Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy

Do you believe that the acount of genesis in the Old testament should be taken literally?

  • Yes

    Votes: 73 16.8%
  • No

    Votes: 163 37.6%
  • both metaphorically and literally

    Votes: 198 45.6%

  • Total voters
    434

TheTrisagion

Hoplitarches
Joined
Nov 9, 2012
Messages
17,819
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Age
40
Location
PA, USA
http://creationsensation.blogspot.com/2013/08/the-big-bang-never-happened-spike.html

Spike Psarris has a Bachelor's of Science in Electrical Engineering from the University of Massachusetts, and has done graduate work in Physics.
So basically, this guy has a bachelor's degree. That's it.  I'm not sure he is exactly what anyone should consider as a heavyweight in the scientific community. The problem I have with guys like this is that their resume is normally very thin, and they puff it up as much as they can to the point of obvious deception and then they try to proclaim they have a "ministry" which is really them peddling videos and books using recycled arguments and flawed data. I used to be a young earth creationist, but the blatant dishonesty of the movement really forced me to take a closer look at what they claim and after looking at both sides, I think it is pretty clear to an unbiased observer that the creationist movement is significantly more dishonest about their methods and credentials.
 

minasoliman

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
20,198
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
NJ
And sadly, it's the dishonesty of these men that lead so many Western Christians into being "nones" at the very least.
 

beebert

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Nov 6, 2016
Messages
1,622
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Stockholm
TheTrisagion said:
http://creationsensation.blogspot.com/2013/08/the-big-bang-never-happened-spike.html

Spike Psarris has a Bachelor's of Science in Electrical Engineering from the University of Massachusetts, and has done graduate work in Physics.
So basically, this guy has a bachelor's degree. That's it.  I'm not sure he is exactly what anyone should consider as a heavyweight in the scientific community. The problem I have with guys like this is that their resume is normally very thin, and they puff it up as much as they can to the point of obvious deception and then they try to proclaim they have a "ministry" which is really them peddling videos and books using recycled arguments and flawed data. I used to be a young earth creationist, but the blatant dishonesty of the movement really forced me to take a closer look at what they claim and after looking at both sides, I think it is pretty clear to an unbiased observer that the creationist movement is significantly more dishonest about their methods and credentials.
Young earth creationism is one of the most dishonest, stupid, ignorant, nihilistic, ridiculous views of the world that exists. They are wrong in ever sense of the world an they unfortunately make secular People run away from christianity as a whole because of their colosal stupidity.
 
Joined
Sep 19, 2016
Messages
90
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
24
Location
Spain
I just read this article. I'm not sure I agree with it entirely, but I found it very interesting nonetheless:

http://orthodox-theology.com/media/PDF/1.2017/Alexander.Khramov.pdf

My main objections/criticisms are the following:

1) Even though the author denies the similarities of the argument to gnosticism, I think it still reeks of gnosticism.
2) It doesn't answer the question of when exactly the fallen Adam and Eve entered fallen history, and how do they relate to the genealogies of the OT.
3) I don't think what he calls "theistic evolutionism" necessarily has to put the blame of evolution, the futility of creation and the suffering of animals on God. One of my favorite theories regarding this, based on the scholastic tradition of Thomas Aquinas regarding angels (who at the same time took it from some Church Fathers such as Pseudo-Dionysius and I believe John Scotus Eriugena), is that due to the great power they were given at the beginning over the physical creation, it's not entirely unreasonable to believe that evolution was a result of the fall of angels from Heaven, who from the very beginning tried to distort and corrupt God's creation (leading up to evolution). It still has some problems, such as how to interpret the entrance of sin into the world "through one man" and the cosmic effects of original sin. But I think it's the only theistic-evolutionist position that doesn't make God look like an evil or incompetent Demiurge.
 

beebert

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Nov 6, 2016
Messages
1,622
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Stockholm
AlioshaKaramazov said:
I just read this article. I'm not sure I agree with it entirely, but I found it very interesting nonetheless:

http://orthodox-theology.com/media/PDF/1.2017/Alexander.Khramov.pdf

My main objections/criticisms are the following:

