I believe in a young earth literal creation narrative of Genesis 1. Thus, God made life on the Third Day with plants.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Christian Apologetics: Knowing Our Enemy Called the Scientific Worldview
- Thread starter Steven Yeadon
- Start date
I believe in a young earth literal creation narrative of Genesis 1. Thus, God made life on the Third Day with plants.
I respectfully disagree.
Also, I have almost a Masters in Theology, so this is the kind of stuff I am expected to write and research at this point in my academic career. At least if I want a good grade. I was also an atheist who believed strongly in the superiority of science and secularism, before I became a Believer. So, I do have a lot of personal experience with secular thought.
Science is a tool of epistemology for elements of the material world. It is certainly not the only tool, but it is a very good one.
That's your imagination or a presupposition that you are imposing on me.
Nowhere have I claimed such a thing.
That's fair, but I think you hold too low a view of science. Science is quite useful. Modern medicine, sanitation, and technology are obvious benefits.
You are misusing science is you trying to do theology with it, and you are misusing the Bible if you try to do science with it. Saying that does not demean either, but it is simply an appropriate use of epistemological tools.
I messed up my definition of what we are discussing. The "scientific worldview" I refer to is in fact "secular humanism." I'm sorry. My proper title should be:
Christian Apologetics: Knowing Our Enemy Called Secular Humanism
So, I must now ask, have I done a good job describing Secular Humanism? Is purposely going on the offensive against belief systems held by others a good thing?
Something this experience of bad labeling has taught me, is that secular humanism is the easiest perspective to pick up in America. It is the unspoken baseline. I now realize, with a proper definition, that I have had to struggle against the grain to hold any differing viewpoint than secular humanism for years.
Is this last paragraph accurate in your view?
Christian Apologetics: Knowing Our Enemy Called Secular Humanism
So, I must now ask, have I done a good job describing Secular Humanism? Is purposely going on the offensive against belief systems held by others a good thing?
Something this experience of bad labeling has taught me, is that secular humanism is the easiest perspective to pick up in America. It is the unspoken baseline. I now realize, with a proper definition, that I have had to struggle against the grain to hold any differing viewpoint than secular humanism for years.
Is this last paragraph accurate in your view?
RighteousnessTemperance&
Well-Known Member
Regardless of whatever it is you are trying to achieve here, I offer the following excerpt from this link (https://www.aaas.org/page/what-scientism), because it offers a clear contrast between science and scientism that might be helpful to others who seem confused. Too often, when some people say “science” they are actually referring to scientism, but the obfuscation serves their purposes. You can see this among both theists and non-theists. Christians need to be aware of this, and able to discern when someone is doing it.
Scientism, on the other hand, is a speculative worldview about the ultimate reality of the universe and its meaning. Despite the fact that there are millions of species on our planet, scientism focuses an inordinate amount of its attention on human behavior and beliefs. Rather than working within carefully constructed boundaries and methodologies established by researchers, it broadly generalizes entire fields of academic expertise and dismisses many of them as inferior. With scientism, you will regularly hear explanations that rely on words like “merely”, “only”, “simply”, or “nothing more than”. Scientism restricts human inquiry.
It is one thing to celebrate science for its achievements and remarkable ability to explain a wide variety of phenomena in the natural world. But to claim there is nothing knowable outside the scope of science would be similar to a successful fisherman saying that whatever he can’t catch in his nets does not exist (15). Once you accept that science is the only source of human knowledge, you have adopted a philosophical position (scientism) that cannot be verified, or falsified, by science itself. It is, in a word, unscientific.
It is one thing to celebrate science for its achievements and remarkable ability to explain a wide variety of phenomena in the natural world. But to claim there is nothing knowable outside the scope of science would be similar to a successful fisherman saying that whatever he can’t catch in his nets does not exist (15). Once you accept that science is the only source of human knowledge, you have adopted a philosophical position (scientism) that cannot be verified, or falsified, by science itself. It is, in a word, unscientific.
Reading the entire article might prove useful, especially for anyone who needs more clarity.
Hello Steven,
Human worship is what I think you're trying to get at. Humans are the gods and it is up to humans to make the world a better place, make humans behave appropriately to one another, and build societies and monuments to the greatness of humans. Anything humans do should be attributed to the hard work, dedication, and ability of humans. Humans should do what they think is right and feels good because humans are the best arbiters of right and wrong.
I don't use many fancy words, but is this what you are trying to get at?
