Constructive discussion...YE and OE

[simka2]

I like Bishop Kallistos Ware's answer here http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1088949815257678826

 

Go to 1hr 29min to hear when he was asked this question by a science student at Seattle Pacific University.

Edited November 10, 2011 by simka2
editing my spelling....again!

[QuirkyKapers]

Hi Jillian, I will answer you seriously, but I find that I am pretty agnostic about the YE/OE question. I don't have a deeply held viewpoint, but I do have some principles:

1. God created the world.

2. Genesis talks about it happening over a period of time and in stages. I don't know how long those time periods are.

3. Creation out of nothing.

4. Science has discovered some amazing things.

5. Science is a work in progress.

6. I think that it was St Augustine who said that you should not pin your theology to the latest scientific discovery, because you will be left looking like a fool when science progresses further and you're left in the dust.

7. Genesis uses poetical language.

8. Creation and evolution may be reconcilable.

9. Someone else may hold a different opinion without me getting upset.

HTH!

 

 

:iagree:

[jillian]

I like Bishop Kallistos Ware's answer here http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1088949815257678826

 

Go to 1hr 29min to here when he was asked this question by a science student at Seattle Pacific University.

Thanks.

 

And Little Nyssa, thanks for your POV too.

 

Everyone, thank you :)

[Mrs Mungo]

I like this quote by Billy Graham.

 

"I don't think that there's any conflict at all between science today and the Scriptures. I think that we have misinterpreted the Scriptures many times and we've tried to make the Scriptures say things they weren't meant to say, I think that we have made a mistake by thinking the Bible is a scientific book. The Bible is not a book of science. The Bible is a book of Redemption, and of course I accept the Creation story. I believe that God did create the universe. I believe that God created man, and whether it came by an evolutionary process and at a certain point He took this person or being and made him a living soul or not, does not change the fact that God did create man. ... whichever way God did it makes no difference as to what man is and man's relationship to God."

 

I realize some people believe he is an apostate and/or compromiser, but I don't share a theological perspective with those people.

[QuirkyKapers]

I like this quote by Billy Graham.

 

"I don't think that there's any conflict at all between science today and the Scriptures. I think that we have misinterpreted the Scriptures many times and we've tried to make the Scriptures say things they weren't meant to say, I think that we have made a mistake by thinking the Bible is a scientific book. The Bible is not a book of science. The Bible is a book of Redemption, and of course I accept the Creation story. I believe that God did create the universe. I believe that God created man, and whether it came by an evolutionary process and at a certain point He took this person or being and made him a living soul or not, does not change the fact that God did create man. ... whichever way God did it makes no difference as to what man is and man's relationship to God."

 

I realize some people believe he is an apostate and/or compromiser, but I don't share a theological perspective with those people.

 

 

I like that quote! Thanks for sharing.

[birchbark]

Just curious, does being OE automatically assume that you believe in evolution? What about non-evolution folks who believe in the gap theory? Where do they fall?

[Mrs Mungo]

Just curious, does being OE automatically assume that you believe in evolution?

 

Macro-evolution? No. Micro-evolution? Usually, but that even includes many (most?) YE types.

[In2why]

So I figure we've got a good sampling of Young Earth and Old Earth creationists here and I was hoping we could have some good discussions about it. Why do you believe the way you believe? If you believe in creation do you believe in macro or micro evolution? Evolution at all? Can we please keep it friendly too :) I really do want everyone's different perspectives.

 

 

I believe in Old Earth Creation, because I can't not believe in evolution, there is just too much science, and yet I can't not believe in God.

 

If I *had* to choose I wouldn't be able to believe in God. Because the science is too convincing to explain away.

[AvasMom]

Old Earth Creationist. I believe God did it (theistic evolution.) Science can tell us a lot about how. God would have to be a deceiver to have put the oodles of scientific evidence to point to an old Earth but have created the Earth so recently. Of all the names for God in the Bible, "deceiver" isn't one of them.

