Any young earth creationists out there?

[Hugh_Farey]

Silly me, I should have realised that EVERYTHING written by YECs is rubbish.

No. Honest YECs (and there are some) take the bible as their source of truth, but do not deny either the evidence of scientific observation, or the validity of the conclusions evolutionists draw from it. They just think that these conclusions are untrue. They admit quite happily that cosmological observations can be interpreted as showing that the universe is billions of years old, but simply do not believe that such an interpretation is correct. They admit quite happily that the fossil record can be interpreted as a succession of organisms over millions of years, but simply do not believe that such an interpretation is correct.

These YECs are wise and gentle. They do not try to twist the book of Genesis to fit certain scientific interpretations that they feel forced to accept, and they do not pretend that a microbes-to-man interpretation of biological evidence is either illogical or unsubstantiated - they just don’t believe it. As God is capable of everything, so a literal creation of the modern earth ex nihilo in 144 hours, a rib becoming a woman, a talking snake and a global flood are all perfectly possible. And no scientists can gainsay such faith.

Naturally, the OP appeal: “Any Young Earth Creationists out there?” has not attracted these wise, honest YECs to any great debate. On the whole they do not proselytise, and they do not engage in scientific discussion, as there is no ground upon which the differing opinions can meet.

The YEC adherents trying to argue a case on this thread are very much “YEC manqué”. Their attempts to justify their case to us scientists rests on peculiar distortions of bits of Genesis which suit each individual’s failure of faith, and obstinate denials that scientific observations can be interpreted in the way evolutionists interpret it. Along the way they hastily construct defensive straw horses labelled ‘probability’ and ‘proof’, and chuck lumps of text from behind their barricades in the vain hope that one might explode. Poor things. Neither their faith nor their reason can sustain them. No wonder there is nothing left but manic laughter as the last straws slip from their grasps…

 

[bobperk]

No. Honest YECs (and there are some) take the bible as their source of truth, but do not deny either the evidence of scientific observation, or the validity of the conclusions evolutionists draw from it. They just think that these conclusions are untrue. They admit quite happily that cosmological observations can be interpreted as showing that the universe is billions of years old, but simply do not believe that such an interpretation is correct. They admit quite happily that the fossil record can be interpreted as a succession of organisms over millions of years, but simply do not believe that such an interpretation is correct.

Just so I understand you correctly, you view YECs as either:

1. Honest - consider the evidence of evolution and the validity of the studies, but do not accept the conclusions due to faith

or

1. Dishonest (for lack of a better term) - deny the possibility of evidence in the first place

Would these two definitions sum up what you meant?

 

[Aloysium]

thousands of pre-hominid ape people who were just the lucky recipients of the first souls.

I don’t understand how a scientist can believe this. I see no evidence that something that already exists as part of nature, and will necessarily die can suddenly become eternal. We may have realizations, have revealed to us our relationship with God in eternity, we at baptism “are freed from sin and reborn as sons of God; we become members of Christ” (CCC), but this is all possible because we are created eternal, in the image of God. I would think Fr. Spitzer’s next move, if he is to be taken seriously by those who do not merely regurgitate what has been shoved into them since day one by secular society, by those of us who truly seek the Truth, should be some sort of explanation as to what happens. It’s just words to say “recipients of the first souls”. We are our soul and it “contains” our body, to be shed upon our death.

At any rate, evolution as random genetic changes passed on through generations, sculpted by natural selection is so far from describing what occured at the beginning of the world, so far from providing any satisfactory explanation as to how all this wonder has come about, I can’t understand why he would bother trying to justify it. I’m hoping you misheard, but I doubt it. I don’t follow what he says on scientific matters, but have always found him to be very interesting, bringing God back into the picture created by science. It makes me sad to hear about his being derailed.

 

[bobperk]

Here is the link to the audio if you get a chance to listen. I think it’s just the first 30 minutes.

Loading…

relevantradio.com

I also generally like Fr. Spitzer and find him interesting, but he often seems eager to stretch the faith to accommodate modern science, e.g. “maybe we won’t lose so many millenials if we allow the possibility that God formed us from apes!” I also think he puts too much weight on near death experiences, but that just seems to be a separate area of study for him.

 

[Bradskii]

Hugh_Farey:

No. Honest YECs (and there are some) take the bible as their source of truth, but do not deny either the evidence of scientific observation, or the validity of the conclusions evolutionists draw from it. They just think that these conclusions are untrue. They admit quite happily that cosmological observations can be interpreted as showing that the universe is billions of years old, but simply do not believe that such an interpretation is correct. They admit quite happily that the fossil record can be interpreted as a succession of organisms over millions of years, but simply do not believe that such an interpretation is correct.

Just so I understand you correctly, you view YECs as either:

1. Honest - consider the evidence of evolution and the validity of the studies, but do not accept the conclusions due to faith

or

1. Dishonest (for lack of a better term) - deny the possibility of evidence in the first place

Would these two definitions sum up what you meant?

