Does Old-Earth Creationism Undermine the Gospel? A Response to Kevin Bauder

I am not attacking in any way, I am just seeking to understand.

Do you accept heliocentrism as opposed to geocentrism. If you do, why? The plain reading of several Scriptures is the the Sun is moving, not the Earth. As a matter of fact, the Sun isn’t the center of anything other than the solar system. How do we know this? The “evil” U word….uniformitarianism.

*By the way, the initial article mentions this, so it is relevant to the thread.

Mark,

I don’t have a problem with uniformitarianism in general — it’s God’s good plan for how the world works — but there have been supernatural events that make *some* results, based on uniformitarianism alone, unwarranted. Heliocentrism vs geocentrism is not one of them.

Do you acknowledge that the Bible seems to present geocentrism?

[Mark_Smith]

Do you acknowledge that the Bible seems to present geocentrism?

No it doesn’t. They are poetical in nature, much different from the historical narrative found in Genesis. I can stand at the seashore and watch the sun rise. It is accurate from my perspective, but not entirely scientific accurate, nor is it meant to be scientific. It is well understood among theologians that the scant evidence that is used in this argument are not verses that are centered around cosmology. Again this is a stretch that Old Earth Creationist try to use without really understanding Scripture. In addition, as I stated above, the arguments by the Catholic Church had nothing to do about arguing against science by using poorly understood Scripture. And anyone who has studied this clearly knows this. In fact there is plenty of documentation that the Church didn’t even agree with using these scriptures against heliocentrism.

you believe heliocentrism because someone (Tycho Brahe) observed nature very carefully. Kepler then took that data, applied mathematics to it, and discovered the planets orbit the Sun, not the Earth. You didn’t read it in the Bible! If you want to argue with me on that CERTAINLY you’ll accept the Bible doesn’t mention that the Sun orbits the Milky Way galaxy center! All of that is known from observing nature, rather than reading it in the Bible. This in spite of claims by previous Christian leaders (Luther, and Owens are 2 great examples that the IP mentions) that heliocentrism was wrong. You now choose the interpretation of Scripture that comports with heliocentrism, but it was not the case in the past. Scientific discovery led to a change in Biblical interpretation…or more likely caused people to ask questions of the text they never thought of before. Before Kepler and Copernicus, no one (well, we’ll ignore Aristarchus) even questioned that the Sun orbited the Earth, so OF COURSE that is the way God made it., etc.

Yes, but Mark it is a flawed approach. First, the Bible really doesn’t teach geocentrism, but I will concede that some theologians in the past may have used verses to argue their point. Doesn’t mean those arguments were very good, exegetically even if they did come from Luther or Owen. With that said, we can measure the distance of the planet and have actually traveled to the edge of our solar system. But this is again entirely irrelevant compared to Creation where the Bible is clearly very clear about this supernatural event (scripture is not clear on geocentricity). In addition, we believe it was a supernatural event. With that said, no one in science has physically observed the actual Big Bang or the passage of time, they just see traces of it, use a number of assumptions, provide some limitations and then develop the idea that the result was a Big Bang at some point in time in the past.

It was “supernatural”…it doesn’t have to be reasonable!

You can hand-wave any inconsistency as “it was a miracle”. Does that bother you?

Once again I come back to this, why would God put all of the detail into the universe, galaxies merging, cosmic microwave background, black holes, gamma ray bursts, on and on and on, make it CONSISTENT with old age, but then require only 6000 years where you have to disbelieve EVERYTHING about nature you observe locally because “its all a miracle”?

In your view, dgs, EVERY PHOTON FROM THE SUN is a direct miracle from God because the fusion energy from the core of the Sun has NEVER reached the surface. None of the Sun’s light came from a natural process because those photons are buried deep in the Sun still.

[Mark_Smith]

It was “supernatural”…it doesn’t have to be reasonable!

You can hand-wave any inconsistency as “it was a miracle”. Does that bother you?

Once again I come back to this, why would God put all of the detail into the universe, galaxies merging, cosmic microwave background, black holes, gamma ray bursts, on and on and on, make it CONSISTENT with old age, but then require only 6000 years where you have to disbelieve EVERYTHING about nature you observe locally because “its all a miracle”?