 

:iagree: with the addition of the clarification below. We fall in the Biologos camp, not OEC.

Edited November 11, 2011 by tjlufkin

[AvasMom]

Can we take a moment and define some terms for clarity's sake? OEC is NOT the same a theistic evolutionist/biologos. OEC basically says that man is special creation, not evolved from a common ancestor and differs from YEC only in the age of the earth. Theistic evolution says that we got here the way that science says we did but that God started the process. There's a spectrum of belief within OEC but it isn't interchangable with theistic evolution/biologos.

[Mrs Mungo]

Can we take a moment and define some terms for clarity's sake? OEC is NOT the same a theistic evolutionist/biologos. OEC basically says that man is special creation, not evolved from a common ancestor and differs from YEC only in the age of the earth. Theistic evolution says that we got here the way that science says we did but that God started the process. There's a spectrum of belief within OEC but it isn't interchangable with theistic evolution/biologos.

 

I'm not disagreeing, just clarifying: people who believe in theistic evolution sometimes self-identify as OEC, but the inverse is not necessarily true.

[FairyMom]

Theistic Evolutionist here. :hurray: Which is why we use mostly secular homeschool materials. I agree with the quote from a pp that God did not mean the Bible to be a scientific text.

[tntgoodwin]

I'll bite, too.

 

I believe in the instantaneous creation of the Earth about 6000 years ago.

 

- Since the entropy of the universe is always increasing, it seems clear that the universe had a beginning. Since the law of cause-and-effect states that all effects require a cause, then it is clear that the universe has a creator.

- Since all of our scientific observation shows that all complex coded information always comes from intelligent sources, we know that all of the information found in life on Earth is from an intelligent creator.

- The vast majority of scientific chronometers which would date the age of things indicate that the earth is young. One of my favorites is that from radioactive decay. Most people focus on the heavy decay products, but the other product of decay is alpha particles, which are the nuclei of helium atoms. The simple fact is that if the decay had occurred over billions of years, the helium would have leaked out of the rocks long, long ago, making the concentration of helium in our atmosphere much higher than it is. However, the helium is still locked up inside the rocks. As such, it seems likely that the decay rates may not have been constant in the past, as is currently the popular belief.

- Life: All naturalistic explanations for the origin of life (DNA-first, protein-first or RNA-world) fall way short for the same basic reason: The probabilistic resources of the entire universe for the entire supposed 20-billion-year age is 10^36 too small to be able to produce even a small protein of 150 amino acids, let alone an entire self-replicating system containing many much larger proteins. (And postulates of infinite universes existing are even far less likely.)

- Granite: It appears that the many-mile-thick granite crust of the earth was created instantaneously since it contains radiohalos of the decay of Polonium 214, which has a half-life of 164 microseconds. No scientist has ever been able to create a piece of granite such as that found in the crust of the Earth. I suspect the Polonium halos were thrown in there as a form of proof.

 

I believe that there is such a thing as microevolution in which the DNA is *damaged* by various methods. This damage to the information in DNA CAN lead to a functional advantage for the organism. This has been observed in credible experiments.

 

I do not believe that large changes in organisms can occur because, again, there are not sufficient probabilistic resources available to allow for the changes. Studies of very large populations of organisms show that only very small changes occur even after 50,000 generations have passed. That is equivalent to about 1 million years of humans, who supposedly have had a tiny population during most of the last million years. In other words, it is unreasonable that any changes have occurred over that time or before.

 

I also find big bang cosmology to be not credible since it violates so many natural laws, including the law of cause and effect. Just because a model can be made to fit some data (not nearly all) does not make it a correct model.

 

:iagree: I too am a Young Earth Creationist, but it's not a hill I plan to die on.

[acurtis75]

:iagree: I too am a Young Earth Creationist, but it's not a hill I plan to die on.