1) Even though the author denies the similarities of the argument to gnosticism, I think it still reeks of gnosticism.
2) It doesn't answer the question of when exactly the fallen Adam and Eve entered fallen history, and how do they relate to the genealogies of the OT.
3) I don't think what he calls "theistic evolutionism" necessarily has to put the blame of evolution, the futility of creation and the suffering of animals on God. One of my favorite theories regarding this, based on the scholastic tradition of Thomas Aquinas regarding angels (who at the same time took it from some Church Fathers such as Pseudo-Dionysius and I believe John Scotus Eriugena), is that due to the great power they were given at the beginning over the physical creation, it's not entirely unreasonable to believe that evolution was a result of the fall of angels from Heaven, who from the very beginning tried to distort and corrupt God's creation (leading up to evolution). It still has some problems, such as how to interpret the entrance of sin into the world "through one man" and the cosmic effects of original sin. But I think it's the only theistic-evolutionist position that doesn't make God look like an evil or incompetent Demiurge.
Do animals sin? And is it man's fault that some dinosaurs ate others? Maybe we shall question the traditional view of God's sovereignty? Perhaps freedom is something that God is not completely sovereign over as in God controlling the freedom of creatures, but rather that God's sovereignty lies in that he can accomplish the things he wants based om tre circumstances? He knew what all freedom would lead to. Therefore God accomplishes the best posssible outcome of that freedom through his sovereignty.
 
Joined
Sep 19, 2016
Messages
90
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
24
Location
Spain
beebert said:
Do animals sin? And is it man's fault that some dinosaurs ate others? Maybe we shall question the traditional view of God's sovereignty? Perhaps freedom is something that God is not completely sovereign over as in God controlling the freedom of creatures, but rather that God's sovereignty lies in that he can accomplish the things he wants based om tre circumstances? He knew what all freedom would lead to. Therefore God accomplishes the best posssible outcome of that freedom through his sovereignty.
Hello beebert,

I don't really know the answers to your questions. This is something I struggle a lot with. It's either man's fault or God's, because if we know that death and struggle won't exist in the world to come, why didn't God create a perfect world from the beggining? If God created everything that way because He knew beforehand that man would sin and thought it was the best for us, why did He create at all? Was it worth it? These are Khramov's main issues with theistic evolutionism, and I think they're legitimate concerns.

As I suggested above there's also a third option, which is to put the blame on the Devil and his host of fallen angels, but this isn't a very popular theory (at least in Eastern Orthodoxy). In this view, man (Adam) was created immortal and put in a safe place to redeem an already corrupted world and bring it again into communion with God ("The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it."), but failed, which is why Christ, the Son of God and a second Adam, was needed to redeem both man and the whole of Creation.
 

beebert

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Nov 6, 2016
Messages
1,622
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Stockholm
AlioshaKaramazov said:
beebert said:
Do animals sin? And is it man's fault that some dinosaurs ate others? Maybe we shall question the traditional view of God's sovereignty? Perhaps freedom is something that God is not completely sovereign over as in God controlling the freedom of creatures, but rather that God's sovereignty lies in that he can accomplish the things he wants based om tre circumstances? He knew what all freedom would lead to. Therefore God accomplishes the best posssible outcome of that freedom through his sovereignty.
Hello beebert,

I don't really know the answers to your questions. This is something I struggle a lot with. It's either man's fault or God's, because if we know that death and struggle won't exist in the world to come, why didn't God create a perfect world from the beggining? If God created everything that way because He knew beforehand that man would sin and thought it was the best for us, why did He create at all? Was it worth it? These are Khramov's main issues with theistic evolutionism, and I think they're legitimate concerns.

