Church Discipline

[margin overa]

No one's flailing, I'd say, nor do I see anyone in this discussion predicting doom and gloom to mankind if someone accepts creationism over scientific inquiry. If it is entirely a subjective thing, like preferring vanilla to rocky road, I don't suppose it should matter to anyone. I don't agree, and will leave it at that.

[KLP]

All I have asked for actual consequence to this matter. Either there is or there isn't a consequence. Based on the passionate comments it would seem clear that some think there is a consequence. Call it doom or gloom or not...there is thought to be a consequence and yet seemingly it cannot be identified. But seemingly accepting or admitting that there is possibly no consequence is extremely fearful or distasteful to some and so it always has to be trivialized and marginalized but never faced.

[margin overa]

Pretty safe to say several folks have outlined or identified some of those consequences, or dangers, if you will. Perhaps they fall into the "it doesn't affect my life, so it's not an issue" interpretation for you.

[Lev]

All I have asked for actual consequence to this matter. Either there is or there isn't a consequence. Based on the passionate comments it would seem clear that some think there is a consequence. Call it doom or gloom or not...there is thought to be a consequence and yet seemingly it cannot be identified. But seemingly accepting or admitting that there is possibly no consequence is extremely fearful or distasteful to some and so it always has to be trivialized and marginalized but never faced.

The greatest consequence to holding incorrect answers to scientific questions, because of one's faith, as is the case with young-earth creationism, is this: When better scientific data are available, so as to make the maintenance of the unscientific conclusion untenable, one would be likely to feel the need to doubt or even abandon one's faith. I say "because of one's faith" since there is no evidence at all (apart from certain, specific readings of the Bible) to support young earth creationism. By definition, adherents to that belief do so because of their faith.

Science is designed to be self-correcting. It's no big deal for a scientist to give up a disproven hypothesis in favor of an explanation with more evidence. When you start mixing faith with science, though, there is a risk that you won't be able to keep your faith in light of better scientific understanding. Case in point: the age of the earth. If I'm convinced that the Bible teaches that the earth was created at sunset on Oct. 22, 4004 BC, as Bishop Ussher was, and that the process took exactly six literal, 24-hour, back-to-back days, and then I am exposed to irrefutable evidence to the contrary, I am likely to give up not only my answer to the scientific question regarding the age of the earth, but also my faith in the Bible as true. If, however, I do not tie my understanding of scientific principles to my faith, then new scientific discoveries, data, and theories will not put me in the position of choosing between my faith and the evidence.

Now KLP, I realize you have not yet been presented with evidence for the age of the earth that you view as irrefutable. That could be because there is evidence already out there--I mean in the published scientific literature--that you haven't seen yet. It could also be because your personal "bar" for what is convincing is higher than most people's. Either way, as science progresses and/or you read more, it's highly likely that you'll come across findings that make your belief in a young earth untenable. When/if that happens I hope you are able to ditch the beliefs about the earth without throwing out your faith as well. The fact that there's a risk you will not is, in my opinion, the greatest consequence to believing in a young earth.

Lev

[KLP]

Thanks for your concern, but I assure you it is misplaced. I do not elevate either knowledge of science or faith, in my mind there cannot be a conflict between the two unless there is error in one or both.

So seeing there are no concrete consequences for choosing to believe 10 billion, 1 billion, 100k, or 10k years of earth age I see it as a non-practical matter and is theoretical. If and when I need surgery, I will not be concerned about the surgeon's thoughts about the age of the universe or planet. I have not expressed what my belief is on the matter, but others have and continue to assume motives and beliefs on my part. That is on others, not me. I frankly consider it all in the realm of being unknowable. Science and is still science, process is still process. But process and technique can never overcome not knowing the starting conditions/causes .

And that is OK for me.

I think I have exhausted myself on this topic for the time being.

[B.H.]

Thanks for your concern, but I assure you it is misplaced. I do not elevate either knowledge of science or faith, in my mind there cannot be a conflict between the two unless there is error in one or both.

So seeing there are no concrete consequences for choosing to believe 10 billion, 1 billion, 100k, or 10k years of earth age I see it as a non-practical matter and is theoretical. If and when I need surgery, I will not be concerned about the surgeon's thoughts about the age of the universe or planet. I have not expressed what my belief is on the matter, but others have and continue to assume motives and beliefs on my part. That is on others, not me. I frankly consider it all in the realm of being unknowable. Science and is still science, process is still process. But process and technique can never overcome not knowing the starting conditions/causes .

And that is OK for me.

I think I have exhausted myself on this topic for the time being.

Just curious. What is your position on the issue?