 

:iagree: I think a lot of fellow Christians are a little over-confident in their particular interpretation of various doctrinal issues. I like the term "heavily persuaded". In other words, I'm pretty sure this is what is true, it's what I believe but since I'm not omniscient I'm going to refrain from insisting that I can't be wrong or that you're ****ed if you don't agree. There's only one hill I would say I would be willing to die on and that is that Jesus died on the cross for our sins.

[Parker Martin]

Can we take a moment and define some terms for clarity's sake? OEC is NOT the same a theistic evolutionist/biologos. OEC basically says that man is special creation, not evolved from a common ancestor and differs from YEC only in the age of the earth. Theistic evolution says that we got here the way that science says we did but that God started the process.

 

If that's true, we're theistic evolutionists.

 

I've never had any problem with this. There's no conflict for me between Christianity and evolution.

[justamouse]

I like Bishop Kallistos Ware's answer here http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1088949815257678826

 

Go to 1hr 29min to hear when he was asked this question by a science student at Seattle Pacific University.

 

We just did creation in RCIA last night and the Sister who was teaching it just said the same thing-the bible tells us why we're here, science tells us how.

 

And, they brought to light that there are two creation stories within Genesis, and that there are at least four authors (looking at the actual text, not the translations). That began to make a lot more sense to me, why the inconsistencies.

 

Here's Father Barron's explanation, 5 min vid. I thought his comments on intelligent design were interesting.

Edited November 11, 2011 by justamouse

[mommaduck]

:iagree: I too am a Young Earth Creationist, but it's not a hill I plan to die on.

:iagree:

[Free]

Evolution doesn't add up for me yet. I believe in micro-evolution- species adapting over time to survive. But I can't yet say I believe in macro-evolution - species turning into other species.

 

Most YECs do accept speciation.

[DianeW88]

Okay, I'll bite. Old earth creationist who believes in theistic evolution. Considering the science, it is the only thing that makes sense to me.

 

Next.

 

:iagree:Haven't read all the replies yet. How close is this thread to imploding? :lol:

[Lacie]

Young Earth Creationists here, we also believe in micro-evolution (changes within a species over time).

[hsmom2011]

n/m

[mommaduck]

We use YE and OE resources (books, curricula, videos, seminars, etc). My children know my view on things, but I'm not afraid of them hearing and learning what the rest of the world teaches. They will have to face this and develop their own view of these things (beyond, "because my mom/church says this or that"). My oldest wants to go into astrophysics. We already disagree on some things and agree on others. He's fifteen, very bright, and I respect him in this as it's part of his personhood and I know he doesn't just follow the pack on either side of the issue, but rather is very thoughtful about things. I was raised in a YE church, but with a gap-believing stepdad that had me watching Carl Sagan and NOVA as a kid. Again, this debate is not the end all/be all of a person's belief system or faith.

[Spock]

Old earth creationist. I accept evolution but always expect new discoveries. I do not believe in the evolution of the soul, though.

 

This is pretty close to what I believe--God created everything there is or was or will be, and used evolution. I do not believe that the soul evolved. I believe that either God waited until a "human" form evolved and then gave a male and a female a soul (consistent with Gen 1--Let us make man in our image--which could be understood as taking "man" and changing them into God's image), or specifically creating human forms along the lines of what was evolving naturally and giving them souls (which is still consistent with Gen 1, but seems to fit with Gen. 2 better than the first possibility).

 

I do not know if those first humans were homo erectus or homo heidelbergensis or something else, but since Neandertals seem to me to be undeniably human it would have to be before they evolved from the form God originally gave a soul.

 

I was once a YE creationist, but further research first into OE creationism (which resolved the questions I had about astronomy and geology even when I accepted YE) and then into what the Theory of Evolution actually says (which wasn't exactly what I thought it said) convinced me. I also realized that evolution actually can fit into reproducing "after its kind"--each offspring IS the same kind as its parents, with minor differences that don't make it a different kind. It just happens that after enough generations those tiny differences add up, so that the great-great-great-grandchildren may no longer be the same kinds as their original ancestors, even though each generation IS the same kind as its parents.

