Reformation Faith Today

11 Responses

1. A Real Man says:

   December 18, 2007 at 9:12 pm

   If you want to teach this faith-issue in church, that’s fine. Leave it out of school. School is for science, church is for faith.

   Faith is not science, science is not faith.

   This message broadcast to you from a planet billions of years old.
2. tg says:

   December 18, 2007 at 10:15 pm

   Actually, if you looked into it, the science behind macro evolution is pretty spotty, and probably shouldn’t be called science either. The gaping holes in literal 6 day creationism are mirrored by the same number in the theory of macro evolution. The immense complexity of DNA alone precludes the age of the earth (4.5 billion years as you suggest) as being too young. Additionally, the major assumption, which no one has ever tested, is the stable decay rate of radiometric isotopes. The stability of the decay rate is easily questionable, since increased decay leads to increased entropy, which logically, and physically, could lead to increased rate of decay. If this decay rate is not stable, then scientists have very little with which to date the earth, and as such, any theory of an old earth can be easily dismissed. So, it is quite plausible and readily explainable that the earth was created in six literal days some odd 7,000 years ago.
3. Rob Looper says:

   December 18, 2007 at 11:51 pm

   Real men are unafraid to use their names.
   Robert Bryan Looper
4. Les says:

   December 19, 2007 at 12:21 am

   Real Man, perhaps we agree, to an extent. Faith is not science, else it would not be faith. Dictionary: faith= “Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
   Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.”

   The Bible defines faith as “the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.”

   So, faith by definition is not science.

   And, you are correct: “science is not faith. Dictionary again: “systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.”

   I think your presumption is that science says that the earth is billions of years old. Is that science? Is that knowledge gained through “observation and experimentation?” I think not.

   No scientist I know of was there and has not been able to demonstrate the origin of the world and life through experimentation and observation.

   Now, no scientist was there. But, God was there. And, He has told us how it all happened. Read Genesis 1.

   I prefer to take God’s Word–faith. So called science, you know the ones who gave us Piltdown Man in 1912 (”proof” that man had evolved from apes) only to be exposed as a fraud in 1953–well science can’t seem to make up its mind on any of this origins stuff. Transitional fossils? None. Dating techniques? Sketchy.

   No, my faith is in God the Creator. Evolutionists “faith” is in pseudo-science.

   By the way, there are many scientists who believe that the origins explained in Genesis are entirely consistent with what we see in geologic records, if you would like to explore it.
5. Me says:

   December 19, 2007 at 6:20 am

   Surely you see the logic flaw in your argument. If evolution is incorrect, then creationism is correct?

   X being false does not make Y to be true.
6. Les says:

   December 19, 2007 at 6:24 am

   I don’t think I made that logical argument. But, since you mentioned two options, what in your opinion are the options for origins?
7. tg says:

   December 19, 2007 at 8:43 am

   It’s funny that you bring up logic. Since the two theories contradict one another, then one must be true, and the other must be false (law of non-contradiction). So, if the earth is not old, then it must be young. Also, I don’t see anyone claiming that because X is false, Y isc then true. Rather, the commentators have said that X is false because of A, B, and C. And, conversely, they have argued that Y is true because of D, E, and F. I argued that the “science” behind an old earth is shaky, and that there are plausible explanations for a young earth. If you disagree with the claims I use to support that claim, then say so, but I don’t see any faulty arguments here.

   Oh, and since there are those here that do not know me, tg stands for Tom Ganz. Just wanted to establish the veracity of my masculinity.
8. Channon says:

   December 19, 2007 at 4:59 pm

   Hi Les (& others)

   Glad to see activity on this thread!

   I personally think the PCA Creation Study Committee did an excellent job on this issue, and I do think the Westiminster divines had six literal days in mind when they crafted the Confession.

   Taken together, however, Scripture and the (reliable) witness of general revelation compel me believe that the Earth is indeed very old.

   I hope to add more thoughts re: decay & entropy, etc., but I gotta run for now…
9. Matt says:

   December 21, 2007 at 2:28 pm

   If faith cannot be taught in school, then I suppose we’d better start telling our kids “……………………………” when they ask how the earth came into being, since both Creationism and Darwinian macro-evolution both require leaps of faith.
10. Les says:

    December 21, 2007 at 2:39 pm

    I’m also wondering what you mean by “leap of faith.”
    But to your point, I would be thrilled if required teaching included creationism, and associated scientific consistencies, as well as Darwinian evolution and its scientific consistencies.

    Then, let the proverbial chips fall where they may.
11. Les says:

    December 21, 2007 at 3:13 pm

    One other thing. Intelligent Design is making quite a splash, thanks in no small part to Phillip Johnson author of Darwin on Tral, a book which completely dismantles Darwinian evolution.

    Anyway, there are some excellent articles over at The Center for Science and Culture in ID and how ID and DE should and might be taught in schools. Here is one
    http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=48