The LC's stance on creationism/ID/science
 

Anyone have a good idea on the LC's stance on Creationism in particular and science in general? I remember a little but perhaps more help would be need to flesh out a picture.

1. The LC appeals to the Gap interpretation of Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. Herein we have permission for billions of years for all the manner of life to appear and live I guess...they are wiped out after rebelling with Satan.(I suppose then some forms were useful enough to be recreated? haha)

2. I cannot tell if they then revert to a literal 6 day earth creation?

3. I think it is pretty obvious from the writings that life is concluded to have been designed intelligently.

Re: The LC's stance on creationism/ID/science
 

I think #1 and #3 are pretty much according to the LRC teachings, although the term "intelligent design" is often used to suggest that God may have used evolution to create the currently-existing life, including man, but directed how it happened. Therefore at some level, intelligent design is often considered in opposition to a 6-day creation/recreation.

And from what I could gather at the time I was there (73 - 87) I would say that a 6-day recreation was generally the manner in which it was described. In fact, it is supposedly a link of near precision that Lee followed to at one point suggest that Christ would return on a date approximately 1 year before he (Lee) ended out dying. That would tend to need the 6-day recreation, and the only link to modern intelligent design would be the overlay that God was intelligent and designed/created it all.

Re: The LC's stance on creationism/ID/science
 

LSM endorsed Usher's time frame and the so-called gap theory.

One LC professor of environmental science I knew wrote a book, and his thesis was that God created thru evolution. That was his way to compromise while keeping his job teaching at the university. This is what he said ...

Re: The LC's stance on creationism/ID/science
 

Intothewind, from my understanding, Lee's views on creation are largely based off a book titled Earth's Earliest Ages, by G.H. Pember:
http://www.amazon.com/Earths-Earlies...asin=985604522

Back when I was into reading Life Studies as a pastime :lurk5:, one of the first ones I read was Genesis. If I remember correctly, he mentioned Pember quite a bit. I have never read Earth's Earliest Ages besides skimming a few sections here and there. I guess the essense of the book is to support the "gap theory" and some other things which may be more questionable, such as demonology, UFOs, etc. I heard some in the LC say to only read a certain part of that book and ignore the rest (implying some material might be questionable) Just look at the front conver of the book in the amazon link. It looks like that's the current version. If that version was around it Lee's time, I betcha he wouldn't have promoted it. :hysterical:

Re: The LC's stance on creationism/ID/science
 

Nee was the one who brought Pember in. I think Nee might have been smart enough to realize the earth was a tad bit older than 6000 to 7000 years given the evidence from geology.

Re: The LC's stance on creationism/ID/science
 

BTW ... you can get a pdf copy of Earth's Earliest Ages here:
http://imnothere.org/Pember/earths-e...-gh-pember.pdf

Re: The LC's stance on creationism/ID/science
 

Yes and no. ID is basically a more neutral word for "Creation science". By renaming it ID they are more subtle in crediting a supernatural power in design that has to step in and move things over humps that evolution presumably cannot get through itself. It was dismissed in court as not being scientific in a 2005 trial. But yes by shedding the Creation part of things they no longer had to drag Genesis along with them and debate with all of science-they can now just try vainly to poke holes in evolution.

Freedom: Bahaha that is precious :crazy:

Ohio: Interesting. Wonder if it has any similarities to Stephen Gould's "Sphere's of influence" settlement.

I recall as a college entry age kid I went to a retreat where we talked about what majors were ok to do. The only major that was singled out as inappropriate for LC kid study was psychology.

Re: The LC's stance on creationism/ID/science
 

I have concluded that the term ID is an excellent way to accept that Genesis did not tell us the details, just the pertinent fact — God did it. But he did it in part bay having the earth "bring forth . . . ." whatever that means.

And it is in the whatever that some want to fight and others are willing to accept lack of knowledge. I find myself in the latter group, and see no reason to poke holes in evolution as it pertains to actual science and does not answer the question of where did it all come from?