 

My husband falls somewhere between YE/OE, but does not accept evolution in any form--but he also has little interest in science beyond the descriptive level, and tends to be a concrete, black/white thinker.

 

My children were originally taught YE. My oldest came to believe in theistic evolution on his own, through reading and critical thinking. My second seems to be mostly OE with some acceptance of evolution, but doesn't express his views on much of anything very openly. He is very skeptical of most dating procedures, though. My two youngest REALLY don't care about the topic, and haven't really looked into it much, though the early YE teaching has made them think of evolution as an automatic "bad guy". I rather regret that, but there is still time to broaden their views.

 

Also, it is more important to me that they have a strong faith and trust in God than that they have accurate beliefs on the origin of everything. After all, there can be NO ONE who is 100% correct in every single aspect of either Christian doctrine or science (or anything else), much less in both of them. I am certain some of my ideas in both areas are still wrong (and maybe I am wrong in some areas I was right in before).

[AvasMom]

I also realized that evolution actually can fit into reproducing "after its kind"--each offspring IS the same kind as its parents, with minor differences that don't make it a different kind. It just happens that after enough generations those tiny differences add up, so that the great-great-great-grandchildren may no longer be the same kinds as their original ancestors, even though each generation IS the same kind as its parents.

 

:iagree: And also, it is US who created the idea of "kind." It is how WE categorize animals. Who is to say that God would categorize them the exact same way that we do? Therefore, they may evolve into different "kinds" in our mind but not necessarily in God's. Ergo, evolution and the Bible still aren't clashing. Hope that makes sense. I'm late for my afternoon coffee. lol!

[happyhomemaker25]

YE Creationist. I fall into the camp of the man who I dare not speak his name here. :tongue_smilie: LOL

I take the Bible literally for the most part so I take Genesis literally. I know other Christians don't and I'm ok with that. I'm not ok with people calling me ignorant and acting like I just crawled out from under a rock. I did research and read books outside of my belief system. For me, in the end it all came down to my literal interpretation of the Bible.

 

I also think that Colin Firth looks good in a kilt, in anything other than a kilt, in a lake, on a train, in a car, in a box... whatever. The man just looks good.

[LibraryLover]

How's it going?

Edited November 12, 2011 by LibraryLover

[Free]

 

I was once a YE creationist, but further research first into OE creationism (which resolved the questions I had about astronomy and geology even when I accepted YE) and then into what the Theory of Evolution actually says (which wasn't exactly what I thought it said) convinced me.

Your whole post is pretty interesting, but the bolded portion caught my eye. It is great that you have been able to set aside your initial notions and take time and effort to truly understand the TOE.

[mytwomonkeys]

Young Earth Creationists here, we also believe in micro-evolution (changes within a species over time).

 

:iagree:us too.

[Heather in Neverland]

I'll bite, too.

 

I believe in the instantaneous creation of the Earth about 6000 years ago.

 

- Since the entropy of the universe is always increasing, it seems clear that the universe had a beginning. Since the law of cause-and-effect states that all effects require a cause, then it is clear that the universe has a creator.

- Since all of our scientific observation shows that all complex coded information always comes from intelligent sources, we know that all of the information found in life on Earth is from an intelligent creator.

- The vast majority of scientific chronometers which would date the age of things indicate that the earth is young. One of my favorites is that from radioactive decay. Most people focus on the heavy decay products, but the other product of decay is alpha particles, which are the nuclei of helium atoms. The simple fact is that if the decay had occurred over billions of years, the helium would have leaked out of the rocks long, long ago, making the concentration of helium in our atmosphere much higher than it is. However, the helium is still locked up inside the rocks. As such, it seems likely that the decay rates may not have been constant in the past, as is currently the popular belief.

- Life: All naturalistic explanations for the origin of life (DNA-first, protein-first or RNA-world) fall way short for the same basic reason: The probabilistic resources of the entire universe for the entire supposed 20-billion-year age is 10^36 too small to be able to produce even a small protein of 150 amino acids, let alone an entire self-replicating system containing many much larger proteins. (And postulates of infinite universes existing are even far less likely.)

