, clustering people into categories and then intentionally organizing our time with them to accomplish our purposes.

This happened to me early in my life with Jesus. After starting as a “don’t ask, don’t tell” Christian, I swung to the other extreme and became totally calculating and strategic in my passion to share Jesus with my friends. As presumptuous as it sounds, I would invite people for dinner and then prior to their arrival would think through where they were in their walk and where they should be. I would then develop communication goals for the evening. The joy of relationships became dulled by the obsessive-compulsiveness of a well-intentioned but misdirected Christian. Eventually I realized that relationships are spontaneous and grow out of the serendipity of long, aimless stretches of time with another human. I then understood that a calculating and mission-driven Christian often is not a very good friend at all.

Plus, their interpretation of "God's plan for your life" sometimes means "thou shalt attend my personal church because we really need to grow our numbers."

Plus, their breath smells like "milk."

So I won't pretend I know everything; in fact I'm probably a lot better off than I was when I knew everything. [In the bumper-sticker definition, that is: "Teenagers! Move out of your parents' basements now, while you still know everything!"] It's what we learn after we know everything that counts, perhaps.

Interestingly in Judaism all copies of the Talmud begin on Page Two. The idea is that everyone knows a little about God before they begin to study. Simultaneously, since God did so much already on Page One, no student will ever know it all. I rather like that interpretation and would like to see Christian Bibles starting the page numbers on Two. It's like saying that it's okay that we don't have all the answers, and a subtle swat toward those who act as if they do.

Not quite sure I'd agree with everything in this article, but I like the metaphor of faith and Scripture as the means to learn to fly a plane by instruments in times when flying by eyesight will fail.

I'm sorry I came to the discussion so late, and I'm afraid I'll have to skip out early. I'll be offline for some weeks for a little situation I have to take care of. Wish you all on NarniaWeb a blessed summer, and eat some ice cream for me.

I really don't get the idea of "relationship". I hear it all the time from Christians (especially those of an evangelical or charismatic background) who say, "Oh, yes, I have this wonderful relationship with God". What do they mean by it? Do they have a constant two-way telepathic conversation with him? Often they will say, "He speaks to me through his Word." What they seem to do in practice is to pick short Biblical texts at random (often using some kind of daily reading notes) and then try and make whatever it says fit their present situation or something they're bothered about. To me, it seems like they're using the Bible as a Christianised version of a horoscope, not learning what it says in context.

Sounds like you've run into the wrong kind of Christians. If the people you know do what you say they do, I don't think they get the idea of "relationship" either. If someone claims to have a constant telepathic conversation, or twists scripture to try to make it mean what they want it to mean, you can know right there that something is definitely fishy.

But as I've grown older I've found that kind of faith to be too shallow.

Good for you. Some people see their parents or friends in that kind of religious life, think it's the right way, and wrongly cling to it.

I now get quite angry when (presumably) well-meaning, but insufferably smug, Christians say, "God's got a plan for your life." When many things, including most major life decisions, haven't worked out, you can't be blamed for thinking that God's plans for you are to make you unhappy, take away all hope and at the end of it all, to send you to everlasting torture.

A lot of people get confused about the "God having a plan for your life" thing. They take it to mean that God will make sure things go the way you want, or as a guaranteed "happily ever after" in this life. This present life on earth wasn't made for happiness. And the Bible tells people -- including God's people -- that life will be filled with suffering. Just because things are going horribly, that doesn't undo the "God has a plan" bit. The "having a plan" bit only means that God will make sure certain events happen -- no one said you would like those events. One of the main purposes Christians are on this earth is to be shaped on the inside. And shaping is often done through events in our life. Suffering often makes us bitter; but after we go through the bitterness and work through it, we often come out as being better than we were to begin with. And some events aren't to shape us, but rather to further other events. Everything is so connected. When one thing happens, it causes something else to happen which causes something else to happen, etc. Like a giant puzzle, or dominoes falling in a line. When you see one event, you might not like it; but if you could see the whole picture, you would see that that one event is just a small but very vital piece of the whole.

Also, never assume you're going to Hell. If someone dies unsaved, then yes they'll go to Hell. But you're not dead yet. Instead, you're asking questions and saying things about how you wish you could have a relationship with God. You might not have all your questions answered yet, or feel ready yet, but I'd still say there's quite a bit of hope.

