-
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!
What did change your mind?
- Thread starter aefting
- Start date
Interesting question. I have touched on this recently, but I'll get you a reply soon.
I just wanted to add that I'd be very interested in hearing about YEC's who were once theistic evolutionists. Specifically, Helen has alluded to her conversion many times and I think it would be fascinating to hear which things specifically led her to change her mind. I mention her individually because her posts show that she is exposed to and accepts a lot more mainstream science than your average YEC. But anyone who was reasonably well versed in evolution as a theistic evolutionist who changed their mind could be insightful. Reasons from either side could also be spun off into interesting threads.
I just wanted to add that I'd be very interested in hearing about YEC's who were once theistic evolutionists. Specifically, Helen has alluded to her conversion many times and I think it would be fascinating to hear which things specifically led her to change her mind. I mention her individually because her posts show that she is exposed to and accepts a lot more mainstream science than your average YEC. But anyone who was reasonably well versed in evolution as a theistic evolutionist who changed their mind could be insightful. Reasons from either side could also be spun off into interesting threads.
I used to be staunchly YEC. I eventually became unsatisfied with the answers I was getting from the YEC crowd when sincerely inquiring about specific evidence.
I began to realize that either all the evidence was wrong, or that my perception of Genesis was wrong. I've since come to the realization that God is supreme and he could have created the earth in any manner he desired. Either he created the earth in 6 literal days, and made it appear to have been created differently (which suggests that God lies), or he created it in a manner that the evidence indicates (which suggests that God doesn't lie).
I began to realize that either all the evidence was wrong, or that my perception of Genesis was wrong. I've since come to the realization that God is supreme and he could have created the earth in any manner he desired. Either he created the earth in 6 literal days, and made it appear to have been created differently (which suggests that God lies), or he created it in a manner that the evidence indicates (which suggests that God doesn't lie).
Or more likely, it demonstrates man's pathetically limited ability to comprehend the power of God. I pursued this a little on another thread but how do men's unproven and unprovable interpretations of data make God a liar?
No. What "appears" to sinful men to be the correct interpretation of data does not set a standard by which God agrees with them or else becomes a liar. However, the statement "God created..." et al. might suggest God lied if in fact He simply started a process of evolution.
neal4christ
New Member
Why does that suggest that God lied? I hardly see that assumption as valid. Also, if evolution is true, then God definitely lied because death did not come about until Adam and Eve sinned. But evolution has to have death and struggle.
God Bless,
Neal
Why does that suggest that God lied?
Because if God created the universe in 6 days, then made it look as though it was created over millions of years, then God was practicing deviousness. Nothing in the Bible describes this kind of God. On the contrary, it describes the opposite.
No, a truthful God, the God of the Bible, the God whom I believe in, would have created the world over time, and not have altered the evidence, or created the world in 6 days, and not altered the evidence. Either way, the evidence would point to what happenned.
Because if God created the universe in 6 days, then made it look as though it was created over millions of years, then God was practicing deviousness. Nothing in the Bible describes this kind of God. On the contrary, it describes the opposite.
No, a truthful God, the God of the Bible, the God whom I believe in, would have created the world over time, and not have altered the evidence, or created the world in 6 days, and not altered the evidence. Either way, the evidence would point to what happenned.
NeilUnreal
New Member
Hi-
I was raised a Christian accepting the mainstream scientific view. When became an undergraduate, it was at the beginning of the heyday of the "modern" Creation Science movement in the late 70's. I signed on to the YEC paradigm and learned most of the arguments. However, I had a background in biology, and I was studying geomorphology and earth science as a major. Most of the data just flat out fit the standard model better than the Creation Science explanations. I was bothered by specific things like the cosmic background radiation, the evidence for long-term (not "runaway") continental drift presented by the Hawaiian islands; but I was especially impressed by how well the mainstream models dovetailed together and supported each other.
So I decided to keep believing in YEC, but learn the mainstream view. Kind of like Kurt Wise (whom I very much admire, in spite of disagreeing with).
I'm a bit of a polymath, and my parents are the same, so I had lots of exposure to the mainstream arguments, data, and even field observations. Also, in college and grad school, I knew and worked with real scientists. Some of them were atheists with and axe to grind, but by far the vast majority were honest, intelligent, hard-working researchers. There were interested in the scientific truth, and believed that the mainstream view -- albeit flawed and incomplete -- was an asymptotic approach to that truth. And a lot of them were committed, mature Christians who managed to believe in an old earth and evolution.
So I already had problems between my YEC views and the obvious long age of the earth. However, it was only later in graduate school, when I began studying biogeography and ecology at the doctorate level, that I realized the power of evolution as a unifying paradigm in biology. But then I abandoned the environmental sciences to work in computer software development. (I'm just more temperamentally suited to doing commercial product development than academic research.)
