Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Defending Calendar-day Creation: What are the Does, and what are the Don'ts?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Defending Calendar-day Creation: What are the Does, and what are the Don'ts?

    As my username suggests, I am here to discuss the issue of "does and don't's" in defending...
    Position 1: Calendar-day Creation (Genesis 1 As Actual Origins, and Everyday Plain Thereon).



    I shall refer to this position as P1.

    I want to discuss the various ideas and claims as to how this position ought, and ought not, be defended. Especially, I want to discuss how it ought to be further defined or further understood. Most especially, my aim is on questions of how to defend it in a positive or affirmational sense against the four basic positions opposing it:
    P2: any kind of 'progressive creationism', such as the Day-Age view (the Day-Age view is advocated by, for example, Hugh Ross (Reasons to Believe.org));

    P3: any less or more 'evolutionary creationism', and

    P4: the various views that Genesis 1 is something like a mere metaphor, that is, that the account is NOT meant to be understood as claiming anything on actual origins. This approximates John Walton's claims on the account.

    P5: 'Genesis 1 is an ancient superstition, is stupid; is nonsensical (this is the position especially of atheists, and especially that modern, 'science' worshiping atheists).




    Of course, defending P1 from all these four can be done on a general basis. But, in order to show you my view on the questions of its defense, I must identify for you what I see as the main difference between P1 on the one hand and, on the other, P2, P3, and P4. It has to do with the epistemological value, to humans, of the Universal Self-evidence of Divine Design. This is that evidence to which, of nature and cosmos, all humans, both those past and present, are daily exposed.

    Of P2, P3, and P4, I find it most instructive to contrast-and-compare only P2 and P4. Thus:
    P2 implicitly denies that God designed the everyday terrestrial human outlook to be epistemologically foundational for cosmology in general and for origins in specific. It is a compromise with atheistic notions of science.

    P4 is, at best, based on avoiding the issue of God's design of humans in relation to cosmology and origins; and, at worst, on welcoming atheistic (or deistic) notions and perceptions regarding both origins and the ongoing functions and structures in biology, physics, geology, and the physical cosmos.





    Both P2 and P4 allow to the 'negotiating table' of Biblical interpretation much of the foundational tenets of the atheistic cum pagan view on the empirical world (see Romans 1:20). Specifically, they allow that views' notions as to the nature and potentials of current physical and biological reality, and, therefore, its notions of the origins of that reality.

    P2 is an attempt to 'have its cake and eat it too'.

    By contrast, P4 FAILS to preclude either (a) the idea that God designed humans, as such, NOT to have a rounded metaphysical interest and capacity in origins and design of the Completed Creation; or (b) the idea that humans are NOT designed, but simply are evolved, by countless random changes, ultimately from some primordial form of life.

    To make my point here very sure to the reader, this comparison and contrast of P2 and P4 shows what I find is self-evidently wrong with all four basic positions that oppose P1. They all are, at best, DEFICIENT on the Universal Self-evidence of Divine Design.

    ...and it is that deficiency that I see as the singularly most foundational issue for how P1 ought, and ought not, be defended.

    ---------------------------------------

    So if P1 is true, then what ought we to think is to the manner-and-values according to which Genesis 1 presents its information to us? Ought we to allow that that manner and values is that for the benefit of a less or more Blank Slate, Complete Idiot way of approaching the account? In other words, is the hermeneutic of Genesis 1 that mainly of God's power to do anything logically possible? If so, then that means that any part of the account that may ever seem, to a given person, to be evidence of this, that part is properly interpreted in that light.

    Many of my fellow Recent Creationists seem to think exactly that. And many of these who seem to think so also equate the resulting interpretation of those parts as the only logically possible, or at least best grammatically possible, 'plain' interpretation of those parts. But this precludes the principle of allowing Scripture to inform us as to how a given crucial verse of Scripture is to be interpreted. This is because mere logical possibility does not, and cannot, inform us of ANYTHING worth knowing.

    -----------------------



    The Two Merely Basic Erroneous Extremes

    Consider a generic theism-deism of a type which is deeply ignorant of the Bible-based debate on origins. If we were to begin with this type of generic theism-deism, what would be our most naturally expected time frame for origins?

