Funny thing about creationism is that creation in the Bible if taking literally, does not explain how God created. A man named Dick Fischer wrote a nice paper on the unbiblical nature of young earth creationism "Young-Earth Creationism: A Literal Mistake". The whole thing smells fishy to me, it is all about power and control over the congregations.
Is most of the promotion of creationism, not just that by the WT, charlatanism?
by Disillusioned JW 86 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
Sea Breeze
JB 75:
the Bible if taking literally, does not explain how God created
Sure it does. The bible records exactly how God did it in several places; this is just one:
By the word of the Lord were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth. - Ps. 33:6
We are made in God's image. When we speak, information comes out. (for most of us ) Scientists are beginning to understand that not only is the fundamental nature of life information, but matter itself is best explained as mathematical information. Real science is a young earth creationists' and a literal Biblicists' best friend.
Perhaps you are familiar with the 200 year old two-slit experiment where probability waves collapse into physical photon particles upon observation?
Well, scientists have now done the same thing with matter - atoms (up to a 2000 bundle so far).Protons are identical to each other in as much as they really are not little ‘balls’ at all. They are a set of quantum numbers such as spin, isospin, charge, mass and so on.
They do not change regardless if they are part of a helium molecule, argon, gold etc. Likewise, numbers do not change nor wear out either. For instance, you could be using a number 3 and then I could use it later, or even at the same time without diminishment of function. It won't wear out.
It is looking more and more like the fundamental nature of everything (as with genomes for life) is information.And, information always comes from a mind.
Let all the earth fear the LORD: let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of him. For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast. - Ps. 33: 8-9
-
JoenB75
Sea Breeze,
God speaking does not explain how God created. The obvious point is the Bible contains no science. There is no point in trying to make up some science in the Bible. It would also be one huge book or rather library if that was the case.
Another point is that selem in Genesis 1:26 refers to physical form/appearence regardless of tradition. As even some young earth ministries are beginning to recognise, the Bible implies we are made in the image of someones looking like us, the angels and God appearing in visible form like in Genesis 18.
-
Sea Breeze
God speaking does not explain how God created. The obvious point is the Bible contains no science. There is no point in trying to make up some science in the Bible. It would also be one huge book or rather library if that was the case.
Well, I would partly agree that we certainly don't know a lot about the what the information was that was spoken. (That is changing however) But, the fact that scientists are beginning to view life processes (genome code) and now physical matter as information goes a long way in supporting the biblical contention that the information needed to form the universe was simply spoken into existence from the mind of God.
I'm just speaking my mind here. -
Disillusioned JW
jhine (Jan), if I recall correctly you live the United Kingdom. I am correct? The percentage of Christians in the USA who consider evolution (specifically that which is called macroevolution) to be a fact is far lower than that in the U.K. (the kingdom in which Charles Darwin lived in). In the USA it is much more than just the LDS, JWs, and and deep south Baptists which reject evolution. It is also the SDA, and theologically conservative baptists in other states of the USA besides those in the deep south, and it is theologically conservative Lutherans and theologically conservative Presbyterians.
Furthermore, in my area a number of the congregations identify as nondenominational and it seems that all of those churches make extensive use of the Bible in their Sunday sermons and in Bible study classes taught in their congregations. A number of those congregations also identify as Bible churches - even the word "Bible" is included in the name of those congregations. Such churches tend to read the Bible literally and thus teach that evolution is false.
I meet a number of Christians who identify their religion as simply Christian - namely people who claim to have no denominational name for their church (and often times they are people who classify the Catholic church as not Christian) [many times they don't even known the name of the specific congregation of which they attend]. When I ask them if they believe in evolution they say 'no, I believe in the Bible'. Sometimes they will also say 'I have no religion, I have a personal relationship with Christ'. To some of those who say such, Christianity is not a religion. In regards to saying that Christianity is not a religion, to me they sound like the JWs from the Rutherford area.