Roger Ebert, about a year before he died, wrote that he found comfort in the unknown of the big bang. It was funny to hear him mixing a faith in something that he cannot understand or determine its how and why, but be satisfied that it means there is no God. Of course there is a God. Even he believes in a god. But his god is a force behind the big bang that cannot be the God of the Bible. His surety in what he does not know was astounding.

Re: The LC's stance on creationism/ID/science
 

I never was a fan of Ebert, or movies for that matter, but I found an interesting blog entry by him, which in my mind exposes the bigoted hypocrisy of modern day liberal progressives. He apparently was not a believer, but his witty honesty is refreshing. Here is an exerpt ...
I have no intention to move this topic into politics ... but only to post some interesting related views. Since OBW brought up Ebert, please address all complaints to his inbox.

.

Re: The LC's stance on creationism/ID/science
 

Intothewind, I have not read either of the books nor, for that matter, have I read a third loose leaf booklet on my shelf written by another local LC scientist doctor titled, "Evolution, the Bible, and Modern Society."

Re: The LC's stance on creationism/ID/science
 

Intothewind, all creation answers are goofy and child like.

That Bib Bang? What, all there is came from nothing? First there was nothing, no there there, no then then, and poof out came the whole universe. So silly. What was pre-Big Bang? Nothing? So nothing created everything? Interesting? And silly.

May as well believe God created it all by saying, "Let it be." But then where did God come from? And for what, and to whom, was He speaking to before everything? Was he speaking by Himself, just to hear His head roar? Maybe His very first words ever were "Let it be." So language was the first creation ... that was required for everything else to come into being. What language was it? In the beginning was the word.

We may as well say life crawled up out of the goo.

Intelligent Design? What's intelligent about galaxies colliding? What's intelligent about creating life to only have the sun that it depends upon eventually exploding, and killing all life? Sounds like unintelligent design.

And what's intelligent about listening to a little Chinaman, and what he says or believes about anything?

Does Witness Lee's opinions matter more than anyone else's, about creation, or anything. Lee didn't even go to college.

All creation answers are silly. And believing Witness Lee about anything is even sillier. What does it matter what he said or believed about creation, or anything?

Re: The LC's stance on creationism/ID/science
 

Including yours, I gather. :D

Re: The LC's stance on creationism/ID/science
 

To all in the thread,

I did not intend this to become a debate of politics or creationism vs evolution or whatever. However, I will not stand for the twisting and butchering of observed natural phenomena to fit a preconceived ideology-much less the dishonest attempts to pass it off as pure science-so my stance is fairly obvious if that ends up happening!

I am interested in seeing what I was raised under as a child.

I think I recall Ron saying that he did not believe that God would create the mosquito(oh, if only he knew what other creatures exist that God ought not to have made!)...so any imperfections, sinfulness, or messeduppedness is simply explained away as a result of the fall.

Re: The LC's stance on creationism/ID/science
 

Well after that post I'm afraid to speak. But that never stopped me.

All I can say is, when I was in the local church I believed in the 6000 yr old earth, and thought everybody else did. And I hung with Kangas in Detroit, but never heard him take a position on it.

And, with evolution there is no "fall." Just unfinished evolution and imperfect primates.

Re: The LC's stance on creationism/ID/science
 

Awareness: No worries dont be...its a forum afterall :)

It does appear that you changed your mind on this topic...may I ask what caused this? Was it pre or post lc exit?

Re: The LC's stance on creationism/ID/science
 

I do recall that a bunch from Dallas joined in a general anti-evolution rally one year which was premised on such slogans as "God didn't make me a monkey."

But as far as whether God created the mosquito, and whether evolution denies the fall, I find neither Ron's nor awareness' comments compelling as definitive answers. Whatever the condition and relationship of man with the rest of creation was became damaged by the fall (however it occurred, whether by a single act or a general disregard of God) resulting in a condition in which mosquitos as well as lions and tigers and bears (oh my!) now feed on us.

