According to young earth creationists, Adam had a 24 hour day to name all the animals (Gen. 2:20).
— Tentative Apologist (@RandalRauser) October 11, 2018
Fun fact 1: scientists estimate approximately 8.7 million animal species currently live on earth; millions more species are extinct.
Fun fact 2: There are 86,400 seconds in a day.
Is Rauser really that dense?
i) To begin with, young-earth creationists typically distinguish between the natural kinds that God originally made and subsequent diversification.
ii) More to the point, Gen 2 is a local rather than global creation account. It's about God making the Garden of Eden, not the universe or the planetary biosphere.
Leaving aside how long it took.... apparently Rauser has determined that Adam used the modern seven-level system of biological classification associated with Linnaeus to name animals, and that he named them right down to the species level. That's, uh, an impressive discovery.
ReplyDeleteOn his own terms, leaving aside the timings, he apparently believes that Adam named 8.7 million species. So, he separately named over 350,000 different species of beetle (since, as you point out, he appears to believe that all speciation had taken place by then, and that the things named include the entire biological catalogue).
Definitely one for the "clever people frequently say ridiculously stupid things when it suits their cause" file.
I also note, in passing, that this is another instance of how many critics of young earth creationism are amazingly wooden and literal in their own interpretations of the relevant texts. Here, Rauser apparently swallows the camel of Adam being au fait with Linnean taxonomy and exhaustively cataloguing the entire biosphere, in order to screen out the gnat of God creating in six days.
I can name all the animals in 5 seconds.
ReplyDeleteFlying animals, land animals, aquatic animals, amphibians :-)
In addition, according to Gen 2:19-20, Adam only named the animals God "brought" to Adam among the livestock, the birds of the heavens, and the beasts of the field. On the face of it, this would seem to preclude most aquatic animals or creatures, amphibians, reptiles, insects, creepy crawlies, etc.
ReplyDeleteAmen to this response.
ReplyDeleteI've given some thoughts of my own on creationism in this article:
ReplyDeletehttps://rationalchristiandiscernment.blogspot.com/2018/06/why-i-reject-darwinism-as-science.html
Fun fact: Jesus disapproves of this post. Matthew 5:22
ReplyDelete1. What makes you think Steve Hays is "angry" with Randal Rauser?
Delete2. Does Jesus likewise disapprove of other biblical writers using "fool" toward professing believers (e.g. the book of Proverbs)?
See D.A. Carson's commentary on Mt 5:21-22.
DeleteFun fact: Tuggy's fun facts are stupid.
DeleteDale has gone stale indeed.
DeleteI think this reflects Dale's larger problem: his poor grasp on how to properly and accurately exegete the Bible. At best, he's no better than the average layperson, though he's sometimes worse.
DeleteThat's in part why his case against the Trinity and/or for his brand of unitarianism is so weak on biblical grounds. He does have posts and lectures which on the face seem to heavily interact with the Bible, but when you delve into his exegesis and so forth it's superficial.
Again at best Dale is no better than the average layperson when it comes to interpreting the Bible. Dale's biblical work is a far cry from how a biblical scholar would work. Yet, if one is going to argue against the Trinity and/or for unitarianism, then one really needs to deal with the biblical issues on a scholastic level. In this respect, somewhat ironically, a layperson like Nick Norelli has a keener sense of biblical hermeneutics than Dale does.
Indeed. Tuggy is no more biblically literate than your average atheist. Isolating verses out of context without proper exegesis is a staple for the atheist and apostate.
DeleteEpistle, Carson's comments do nothing to exonerate Steve. The sort of contempt he expresses here is exactly the sort of thing Jesus has in mind. In this connection I recommend Dallas Willard's discussion of this passage in the context of the whole sermon on the mount in his The Divine Conspiracy.
ReplyDeleteOn another note, I have to say, I get a kick out of this sort of thinking:
1. If Tuggy were minimally competent at exegesis, he'd agree with us.
2. Tuggy doesn't agree with us.
3. Ergo, Tuggy is not minimally competent at exegesis.
About premise 1 - LOL. But I guess this saves one from actually having to think through my actual arguments, scriptural and not.
'1. If Tuggy were minimally competent at exegesis, he'd agree with us....'
DeleteSeriously, are you so hopelessly inept? What an utterly stupid syllogism. Your reading comprehension is woeful; nothing EoD or others have said amounts to such crudeness.
