As a young Christian, when I was presented with the view that Christians must believe in a young-earth and global flood, I went along willingly...One also finds erosional canyons buried in the earth. These canyons would require time to excavate, just like the time it takes to erode the Grand Canyon...And being through with creationism, I very nearly became through with Christianity. I was on the very verge of becoming an atheist.
This is a stereotypical narrative for many apostates. When they lose faith in creationism, or some particular claim thereof, they lose faith in Scripture.
At the risk of stating the obvious, Genesis never mentions the Grand Canyon. Genesis doesn’t say the Grand Canyon was formed by the flood. Genesis doesn’t say anything about the origin of the Grand Canyon one way or the other.
Morton is like a man who views a painting through tinted glasses, then when he decides the color scheme is off, throws the painting away rather than the glasses.
It’s important to distinguish what the Bible actually say from theoretical constructs. Losing faith in some theory about the formation of the Grand Canyon is not logically equivalent to losing faith in Scripture.
I’m not debating the pros and cons of flood geology right now. And I’m not qualified to debate that issue in any case.
Rather, I’m drawing attention to a common confusion among apostates.
With sufficient ingenuity, you can come up with scientific theories to explain just about anything. You can start with the same data and come up with competing theories which are empirically equivalent.
Well said and nuanced, Steve.
ReplyDeleteWhile I understand the point of the post isn't to argue theories and theological constructs per se, as you know this is a hot button issue (think BioLogos / Answers in Genesis) within evangelicalism.
This being said, in your opinion how theologically serious/significant is the debate between the Young Earthers/Old Earthers? "Pot-ay-toe, Puh-tah-toe"?
And, if I may ask without diverting the conversation too far off topic, what about those who draw other theological principles from Scripture such as the NCFIC with its very strong assertions (based on appeals to Scripture and church history) that non-Family Integrated Churches are basically following secular-humanist, Platonic, and evolutionary thinking patterns (vain philosophies of the world) in their approach to "doing church"?
In Him,
CD
"This being said, in your opinion how theologically serious/significant is the debate between the Young Earthers/Old Earthers?"
ReplyDeleteI echo this request.
And I also echo the sentiment that this is a fine post.
CD,
ReplyDeleteDepends on what motivates the old-earth-creationist. It varies.
Depends on what motivates the old-earth-creationist. It varies.
ReplyDeleteWould you have the time or inclination to explore some of the iterations here, or in a separate post?
I think it may be educational to your readership given the nature of the subject post, and considering TUaD's "second".
CD
"Morton is like a man who views a painting through tinted glasses, then when he decides the color scheme is off, throws the painting away rather than the glasses."
ReplyDeleteBrilliant simile! I'm going to steal that one.
"Depends on what motivates the old-earth-creationist. It varies."
I agree, and I think it's well worth unpacking.
The art critic who throws away the painting in favor of his tinted glasses isn't influenced by a discussion about the painting. Important to him is his attachment to his glasses. Likewise, there are different degrees to which OEC's hold science community dogma over and against scriptural revelation.
C'mon Steve, don't let this one drop into the dust-bin of T-blogue history, pick it up...please!
ReplyDeleteCD
For one thing, I'd think it'd depend on what someone's ultimate authority is. Where their loyalties or sympathies fundamentally lie. How does this play out in their biblical hermeneutics, in their exegesis of the relevant texts, in their theology, in their analysis and interpretation of the scientific theories and evidences, in their assessment of their opponents' motives and intentions, etc.?
ReplyDeleteJust FYI: Glenn Morton, who is a regular over at TWeb, didn't ultimately apostatise. While he did come close to doing so, he managed to reconcile his Christian faith with his changing theories.
ReplyDelete(I do disagree with him on this issue however, as I am a YEC, while he is not a theistic evolutionist.)
Your point Steve about those who do ditch the Gospel because they perceive a disagreement with it and their pet theory is well made, and point taken.