http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/08/080827-dark-cluster.html

and…

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/08/060822-dark-matter.html

Hubble photographs always leave me in complete awe of the complexity and beauty of God’s creation.

Perhaps I wasn’t clear (I think I was, but who knows), but in no way did I intend to accuse nedbrek of that.

> “Now, *some* of the aforementioned people might say that it is theologically *inconsistent* for Bible-believing Christians to not hold to YEC. However, that is very different from actually declaring those Christians to be heretics.”

I am sure that that is the official position of AIG. But in practice, what it communicated to me was something along the lines of “only morons try to be evolutionists and christians at the same time.” So, while I’ll grant that there’s a technical difference, I can’t say it feels any better to be on the receiving end of it. In fact, I almost wish they would call me a heretic; it would be easier to deal with than being thought of (seemingly) as a second-class christian.

I don’t say YEC people are “confused” or “inconsistent,” I say they disagree with me. For them to call my view on creation “inconsistent” shows that a) they don’t understand my view, and b) how large the scale of the problem in reconciling a YEC viewpoint with an OE viewpoint is. IOW, all the ways they can imagine reconciling the two views probably are inconsistent–but I don’t believe any of those things. If that makes any sense.

Now, *some* of the aforementioned people might say that it is theologically *inconsistent* for Bible-believing Christians to not hold to YEC. However, that is very different from actually declaring those Christians to be heretics.

I’m with Ky boy. I have heard Ken Ham speak, met him briefly, and was on the AIG mailing list for a while. (One of the mailings they sent was about the “dangers” of Hugh Ross. I’m not Ross’s disciple either, by the way.) AIG may not actually come out and use the H-word. But they have absolutely no patience for anyone with a differing opinion on this issue.

Don’t forget– there are also many Theistic Evolutionists who treat Young Earth Creationists in a *very* unloving way, while not actually declaring them heretics.

Sad but true, but as someone who tends to be just confused on the whole topic, I find the YECers are generally far less patient with me.

A problem is the high profile guys aren’t sitting next to me in the pews. (Well we have chairs.). And as much as anything else this has stopped many of us from inviting our friends to church. They’d break out into giggles at best and maybe hysterical laughter when they run into the AIG fans and wall postings and class curriculum.

And if you don’t think the AIG is a bit over the top, you should get the 3 or 4 DVD “debate” they put out on the issue. K Ham, H. Ross, and two others.

David

The more high-profile YEC subscribers whom I’m aware of do not make it a test of Christian orthodoxy. I’m referring to Albert Mohler, John MacArthur, R.C. Sproul (who more recently adopted the position), Kurt Wise (professor of theology and science at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary), and even Answers in Genesis and the Institute for Creation Research.

Now, *some* of the aforementioned people might say that it is theologically *inconsistent* for Bible-believing Christians to not hold to YEC. However, that is very different from actually declaring those Christians to be heretics. Many Christians have inconsistencies in different things that they believe (probably including me!). That fact does not, in and of itself, make them heretics.

Yes, some YEC subscribers are loudmouth firebrands who are eager to make this issue a test of orthodoxy. The more thoughtful YEC’ers do not think and behave in this way though.

Don’t forget– there are also many Theistic Evolutionists who treat Young Earth Creationists in a *very* unloving way, while not actually declaring them heretics.

As one who directed a lot of posts at Nedbrek I in no way shape or form felt he felt this way. I just felt his comments on science were mostly not even close to right. But the topics converge as I was just pointing out that YEC and many of it’s follower’s do make agreeing with them a tenant of salvation. And if you listen to them on videos of speeches and such that others and YEC puts out this becomes clear. Even if some position papers on their web sites try and confuse this issue. If Nedbrek feels YEC is right on their science but not their theology well that’s what I understood him to say.

But I still disagree with him.

“I just wish that more Christians who subscribe to OEC or TE would accept that not *all* YEC’ers (perhaps not even most) are firebrands who would declare all non-YEC Christians as heretics. Not even AIG goes that far (and thank God for it)!”

But the firebrands are the ones walking around whacking folks with their biblical baseball bats. Many of them pastors and seminary professors and students. In the small group / WW III incident I mentioned there was ONE family who would discuss things and disagree. The rest, many of them drop ins during the sessions, would basically say “sorry, you arer a heretic” in evasively polite ways and not even remotely subtle ways.

Your approach is either a very silent majority or a very silent minority.

From what I’ve seen.

And then there are the more “historical sorts”, where you collect evidence, and then tell a story to explain it. THIS is where the arguments arise – as anyone who has subscribed to Biblical Archaeology Review knows. Lots of fun, if you keep in mind that there is no way to demonstrate that one story is correct and another false.

It’s true that evidence matters, and when we are working in the field we call “science”, we ought to stick with the most logical explanation available for the evidence currently in hand. Otherwise, there will be constant battles, with whoever is mot powerful sticking the “heretic” label on those with whom they disagree, and booting them out of the fraternity.

I’ve got to say that a young earth is simply not the most obvious, not the most logical, explanation for the data available from radioactive minerals. So, when working in geology, one had better learn the standard explanations and terminology and not waste time trying to convince people it’s all an illusion of some kind.

However, the same is true for the spontaneous generation of life, and its subsequent diversification of forms by some random means. This is simply illogical, and the only reason that Darwinists teach it is because it’s compatible with their world-view.

It seems to me that a strict Darwinism, and the more literal understanding of the Genesis Creation accounts, are rival belief systems, and neither fit very well into a robust scientific enterprise. The truly “scientific” view is the “intelligent design” perspective – now being vilified by the Darwinists (and sadly, by some Christians who reject the literal reading of Genesis) as “Creation dressed up in a cheap suit”.

Creationists who want to work as scientists can’t be constantly haranguing their colleagues and students about their understanding of the Genesis story. But strict Darwinists are equally wrong to be saying that the only scientific way to look at Origins is through the lens of materialism. The universe (and this earth)
look very old…..life and its diversity look designed,
as even Richard Dawkins freely admits. Thus, scientists ought to accept the most logical story concenring age and origins…..and keep their private beliefs to themselves *when working as scientists*.

Naturally, what scientists choose to actually believe is their own business, so long as they do their work competently (this is why Steve Gould [RIP] was willing to sign Kurt Wise’s doctoral thesis, bless him). I’m a young earth creationist because I don’t know how to tell the Story of Redemption in a coherent and convincing manner with a “developmental Creation”, and that story is what I’ve built my life around. It’s far more important to me than any ability to explain the current scientific evidence in a way that pleases
*anyone* on this earth.

Having said that, I freely admit that God may have done His creating in some way that I’m unable to divine, and for reasons of His own, not Himself very clearly. I’ll be asking plenty of questions when I see Him, believe me. I’m happy to accept Theistic Evolutionists of all sorts as my brothers in Christ, but I won’t be spending much time around them if they insist on calling me names, making it plain they think they’re somehow intellectually superior because I read Genesis more literally than they choose to.

For myself, I am not settled on the issues of Young Earth Creationism, Old Earth Creationism, or Theistic Evolution. I do have major problems with TE, when it comes to Biblical exegesis. I can see the points of OEC but also find holes in it, in terms of exegesis. To me, it seems that when Genesis is read not just literally, but logically, it seems to “point” more toward YEC. I could be wrong in my understanding though.

I just wish that more Christians who subscribe to OEC or TE would accept that not *all* YEC’ers (perhaps not even most) are firebrands who would declare all non-YEC Christians as heretics. Not even AIG goes that far (and thank God for it)!

Sorry for the copious abbreviations!