As I suggested above there's also a third option, which is to put the blame on the Devil and his host of fallen angels, but this isn't a very popular theory (at least in Eastern Orthodoxy). In this view, man (Adam) was created immortal and put in a safe place to redeem an already corrupted world and bring it again into communion with God ("The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it."), but failed, which is why Christ, the Son of God and a second Adam, was needed to redeem both man and the whole of Creation.
I too have struggled with this a lot. The Only Good recommendation I have is for you to read Dostoevsky and Berdyaev if you havent already. Perhaps many would not agree But IMO they provide great answers to these questions. Also, I think there is no "God knew man would sin beforehand". Because God is outside of time, to him Everything isnt foreknowledge But just knowledge...
 

Asteriktos

Hypatos
Joined
Oct 4, 2002
Messages
39,067
Reaction score
21
Points
38
Age
41
AlioshaKaramazov said:
I just read this article. I'm not sure I agree with it entirely, but I found it very interesting nonetheless:

http://orthodox-theology.com/media/PDF/1.2017/Alexander.Khramov.pdf

My main objections/criticisms are the following:

1) Even though the author denies the similarities of the argument to gnosticism, I think it still reeks of gnosticism.
2) It doesn't answer the question of when exactly the fallen Adam and Eve entered fallen history, and how do they relate to the genealogies of the OT.
3) I don't think what he calls "theistic evolutionism" necessarily has to put the blame of evolution, the futility of creation and the suffering of animals on God. One of my favorite theories regarding this, based on the scholastic tradition of Thomas Aquinas regarding angels (who at the same time took it from some Church Fathers such as Pseudo-Dionysius and I believe John Scotus Eriugena), is that due to the great power they were given at the beginning over the physical creation, it's not entirely unreasonable to believe that evolution was a result of the fall of angels from Heaven, who from the very beginning tried to distort and corrupt God's creation (leading up to evolution). It still has some problems, such as how to interpret the entrance of sin into the world "through one man" and the cosmic effects of original sin. But I think it's the only theistic-evolutionist position that doesn't make God look like an evil or incompetent Demiurge.
Here are some of my own thoughts after one read through...

Regarding your 1) I would agree and felt that there was a problem here. Rather than gnosticism though it struck me as being a little too close for comfort to Origenist beliefs such as the pre-existence of souls and an eternal/complete return to an original state/beginning. I don't think Khramov is teaching these, but some of the things he says seem to me to be 'in the same neighborhood,' or somewhat inspired by the ideas. There is a long history of orthodox-izing Origenist passages, so I don't have a problem with that in principle; nonetheless at times I felt like he was going a bit too far. I'm gonna have to go back and review some things on Origen before I get more specific on this though. Perhaps Berdyaev as well.

I felt like there was a bit of a 'fallacy of the excluded middle' thing going on, partly caught up in his efforts to pit Eastern vs. Western, or alterism vs. perseverism. On the one side is the Orthodox position as he understands it, which is that redemption will be more or less a return to the original state; on the other side is the Western position as he understands it, which is that the fall wasn't really that huge ontological change, and so that which will be experienced in the afterlife will be quite different than Eden. There is a third position, which I happen to hold to (in part mentioned here), which views the fall as being a significant ontological change, but with the afterlife being more than a simple return. My own view also happens to be based largely on many of the same writers that he references (St. Maximos, St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Gregory the Theologian, etc.)

He speaks of a "state of being" before the creation of the physical universe, but I believe this runs into a problem if he is positing a purely 'spiritual' state. As St. John and others have said, only God is truly incorporeal, because only God is uncreated. Not even angels are completely 'spiritual,' nor are human souls/spirits. Or at least I do feel like he is leaning towards over-spiritualizing things, especially given how important the ontological change he describes is: how the entire physical universe was created as a result of the fall, how human biology is something post-fall, etc. But perhaps he did not mean to imply that this, and I am reading too much into it.

He says: "an alteristic interpretation offers a more satisfactory answer to the problem of natural evil," and I would agree that what he is presenting takes some things in different and helpful directions. There remain problems though, including ones that he seems to think are resolved with what he is putting forward. This is also an area where he strays into Origenist-sounding territory, for example when he says:

"God cannot immediately return human beings to Paradise without violating their freedom. On the contrary, theistic evolutionists have to admit that God placed humans in the world full of death and suffering by default, without any decisions on this matter from them, although he could have made them perfect and immortal from the very beginning."