In your view, dgs, EVERY PHOTON FROM THE SUN is a direct miracle from God because the fusion energy from the core of the Sun has NEVER reached the surface. None of the Sun’s light came from a natural process because those photons are buried deep in the Sun still.

Yes, God’s thoughts are greater than man’s. But, you see, you have an interpretation of the words written by God. Any chance your interpretation could be wrong?

Any chance your perception of science as human hubris could be wrong?

Any chance you misunderstand concepts like “the Big Bang”, or don’t understand what uniformitarianism is? Any chance your rapid dismissal of observation is actually destructive to the faith of some, or of the gospel of Jesus Christ?

[Mark_Smith]

How about I let you do your job, AND YOU LET ME DO MINE without being ambushed and being accused of being apostate! We might just BOTH learn something.

First, I don’t know the first thing about you. I don’t know what job you do, but I expect that you do it to the best of your ability to the glory of God. In fact, the reason it took me so long to reply is that I was doing my job (but I wear multiple hats - that which I do vocationally is not textual ministry). Second, I never accused anyone of being apostate publicly here in this forum. I could start, but it wouldn’t be with anyone at SI at this time (I’ve had an offer to publish papers on some of the works of Peter Enns, but I haven’t moved forward with that offer at this time for a number of reasons). So I’m confused by your anger and shouting.
[Quote=Mark_Smith]

IF YOUR INTERPRETATION of Scripture is right, then the helium-leak rate will match up, etc.

Dare I ask, WHAT IF your interpretation were wrong?

Concerning your first statement - yes, if my interpretation of Scripture is true then if the Scriptures are true (and I believe that they are), then what is in the world should match what is in the Scriptures - including any “helium-leak rates.” But as I stated, I don’t need their evidence to make my textual argument.

Concerning your second statement - it is entirely possible that my interpretation is correct. Certainty is not absolute, it is subjective. I’m 99.995% certain that my interpretation is correct, and I have looked at most, if not all of the other interpretations (I’ve been carefully researching this topic for about the past 4 years - and by carefully I mean studying the topic on a PhD level). One (of the many) of the reasons that I am virtually certain that my interpretation is correct is that all of the other deviating interpretations either explicitly or enthymematically point to the scientific “facts” as a reason for holding to their interpretation.

I recognize that science can give us theories, possibilities, probabilities, and attempted explanations. But I’ve read Kuhn - today’s scientific theory is the discard of tomorrow’s scientific revolution.
Concerning geocentrism - Will you assert with absolute certainty that the universe is not in rotation and that, in that rotation, the earth is not the center? Can you prove that with certainty “scientifically?”

[Mark_Smith]

It was “supernatural”…it doesn’t have to be reasonable!

You can hand-wave any inconsistency as “it was a miracle”. Does that bother you?

Once again I come back to this, why would God put all of the detail into the universe, galaxies merging, cosmic microwave background, black holes, gamma ray bursts, on and on and on, make it CONSISTENT with old age, but then require only 6000 years where you have to disbelieve EVERYTHING about nature you observe locally because “its all a miracle”?

In your view, dgs, EVERY PHOTON FROM THE SUN is a direct miracle from God because the fusion energy from the core of the Sun has NEVER reached the surface. None of the Sun’s light came from a natural process because those photons are buried deep in the Sun still.

Mark, I only wave my hand, when God waves his hand. Scripture is 100% equivocably clear that this was a supernatural event. And that Science will not be able to explain it. Scriptures says, “By faith we understand that the universe was created by the Word of God”. Not by scientific reasoning. We also know that faith confounds the wisdom of man.

If God created the universe with no apparent age, and the universe was only 10,000 years old, we would only see a handful of stars. We know that the stars were created more than just bodies of light, but for signs and seasons and for navigation. It just doesn’t bother me in the same way that it bothers you. I don’t see the need to reconcile the two.

You continue to be hung up with the fact that 1) they must agree - which nowhere in Scriptures does it say that the wisdom of man will coincide with the faith in God, and 2) Why would God do this - which again nowhere in Scripture does it say that the we will understand what God does.