Early on in my professional career, I began doing research on genetic algorithms and evolutionary programming. Even though my still-existing YEC views kept me from believing in evolution, I was convinced that these techniques held promise for engineering. One day, I was running a system I had designed to find the root of a complex equation. As the results scrolled by, I noticed something interesting: although the gene pool was evolving and changing continuously, if one were to randomly sample the gene pool though time the result would look very much like punctuated equilibrium. I had one of those "AHA!" moments where I intuitively understood exactly what Gould and Eldrige had also seen.
As Spock would say: fascinating.
So fascinating, in fact, it led me to seriously review my YEC beliefs. I realized that only by looking at science with a "mental squint" had I for decades been able to accept YEC. I also realized that it was only a fear of my own limited view of my faith that kept me realizing that I could be Christian and look mainstream science squarely in the eye.
I then went back and looked squarely at YEC science and realized that it was sorely wanting. The number scientists who openly admit to an a-priori commitment to YEC and still do good science is very small (e.g. Kurt Wise). I respect such individuals, their views, and their faith, and call them sisters and brothers*, but I've traveled a different road and my view of science and faith is different.
-Neil
*Sistren and brethren if they're Southern Baptists like me
I was raised a Christian accepting the mainstream scientific view. When became an undergraduate, it was at the beginning of the heyday of the "modern" Creation Science movement in the late 70's. I signed on to the YEC paradigm and learned most of the arguments. However, I had a background in biology, and I was studying geomorphology and earth science as a major. Most of the data just flat out fit the standard model better than the Creation Science explanations. I was bothered by specific things like the cosmic background radiation, the evidence for long-term (not "runaway") continental drift presented by the Hawaiian islands; but I was especially impressed by how well the mainstream models dovetailed together and supported each other.
So I decided to keep believing in YEC, but learn the mainstream view. Kind of like Kurt Wise (whom I very much admire, in spite of disagreeing with).
I'm a bit of a polymath, and my parents are the same, so I had lots of exposure to the mainstream arguments, data, and even field observations. Also, in college and grad school, I knew and worked with real scientists. Some of them were atheists with and axe to grind, but by far the vast majority were honest, intelligent, hard-working researchers. There were interested in the scientific truth, and believed that the mainstream view -- albeit flawed and incomplete -- was an asymptotic approach to that truth. And a lot of them were committed, mature Christians who managed to believe in an old earth and evolution.
So I already had problems between my YEC views and the obvious long age of the earth. However, it was only later in graduate school, when I began studying biogeography and ecology at the doctorate level, that I realized the power of evolution as a unifying paradigm in biology. But then I abandoned the environmental sciences to work in computer software development. (I'm just more temperamentally suited to doing commercial product development than academic research.)
Early on in my professional career, I began doing research on genetic algorithms and evolutionary programming. Even though my still-existing YEC views kept me from believing in evolution, I was convinced that these techniques held promise for engineering. One day, I was running a system I had designed to find the root of a complex equation. As the results scrolled by, I noticed something interesting: although the gene pool was evolving and changing continuously, if one were to randomly sample the gene pool though time the result would look very much like punctuated equilibrium. I had one of those "AHA!" moments where I intuitively understood exactly what Gould and Eldrige had also seen.
As Spock would say: fascinating.
So fascinating, in fact, it led me to seriously review my YEC beliefs. I realized that only by looking at science with a "mental squint" had I for decades been able to accept YEC. I also realized that it was only a fear of my own limited view of my faith that kept me realizing that I could be Christian and look mainstream science squarely in the eye.
I then went back and looked squarely at YEC science and realized that it was sorely wanting. The number scientists who openly admit to an a-priori commitment to YEC and still do good science is very small (e.g. Kurt Wise). I respect such individuals, their views, and their faith, and call them sisters and brothers*, but I've traveled a different road and my view of science and faith is different.
-Neil
*Sistren and brethren if they're Southern Baptists like me
That's fascinating Neil, although I'm a bit confused:
What did you finally get your degree in?
As to my own experience, inerrancy fell first. I began to be troubled when I read about certain books not being included in the bible, and how their were different translations which led to different meanings, etc. I also began to question the inerrancy in the bible when I realized that their were *errors* in the bible (despite whether or not they are considered *important*). It became obvious to me that the bible is about the message, not necessarily about the details. With that in mind, and also the fact that Jesus will accept us no matter what our views are (YEC, OEC,etc) that I decided to open my mind to other views. At the same time I was interested in UFO's and I was reading a book that discussed UFO's and creationism. After finishing it, I poured over as much info as I could and finally I decided that I couldn't deny the findings of science. I also had experiences with other church members and friends (who were YEC), who left me with a foul taste in my mouth.
One such experience was when I began questioning this man (actually my best friends father)about evolution, YEC, etc, and I got him to admit that he lied to his fellow church goers because it was for the greater good (or something like that).
What did you finally get your degree in?