Is he here implying that each of us coming into a world of sin is justified because he somehow merited or earned or reaped it before the existence of the universe? That would go against orthodox doctrine as I understand it. One orthodox way of putting it is that we all sinned in Adam/Eve, that we weren't just descended from them but in some way also sinned with them and were in them. That's all very vague, but if something like that is what he means to say, I don't see how either his POV or that he attributes to Western theology escape the problem he mentioned above. It's also worth pointing out that God does in fact violate our freedoms, at least in the manner he is discussing. Even St. Gregory of Nyssa, who he references frequently, says so explicitly in some places (such an idea in his On Infants Early Death was mentioned not too long ago).

Another thing I wonder about is the existence of humans pre-universe, and then their eventual return. Basically he is saying that humans fell, the universe was created as a context in which created beings could exist and live, but then billions of years passed before our solar system got started, then billions more before life on earth got started, then billions more before homo sapiens got their start, then tens of thousands more before we figured out how to even make fire and language, and so on. The part I have trouble with is not the time by itself, but the idea that humans were around way back when before the universe was created, and then they weren't around for 14 billion years, and then they came back again, but in biological form this time. Maybe this isn't so very different than various things suggested by theistic evolutionary models, and taking time out of the equation makes it less bitter, but either way it's hard for me to wrap my head around.

Anyway, despite my questions and concerns, I found certain parts of the article to be quite interesting. I think some of it also underlines where there do, indeed, seem to be differences between eastern and western theologies. Eventually I'd like to take a closer look at his sources and reread it.
 
Joined
Sep 19, 2016
Messages
90
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
24
Location
Spain
Asteriktos said:
Here are some of my own thoughts after one read through...

Regarding your 1) I would agree and felt that there was a problem here. Rather than gnosticism though it struck me as being a little too close for comfort to Origenist beliefs such as the pre-existence of souls and an eternal/complete return to an original state/beginning. I don't think Khramov is teaching these, but some of the things he says seem to me to be 'in the same neighborhood,' or somewhat inspired by the ideas. There is a long history of orthodox-izing Origenist passages, so I don't have a problem with that in principle; nonetheless at times I felt like he was going a bit too far. I'm gonna have to go back and review some things on Origen before I get more specific on this though. Perhaps Berdyaev as well.

I felt like there was a bit of a 'fallacy of the excluded middle' thing going on, partly caught up in his efforts to pit Eastern vs. Western, or alterism vs. perseverism. On the one side is the Orthodox position as he understands it, which is that redemption will be more or less a return to the original state; on the other side is the Western position as he understands it, which is that the fall wasn't really that huge ontological change, and so that which will be experienced in the afterlife will be quite different than Eden. There is a third position, which I happen to hold to (in part mentioned here), which views the fall as being a significant ontological change, but with the afterlife being more than a simple return. My own view also happens to be based largely on many of the same writers that he references (St. Maximos, St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Gregory the Theologian, etc.)

He speaks of a "state of being" before the creation of the physical universe, but I believe this runs into a problem if he is positing a purely 'spiritual' state. As St. John and others have said, only God is truly incorporeal, because only God is uncreated. Not even angels are completely 'spiritual,' nor are human souls/spirits. Or at least I do feel like he is leaning towards over-spiritualizing things, especially given how important the ontological change he describes is: how the entire physical universe was created as a result of the fall, how human biology is something post-fall, etc. But perhaps he did not mean to imply that this, and I am reading too much into it.

He says: "an alteristic interpretation offers a more satisfactory answer to the problem of natural evil," and I would agree that what he is presenting takes some things in different and helpful directions. There remain problems though, including ones that he seems to think are resolved with what he is putting forward. This is also an area where he strays into Origenist-sounding territory, for example when he says:

"God cannot immediately return human beings to Paradise without violating their freedom. On the contrary, theistic evolutionists have to admit that God placed humans in the world full of death and suffering by default, without any decisions on this matter from them, although he could have made them perfect and immortal from the very beginning."