As for what a "relationship" with God actually is, it certainly isn't that constant two-way conversation you mentioned earlier. Finding a way to describe it is a bit difficult, though, and I'm sure the people who post besides me will do a much better job. But I'll give it a try. When you become a Christian, for one thing, God sends His Spirit inside of you. Not only does this make you a new person (over time), but it can also (over time) let you know that God is with you. You become kind of aware of His presence in your life. Not some creepy looking over your shoulder thing. Just an assurance that you're not alone in the world and that He's taking care of things, making sure things turn out the way they're supposed to (whether it's something you'll like or dislike at the time is another matter). I think a relationship also means that, when you have a problem, you take it to God in prayer. Instead of viewing prayer as just a religious ceremony or something you do to make your parents happy, it becomes (over time) an actual personal thing you want to do, because you know God is real, you know He's listening, and you want to tell Him something.

I would love to have a genuine relationship with a loving God. But I'm now rather cynical about ever finding it; and, having worn the proverbial T-shirt, I'm also somewhat cynical about those who claim they have.

A natural reaction to spending time with Christians who abuse their religion. I've been there as well. I hope you'll give God a chance, and not let them spoil it for you.

~Riella

We definitively know that that can happen, even amongst humans. For example, people in the village of Limone Sul Garda, Italy have a mutation which gives them better tolerance of HDL serum cholesterol.

This seems to be a mutation in the same sense that the gene for red hair is a mutation or in the sense that darker skin is a mutation. We seem to be operating on a rather trivial definition of what constitutes a mutation here.

Maybe "most" was too strong of a word, but they definitely are the majority. Here's my evidence: Statistics courtesy of Pew Forum.

Interesting that (yet again) you are basing the assertion off of Christian opinion in a western nation (Pew Forum only conducted the survey within the United States).

I would wonder what the YEC’s explanation is for all of the fossils of these creatures, and these, and these, and these, and these, and these. Did they ALL die due to the Great Flood or climate changes afterwards? Much of Noah’s valiant effort to save every living creature must’ve been in vain, then.

And rather beside the point. Explanation of data, like the fossil record, depends, almost entirely, on what your preconceived notions are what theoretical framework you are using.

Just out of curiosity, what are the defeaters for the theory of evolution? That is, what evidence (given current discoveries) would have to arise to disprove it?

It’s not a fallacy to think that their worldviews were primitive compared to the ones we have now. I only ever stated the latter.

Dictionary definition of primitive: Relating to, denoting, or preserving an early stage in the historical development of something.

If this is all you mean, then your point is a tautology. What you really mean, however, is that developments from the primitive are always to be preferred---that there can be no regression. That is to say, when you call a theory "primitive" what you mean is that we no longer ought to believe it because we're more grown up than that now. Don't discount a theory just because it's old or because many scientists doubt it.

I don’t think this is chronological snobbery at all. I fully accept that people centuries in the future will look at our current understanding of relativity and quantum mechanics as primitive. But those areas are at the cutting edge of science. The cosmological concepts in question from the Genesis narrative are things the human race nailed down long ago. The earth is not the center of the solar system, the sky is not a dome, and so on. These are things we have proven beyond a shadow of doubt and I don’t ever expect our species to retract those statements in the future.

You don't, but they could. The Genesis narrative does, indeed, describe things phenomenologically (as you do---I've never witnessed an earth-turn, but I've witnessed many beautiful sunsets).

I agree with Fencer here, I think it’s very important because it sets a precedent. While the creation story may be somewhat frivolous in the grand scheme of things, the fall of Adam and Eve is definitely a fundamental part of the Christian doctrine. The whole reason we got started on this topic is because you mentioned evolution are something that you think is impossible to reconcile with your faith, since from your perspective it is saying that Adam and Eve never existed.

That's not what I was saying at all: I was pointing out that questions of young-earth, old-earth, and evolutionary creationism are a small part of the doctrine of creation that all Christians believe. I would say even that they are irrelevant to the existence of Adam and Eve.

"Oh, yes, I have this wonderful relationship with God". What do they mean by it?

That they experience God's presence in their life and see themselves as creatures in relation to God rather than as autonomous individuals. When I make this claim, I mean that I am united to Christ and am therefore invited to fellowship with God at His table. One might even go so far to say that because the Son of God became man and suffered for man, men are now able to commune with the Father and the Holy Spirit as the Son does.