- Granite: It appears that the many-mile-thick granite crust of the earth was created instantaneously since it contains radiohalos of the decay of Polonium 214, which has a half-life of 164 microseconds. No scientist has ever been able to create a piece of granite such as that found in the crust of the Earth. I suspect the Polonium halos were thrown in there as a form of proof.

 

I believe that there is such a thing as microevolution in which the DNA is *damaged* by various methods. This damage to the information in DNA CAN lead to a functional advantage for the organism. This has been observed in credible experiments.

 

I do not believe that large changes in organisms can occur because, again, there are not sufficient probabilistic resources available to allow for the changes. Studies of very large populations of organisms show that only very small changes occur even after 50,000 generations have passed. That is equivalent to about 1 million years of humans, who supposedly have had a tiny population during most of the last million years. In other words, it is unreasonable that any changes have occurred over that time or before.

 

I also find big bang cosmology to be not credible since it violates so many natural laws, including the law of cause and effect. Just because a model can be made to fit some data (not nearly all) does not make it a correct model.

 

:iagree:

[toawh]

As long as no one mentions shopping carts we ought to be OK :D

 

Bill

 

Bill, you are sneaky. You just did mention sho%%ing c@rts.

 

:iagree:

 

*hands out kilts just in case*

 

Bill - is that the London Olympics stripe poster in your avatar? Boy, first shopping carts, now this. ;)

 

That's us, too.

 

Why? The book

Anyone purchase a crock pot recently? :001_smile: We take our shoes off in the house. Shopping carts get put back and anything can be solved by Colin Firth in a kilt.

 

:iagree:

 

and a RECIPE for good measure

 

Bingo! London, 2012, the excitement builds!

 

Love Colin Firth, kilt or no. But where, pray tell, is the picture?

 

Oh, and I agree with you otherwise too. Even down to the book, which I bought after somebody here recommended it.

 

or crockpots...

 

Ack. The point of no return! :D

 

OK, I missed the shopping cart thread. Link, please?

 

Hmmm, might have to look for a crockpot in a shopping cart for my avatar.

 

:lol::lol: It's really hard to tell around here. As Bill has implied, returning shopping carts (did I just write that out loud?) would seem to be a somewhat benign topic. Whoda thunk what transpired could have really happened in the real internet?

 

Can someone PLEASE explain all this foreign language to me? Is it an insiders joke or what?!

[Mrs Mungo]

Can someone PLEASE explain all this foreign language to me? Is it an insiders joke or what?!

 

There have been knock-down, drag-out fights over: wearing shoes in the house (or not), returning shopping carts to a corral (or not) and using crockpots (or not). They are frequently referenced during other fights or potentially contentious threads. The remedies for contentious threads on this board are: hot men in kilts, recipes and (sometimes) baby laughing videos. If somebody doesn't want to post their opinion on a fighty thread, then they might post a remedy instead. ;)

[CanaryMelody]

I'll bite, too.

 

I believe in the instantaneous creation of the Earth about 6000 years ago. [snipped for brevity]

 

:iagree:

 

YE Creationist. I fall into the camp of the man who I dare not speak his name here. :tongue_smilie: LOL

I take the Bible literally for the most part so I take Genesis literally. I know other Christians don't and I'm ok with that. I'm not ok with people calling me ignorant and acting like I just crawled out from under a rock. I did research and read books outside of my belief system. For me, in the end it all came down to my literal interpretation of the Bible.

 

I also think that Colin Firth looks good in a kilt, in anything other than a kilt, in a lake, on a train, in a car, in a box... whatever. The man just looks good.

 

:iagree: I especially agree with the bolded part.