Is he here implying that each of us coming into a world of sin is justified because he somehow merited or earned or reaped it before the existence of the universe? That would go against orthodox doctrine as I understand it. One orthodox way of putting it is that we all sinned in Adam/Eve, that we weren't just descended from them but in some way also sinned with them and were in them. That's all very vague, but if something like that is what he means to say, I don't see how either his POV or that he attributes to Western theology escape the problem he mentioned above. It's also worth pointing out that God does in fact violate our freedoms, at least in the manner he is discussing. Even St. Gregory of Nyssa, who he references frequently, says so explicitly in some places (such an idea in his On Infants Early Death was mentioned not too long ago).

Another thing I wonder about is the existence of humans pre-universe, and then their eventual return. Basically he is saying that humans fell, the universe was created as a context in which created beings could exist and live, but then billions of years passed before our solar system got started, then billions more before life on earth got started, then billions more before homo sapiens got their start, then tens of thousands more before we figured out how to even make fire and language, and so on. The part I have trouble with is not the time by itself, but the idea that humans were around way back when before the universe was created, and then they weren't around for 14 billion years, and then they came back again, but in biological form this time. Maybe this isn't so very different than various things suggested by theistic evolutionary models, and taking time out of the equation makes it less bitter, but either way it's hard for me to wrap my head around.

Anyway, despite my questions and concerns, I found certain parts of the article to be quite interesting. I think some of it also underlines where there do, indeed, seem to be differences between eastern and western theologies. Eventually I'd like to take a closer look at his sources and reread it.
Yes, what you mention in the penultimate paragraph seems the most problematic bit. Regarding the difference of traditions between East and West, I'd like to add that both St. Augustine and Bede the Venerable seem to imply that there could have existed animal death before the Fall, though they're not as explicit as Thomas Aquinas:

In the opinion of some, those animals which now are fierce and kill others, would, in that state, have been tame, not only in regard to man, but also in regard to other animals. But this is quite unreasonable. For the nature of animals was not changed by man's sin, as if those whose nature now it is to devour the flesh of others, would then have lived on herbs, as the lion and falcon. Nor does Bede's gloss on Genesis 1:30, say that trees and herbs were given as food to all animals and birds, but to some. Thus there would have been a natural antipathy between some animals. They would not, however, on this account have been excepted from the mastership of man: as neither at present are they for that reason excepted from the mastership of God, Whose Providence has ordained all this. Of this Providence man would have been the executor, as appears even now in regard to domestic animals, since fowls are given by men as food to the trained falcon.
(Summa Theologica, I, q. 96 art. 1).

I know that's very far from being a consensus patrum, but it's something.

By the way, what do you think of my theory of fallen angels being the source of natural corruption and death?

 
Joined
Sep 19, 2016
Messages
90
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
24
Location
Spain
From St. Augustine's "City of God" (Book XII):

Chapter 4.— Of the Nature of Irrational and Lifeless Creatures, Which in Their Own Kind and Order Do Not Mar the Beauty of the Universe.