As to my own experience, inerrancy fell first. I began to be troubled when I read about certain books not being included in the bible, and how their were different translations which led to different meanings, etc. I also began to question the inerrancy in the bible when I realized that their were *errors* in the bible (despite whether or not they are considered *important*). It became obvious to me that the bible is about the message, not necessarily about the details. With that in mind, and also the fact that Jesus will accept us no matter what our views are (YEC, OEC,etc) that I decided to open my mind to other views. At the same time I was interested in UFO's and I was reading a book that discussed UFO's and creationism. After finishing it, I poured over as much info as I could and finally I decided that I couldn't deny the findings of science. I also had experiences with other church members and friends (who were YEC), who left me with a foul taste in my mouth.
One such experience was when I began questioning this man (actually my best friends father)about evolution, YEC, etc, and I got him to admit that he lied to his fellow church goers because it was for the greater good (or something like that).
Analogy: A man walking through a jungle steps on to what he perceives to be solid ground. He is immediately becomes mired in quick sand. Would he be justified in calling God a liar since what he interpretted about what he saw turned out to be false? Of course not. Our misperceptions, no matter how confident we are in them, are not indications that God is being deceptive.
Nothing in the Bible describes the kind of origins you espouse. On the contrary, it describes and affirms all the way through Revelation a mutually exclusive alternative.
So God would not disagree with the naturalistic explainations and theories of earth history that you accept but He would deceive literally millions that put their whole faith in Him through the Bible? He would not have "altered" evidence in nature but requires you to "alter" His Word to see the truth?
Sometimes pertinent evidence is easier to recognize than others. But always the preconceived biases of the one evaluating the evidence comes into play.
A_Christian
New Member
Satan just rubs his hands and says, "It is all
so easy to entice people into rejecting God's
Word. After all the havoc I caused during the
FLOOD man will chose to accept evolution just
as I arranged it... They are so gullible!"
so easy to entice people into rejecting God's
Word. After all the havoc I caused during the
FLOOD man will chose to accept evolution just
as I arranged it... They are so gullible!"
A_Christian
New Member
Man will choose to reject what GOD says and trust
what Satan wants man to see. That is why the
path of destruction is so wide...
what Satan wants man to see. That is why the
path of destruction is so wide...
Redistribution of fossils after a flood does not explain age differences. It does not explain why the T Rex is NEVER found in the same deposits as Cro Magnon, and is never dated anywhere near the same age. Even if radiocarbon dating timelines are off, the T Rex and Cro Magnon should date to the same age. But they don't. Give me ONE Homo fossil carbon dated to the same time frams as a jurassic, triassic, or cretaceous creature, and I'll change my tune.
Would he be justified in calling God a liar since what he interpretted about what he saw turned out to be false?
No, he'd have to understand that accepting the existence of quick sand does not violate the understanding of solid ground. In the same manner, the acceptance of evolution does not violate Genesis.
Nothing in the Bible describes the kind of origins you espouse.
That's because Genesis wasn't written to dictate the literal creation of origins. Rather, it was written to explain who God is, what he is in relation to Him, and why He made us.
So God would not disagree with the naturalistic explainations and theories of earth history that you accept but He would deceive literally millions that put their whole faith in Him through the Bible?
The same arguement was made when it was asserted that the world was round, and that the earth revolves around the sun, and when the sun revolves around the galaxy.
He would not have "altered" evidence in nature but requires you to "alter" His Word to see the truth?
Understanding that Genesis is not literal is by no means an "alteration".
But always the preconceived biases of the one evaluating the evidence comes into play.
When one removes preconcieved notions, the evidence supports an old earth with different life forms in different time periods, and does not support a young earth view.
No, he'd have to understand that accepting the existence of quick sand does not violate the understanding of solid ground. In the same manner, the acceptance of evolution does not violate Genesis.
Nothing in the Bible describes the kind of origins you espouse.
That's because Genesis wasn't written to dictate the literal creation of origins. Rather, it was written to explain who God is, what he is in relation to Him, and why He made us.
So God would not disagree with the naturalistic explainations and theories of earth history that you accept but He would deceive literally millions that put their whole faith in Him through the Bible?
The same arguement was made when it was asserted that the world was round, and that the earth revolves around the sun, and when the sun revolves around the galaxy.
He would not have "altered" evidence in nature but requires you to "alter" His Word to see the truth?
Understanding that Genesis is not literal is by no means an "alteration".
But always the preconceived biases of the one evaluating the evidence comes into play.
When one removes preconcieved notions, the evidence supports an old earth with different life forms in different time periods, and does not support a young earth view.
There’s not a specific verse that says accept a young earth, but there are plenty of verses, which says that God which cannot lie, the scriptures are true, and I could go on, but the server would crash and this site would shut down.
</font>[/QUOTE]John 316"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,[1] that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
This contradicts what you are claiming. So which is true? Is it true that "whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life", or is it true that whoever believes in him AND the biblical creation story, shall not perish but have eternal life?