It’s not just Hugh that thinks that. There are honest YECs and honest Christians who believe that evolution did not occur. But they accept that there is evidence for an old earth and accept that there is evidence for evolution. Just that they don’t believe it.

Their position can be treated with some respect. Others? Zero respect.

 

[Aloysium]

“maybe we won’t lose so many millenials if we allow the possibility that God formed us from apes!”

The truth works better than leading people on, which can only end with a realization of betrayal. The statement does reveal the probability that it is what he believes. I mean, you won’t lose so many faithful if we allow for the possibility that God did not form us from apes. The fact is that God created everything from nothing and He maintains it all in every here and now (or else it wouldn’t exist). He created us as part of, but after and different from everything else that we might share in His glory. This is a fallen world and ignorance is the human condition, overcome only in Christ, through the grace of the Holy Spirit, leading us back to the one Truth.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

Would these two definitions sum up what you meant?

Broadly speaking yes, although, people being human, I would say that these positions define the two ends of a spectrum. Some Genesis twistings are more convoluted than others.

 

[buffalo]

Silly me, I should have realised that EVERYTHING written by YECs is rubbish.

Further, you should have realized that only man reasoned provisional science is absolutely true… until the next change…

 

[buffalo]

As for the fossil record, it’s my understanding that it reveals gigantic gaps in your nested hiearchy.

Platypus anyone?

 

[buffalo]

Totally serious. I cited your article which identified that Augustine proposed a theory of “instantaneous creation”. If it’s instantaneous, then it doesn’t take six days. If it doesn’t take six days, then the account in Genesis 1 is figurative, with respect to the ‘days’ of creation. Do you understand?

St Augustine on Prime Matter

AUGUSTINE AND EVOLUTION - A STUDY IN THE SAINT’S DE GENESI AD LITTERAM AND DE TRINITATE BY HENRY WOODS, S. J.

…Such prime matter, nevertheless, can exist only under some form. “We must not think of God as first creating matter,” the Saint admonishes, “and after an interval of time giving form to what He had created without form; but as creating it simultaneously with the world. As spoken words are produced by the speaker, not by giving form afterwards to a voice previously without form, but by uttering his voice fully formed, so we must understand that God did indeed create the world from unformed matter, yet concreated this matter simultaneously with the world. Still not uselessly do we tell, first that from which something is made, and afterwards what is made from it; because, though both can be made simultaneously, they can not be narrated simultaneously.”23 This we find again in the treatise we are especially discussing. “When we say matter and form, we understand both simultaneously, though we cannot pronounce them simultaneously. As in the brief space of speaking we pronounce one before the other, so in the longer time of narration we discuss one before the other. Still God created both simultaneously, while we in our speech take up first in time what is first in origin only.”24

Prime matter can be called not only what it actually was under some elementary form, but also what it was to become by future formation. This most important principle St. Augustine lays down in explaining against the Manicheans the text: “In the beginning God created heaven and earth.” He says: “Unformed matter is here called heaven and earth, not because it was this, but because it was able to become this; for heaven, it is written, was made afterwards. For if, considering a seed, we say that roots and wood and branches and fruit and leaves are there, not because they are there now, but because they are to be from it, in the same way it is said, ‘In the beginning God made heaven and earth,’ as if he made the seed of heaven and earth, when the matter of heaven and earth was still confused. But, because heaven and earth were certainly to be from it, matter itself is already called heaven and earth. Our Lord Himself uses this manner of speech when He says: ‘I will not now call you servants, because the servant knows not what his master does. But I have called you friends, because all things whatsoever I have heard from the Father, I have made known to you.’25 Not that he had actually done so as yet, but because the manifestation was certainly to take place.”26

 

[buffalo]

cont’d

and…

27 In the beginning, therefore, God created prime matter with its potency positively determined to all things that were to be, so that these things may be said literally, not figuratively, to have been created simultaneously with it.

IDvolution.org

IDvolution - Where faith and reason intersect. - intelligent design Jim Serafin

idvolution.blogspot.com

 

[Gorgias]

we must understand that God did indeed create the world from unformed matter, yet concreated this matter simultaneously with the world.

Still God created both simultaneously,

OK, but this doesn’t address Augustine’s proposal in De Genesi that God created all things instantaneously rather than in six days. What you’ve quoted here only asserts that He creates ‘matter’ and ‘form’ simultaneously.

Elsewhere in the book you cite, Woods states:

Hence the doctrine is clear. God, having decreed this existing order of creation create all things simultaneously in the beginning by His simple creative word.

The author is using this line of thought to argue against evolution, to be sure, but it also provides the basis for arguing (as Augustine does, in De Genesi) against a literal six-day creation.

 

[buffalo]

The author is using this line of thought to argue against evolution, to be sure, but it also provides the basis for arguing (as Augustine does, in De Genesi ) against a literal six-day creation.

