Reasons to Believe - RTB old earth

[backwoodsman]

(I currently appreciate RTB and their view of a literal Adam and Eve; I read the Jesus Creed blog on Patheos, and it seems that is something that is brought up, and.... being challenged.)

Challenged, perhaps -- but on purely philosophical grounds, not scientific or factual. He starts with the assumption that evolution is scientific fact, which is, in a word, false; and with the claim that belief in a historical Adam requires one "to find ways to neutralize the scientific data," which again is false. Then he says, "If one accepts evolution, the first thing to note is that one has left the biblical worldview," with which he has no apparent problem. That's where he completely loses me. I prefer to stay with hard science, solid logic, and a Biblical worldview, which is where RTB comes in.

[alastairblake]

horray RTB! (i think Tim Keller was a supporter of biologos for a while....... theistic evolution stuff.

[Ian]

Darin Houston wrote:

I don't think the science is there for evolution, but it clearly seems to be in every discipline I'm familiar with as it pertains to the age of the earth

Following his death this week I have lent Christopher Hitchens my ear on youtube. From about 4 minutes here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ouBl4IJ ... ure=fvwrel
he mocks the apparent indifference of God in the time between that which the mainstream say Man appeared and the coming of Christ.
If Man has been here for a minimum of 75,000 years, would he not have a point? Can one be an old-earther and yet still believe that Man appeared within a Bibilcal time-span?

[backwoodsman]

he mocks the apparent indifference of God in the time between that which the mainstream say Man appeared and the coming of Christ.

Some would suggest Hitchens was spectacularly unqualified to say anything about God or His motives.

Can one be an old-earther and yet still believe that Man appeared within a Bibilcal time-span

Of course -- even if by "Biblical time-span" you mean 6000 years. RTB, of course, believes the Biblical timeline is somewhat longer than that, but their reasons are too long to do justice to here. I'd suggest you do some reading on their website:
http://www.reasons.org/human-origins
http://www.reasons.org/interpreting-genesis

[TheEditor]

Greetings,

This may be opening up a can of worms that is unnecessary to open, but I have often wondered the following: let's just for a moment assume that there existed pre-Adamic hominids.. What would have been the difference between these creatures and say apes? For that matter, what would be the difference between dogs and humans? Isn't the difference merely that of humans having been fashioned in God's image? And, isn't that image based upon love and a moral capacity? One could be uncomfortable with the idea of human-like creatures that were no different from other animals, but I suspect this is on the basis of appearance, more than anything else.

But, for the fun of it, let's go with this idea; God creates a race of hominids for a particular purpose; these creatures are no different than apes, save for their appearance. They fulfill a purpose for which they were created, then die off. Does this conflict with any moral standard that the Bible puts forth?

So, even if some sort of proof were to arise that creatures existed that were somewhat “human” in their appearance, and that these creatures existed 50,000 years ago, I can't see where God is obligated to deal or intervene with this creation anymore than He would be obliged to intervene in the canine world. Just a thought.

Regards, Brenden.

[Ian]

Thanks for the links, backwoodsman.

I don`t have a particular stance on this but the old-earth position, together with the corollaries it draws in, has been a stumbling block for some prominent Christians:
http://creation.com/the-slippery-slide- ... pelessness

[backwoodsman]

the old-earth position, together with the corollaries it draws in, has been a stumbling block for some prominent Christians:
http://creation.com/the-slippery-slide- ... pelessness

The problem is not the old-earth view or anything it brings to the table. The problems are lack of a solid faith, willingness to compromise truth and Scripture, and pinning one's faith on some point(s) of doctrine rather than on God.

The article describes Charles Templeton's doubts about the authority of the Bible, and his acceptance of evolution as a "demonstrable fact" -- but then, inexplicably, pins the failure of his faith on a willingness to question a point of doctrine, rather than on the obvious place: His failures on the above mentioned points. After such a spectacular failure to correctly identify the problem, the writers certainly can't have much useful to say about the solution.

I'm left wondering why they mention Hugh Ross in the article. The rest of the article has nothing to do with him or any of his ideas, but simply mentioning his name leaves readers with the impression that it does. I followed some of the links to their coverage him and his views, and found the same things I almost always see from the prominent young-earth creationist organizations and teachers: Taking his statements out of context to make it look like he said something very different than he actually said; lumping him together with evolutionists, then arguing against evolutionism as though the same arguments apply to Ross; and outright misrepresentation of his views, to such an extent that the least ungracious explanation I can come up with is that they're incompetent researchers and apologists unable to read and understand his views and present a coherent argument against them.

Presenting Hugh Ross as part of a "slippery slide" toward loss of faith, without even making an effort to correctly understand or accurately represent his views, is reprehensible, at best. I would've liked to think Christians would know better, and would treat both truth and their brothers in Christ with a little higher regard than that.

I'd still really like to see something I've never yet seen anywhere (and I've been looking for many years): An honest, Biblical, well-researched and well-reasoned objection to something Ross and RTB _actually_say_, rather than simply a knee-jerk reaction to a gross misunderstanding or misrepresentation of their views.

[TheEditor]

Greetings,

I'll have to concur with the above poster. This smacks too much of the fear of "higher education" that I received as a JW. Set foot in a University and you will fall out of "the Truth". If someone makes the step from a literal reading of Genesis to a less than literal reading, to a leap of disbelief in the resurrection of Christ, I'm sorry to say that there is more at play here with the individual in question. All too often true-believing fundamentalists of all stripes (I'll include JWs, since for all intents and purposes they are "fundamentalist", though they do not read Genesis literally) tend to throw the baby out with the bathwater when they are exposed to other ideas. My general take on it is that they aren't really certain about what is a fundamental truth of the Scripture, and what is an ancillary, not central teaching, or worse, what is sheer speculation. When something comes along and shakes their belief in a non-essential, they have a hard time separating it from the rest, and the house of cards comes down. Well, you can blame the teachers in Christendom for this.

Regards, Brenden.

[TK]

Yeah, I really have no idea what believing in OEC or YEC has to do with John 3:16. It seems to be a desperate (and irresponsible) plea by some to claim that it does.

TK

[Ian]

Backwoodsman wrote:

The problem is not the old-earth view or anything it brings to the table. The problems are lack of a solid faith, willingness to compromise truth and Scripture, and pinning one's faith on some point(s) of doctrine rather than on God

This is no doubt the case with some, and perhaps with Charles Templeton too, I don`t know.
By way of contrast - my geology teacher was instrumental in my conversion at 18. He doesn`t appear to be the slightest phased by the condundrums we`re discussing. Indeed he`s too busy being out on the streets of inner-city Birmingham, UK - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6NMe2WgqFw
My hat is off to him.