But it is ridiculous to condemn the faults of beasts and trees, and other such mortal and mutable things as are void of intelligence, sensation, or life, even though these faults should destroy their corruptible nature; for these creatures received, at their Creator's will, an existence fitting them, by passing away and giving place to others, to secure that lowest form of beauty, the beauty of seasons, which in its own place is a requisite part of this world. For things earthly were neither to be made equal to things heavenly, nor were they, though inferior, to be quite omitted from the universe. Since, then, in those situations where such things are appropriate, some perish to make way for others that are born in their room, and the less succumb to the greater, and the things that are overcome are transformed into the quality of those that have the mastery, this is the appointed order of things transitory. Of this order the beauty does not strike us, because by our mortal frailty we are so involved in a part of it, that we cannot perceive the whole, in which these fragments that offend us are harmonized with the most accurate fitness and beauty.
And therefore, where we are not so well able to perceive the wisdom of the Creator, we are very properly enjoined to believe it, lest in the vanity of human rashness we presume to find any fault with the work of so great an Artificer. At the same time, if we attentively consider even these faults of earthly things, which are neither voluntary nor penal, they seem to illustrate the excellence of the natures themselves, which are all originated and created by God; for it is that which pleases us in this nature which we are displeased to see removed by the fault—unless even the natures themselves displease men, as often happens when they become hurtful to them, and then men estimate them not by their nature, but by their utility; as in the case of those animals whose swarms scourged the pride of the Egyptians. But in this way of estimating, they may find fault with the sun itself; for certain criminals or debtors are sentenced by the judges to be set in the sun. Therefore it is not with respect to our convenience or discomfort, but with respect to their own nature, that the creatures are glorifying to their Artificer. Thus even the nature of the eternal fire, penal though it be to the condemned sinners, is most assuredly worthy of praise. For what is more beautiful than fire flaming, blazing, and shining? What more useful than fire for warming, restoring, cooking, though nothing is more destructive than fire burning and consuming? The same thing, then, when applied in one way, is destructive, but when applied suitably, is most beneficial. For who can find words to tell its uses throughout the whole world? We must not listen, then, to those who praise the light of fire but find fault with its heat, judging it not by its nature, but by their convenience or discomfort. For they wish to see, but not to be burnt. But they forget that this very light which is so pleasant to them, disagrees with and hurts weak eyes; and in that heat which is disagreeable to them, some animals find the most suitable conditions of a healthy life.

Chapter 5.— That in All Natures, of Every Kind and Rank, God is Glorified.

All natures, then, inasmuch as they are, and have therefore a rank and species of their own, and a kind of internal harmony, are certainly good. And when they are in the places assigned to them by the order of their nature, they preserve such being as they have received. And those things which have not received everlasting being, are altered for better or for worse, so as to suit the wants and motions of those things to which the Creator's law has made them subservient; and thus they tend in the divine providence to that end which is embraced in the general scheme of the government of the universe. So that, though the corruption of transitory and perishable things brings them to utter destruction, it does not prevent their producing that which was designed to be their result. And this being so, God, who supremely is, and who therefore created every being which has not supreme existence (for that which was made of nothing could not be equal to Him, and indeed could not be at all had He not made it), is not to be found fault with on account of the creature's faults, but is to be praised in view of the natures He has made.
 

Porter ODoran

Toumarches
Joined
May 8, 2014
Messages
12,135
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Age
48
Location
Eugene, OR
Sounds like Optimism. Maybe des Cartes, Leibniz, et al. drew on Augustine as an influence. The Holy  Apostles pose somewhat of a check to this "all is good" theorizing, viz., e.g. "For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now" (St. Paul); "the whole world lieth in wickedness" (St. John) -- the world requires a Savior.
 

Jetavan

Taxiarches
Joined
Feb 15, 2007
Messages
7,007
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
www.esoteric.msu.edu
In Honor of Mother's Day

A little boy goes to his Dad and asks, "Dad, where did humans come from?" His father says, "Well, we descended from apes." The little boy goes to his Mom, "Mom, where did humans come from?" His mother says, "We were created by God in the image of God." The boy says, "But Dad says we are descended from apes." Mom says, "Well, I was talking about my side of the family."
 

Jetavan

Taxiarches
Joined
Feb 15, 2007
Messages
7,007
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
www.esoteric.msu.edu
From the May 2017 Gallup Poll: Young-Earth Creationism at a new low

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The percentage of U.S. adults who believe that God created humans in their present form at some time within the last 10,000 years or so -- the strict [or Young-Earth] creationist view -- has reached a new low. Thirty-eight percent of U.S. adults now accept [Young-Earth] creationism, while 57% believe in some form of evolution -- either God-guided or not -- saying man developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life.
....
More Catholics believe that humans evolved but God guided the process (45%) than believe in the [Young-Earth] creationist viewpoint (37%). [Young-Earth] Creationism is still the view that half of Protestants and other Christians (50%) hold, but it is not dominant, with 39% saying humans essentially evolved with God's guidance.
 

