[We are experiencing birthing pains. This is not the way posts are intended to be uploaded. As soon as possible, posts will be shown under the nick of the poster, not the moderators', as it shows here. But in the interests of a more reasonable promptness, we are resorting to this workaround for the time being. -- Norm]

[New Thread] [posted by: bevin] [initially submitted: 05/28/05 05:47 PM]


There are several dimensions to the discussion of origins, including:

• The many possible explanations of the origins of Earth and its life forms,
  
• How to choose between them,
  
• What to do about the choices we and others make.

For instance: the selection that I have personally taken in the above dimensions is that:

• earth formed out of cosmic matter billions of years ago, and life as we know it developed from the outworkings of chemical laws similar to those we see around us today,
  
• that there is enough evidence left of this process in the earth and its life forms and that can be examined scientifically to convince me to abandon my previous literal reading of Genesis and other parts of the Bible,
  
• and that I should help others to see the information I have seen, but not compel them to make the selection I have made.

My wife, on the other hand, has chosen:

• the Earth and life as we know it was formed out of don’t-know-what by God a few thousand years ago, and there was an Eden, a Fall, and a Flood,
  
• that the evidence left of this process in the earth and its life forms is too complex to be reliably examined scientifically and so she does not study or even significantly contemplate the science,
  
• and that the issue is not important enough to let it become a source of friction between Christians.

Clifford Goldstein, writing in the Review, has chosen:

• the Earth and life as we know it was formed out of don’t-know-what by God a few thousand years ago, and there was an Eden, a Fall, and a Flood,
  
• that the evidence left of this process in the earth and its life forms is reliable and can be reliably examined scientifically, and that properly done science supports this view,
  
• that the issue is important enough to fire denominational workers for not holding this view; and SDA members who do not hold this view should not be disfellowshipped, but they should voluntarily go to a different denomination.

Confusion often arises when these matters are combined in a single discussion.

I think it would be worth while to try to keep these discussions separate.

/Bevin

G'day bevin,

I think your concern may be well-founded:

Quote:

---

I think it would be worth while to try to keep these discussions seperate.

---

Let's see what others' thoughts may be in this regard. If a sufficient justification becomes apparent, we may even incorporate the idea as another guideline in the Scope of Discussion document.

Comments and discussion from any others?

What would each thread be titled?
Bevin's View?
Wife's View?
Goldstein's View?



Well, for myself, I'd need still another thread. Hybrid View. Because my understanding is partly Bevin's and partly his wife's.

But then, I have no scientific expertise whatever.

I'll let bevin speak for himself, but as I understand it his point was about distinguishing between the dot points *within* each of those sets.

That is, we tend to mix up the three issues of (a) when and how was the earth and life created, (b) how do we know? what evidence do we use? and (c) what are the consequences of our answers to (a) and (b)? The conversation might be clearer if we keep those dinstinctions in mind...

On a different thread somewhere on the board, either Bravus or Bevin (can't remember whom) had posted the four basic possible views on this and given them names, e.g. young-earth creationism, long-age creationism, long-age evolution -- something like that, I can't remember the names. While Bevin's posts here on dimensions is very helpful, I would really like to see a reprint of that other post as it broke it down into the four types of views very nicely.

If someone could find and reproduce that I would greatly appreciate it! It could even give us a set of terms by which to categorize different concepts -- this being one of the rare occasions in which I think labels can be useful. (LOL) --Thanks!