[CAWatson]

I recognize that science can give us theories, possibilities, probabilities, and attempted explanations. But I’ve read Kuhn - today’s scientific theory is the discard of tomorrow’s scientific revolution.

Concerning geocentrism - Will you assert with absolute certainty that the universe is not in rotation and that, in that rotation, the earth is not the center? Can you prove that with certainty “scientifically?”

What is even more interesting, that Mark I don’t think fully comprehends is that every single scientific theory, law…. is significantly subject to more uncertainty, than Scripture. We know that scientific laws and theories will 100% always change. There are more problems with Einsteins theory of relativity and how it relates to cosmology than it answers. So much so, that many people are looking to throw this out to develop a new model to explain things. We continue to change theories, because we actually know very little, and our ability to comprehend is so very small in relation to the answers. We do know that Scripture is 100% accurate, will never change with time, and we can guarantee that because we have a God who fully understands and comprehends all things and transcends all time. Based on these two foundations, individuals like Mark still struggle with trying to make them resolve to each other, and the because driver behind these individuals, is “Why would God confuse us?” It is extremely weak philosophical argument, and if I had to take two things that didn’t appear to be compatible, but I knew that one element was sure, solid and stable, and the other element had more questions than answers, I would choose the more solid, stable and sure element (what God’s Word clearly says about Creation). I would still study the first element (science), with the hope, but not certainty that it may resolve some of the issues, knowing good and well, that the foundation will never, ever be as stable as God’s Word.

[Mark_Smith]

Yes, God’s thoughts are greater than man’s. But, you see, you have an interpretation of the words written by God. Any chance your interpretation could be wrong?

Any chance your perception of science as human hubris could be wrong?

Any chance you misunderstand concepts like “the Big Bang”, or don’t understand what uniformitarianism is? Any chance your rapid dismissal of observation is actually destructive to the faith of some, or of the gospel of Jesus Christ?

As I have stated repeatedly, it is all about world view and the assumptions thusly generated. Let us give every possible advantage to science for the sake of argument. Let us say it is possible every YEC has wrongly interpreted scripture. Even then we still know with absolute certainty that the assumption of uniformitarianism is wrong. God created - therefore there was a time when things were not happening as they are now. Even if you give billions of years and accept some form of theistic evolution (giving every possible advantage to science), there was still a time when God began everything - unless you are going to completely reject the Bible which you say you have not done. We also know that God has promised to destroy the entire universe one day, thus ending the “uniform” processes at work in the universe. Finally, we also know that God has recorded miraculous acts, which are by definition events that violate the uniformity of the natural laws of the universe, dotting human history breaking the “uniform” processes at work in the universe. So, on the one hand we have absolute knowledge and on the other we have an assumption. And no, there is absolutely no chance that my “rapid dismissal of observation is actually destructive to the faith of some, or of the gospel of Jesus Christ.” - but for reasons that have nothing to do with this topic.

Basically what this comes down to is several of the posters here have little knowledge about cosmology. What is observed, what is known, how it is known, etc, so they have no interest in making it all work out. Fine. This subject IS MY DAY JOB, so I have a lot of knowledge about it and I just can’t dismiss what is plainly observed as “mere appearance”, for example.

I am moving on. Have a great day.

It also seems many here have read PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE but have likely never read a “real” PHYSICS or ASTRONOMY textbook. I understand why, it just makes having a reasonable conversation difficult and frustrating.

Chip, for example, NEVER FIGURED OUT that I was saying the YEC model can be right but the universe be old…its called TIME DILATION. look it up, Chip.

[Mark_Smith] It also seems many here have read PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE but have likely never read a “real” PHYSICS or ASTRONOMY textbook. I understand why, it just makes having a reasonable conversation difficult and frustrating.

I could turn your statement around and say it seems some here have studied a lot of scientific thought about topics discussed in the Bible but never read the theologians. That makes having a reasonable conversation difficult and frustrating too. One is a shifting sand of constantly changing positions while the other is a fount of inerrant, eternal truth. I have to struggle with one or the other, it is an easy decision which one gets priority.