Here's a wee hint: There *was no* exegesis in your stupid response. Now do the mathematics.
Note that the hopelessly inept Tuggy 'get[s] a kick out of this sort of thinking...'
DeleteA refreshing admission on his part, but not so shocking for those of us familiar with his foolish drivel.
Dale
Delete"Epistle, Carson's comments do nothing to exonerate Steve. The sort of contempt he expresses here is exactly the sort of thing Jesus has in mind."
1. To call someone a "fool" doesn't necessarily imply the person is expressing "contempt" for them. It could be calling someone a "fool" means you're hoping they become wise. That's not "contempt" for another person, but quite the opposite: hope they will change for the better. That's often the case in the book of Proverbs calling people "fools" or similar, for example.
Similarly, take ad hominem. Sure, some ad hominem may be expressing contempt for another person, but not all ad hominem is necessarily expressing contempt for another person. Some ad hominem may be used in the hopes of keeping a person consistent in their positions and arguments, which is beneficial to that person. For instance, Ed Feser has written a little bit about this here.
Likewise, here's what philosopher Peter Geach once said about ad hominem arguments in his book Reason and Argument (cited by Keith Burgess-Jackson): "Ad hominem arguments are not just a way of winning a dispute: a logically sound ad hominem argues does a service, even if an unwelcome one, to its victim - it shows him that his present position is untenable and must be modified. Of course people often do not like to be disturbed in their comfortable inconsistencies; that is why ad hominem arguments have a bad name."
2. The concept of "fool" in the English language is not necessarily equivalent to the concept of "fool" as Jesus meant it in Mt 5:22. At the very least, that needs to be argued for.
3. Yes, Carson deals with these and other distinctions.
4. I notice you didn't answer my previous questions to you (above).
"In this connection I recommend Dallas Willard's discussion of this passage in the context of the whole sermon on the mount in his The Divine Conspiracy."
1. I don't have access to Willard's book in order to examine what Willard says. Perhaps you can quote the relevant passage (like I did with Carson's).
2. Willard is a philosopher, not a NT scholar, whereas Carson is not only a NT scholar, but a Matthean expert. As such, if you're attempting to make an argument from authority, then Carson's expertise ought to trump Willard's with regard to Mt 5:22.
"1. If Tuggy were minimally competent at exegesis, he'd agree with us."
1. How does what I said imply this at all? It doesn't. For one thing, I never implied you need to "agree" with me. In fact, the layperson I cited, Nick Norelli, wouldn't "agree" with me, not entirely anyway.
2. Instead, I said your biblical case for your anti-Trinitarian and/or unitarian views doesn't deal with the biblical issues on a scholastic level. I said at best you're no better than an average layperson when it comes to interpreting the Bible. That doesn't necessarily mean you're "minimally competent at exegesis". Not unless you think laypeople are "miniminally competent at exegesis"!
3. You're free to prove me wrong. You could start with Mt 5:22 since you brought it up. Show how Mt 5:22 applies to Steve.
Dale Tuggy
Delete"Fun fact: Jesus disapproves of this post. Matthew 5:22"
So far all I see you doing is taking "fool" in Mt 5:22 (as translated into English), then seeing Steve use "fool" in the title of his post, and concluding therefore the two uses of "fool" must be identical or equivalent to one another, hence "Jesus disapproves" of the title of Steve's post! However, this is highly simplistic, as biblical scholars like Carson have shown.
"Epistle, Carson's comments do nothing to exonerate Steve. The sort of contempt he expresses here is exactly the sort of thing Jesus has in mind."
DeleteAs far as this goes, there's such a thing as righteous anger and righteous hatred. Carson points that out.
"In this connection I recommend Dallas Willard's discussion of this passage in the context of the whole sermon on the mount in his The Divine Conspiracy."
Speaking of which, the Sermon on the Mount (including Mt 5:22) is addressed to Jesus' disciples (Mt 5:1-2). Not those who aren't Jesus' disciples. Are progressive Christians or Unitarians among Jesus' disciples?