You seem to be concerned with atheism. Atheists are idiots. Doesn't the Bible say so? That being said atheists aren't really the problem. Humans turn against God despite knowing he exists. After God parted the Red Sea, did the Jews doubt that God existed when they built the idol? Did Adam and Eve doubt the existence of God?
Humans don't need atheism to reject God. Humans don't need science to reject God. Humans rejected God well before the Hypothesis of Evolution or The Big Bang Hypothesis. People who blame science for people's rejection of God are like Adam pointing the finger at Eve.
Science is a perfectly fine profession for a Christian because scientists are learning about God by studying his creation. Just like a Bible scholar learns about God by studying his literature.
Marty
RighteousnessTemperance&
Well-Known Member
Calminian may have covered for you, perhaps because he agrees with your interpretation, but what you stated was in opposition to some of your own beliefs.
Anything that happened in the past is part of history. If an artist creates a work, the act and every layer of the product are part of history. If creation occurred, that is part of history. In representing your view, you stated the opposite. You even said it should not be taken seriously. That is not a way to bring clarity, and no way to speak of the works of God.
The implications of an “apparent age” interpretation are enormous.
To maintain that God created an earth with ice layers that have pollen in the summer layers from plants that never lived on top of ice from snow that never fell on top of fossilized reptiles that never lived is to place God in the role of deception. To place stars so far away from the earth that their measured distance implies that the light left them millions or billions of years ago and then reddened the light and broadened the spectra to complete the deception is totally at odds with the biblical God of integrity and truth.
–John Clayton as quoted by Hugh Ross
Post #24 gives away what I'm looking for now.
I will be posting my own response to secular humanism, but for now I would love to hear your response. I define secular humanism in post #1, mis-labeling it the scientific worldview.
I also agree somewhat on atheists. The question would be then "are scoffers best witnessed to by apologetics," which is what many Christians believe.
The problem is: how else do you account for the fact the sun, moon, and stars were made on the fourth day after plants? I'm using a literal reading of the bible, and interpreting the creation in light of that.
Let me offer a simple statement of what I believe. God is the source of all ultimate truth and that includes truth about the physical universe we live in. Science offers an ever-changing explanation of that truth. It does not provide the ultimate truth but does provide the truth about things we currently understand or can prove through experiment. Some scientists take an agnostic or atheistic view of what is and will always be beyond the reach of science. This is understanding of the ultimate cause for the universe to come into being and the ultimate meaning of life. Others accept the Christian belief that God is the answer to these questions.
For me, legitimate science and true religion address different realms of thought and there is no issue with either one of them. The Bible is not a scientific text book. Do we really know the ways or the thoughts of God? Of course not. That's biblical. Because He created the ultimate truth and meaning of the universe He also created the ultimate scientific explanation for everything. But we cannot understand that and never will this side of Heaven. Scientific theories change but Go's ultimate truth does not. We are continually scratching at the surface of truths that are far more complex than Einstein or Steven Hawking ever described or theorized about.
Does this mean that science is worthless and should be disregarded? of course not. We have all seen and benefited from the scientific advances that have been made like the discovery of electricity, the telephone, penicillin, bacteria, viruses, relativity, etc. legitimate scientists do not worship science like a god but rather use it to better our lot.
On the other hand, the Bible is composed of different types of information, history, prophesy, God's relationship to man including His plan for salvation and symbolism. Passages in the Bible need to be interpreted as a function of the type of information it is and in its historic and cultural context. I don't accept the idea of a young earth and don't see any problem with that. The Genesis account of creation should not be interpreted literally. I literally don't know exactly how God created the universe and space/time out of nothing. I know it was according to His divine purpose and His divine truth. I don't believe He would set up false indications which seem to support the Big Bang such as the background noise present Page Not Found the universe (discovered by Bell Labs Nobel Prize winners Penzias and Wilson). Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson
Their research location was about a mile away from my location at Bell Labs, Holmdel. I do have a problem with theistic evolution in that I believe the creation of man was a significantly different event than the rest of creation. God breathed into man a living soul.
In conclusion, I don't see any problem with accepting the Christian faith as well as science if they are understood in the proper way. Rejecting all science or parts of it as the 'work of the Devil" takes us back to the Dark Ages in which Galileo was placed under house arrest for accepting the solar-centric theory of the solar system. That kind of religion is more like voodoo magic than Christianity.