The obvious thing about creation and the fall is that the full details (or the literal actions behind the simplistic telling) are part of ancient history that predates written records, therefore the desire to settle it as this or that — at least in terms of spiritual significance — seems to be a phenomenal waste of time when it is given so little attention in the "history" handed down in the Bible.

As for the position of the LCM, I believe that the description of an ancient earth with life, destroyed (probably as the result of the rebellion of Lucifer), followed some undetermined time later by a re-creation in either 6 days or 6,000 years is generally taught. And as for Lee himself, he was reasonably certain that at the point of something like 6,000 years from the time of Adam (whether creation or expulsion from the garden, I can't say) would mark the date of the Lord's return. But if that was the case, then there would appear to be no basis for Jesus claiming not to know the date since it was decipherable from the existing prophecy and some pre-set timeline from the dawn of man as we know it (in a 6-day creation context).

Re: The LC's stance on creationism/ID/science
 

I have not read anything since leaving the LC which has changed my views of creation -- that all things were created by God, and came into being thru His word, and that Genesis is the record of the creation of man, and his relationship with God.

To supplement that, there may have been humanoid creatures on earth predating Adam. I dont know. Something killed the dinosaurs and that era of life on earth. Obviously the universe and the earth are far older than the Genesis record. I do believe that serious adaptation can occur within a species, but that God has created all things according to its kind, or its species. That's why we have no fossil evidence of "intermediate" species. When that does rarely occur, it is infertile. God created progressively, from the simple to the most developed, yet evolutionists wrongly use that fact to teach an evolution, independent from a Creator.

I have always believed that the theory of evolution exists for one and only one reason -- to convince our youth that God does not exist.

Re: The LC's stance on creationism/ID/science
 

I grew up with a 6000 yr old earth in the Southern Baptist, and it plugged right in in the LCM.

But after leaving the local church, and questioning it all, I learned the basis of the 6000 yr old earth. That the Bible says no such thing, anywhere. That James Ussher, in the 17th c., Archbishop of an Anglican Church of Ireland, cooked up the date of creation at, Sunday Oct. 23, 4004, by clocking back the Bible ancestry.

But Ussher made the same mistake William Miller made in the 19th c. That you can do math with the Bible. Both Ussher and Miller were wrong.

And that gap theory supposedly between Gen 1:1 & 1:2 is pretty corny to. All that is is trying to weave the Bible around the archaeological scientific evidence.

I had to leave the local church to even be able to question such things. My mind has become way more inclined toward science, logic, and evidence, than when in the LC. As I look back, the LC looks like fairyland to me now.

Re: The LC's stance on creationism/ID/science
 

Not that long ago I heard that that is the very purpose of Science; that all the scientists are conspiring together to prove that God does not exist; that in fact that is why the Hubble telescope was invented. At the time I didn't see any actual evidence to support that view, nor do I now. I think it comes from Bible based paranoia. But what do I know? It may just be the opinion of a crazy freak.

Re: The LC's stance on creationism/ID/science
 

This is a ridiculously extreme view of science. There are far too many brilliant Bible-believing scientists to disprove this view. History proves this. The Renaissance age of science and medicine was intricately linked with the Reformation, with the release of western man from the absurd superstitions of Romanism. Note that I am ascribing the dark ages to the RCC and its absolute control over the western world.

Re: The LC's stance on creationism/ID/science
 

For me personally, the so-called "gap theory" answered all my major questions about earth's history. It became the way for me to reconcile both faith and science, something I struggled with throughout my youth in parochial education. I see nothing "corny" about it, and do not ascribe it to the LC in any way.

I have found Halley's Bible Handbook to be a fascinating source of information. Halley had a lifelong affinity for real scientific archaeology and the Bible. Halley presented numerous cases where some scientists had attacked the credibility of the Bible record, especially the OT, only to be shamed upon learning new archaeological evidence which supported the Bible. Unfortunately, many scientists are not willing to come clean when their theories get exposed as falsehoods by the facts themselves.