    But, despite this beginning point, we all can already see at least two mutually opposite extreme logical possibilities for that time frame: One, far, far too short for the epistemological and theological value of the universal self evidence of Divine Design; Two, far, far too long for that same value.

    The first extreme here is that which focuses on nothing but God's omnipotence and freedom. The intuition here is that from the fact that (i) our own creaturely power is limited, and (ii) this limitedness commonly is beset with frustrations, unwanted delays, a sense of hardship, etc.. 'Therefore', say advocates of this supposedly most rawly 'God-honoring' extreme, 'it is only natural to think God brought into being all things together in a single timeless, durationless, instant'.

    Accordingly, God's work of causing all things to come into being is that of essentially how the title character Genie, in the 1950's TV show, I Dream of Genie, simply wished something, and that something just 'poofed' into existence. But, in this, God is seen principally as wishing to avoid any process of building things. He also thereby is seen as avoid having to have any deep knowledge of those things, or any initiative of deep design of those things.

    So this first extreme fails to account for the origin of the particular designs or functions of anything; of what, exactly, is or shall be, and what is not. And this includes all the astonishing details and relations in which the things that exist obtain as they are. This extreme is nothing but a happy selfish worship of power, not of God. It does not honor God, and the reason why is simple: It reifies God as a Tired Genie Ignoramus who therefore is too happy simply to will something into being----something which this Genie might herself actually need, or with which she might simply be delighted.

    An obvious second extreme as to a time frame for origins is that which denies most any Divine Design at all. This allows the various kinds of ambiguously 'mysterious' ideas according to which God simply allowed all things as products of mere happenstance from some somehow Divinely designed initial conditions. Thus, at best, say, God simply foreknew how things would play out. For this second extreme, the time frame for origins is naturally expected to be whatever long time that 'evolutionary' notions of origins ever allows.

    ------------


    Given all this, I ask my fellow Recent creationists one question: Can you see where all this is going?


    .
    .

  • #2
    Originally posted by DCC:D&D View Post
    As my username suggests, I am here to discuss the issue of "does and don't's" in defending...
    Position 1: Calendar-day Creation (Genesis 1 As Actual Origins, and Everyday Plain Thereon).



    I shall refer to this position as P1.

    I want to discuss the various ideas and claims as to how this position ought, and ought not, be defended. Especially, I want to discuss how it ought to be further defined or further understood. Most especially, my aim is on questions of how to defend it in a positive or affirmational sense against the four basic positions opposing it:
    P2: any kind of 'progressive creationism', such as the Day-Age view (the Day-Age view is advocated by, for example, Hugh Ross (Reasons to Believe.org));

    P3: any less or more 'evolutionary creationism', and

    P4: the various views that Genesis 1 is something like a mere metaphor, that is, that the account is NOT meant to be understood as claiming anything on actual origins. This approximates John Walton's claims on the account.

    P5: 'Genesis 1 is an ancient superstition, is stupid; is nonsensical (this is the position especially of atheists, and especially that modern, 'science' worshiping atheists).




    Of course, defending P1 from all these four can be done on a general basis. But, in order to show you my view on the questions of its defense, I must identify for you what I see as the main difference between P1 on the one hand and, on the other, P2, P3, and P4. It has to do with the epistemological value, to humans, of the Universal Self-evidence of Divine Design. This is that evidence to which, of nature and cosmos, all humans, both those past and present, are daily exposed.

    Of P2, P3, and P4, I find it most instructive to contrast-and-compare only P2 and P4. Thus:
    P2 implicitly denies that God designed the everyday terrestrial human outlook to be epistemologically foundational for cosmology in general and for origins in specific. It is a compromise with atheistic notions of science.

    P4 is, at best, based on avoiding the issue of God's design of humans in relation to cosmology and origins; and, at worst, on welcoming atheistic (or deistic) notions and perceptions regarding both origins and the ongoing functions and structures in biology, physics, geology, and the physical cosmos.





