Why I oppose the slippery slope argument against non-literal seven day creationism:
This is not meant to argue for or against literal seven-day creationism. It is merely meant to say that the slippery slope argument needs to be kept not in fear of a dispute between scripture and science (as the truth and observable truth do not have to conflict), but should be expressed with recognition of the various ways that God is revealed in this universe and a willingness to match science with science or consider the facts around it. I was listening to an argument on the radio about creationism the other day also was also seeking to be able to put into words why this is something I feel strongly about.
The fact that we believe the Bible comes down to personal experience, reasons outside of the Bible, or a circular reasoning that it is true because the Bible says it is true. (While after establishing the validity of the Scripture, a scripture says so reason is thus affirmed, beforehand, this is insufficient to stand on its own.) Feelings can lie, so a reason that it feels right doesn’t entirely stand on its own. An external validation does hold water, because God demonstrates His promises at times in our lives and with scientific/archeological evidence of what has happened. Even out cannon of scripture was decided by people (though after a lot of prayer and analysis). Thus the Bible that we have today is not established simply by the Bible but also by outside sources that also validate its authority.
I am a firm believer in the fact that the Bible reflects the absolute truth of the universe as a very pure, by virtue of being God’s word, revelation of this absolute truth in which we exist. I also believe that we can observe aspects of truth in God’s creation and that our minds were given to use for a reason beyond memorization and basic survival practices. Archeology has confirmed aspects of history from the Bible and science has helped prove a major flood with anthropologically verifiable stories across the world of a great flood. Luke was a doctor and this took scientific study to practice. Science was not condemned in scripture. The heaven’s declare the glory of the Lord and even the rocks would cry out if we did not worship God. The same science that suggests that the world might not have been created in 24 hours periods also indicates that there was only one Eve originally.
To me, the same person that says that we must believe only a literal interpretation of some things in contradiction to scientific observation also denies the gifts that God has given us. It also denies things that prove scripture right, and seems to suggest a circular reasoning that seems almost fearful of any observation that truth may not fit with one’s own preconceptions. The dispute this better would be to offer scientific and social science/humanities evidence for a literal seven-day, 24-hour creation. Otherwise, this offers its own slippery slope that we deny basic observations about God and risks blinding us to new understandings about God and how He interacts in the world.
Further, it offends me because I have seriously considered walking away from God and found my reason to stay. The Gospel is the high point of God’s self-revelation to us, a savior referred to in history, predicted and fulfilled in scripture, and evidently needed when considering the state of mankind and my own heart. There is so much that I would have to deny before making such a painful choice of leaving the only thing I know to give any hope for my soul and make my life anything but arbitrary or hopeless that to suggest such a thing is to impose a deeply painful idea into my mind by virtue of something rarely spoken of beyond the first couple chapters of Genesis and that to me also holds little/no consequence to the Gospel as my own understanding of creation still goes back to God and his perfect plan for us. I think this is what most makes this an emotional subject for me. I cannot so easily walk away from the only savior I have ever known and such would truly be as a knife to my heart. To say otherwise shows you do not know me or it denies who I am.
This is not meant to argue for or against literal seven-day creationism. It is merely meant to say that the slippery slope argument needs to be kept not in fear of a dispute between scripture and science (as the truth and observable truth do not have to conflict), but should be expressed with recognition of the various ways that God is revealed in this universe and a willingness to match science with science or consider the facts around it. I was listening to an argument on the radio about creationism the other day also was also seeking to be able to put into words why this is something I feel strongly about.
The fact that we believe the Bible comes down to personal experience, reasons outside of the Bible, or a circular reasoning that it is true because the Bible says it is true. (While after establishing the validity of the Scripture, a scripture says so reason is thus affirmed, beforehand, this is insufficient to stand on its own.) Feelings can lie, so a reason that it feels right doesn’t entirely stand on its own. An external validation does hold water, because God demonstrates His promises at times in our lives and with scientific/archeological evidence of what has happened. Even out cannon of scripture was decided by people (though after a lot of prayer and analysis). Thus the Bible that we have today is not established simply by the Bible but also by outside sources that also validate its authority.
I am a firm believer in the fact that the Bible reflects the absolute truth of the universe as a very pure, by virtue of being God’s word, revelation of this absolute truth in which we exist. I also believe that we can observe aspects of truth in God’s creation and that our minds were given to use for a reason beyond memorization and basic survival practices. Archeology has confirmed aspects of history from the Bible and science has helped prove a major flood with anthropologically verifiable stories across the world of a great flood. Luke was a doctor and this took scientific study to practice. Science was not condemned in scripture. The heaven’s declare the glory of the Lord and even the rocks would cry out if we did not worship God. The same science that suggests that the world might not have been created in 24 hours periods also indicates that there was only one Eve originally.
To me, the same person that says that we must believe only a literal interpretation of some things in contradiction to scientific observation also denies the gifts that God has given us. It also denies things that prove scripture right, and seems to suggest a circular reasoning that seems almost fearful of any observation that truth may not fit with one’s own preconceptions. The dispute this better would be to offer scientific and social science/humanities evidence for a literal seven-day, 24-hour creation. Otherwise, this offers its own slippery slope that we deny basic observations about God and risks blinding us to new understandings about God and how He interacts in the world.
Further, it offends me because I have seriously considered walking away from God and found my reason to stay. The Gospel is the high point of God’s self-revelation to us, a savior referred to in history, predicted and fulfilled in scripture, and evidently needed when considering the state of mankind and my own heart. There is so much that I would have to deny before making such a painful choice of leaving the only thing I know to give any hope for my soul and make my life anything but arbitrary or hopeless that to suggest such a thing is to impose a deeply painful idea into my mind by virtue of something rarely spoken of beyond the first couple chapters of Genesis and that to me also holds little/no consequence to the Gospel as my own understanding of creation still goes back to God and his perfect plan for us. I think this is what most makes this an emotional subject for me. I cannot so easily walk away from the only savior I have ever known and such would truly be as a knife to my heart. To say otherwise shows you do not know me or it denies who I am.
