Story of creation: Genesis.

[whag]

Just a brief observation: It seemeth to me that "new" atheists and YECs read the Genesis creation accounts the same way. The former to use as a strawman to mock Judeo-Christian faith, the latter to force an non-salvific (hopefully that's how they mean it!) issue to the forefront and (unfortunately) challenge a tottering believer's faith.

New atheists have a vested interest in attacking YEC that way. If degreed theologians like RC Sproul continue to promote the view that, if Genesis isn't literally true, Christ can't be trusted, what new atheist is going bother to re-explain genre and theological/cultural context to them? It is much easier, and more effective to sell books, to say, "You are correct. Now here's the evidence that Genesis is wrong by your standards."

I find the middle debate more interesting. OECs like Greg Koukl from Stand to Reason, for example, demonize compatibalism as dangerous compromise or a slippery slope. What to do with those people?

[shunyadragon]

Up until the time of Edwin Hubble in the 1920s, the astrophysical notion of the "universe" would have been our galaxy. The etymology of "galaxy" derives from the the word for "milk". So I would assume that a story written in terms an ANE civilization understood would also grossly simplified from the viewpoint of modern science.

Correct, an Aristotelian view of what the nature of our universe in the Bible was based on including older Ugarit myths, which has a chain reaction making genesis problematic in many ways, sort of a series of theological IED's, because the fundament Dogma and Doctrine of traditional Christianity is based on the Book of Genesis, because tis is endorsed in the NT as factual.

Still willing to listen, but the there is not much room for science here.

[whag]

It appears that Greg Koukl is evolving his view, though he still thinks that TEs have more of a theological problem compared to strict literalists:

http://youtu.be/zTehF98z5do

[shunyadragon]

It appears that Greg Koukl is evolving his view, though he still thinks that TEs have more of a theological problem compared to strict literalists:

http://youtu.be/zTehF98z5do

An honest representation of the problem Theistic Christians face in gerrymeandering Genesis as believed and described by Jesus and the apostles to justify the basic Dogma and Doctrines of Christianity. The basic reason why 40 t0 50+% of all Christians reject the ToE of Science.

[Doug Shaver]

The basic reason why 40 t0 50+% of all Christians reject the ToE of Science.

I take it, then, that you do not count either Roman Catholics or liberal Protestants when you are surveying "all Christians"?

[whag]

I take it, then, that you do not count either Roman Catholics or liberal Protestants when you are surveying "all Christians"?

Eastern orthodox, too!

But now we're getting into a nebulous area, because some conservative protestants don't consider liberal protestants or roman catholics christian.

[klaus54]

I know personally many RC scholars who are scientists or theologians and who have no problem with TE. But as someone alluded to, the most conservative form of sola scriptura held by fundamentalists and many evangelicals views Catholics as apostate in their view of scripture. For the little I understand, it seems to depend heavily on the difference between "Theology of Glory" and "Theology of the Cross", the latter having a more human view of Jesus, which would necessarily include the evolutionary history of H. sapiens (at least from Mary's line.)

[klaus54]

Eastern orthodox, too!

But now we're getting into a nebulous area, because some conservative protestants don't consider liberal protestants or roman catholics christian.

Yep. No True Scotsman.

[shunyadragon]

I take it, then, that you do not count either Roman Catholics or liberal Protestants when you are surveying "all Christians"?

I did not survey Christians. I am relying on the polls over the last forty+ years of the whole United States that have consistently reached this conclusions, of which Christians are by far the dominant believers who would reject evolution.

[whag]

I did not survey Christians. I am relying on the polls over the last forty+ years of the whole United States that have consistently reached this conclusions, of which Christians are by far the dominant believers who would reject evolution.

You didn't specify the US. You said all Christians.

[whag]

In the spirit of peace, here's one of the first audio recordings of a debate between Ken Miller and Henry Morris. It's a beautiful example of two men who strongly disagreed but shared the same faith:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDZ_...e_gdata_player

[shunyadragon]

You didn't specify the US. You said all Christians.

Sorry for the miscue, but unfortunately the dominant Christian missionary movement in the rest of the world are Conservative Evangelical Christians from the USA, funded by the likes of Coca Cola, and yes, this is a growing problem worldwide including the Baptists of Eastern Europe. I knew of the problem of Conservative Evangelism growing up in Central America when I was young where the Roman Church is losing out to Conservative Evangelism. Many YEC Creationists are making their voices heard from Australia to Africa. I think you would be surprised what the results would be if they polled these countries.

[Doug Shaver]

I did not survey Christians. I am relying on the polls over the last forty+ years of the whole United States that have consistently reached this conclusions, of which Christians are by far the dominant believers who would reject evolution.

I'm aware of those polls, but I do not regard the population of the United States as equivalent to "all Christians."

[Doug Shaver]

but unfortunately the dominant Christian missionary movement in the rest of the world are Conservative Evangelical Christians from the USA

Maybe so, but from that, nothing follows as to what 40-50 percent of Christians worldwide currently believe about evolution.

[Tassman]

Given that you've just assumed your worldview to be true*,

Sure I have! It is a reasonable assumption given that to date the entire universe has been shown to be subject to the physical laws of nature. Until such time, if ever, new evidence casts doubt on this assumption then alternative suggestions can only be speculative.

how can anyone show that their different worldview is correct?


In short, your question requires that he take your worldview for true as a given, and defend his worldview in the face of that. How do you know that 'the universe, which consists of a space-time continuum, does 'encompass everything'?

Easily: By providing substantiated evidence for the claim there is a non-natural entity responsible for the creation of the natural universe who which was made by IamLives. This may be hypothetically possible but to date there is no credible evidence supporting the hypothesis and thus no good reason to believe it is true.