For me, legitimate science and true religion address different realms of thought and there is no issue with either one of them. The Bible is not a scientific text book. Do we really know the ways or the thoughts of God? Of course not. That's biblical. Because He created the ultimate truth and meaning of the universe He also created the ultimate scientific explanation for everything. But we cannot understand that and never will this side of Heaven. Scientific theories change but Go's ultimate truth does not. We are continually scratching at the surface of truths that are far more complex than Einstein or Steven Hawking ever described or theorized about.
Does this mean that science is worthless and should be disregarded? of course not. We have all seen and benefited from the scientific advances that have been made like the discovery of electricity, the telephone, penicillin, bacteria, viruses, relativity, etc. legitimate scientists do not worship science like a god but rather use it to better our lot.
On the other hand, the Bible is composed of different types of information, history, prophesy, God's relationship to man including His plan for salvation and symbolism. Passages in the Bible need to be interpreted as a function of the type of information it is and in its historic and cultural context. I don't accept the idea of a young earth and don't see any problem with that. The Genesis account of creation should not be interpreted literally. I literally don't know exactly how God created the universe and space/time out of nothing. I know it was according to His divine purpose and His divine truth. I don't believe He would set up false indications which seem to support the Big Bang such as the background noise present Page Not Found the universe (discovered by Bell Labs Nobel Prize winners Penzias and Wilson). Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson
Their research location was about a mile away from my location at Bell Labs, Holmdel. I do have a problem with theistic evolution in that I believe the creation of man was a significantly different event than the rest of creation. God breathed into man a living soul.
In conclusion, I don't see any problem with accepting the Christian faith as well as science if they are understood in the proper way. Rejecting all science or parts of it as the 'work of the Devil" takes us back to the Dark Ages in which Galileo was placed under house arrest for accepting the solar-centric theory of the solar system. That kind of religion is more like voodoo magic than Christianity.
There is no such thing as evolution, nor real global warning, so those 2 would be fake science!
Both are scientific theories. Sometimes theories change with additional knowledge. That was the case with Newton's Laws. They were updated by Einstein to include relativistic effects. What are your qualifications to make such a judgement. Current "Evangelical" thinking is very much like the Catholic Church declaring scientists to be heretics who supported the idea that the Earth is not the center of the universe or even the center of our solar system. Those who believed that that Earth is not flat but is spherical also were declared to be heretics.
No, science when done right fully agrees with what scriptures teach to us, but evolution is a lie from Satan in order to get us off God centered to a man centered God does not exist viewpoint!
And global warming is junkcience, just trying to globalize and to make all under the one banner of save Mother earth!
You have the right to your opinions and I have the right to mine.
RighteousnessTemperance&
Well-Known Member
The truth is you are interpreting from the outset, and even translators are forced to interpret at times. There can be other ways to read a text literally. A literal reading would also be that the heaven and the earth were created in Gen 1:1, that the earth existed formless and void in Gen 1:2, and work from there. However, my point is not debate, but that there are some serious difficulties with your representation. No one should be expected to embrace it just because others do.
As long as we do not accept blindly the so called facts of dubious science, that has a secular mindset that totally disbelieves in God!
Do you believe that the earth is flat?
What you are referring to is called Non-Overlapping Magisteria in Theology. The problem I have goes back to my former atheism. If I cannot trust Genesis 1-11, then why should I trust Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John? If the early parts of Genesis are not to be taken at face value, then why take the Jesus of the bible at face value?
While I agree we should be open minded, I mean, I may find out Day-Age theories are correct, and that the earth was formed over a long time. I allow that to be possible. I do not allow for Non-Overlapping Magisetra.
Because, the bible is a better guide to reality than science books, which reject Adam and Eve and Eden wholesale. They even reject Noah, his family, and the Flood. Until and unless science catches up to the reality of Eden and the Flood, I see no reason to ever teach the bible is not a science book. It is as much a science book as a history book. How else do we keep children from being confused by two very different interpretations of our own past?
That said, I believe that the bible is literally true and accurate. The stars, moons, planets, etc. were created by God after the earth. This means that He made it with what seems to be age, but isn't. Thus, apparent age. I'm using a literal reading of the bible, and interpreting the creation in light of that.
Many scientists hate this viewpoint calling it antithetical to the purpose and mission of science. I think they love science more than the Word. I bet this is true for almost all of them since they reject Adam, Eve, Eden, Noah and his family, the Flood, and usually reject angels, demons, and a God active in history outright.
Nope, neither does the scripture!
I refer you to post #38 as a response.