Re: The LC's stance on creationism/ID/science
 

Sorry for the re-post, but some might find this a useful read.

The Galileo Connection [Paperback]
Charles E. Hummel (Author)

Re: The LC's stance on creationism/ID/science
 

According to the intro, Christianity and science should be allies. How about the Bible and science? Better yet, how about the LCM and science?

Re: The LC's stance on creationism/ID/science
 

Don't know much about that, but given the twists and turns "modern science" has taken over the last 600 years or so my money's on the faithful word of God that tells me that my Savior loves me and gave His life for me!

Re: The LC's stance on creationism/ID/science
 

Science is always changing and therefore doesn't offer or have those kind of handles in life. So the level of certitude offered by believing in the Bible science can't come close to offering.

Re: The LC's stance on creationism/ID/science
 

Strictly speaking science cannot effectively address intangibles; but it's really good for other uses.

Re: The LC's stance on creationism/ID/science
 

I constantly hear about the certainty of science concerning global warming and the rising oceans. I need only remind them of my old school days when all the "talk" of science was about the next ice age. Anybody old enough to remember that?

Pictures of frozen woolly mammoths were constant shown to us to remind us we only had another 10,000 years until the next ice age, all because that "evil" America was consuming fossil fuels and polluting the atmosphere.

Re: The LC's stance on creationism/ID/science
 

Politicians just love "modern science." They can use it to spook the masses into subjection.

Re: The LC's stance on creationism/ID/science
 

.....Ha.....

Re: The LC's stance on creationism/ID/science
 

Ohio: the difficulty with kinds is it is a simplified view of the immense variation. We of course naturally see kinds and feel the urge to name them, thusly the account in the garden. It should be telling that we still cannot apply a universal species definition.....let alone decide where to draw the boundaries on various species who do exhibit intermediate forms.

The realization is that evolution explains biology spectacularly...it has powerful predictive and practical applications. There is a reason it is referred to as the grand unifying theory.

Just clarifying

Re: The LC's stance on creationism/ID/science
 

Like the commercial says, "we sea food differently."

Re: The LC's stance on creationism/ID/science
 

"I constantly hear about the certainty of science concerning global warming and the rising oceans. I need only remind them of my old school days when all the "talk" of science was about the next ice age. Anybody old enough to remember that?" ~ OHIO

Ha! Ha! That is funny! I remember that was the big environmental scare when I was young. Living by Canada and experiencing days of 60 below zero temps while growing up definitely gave me a good idea of what that life would be like! LOL!

PS... It is now CLIMATE CHANGE cuz the earth is cooling! Does that mean we are back to worrying about the next ice age? :D

Re: The LC's stance on creationism/ID/science
 

Of course! In the midst of this latest arctic vortex blast of frigid air, the climate must be changing, in fact, where i live the climate changes nearly every day.

60 below! I got nothing to complain about.

Re: The LC's stance on creationism/ID/science
 

1. We are indeed in what is referred to by many as an interglacial period-a period in between times when glaciers were much further South than they are today and did all kinds of undeniable stuff like cut out deep valleys like Yosemite. The mass media hysteria from the olden days is a lack of understanding of geological time. Science moves slowly and methodically-the media enjoys snazzy headlines. And people are all too interested in taking ideas and running with them. However, certain things(theories like gravity and evolution) have stood the test of time, made crucial predictions. The current interest in global warming is looking at a somewhat smaller timescale-and one that could be crucial to our generation.

2. Science is not about finding the truth....it is about being less wrong over time. Instead of peeling an onion to discover some amazing truth in the middle I think it is more like ripples in a stream-they lead to more and more possibilities. Perhaps compared to faith it is scary and uncertain but it is how the world works.

3. Please research the difference between climate and weather.