Steve Hays responds to Dale Tuggy here:
ReplyDeletehttp://triablogue.blogspot.com/2018/10/the-foolish-builder.html
The tone of contempt in the post is obvious. The subject is a direct insult. The first sentence is a passive-aggressive insult in pseudo-question form, which in effect asserts (again) that Dr. Rauser is dumb. Sadly, this is a habit for Steve Hays. And it's exactly the sort of thing Jesus is commenting on - calling your brother an empty-head or a fool.
ReplyDeleteNo, I'm not just seizing on the word "fool." The point would be the same for any sort of insult. Of course, Hays's disobedience is striking when he employs the same word our translations use for the Greek "moros" in this passage.
I'm not for arguing with kid gloves. I've often been pretty hard on Hays's many poor arguments, but I do try, out of obedience to the Lord Jesus, to avoid insult. God knows, you can probably find somewhere on my blog where I've failed in this regard, but it won't be in the title of the post!
Are unitarians disciples? The question suggests you haven't interacted much with us. In any case, this unitarian Christian is lecturing you all on basic Christian ethics. Not much point in doing apologetics in ways the directly contradict clear biblical teaching.
He doesn't need defenders, Epistle. Steve needs to react with godly remorse and repentance and delete this post.
Dale
Delete"The tone of contempt in the post is obvious. The subject is a direct insult. The first sentence is a passive-aggressive insult in pseudo-question form, which in effect asserts (again) that Dr. Rauser is dumb."
Sorry, Dale, declaring it's "obvious" doesn't make it obvious:
1. Suppose I state: "John is dumb". That doesn't necessarily imply I hold "contempt" for John. It doesn't necessarily mean I'm "angry" at the guy. It doesn't necessarily mean I "hate" John. It just means I don't think John is the sharpest tool in the shed.
2. Yes, it's an insult, but not all insults are insults seething with "anger" or "contempt".
3. It's possible for smart people to say dumb things.
4. It sounds like you're reading emotions into an emotionless statement. Can you even tell someone is angry at another person online (short of video or audio)? Isn't it common for people to misread what people write or type online? That seems to happen a lot. At least, shouldn't you give Steve the benefit of the doubt before you jump to conclusions about him being "angry" at Rauser and holding Rauser in "contempt" and so on?
5. Indeed, Steve went on to clarify. He states in his reply to you: "I'm pretty emotionally detached. Anger wasn't in play." Or are you going to tell Steve he doesn't know how he was feeling?
"Sadly, this is a habit for Steve Hays. And it's exactly the sort of thing Jesus is commenting on - calling your brother an empty-head or a fool. No, I'm not just seizing on the word "fool." The point would be the same for any sort of insult. Of course, Hays's disobedience is striking when he employs the same word our translations use for the Greek "moros" in this passage."
DeleteLike I've already pointed out to you, the English word "fool" isn't necessarily equivalent to what Jesus says in Greek (or what's called to mind to Jesus' Hebrew/Aramaic speaking audience). At the very least, you'd have to make the argument for it if you think the two are equivalent. You can't just assume it.
"I'm not for arguing with kid gloves. I've often been pretty hard on Hays's many poor arguments, but I do try, out of obedience to the Lord Jesus, to avoid insult. God knows, you can probably find somewhere on my blog where I've failed in this regard, but it won't be in the title of the post!"
How is it any better if it's not in the title of a post but in the body of a post?
"Are unitarians disciples? The question suggests you haven't interacted much with us."
I would think unitarians being disciples or not isn't primarily settled by "interacting" with unitarians if by "interacting" you mean socializing with unitarians (rather than, say, interacting with unitarian arguments), but (fundamentally speaking) by appeal to what's biblical or not biblical.
"In any case, this unitarian Christian is lecturing you all on basic Christian ethics. Not much point in doing apologetics in ways the directly contradict clear biblical teaching."
Well, you're "lecturing" people on "basic Christian ethics" when you haven't even properly exegeted Mt 5:22 which is the very verse you yourself brought up. That's like me "lecturing" people on the philosophy of mind when I haven't even bothered to understand what Descrates meant when he said "Cogito ergo sum" or when I don't even know what people are talking about when people talk about a brain in a vat or when I don't know what mind-body dualism refers to, etc.
"He doesn't need defenders, Epistle. Steve needs to react with godly remorse and repentance and delete this post."
