tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2433945320549143329.post983440605670592831..comments2023-09-13T10:53:12.598-05:00Comments on Tullius est [et Tullius non est Cicero]: Young Earth Creationism vs. Old Earth Theistic Evolution and God as DeceiverAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15716893685688516529noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2433945320549143329.post-7158977870063513872014-10-19T14:49:52.742-05:002014-10-19T14:49:52.742-05:00Right, the mystery does disappear, but IF God want...Right, the mystery does disappear, but IF God wants us to use our minds to plumb the depths of creation to learn about it, and ultimately about him, and IF science done in that spirit is honoring to God, then an old universe which hasn't been explicitly described in the Bible seems to give more room for that.<br /><br />Since God does often seem to want us to grapple with mystery and not knowing how everything plays/played/is going to play out in other areas of life, I think that lends credence to "it's more probable than not that God would prefer regular worlds." Especially given that the order of events by which the universe arose is considerably less useful to know than many of the things he does let us remain mystified over in our day-to-day lives.Josephhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09843549266216600261noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2433945320549143329.post-27174626901269154802014-10-16T12:07:42.593-05:002014-10-16T12:07:42.593-05:00Joseph,
Thanks for this. A few quick thoughts:
...Joseph,<br /><br />Thanks for this. A few quick thoughts:<br /><br />For the purposes of this post I just ignored exegetical issues. But of course one shouldn't ignore those in coming to terms with one view over the other. (Jesus made grape juice with the appearance of age--I like that!)<br /><br />The vastness and wondrousness--there may be something to that. It's certainly more vast TO US given billions more prior years to the creation of humans. <br /><br />More mystery--perhaps. In a certain sense, though, if science is able to explain pretty much all that happened then the mystery disappears as science progresses.<br /><br />PVI gives an argument that God would prefer regular worlds (in his book on Evil) and that an evolutionary world is a regular world whereas one where he miracles lots of things in on the front end would be less regular. Although, I believe he is just arguing there "for all we know God prefers regular worlds" and he's offering this to the perfect agnostic and not a young earther. For the young earther the argument would need to be strengthened to "it's more probably than not that God would prefer regular worlds."<br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15716893685688516529noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2433945320549143329.post-77638143193882339572014-10-16T10:40:45.775-05:002014-10-16T10:40:45.775-05:00I don't have the time to make a formal argumen...I don't have the time to make a formal argument, but here are a few things that might make it more likely that an old world is the one God would make.<br /><br />1. A 13 billion year old universe is so much more vast, wondrous and unfathomable than a 6,000 year old universe. As vast and wondrous as it is, God is even more so. An old universe seems to better illustrate God's majesty.<br /><br />2. If science is not actually opposed to religion, but instead is a worshipful exploration of God's creation, then a 13 billion year old universe which is not explicitly explained in Scripture seems to offer more mystery. On the young earth view, this is diminished. God gave us a play by play in Genesis. Sure, there's still a lot of mystery on the young earth view, but not quite as much.<br /><br />Aside from that, the main problems I have with the young earth view are exegetical. What reasons do we have to think the Genesis creation account ought to be interpreted literally? Given its chiastic (I think?) structure and certain polemical elements against other ancient Near Eastern creation myths, and that it was written in a culture with no concept of science as we know it, why think that it was even intended to be scientifically accurate? In a paper somewhere PVI says something to the effect that the only benefit of this (scientific accuracy) would be that a handful of modern intellectuals would have to find some other reason to disbelieve God.<br /><br />Is a young earth interpretation possible? Sure! God can do what he wants. Jesus made grape juice with the appearance of age. But without compelling evidence that the text itself requires that it be taken literally, I see no reason not to accept conclusions about the age of the universe derived from methodological naturalism. Especially when many conclusions about other aspects of the universe derived from methodological naturalism seem to be accurate...like lightning and heliocentrism.<br /><br />Josephhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09843549266216600261noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2433945320549143329.post-81420745805387236862014-10-07T15:25:36.995-05:002014-10-07T15:25:36.995-05:00PVI deals with evolution and the problem of animal...PVI deals with evolution and the problem of animal suffering in (I think) the last chapter of his Problem of Evil book. Michael Murray has a book on the issue. One of my colleagues here wrote a dissertation on it (he's almost finished). And Trent Dougherty has a book coming out on the issue. <br /><br />If Young Earth Creationism were true then it would mitigate the global argument from evil. But I guess I've never felt much pull from it myself. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15716893685688516529noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2433945320549143329.post-54398824747289884432014-10-06T20:24:07.326-05:002014-10-06T20:24:07.326-05:00I've been beating around the bushes of your &q...I've been beating around the bushes of your "slightly different issue" for a while now, and I appreciate your formulation of it here. I found it helpful. While I'm thinking about it, I'll share a related problem I've been thinking about for old earth theistic evolution.<br />1. God could have brought about the current state of the universe in ever so many ways, including the way that young earth creationists say, and the way that old earth theistic evolutionists say. <br />2. The OETE story for how God created involves suffering and death many magnitudes of order greater than young earth creationism.<br />3. God is onmibenevolent, and therefore would not create a world with magnitudes of order more suffering and death, if He can avoid it.<br />4. He can avoid it.<br />5. Therefore, God would not have created using the mechanisms involved in old earth theistic evolution.<br /><br />I think that the OETE will deny three. You could appeal to what Plantinga says about natural evil; that is, there isn't any. Natural evil is the result of the actions of demons and such. So, all of the death and animal suffering before humankind evolved was the result of God allowing the forces of evil to oppose him in a way that resulted in death and suffering. Or you could deny that animal death and suffering is an evil. <br /><br />There probably other responses, but my wife wants me to go watch the end of a movie with her, so I must stop. At any rate, my little problem for OETE may not be too difficult, but I think it shows that they must have something to say about these things, and to be honest, I find by the Plantinga response and the "death of animals is not evil" response to be plausible, but underwhelming. JSnoreply@blogger.com