I understand what you are saying and am attempting to communicate what it's like, but the fact is that this language is the only kind I can use to describe it and it's hard for an outsider looking in to understand how it feels. Imagine, for a moment that I can't see the colour red: how would you describe redness to me?

I've been like that myself - thirty years ago I was the keen evangelical teenager, buoyed along by a large university Christian Union. But as I've grown older I've found that kind of faith to be too shallow. I now get quite angry when (presumably) well-meaning, but insufferably smug, Christians say, "God's got a plan for your life." When many things, including most major life decisions, haven't worked out, you can't be blamed for thinking that God's plans for you are to make you unhappy, take away all hope and at the end of it all, to send you to everlasting torture.

I understand this very well. This is the plight of the Psalmist who says:

My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?
Why are you so far from saving me, from the words of my groaning?
O my God, I cry by day, but you do not answer,
and by night, but I find no rest.
Yet you are holy,
enthroned on the praises of Israel.
In you our fathers trusted;
they trusted, and you delivered them.
To you they cried and were rescued;
in you they trusted and were not put to shame.
But I am a worm and not a man,
scorned by mankind and despised by the people.
All who see me mock me;
they make mouths at me; they wag their heads;
“He trusts in the Lord; let him deliver him;
let him rescue him, for he delights in him!”

Or consider Job: who in a day lost his wealth, his family, and his health, and even his friends turned against him, condemning him for sin that he had not committed.

But here is what God asked of Job and what he asks of us: that we trust Him even when we suffer and don't understand why. He asks that we trust that He has a plan for our good and as a surety and promise, He offers nothing less than Himself, broken, bleeding, and dying. Cut off from everyone and everything---nothing to comfort Him.

He was despised and rejected by men;
a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief;
and as one from whom men hide their faces
he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
Surely he has borne our griefs
and carried our sorrows;
yet we esteemed him stricken,
smitten by God, and afflicted.

And then He rose from the dead and in doing so, the spell was broken. For the people of God, death and suffering have no more power. As the poet George Herbert wrote:

RISE heart ; thy Lord is risen. Sing his praise
Without delayes,
Who takes thee by the hand, that thou likewise
With him mayst rise :
That, as his death calcined thee to dust,
His life may make thee gold, and much more just.

In the life of every Christian, there are times when God seems distant and where everything that he does seems fruitless, and suffering comes. These times are when our faith is tested to see what it's made of. In these times, I find it incredibly difficult to believe that God has a plan and can bring good out of so much suffering and evil. I look at the world and see a creation groaning for the recovery of Shalom, of true peace and reconciliation between God and men. Yet, with Job, I can declare that "I know that my redeemer liveth."

I don't know your specific situation and can't address it as such. But I will say this: I understand doubt. I'm a professional and temperamental skeptic and there are many times when I question my own faith. But I still have it because faith is the transcendence of doubt. It is the ability to believe despite unanswered questions---it means the ability to question even while believing.

I'll close here with a quote from St. Anselm of Canterbury:

Teach me to seek thee, and reveal thyself to me, when I seek thee, for I cannot seek thee, except thou teach me, nor find thee, except thou reveal thyself. Let me seek thee in longing, let me long for thee in seeking; let me find thee in love, and love thee in finding. Lord, I acknowledge and I thank thee that thou hast created me in this thine image, in order that I may be mindful of thee, may conceive of thee, and love thee; but that image has been so consumed and wasted away by vices, and obscured by the smoke of wrong-doing, that it cannot achieve that for which it was made, except thou renew it, and create it anew. I do not endeavor, O Lord, to penetrate thy sublimity, for in no wise do I compare my understanding with that; but I long to understand in some degree thy truth, which my heart believes and loves. For I do not seek to understand that I may believe, but I believe in order to understand. For this also I believe,—that unless I believed, I should not understand.

TBG

EDIT: was that overly cerebral or was it helpful?

- The need to categorize things into literal truth and lies seems like a modern affectation.

On the surface this sounds like "postmodernism." I'm not sure what you mean. Truth is truth. Lies are untruth. Scripture sorts between the two in all the areas God believed we needed to know about. What He hasn't told us, we leave open, but we can also seek out truth and fairly well conclude what is and isn't true.