That's predicated on the fact that what Steve said is sinful. But you haven't shown that. All you've done so far is evidence that you think Steve is angry at Rauser and has a tone of contempt. But you accusing Steve of wrongdoing doesn't necessarily mean that's actually the case. Otherwise one could say a woman merely accusing a man of sexual assault without any evidence whatsoever therefore means the man is automatically guilty simply by her say-so.
"2. Yes, it's an insult, but not all insults are insults seething with "anger" or "contempt"."
DeleteTo be clear, I'm referring to my statement that "John is dumb".
More to the point, not all insults are untrue.
Young Earth/old Earth is a big issue for me and my church at the moment and I would appreciate advice from others on how to deal with this issue.
ReplyDeleteFirst the background. I am on the search committee of our church to choose our next pastor. Our congregation were sent questionnaires on what they would like to see in our next pastor? Someone in our church wrote that "the next pastor should not believe the Earth is billions of years old".
I spoke to the guy after church and said that is not going to be a criteria for choosing a new pastor. That the general scientific belief is that the universe is 13.8 billion years old. And that can be reconciled with the Genesis creation account. ie the word day has different usages. Gerald Shroeders lecture on how time is relative, this side of the big bang is 13.8 billion years old but if you were on the otherside of the big bang only 6 days have passed.
To cut a long story short, this went down like a lead balloon. It has now become an issue in our church. Our member is complaining that I am not a real Christian?
Any thoughts
To be honest, I don't think that the age of the earth is a hill that we should die on. Belief in a 6,000 year old earth is not a requirement for salvation--to demand that a person must believe such in order to be saved is works-salvation. It is not a part of the gospel (1 Corinthians 15:1-8). My personal standards on the matter of the creation vs evolution debate is that as long as a professing Christian does not affirm theistic evolution/Genesis creation account as being mythological, we do not have a serious issue (Romans 14).
DeleteThanks Jesse.
Delete1. I agree the age of the universe and Earth shouldn't be a hill to die on. Hopefully other Christians in your church aren't likewise questioning your faith? If they are, it might be more important to address fundamentals like what the gospel is, what beliefs are fundamental to Christianity vs. adiaphora, church polity and membership, and so on, before addressing the age of the universe and Earth issues!
Delete2. From an apologetics perspective, you could defend both mature creation and progressive creation. Both are arguably defensible on exegetical, theological, philosophical, and scientific grounds.
3. In general it's best to take the best representatives of each position. For mature creation, among the best are Jason Lisle, Jonathan Sarfati, John Byle, Kurt Wise, Todd Wood, Jay Wile.
For progressive creation, one could start with the ID theorists, Vern Poythress, Hugh Ross is good on astrophysics, Luke Barnes on cosmology, Aron Wall on quantum mechanics and cosmology.
All this is just off the top of my head, but I'm sure the lists could easily be expanded.
And it'd be better to recommend scholars and experts on specific topics (e.g. biblical exegesis, philosophy of time, geology, paleontology, carbon dating, various fields within chemistry).
4. I recall reading Gerald Schroeder a while back. If I recall, he's an orthodox Jewish applied physicist with a PhD from MIT. However, I've forgotten the details of his argument now. I recall not being particularly impressed at the time, but I'd have to revisit his books to double-check.
5. There are other, I guess you could say, mediating positions which you could broach with your church. See Poythress' "Christian Interpretations of Genesis 1" for starters.
The issues for hiring a pastor should be narrower. Does he believe in the historicity of Gen 1-11? Does he subscribe to theistic evolution? Does he think Adam was a real person? Does he believe Adam and Eve were the first human breeding pair? Does he think Adam and Eve were the product of special creation?
DeleteThanks guys.
DeleteGiven that the definition of a "year" is "the amount of time it takes the earth to make one revolution around the sun" then you'll see that "year" can only be objective if one stipulates that the velocity of the earth is constant. You can see this illustrated by looking at a simulation of the solar system. You can make the simulation move faster or slower through your perspective of time by speeding up or slowing down the motion of all the objects in the system. You can make earth rotate around the sun, in the simulation, once every second, or you can make it take a year, or whatever.
DeletePoint is, treating the passage of time from within a system as synonymous with the passage of some kind of universal time is foolhardy. And this isn't even taking into account the facts of the relativity of time that have been proven experimentally using ultra-precise clocks and fast jets.
TL;DR: time doesn't exist like we think it does, and we all know it, so why make THAT your criteria for determining who the best pastor is?