[toawh]

There have been knock-down, drag-out fights over: wearing shoes in the house (or not), returning shopping carts to a corral (or not) and using crockpots (or not). They are frequently referenced during other fights or potentially contentious threads. The remedies for contentious threads on this board are: hot men in kilts, recipes and (sometimes) baby laughing videos. If somebody doesn't want to post their opinion on a fighty thread, then they might post a remedy instead. ;)

 

Thank you! Now it almost makes sense to me; I think? Actually I think I'm just as confused as before. That's okay! It isn't meant to be.

[Daisy]

YE Creationist. It's been said already and most of it in this thread. Yes, I believe in microevolution (changes within species). I believe science and Scripture support a creationist viewpoint.

 

I want my children to have a working knowledge of the various theories so while I present science from a YE perspective, I often use supplements that contain evolutionary content.

 

I also don't believe that YE/OE is a primary doctrine. In other words whatever you believe in regards to YE/OE doesn't make one hill of a beans difference in where you'll spend eternity. Christians can and do disagree on the topic. And I make that VERY clear to my children.

 

The place where I draw a very firm line in the sand...

 

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

[Molly]

Young Earth Creationist with beliefs solely based on the Bible.

 

Currently reading many scientific books from many different authors with various beliefs. Science as yet has not proven to me either way that God did not or did create the universe. The Bible however tells me another story and I have faith that it is of God. Science is of man.

[Mrs Mungo]

Young Earth Creationist with beliefs solely based on the Bible.

 

How so? It doesn't say anything about 6,000 years. That is an interpretation, just like the Old Earth interpretation.

[AdventureMoms]

Thank you! Now it almost makes sense to me; I think? Actually I think I'm just as confused as before. That's okay! It isn't meant to be.

 

I'm totally confused too. If people didn't want to post their opinions, why wouldn't they just...not post. I was on a board once before where people posted their favorite ice cream flavors every time a thread got contentious, and I never quite understood the point.

[Mrs Mungo]

I'm totally confused too. If people didn't want to post their opinions, why wouldn't they just...not post. I was on a board once before where people posted their favorite ice cream flavors every time a thread got contentious, and I never quite understood the point.

 

It is a way of turning a contentious thread into something fun and positive.

[AvasMom]

How so? It doesn't say anything about 6,000 years. That is an interpretation, just like the Old Earth interpretation.

 

They count back based on ages of people in the OT. I don't believe in YEC but my brother does and he says the 6000 years comes from that.

[Mrs Mungo]

They count back based on ages of people in the OT. I don't believe in YEC but my brother does and he says the 6000 years comes from that.

 

I know that, but it based on interpretations, multiple and varied interpretations. Archbishop Ussher and Bodie Hodge used different calculations. How, if there is only one literal truth?

 

ETA: genealogical gaps in Genesis

Edited November 13, 2011 by Mrs Mungo

[AvasMom]

I know that, but it based on interpretations, multiple and varied interpretations. Archbishop Ussher and Bodie Hodge used different calculations. How, if there is only one literal truth?

 

ETA: genealogical gaps in Genesis

 

Ok, I see what you are saying. I didn't know the genealogical information varied. Interesting!

[Spy Car]

Thank you! Now it almost makes sense to me; I think? Actually I think I'm just as confused as before. That's okay! It isn't meant to be.

 

They are variations on "pass the bean-dip." Which may (or may not) mean anything to you (yet).

 

Bill

[Mama2Many4]

Okay, I'll bite. Old earth creationist who believes in theistic evolution. Considering the science, it is the only thing that makes sense to me.

 

Next.

 

This is me too. :iagree:

 

 

Now off to read the rest of the thread.:D:tongue_smilie:

[Molly]

How so? It doesn't say anything about 6,000 years. That is an interpretation, just like the Old Earth interpretation.

 

Sorry, I forgot that was open to interpretation. I will rephrase and believe solely in the Bible as it is written. It tells me the generations, so rather than adding what I want in there, I take it as it says. But that is how I see it.

 

And just in regard to your link above, even with gaps in the geneology, would it really add millions of years?

Edited November 14, 2011 by Molly
Edited to add question.