TheTrisagion

Hoplitarches
Joined
Nov 9, 2012
Messages
17,819
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Age
40
Location
PA, USA
Jetavan said:
From the May 2017 Gallup Poll: Young-Earth Creationism at a new low

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The percentage of U.S. adults who believe that God created humans in their present form at some time within the last 10,000 years or so -- the strict [or Young-Earth] creationist view -- has reached a new low. Thirty-eight percent of U.S. adults now accept [Young-Earth] creationism, while 57% believe in some form of evolution -- either God-guided or not -- saying man developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life.
....
More Catholics believe that humans evolved but God guided the process (45%) than believe in the [Young-Earth] creationist viewpoint (37%). [Young-Earth] Creationism is still the view that half of Protestants and other Christians (50%) hold, but it is not dominant, with 39% saying humans essentially evolved with God's guidance.
I'm curious what belief the remaining 18% believe. That aliens implanted life here?
 

Asteriktos

Hypatos
Joined
Oct 4, 2002
Messages
39,067
Reaction score
21
Points
38
Age
41
11% of Catholics said "Humans evolved, God had no part in process"; I guess the rest was something like "I don't know"?

(I'm still thinking about some of the stuff discussed earlier this month)
 

Jetavan

Taxiarches
Joined
Feb 15, 2007
Messages
7,007
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
www.esoteric.msu.edu
Asteriktos said:
11% of Catholics said "Humans evolved, God had no part in process"; I guess the rest was something like "I don't know"?

(I'm still thinking about some of the stuff discussed earlier this month)
Besides Young-Earth Creationism, there's also Old-Earth Creationism: the age of the Earth (or Universe) is as old as modern science claims (at least 4 billion years old), but God created all the different kinds of organisms separately, with no major evolutionary developments occurring. The survey did not explicitly ask about Old-Earth Creationism, but did explicitly ask about Young-Earth Creationism.
 

michaelus

Jr. Member
Joined
May 21, 2017
Messages
64
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Mississippi
I personally feel that we are living on a young Earth about 6000-7000 years old.
God gave Moses the Creation story of Genesis while he was on Mt. Sinai, and Moses wrote it down.
What reason would God have to lie to us about the age of the Earth?
 

beebert

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Nov 6, 2016
Messages
1,622
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Stockholm
michaelus said:
I personally feel that we are living on a young Earth about 6000-7000 years old.
God gave Moses the Creation story of Genesis while he was on Mt. Sinai, and Moses wrote it down.
What reason would God have to lie to us about the age of the Earth?
what do you mean when you say you "feel" the Earth is 6000 years old? It is older. Much older. If you want more People to become christians you should give up the silly idea about the Earth being 6000 years old.
 

michaelus

Jr. Member
Joined
May 21, 2017
Messages
64
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Mississippi
primuspilus said:
What reason would God have to lie to us about the age of the Earth?
God never says how old the Earth is.

PP
Yet, He gave us the genealogies of Genesis which also say how old everyone from Adam to Abraham was, and you can add up the numbers and find that the Earth is currently 7525 full years old (Creation was 5509 B.C.)

beebert said:
michaelus said:
I personally feel that we are living on a young Earth about 6000-7000 years old.
God gave Moses the Creation story of Genesis while he was on Mt. Sinai, and Moses wrote it down.
What reason would God have to lie to us about the age of the Earth?
what do you mean when you say you "feel" the Earth is 6000 years old? It is older. Much older. If you want more People to become christians you should give up the silly idea about the Earth being 6000 years old.
I mean that I believe the Bible which clearly states the age of the Earth.
Also, if we want to convert people to Christianity, maybe we should give up those other "silly" ideas like
  • The Virgin Birth
  • The Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ
  • The Resurrection of Jesus
  • Miracles
  • That Jesus is God, the Trinity
Of course, this is the problem.  These ideas are just as "silly" to atheists as the Creation, and yet, they are central teachings of the Bible.  We can't just give up what God has told us because it's become "out of style" with nonbelievers.
 
Top