-
Disillusioned JW
jhine (Jan), regarding what I posted previously about Bible Churches notice for example that Sea Breeze in his so-called "List of Not So Old Things" included a link to https://kgov.com/list-of-shocked-evolutionists . [By the way, most all of the links in that list are to sections of the kgov.com website, which is a very conservative religious website. The other links are to sections of the rsr.org website and those automatically redirect to sections of the kgov.com website.] The about page of kgov.com site (which is at https://store.kgov.com/about-bob-enyart-live/ ) says its website creator is Bob and it says that "Bob trusted in Jesus Christ as his Savior in 1973 and since January 2000 pastors Denver Bible Church." Notice that the web site's author is the pastor of what is called a "Bible Church".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_church says "Bible church is a type of Christian church which emphasizes the Bible as its standard, and focuses on the original inerrancy of scripture. It is typically a type of evangelical Protestant church.[1] Bible Churches can be non-denominational or affiliated with a denomination, such as the Bible Methodist Connection of Churches, Bible Missionary Church or International Fellowship of Bible Churches. This dictates whether a particular Bible church would be committed to a certain catechism, Statement of Faith and theology. The International Fellowship of Bible Churches, for example, adheres to Wesleyan-Arminian theology.[2] Nevertheless, many Bible Churches hold to a few commonalities."
-
vienne
I've read Ronald Numbers' book on the subject, and I recommend it in this context. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Creationists
-
Harvey
Creationism came about by human ignorance, accepted evolution of the universe including are own biological evolution came about by human intelligence and examining physical evidence.
-
jhine
Thanks Disillusioned. Yes l am in the UK . I am an Anglican and again l find all this quite bemusing. The Anglican church is very Bible based. I am doing the readings and prayers for the evensong service tonight and l have 2 OT passages to read.
All sermons, who ever gives them, are Bible based . I attend a Bible study group in which we read a passage from the Bible and discuss it .
As l said l don't know any young earth creationists . I still think that all Christians are creationists as in we believe in a creator.
Also there are lots of scientists, l have named 3 of many who are Christians.
I agree with Sea Breeze that this is not a salvation issue and l won't argue about it . I am just surprised at the figures .
Jan
-
Disillusioned JW
Is that which is called "scientific creationism" and/or "creation science" really science? Well consider that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_science says the following.
"The overwhelming consensus of the scientific community is that creation science fails to qualify as scientific because it lacks empirical support, supplies no testable hypotheses, and resolves to describe natural history in terms of scientifically untestable supernatural causes.[10][11] Courts, most often in the United States where the question has been asked in the context of teaching the subject in public schools, have consistently ruled since the 1980s that creation science is a religious view rather than a scientific one. Historians,[12] philosophers of science and skeptics have described creation science as a pseudoscientific attempt to map the Bible into scientific facts.[13][14][15][16][17] Professional biologists have criticized creation science for being unscholarly,[18] and even as a dishonest and misguided sham, with extremely harmful educational consequences.[19] "
The article also says the following.
'A summary of the objections to creation science by scientists follows:
- Creation science is not falsifiable: An idea or hypothesis is generally not considered to be in the realm of science unless it can be potentially disproved with certain experiments, this is the concept of falsifiability in science.[84] The act of creation as defined in creation science is not falsifiable because no testable bounds can be imposed on the creator. In creation science, the creator is defined as limitless, with the capacity to create (or not), through fiat alone, infinite universes, not just one, and endow each one with its own unique, unimaginable and incomparable character. It is impossible to disprove a claim when that claim as defined encompasses every conceivable contingency.[85]
- Creation science violates the principle of parsimony: Parsimony favours those explanations which rely on the fewest assumptions.[citation needed][86] Scientists prefer explanations that are consistent with known and supported facts and evidence and require the fewest assumptions to fill the remaining gaps. Many of the alternative claims made in creation science retreat from simpler scientific explanations and introduce more complications and conjecture into the equation.[87]
- Creation science is not, and cannot be, empirically or experimentally tested: Creationism posits supernatural causes which lie outside the realm of methodological naturalism and scientific experiment. Science can only test empirical, natural claims.
- Creation science is not correctable, dynamic, tentative or progressive: Creation science adheres to a fixed and unchanging premise or "absolute truth," the "word of God," which is not open to change. Any evidence that runs contrary to that truth must be disregarded.[88] In science, all claims are tentative, they are forever open to challenge, and must be discarded or adjusted when the weight of evidence demands it.
By invoking claims of "abrupt appearance" of species as a miraculous act, creation science is unsuited for the tools and methods demanded by science, and it cannot be considered scientific in the way that the term "science" is currently defined.[89] Scientists and science writers commonly characterize creation science as a pseudoscience.[14][15][90][91] '