What I mean is this:

Our culture treats something like the Seven Day Creation as either literally true (if you could, somehow go back 6,000 years, you would see the universe taking shape over seven 24-hour periods) or, if we decide we can't believe that, we throw it away as useless. We almost never consider that it might be a metaphor/myth (in the old sense). It's like what you said about me not needing to bother with Isaiah as if I'm picking and choosing what I like from the Bible, but I'm not (I know you acknowledged that this wasn't what I was doing, so thanks for that ). I haven't thrown the Creation account away. I still accept it as God's Word, but I question whether it happened exactly the way it said. Does it need to?

But I need to point this out: If someone thinks it's not important to figure this out, or that somehow Godless "science" and the Bible can mesh, then I need to warn them not to think about it too much. Here's why. If you think about it too much, you'll get a headache. How could God take millions/billions of years to "create" and yet fault Adam and Eve for bringing sin and suffering and death into the world? How could He call this creation "very good"? As The Black Glove pointed out, how can we possibly view Adam as a historical, literal figure on whom the whole concept of Christ the "last Adam" is founded? What have we to anticipate in the restored Creation, when Creation from the beginning was full of death, disease, and destruction (as shown in all fossils!)?

When one starts questioning all that, one is believing in Scripture and the Gospel in spite of one's inconsistent belief about a supposed "theistic evolution" origin of the world and man. That's why I warn people, if they want to go that direction, not to think about it that much.

But I hate saying that! By contrast, someone who delves into both 1) the inevitable conclusions of the Biblical literature/historical record of Genesis and their implications for Scripture's Story, 2) the absurd results of when people try to impose anti-God, Biblical-ignoring conceptions of "science" to mean un-observable, untestable events, one can do a lot of thinking and will find consistency in belief. But, one will also find plenty of howling laughter and even unprofessional behavior from anti-God activists who don't want their "science" messed with. So take your pick.

Heh. You're right. It will give you a headache. It's still something I like to specualte about (I may post my current theory later), but I it isn't something I stress about. I'm not a very scientifically inclined person. Most doubts I have are of a more philosophical nature.

- According to N. T. Wright, the literal vs. metaphorical debate is almost exclusively American. At any rate, it doesn't sound like it's a serious debate in England.

Well, that doesn't make them better or worse, now does it? It only means they have a unique cultural background, different issues to debate, or are naive.

True, true. I still think it's interesting that such a mare's nest for us is virtually unthought of for them.

- John Calvin wrote: "[...] the Bible is to be interpreted in view of the fact that it is an accommodation of Divine truths to human minds: God the infinite communicating with man the finite... We must be careful, then, not to push accommodating language about God and His nature to literal extremes. God does not have feathers and wings (e.g., Psalms 17:8); nor is He our literal Father in the same sense our earthly father is."

Great quote. At the same time, other theological factors preclude trying to force the creation narrative of Genesis to fit admittedly anti-God, outside-of-science notions of how the world and humans came to be.

That's a little harsh on scientists isn't it? I don't see (most) scientists as trying to prove Christianity wrong or distorting their evidence to serve their ends. They're just reporting what they see and trying to figure out how the universe works on their own steam.

The trouble in this case is that historical narrative is exactly what we have in front of us. That's the genre of Genesis. We have the marks of historical narrative: genealogies, lifespans, geographic references, tables of nations, accounts of battles. You're barking up the wrong tree here because the genre of Genesis is not myth.

Is it though? I recently read The Iliad (and admittedly didn't finish it, though I plan to ) and it was full of "useless" information (as far as telling the story went). Ancestry and the like. Not to mention detailed, detailed accounts of the battles - the details actually became tedious (much like some parts of the Bible can be).

You can't use this from Calvin as an illustration of your point: what Calvin is saying is that the language which God uses is our language and that all God-talk, at some point, breaks down because we are finite creatures talking about an infinite God. But it also has nothing to do with whether the history contained in Scripture is accurate as history. Calvin is commenting on the ancient debate over whether language about God is univocal or analogical.

I'm not sure I see why I can't use this quote. How God created the universe must be so far out of our mental playing field (we can't even conceptualize in our minds how big the universe is) that it wouldn't at all surprise me if He communicated it to us through a myth like this. This is big stuff.

I've never understood the hostility towards humans and chimps descending from a common ancestor.

Because in Scripture, man is described as a special creation.

I don't see why man couldn't still be special (we're the only creatures I know to create art, worship God, enjoy beauty etc.). Like I pointed out earlier, in Genesis man and the beast were both made out of dust. Man was bestowed with consciousness.