    Both P2 and P4 allow to the 'negotiating table' of Biblical interpretation much of the foundational tenets of the atheistic cum pagan view on the empirical world (see Romans 1:20). Specifically, they allow that views' notions as to the nature and potentials of current physical and biological reality, and, therefore, its notions of the origins of that reality.

    P2 is an attempt to 'have its cake and eat it too'.

    By contrast, P4 FAILS to preclude either (a) the idea that God designed humans, as such, NOT to have a rounded metaphysical interest and capacity in origins and design of the Completed Creation; or (b) the idea that humans are NOT designed, but simply are evolved, by countless random changes, ultimately from some primordial form of life.

    To make my point here very sure to the reader, this comparison and contrast of P2 and P4 shows what I find is self-evidently wrong with all four basic positions that oppose P1. They all are, at best, DEFICIENT on the Universal Self-evidence of Divine Design.

    ...and it is that deficiency that I see as the singularly most foundational issue for how P1 ought, and ought not, be defended.

    ---------------------------------------

    So if P1 is true, then what ought we to think is to the manner-and-values according to which Genesis 1 presents its information to us? Ought we to allow that that manner and values is that for the benefit of a less or more Blank Slate, Complete Idiot way of approaching the account? In other words, is the hermeneutic of Genesis 1 that mainly of God's power to do anything logically possible? If so, then that means that any part of the account that may ever seem, to a given person, to be evidence of this, that part is properly interpreted in that light.

    Many of my fellow Recent Creationists seem to think exactly that. And many of these who seem to think so also equate the resulting interpretation of those parts as the only logically possible, or at least best grammatically possible, 'plain' interpretation of those parts. But this precludes the principle of allowing Scripture to inform us as to how a given crucial verse of Scripture is to be interpreted. This is because mere logical possibility does not, and cannot, inform us of ANYTHING worth knowing.

    -----------------------



    The Two Merely Basic Erroneous Extremes

    Consider a generic theism-deism of a type which is deeply ignorant of the Bible-based debate on origins. If we were to begin with this type of generic theism-deism, what would be our most naturally expected time frame for origins?

    But, despite this beginning point, we all can already see at least two mutually opposite extreme logical possibilities for that time frame: One, far, far too short for the epistemological and theological value of the universal self evidence of Divine Design; Two, far, far too long for that same value.

    The first extreme here is that which focuses on nothing but God's omnipotence and freedom. The intuition here is that from the fact that (i) our own creaturely power is limited, and (ii) this limitedness commonly is beset with frustrations, unwanted delays, a sense of hardship, etc.. 'Therefore', say advocates of this supposedly most rawly 'God-honoring' extreme, 'it is only natural to think God brought into being all things together in a single timeless, durationless, instant'.

    Accordingly, God's work of causing all things to come into being is that of essentially how the title character Genie, in the 1950's TV show, I Dream of Genie, simply wished something, and that something just 'poofed' into existence. But, in this, God is seen principally as wishing to avoid any process of building things. He also thereby is seen as avoid having to have any deep knowledge of those things, or any initiative of deep design of those things.

    So this first extreme fails to account for the origin of the particular designs or functions of anything; of what, exactly, is or shall be, and what is not. And this includes all the astonishing details and relations in which the things that exist obtain as they are. This extreme is nothing but a happy selfish worship of power, not of God. It does not honor God, and the reason why is simple: It reifies God as a Tired Genie Ignoramus who therefore is too happy simply to will something into being----something which this Genie might herself actually need, or with which she might simply be delighted.

    An obvious second extreme as to a time frame for origins is that which denies most any Divine Design at all. This allows the various kinds of ambiguously 'mysterious' ideas according to which God simply allowed all things as products of mere happenstance from some somehow Divinely designed initial conditions. Thus, at best, say, God simply foreknew how things would play out. For this second extreme, the time frame for origins is naturally expected to be whatever long time that 'evolutionary' notions of origins ever allows.

    ------------


    Given all this, I ask my fellow Recent creationists one question: Can you see where all this is going?.
    Do you see any pause between v.1 and v.2?

    Comment

    Working...
    X