I don’t think so. God is outside of time. He created all (prime matter- pure potentiality) in an instant by thinking of it, but it can unfold (actualize) over the six days in the order He wanted. Make sense?

 

[Gorgias]

I don’t think so. God is outside of time. He created all (prime matter- pure potentiality) in an instant by thinking of it, but it can unfold (actualize) over the six days in the order He wanted. Make sense?

Yes, it does. However, I think that this line of thought could likewise be used to support an argument for theistic evolution! To wit: God creates all matter that exists at the moment of creation but, through processes which unfold over time, that matter transforms (and yes, evolves) into beings “in the order He wanted”.

So, I think your argument here is a two-edged sword – it allows you to argue “simultaneous, but in six days”, but it also allows for the argument “simultaneous, but over millennia.”

To your precise point, however, there’s still a problem. If we want to assent to the notion of “immediate and instantaneous creation”, and still wish to hold to the notion of six-day creation in a literalistic way, wouldn’t we be forced to admit that the description must read, “God said – and on the first day, such and such, and on the second day, this and that, … and on the sixth day, these other things”? After all, in a literalistic context, that’s substantially different than saying “God said… and God said… and God said…”, isn’t it?

 

[buffalo]

Yes, it does. However, I think that this line of thought could likewise be used to support an argument for theistic evolution! To wit: God creates all matter that exists at the moment of creation but, through processes which unfold over time, that matter transforms (and yes, evolves ) into beings “in the order He wanted”.

So, I think your argument here is a two-edged sword – it allows you to argue “simultaneous, but in six days”, but it also allows for the argument “simultaneous, but over millennia.”

To your precise point, however, there’s still a problem. If we want to assent to the notion of “immediate and instantaneous creation”, and still wish to hold to the notion of six-day creation in a literalistic way, wouldn’t we be forced to admit that the description must read, “God said – and on the first day, such and such , and on the second day, this and that , … and on the sixth day, these other things ”? After all, in a literalistic context, that’s substantially different than saying “God said… and God said… and God said…”, isn’t it?

Yes, indeed. The difference though would be God guided evolution, which boils down to ID. We still have the issue with Eve coming from Adam and no suitable helpers among the animals. (we do see an unfolding over time from the beginning kinds-common descent)

Further, and very important is the science does not really support it.

I am not sure I understand your last point. Please detail a little more.

 

[Gorgias]

Yes, indeed. The difference though would be God guided evolution, which boils down to ID.

But, “guided it” how? That’s a big question, and the answers run the gamut from the deistic ‘watchmaker’ to a personal God who intervenes at each moment in time.

We still have the issue with Eve coming from Adam

If we want to assent to the spin that God set all things in motion instananeously (which is a weird way of saying “outside of time”, but nevertheless…), a direct creation of Eve from a part of Adam is quite problematic, and runs the risk of destroying the whole argument.

Further, and very important is the science does not really support it.

How could science possibly hope to support an assertion about the workings of “the hand of God”?

I am not sure I understand your last point. Please detail a little more.

Sure. A literalistic take on Genesis 1 would have us understand that God made eight distinct “Let there be…” statements over the course of six days. That’s eight distinct instances of performative speech acts.

If you want to make the claim of “instantaneous, but unfolding in time”, then it would seem that there should be one speech act, whose effects unfold over six days.

Therefore, instead of “let there be” followed by creation of X, and another “let there be” and a creation of Y, and so on, a literalistic approach that assents to “instantaneous creation” should report a single act (“let it be…”) followed by a sequence of creations without subsequent performative speech acts.

 

[buffalo]

If you want to make the claim of “instantaneous, but unfolding in time”, then it would seem that there should be one speech act, whose effects unfold over six days.

Therefore, instead of “let there be” followed by creation of X, and another “let there be” and a creation of Y, and so on, a literalistic approach that assents to “instantaneous creation” should report a single act (“let it be…”) followed by a sequence of creations without subsequent performative speech acts .

A better way of getting at it is:

God thought and spoke all potentiality at once, and then actualized a portion each day. After 6 days, He stopped and rested as all that was needed was actualized.
Now, His providence keeps it going. He has to intervene at times to contravene our free will choices.

 

[Gorgias]

God thought and spoke all potentiality at once, and then actualized a portion each day.

That seems problematic:

• On its face, it seems to conflate timelessness (“God thought and spoke all at once”) and temporality (“actualized a portion each day”).
• In addition, if you’re asserting that the ‘actualization’ was a speech act on a particular day, then you’re making a claim for God not being purely act, but rather, a sequence of acts – in other words, acts which were at one point merely potential. That flies in the face of our understanding of God.
• Moreover, the claim you make – while reasonable – stands at odds with the literalistic interpretation of Genesis 1, in which a number of sequential divine thoughts and words are presented.

 

[Bradskii]

He rested?

 

[Glark]

Brazil’s looking good in that one. They’ve come a long way in four years.