Colin Adam question 1 answer to PQRC

[See The process and PQRC for an explanation of the acronym.]
The conversation went like this:

Adam

1. Was Adam an evolved being or created from the dust of the ground?

A. (Kerry) According to Genesis he was formed from the dust. We are all formed from the dust: Job 10:8-9, Psalm 103:13-14.

Bruce — Agree. It's not an either/or questions.

B. Adam was created after the 5th day,(Gen 1/23) i.e. on the 6th day when, at the end of the evening and morning, God declared everything he had made to be very good (Gen 1/29). You are right to say he was formed from the dust of the ground, but the term cannot be so expansive as to say he was the end product of an evolution over aeons of time. It just doesn't fit the picture described in Gen 1, and affirmed elsewhere in Scripture where creation took 6 days (e.g. Exod 20/11; 31/17), after which God rested (desisted - Strongs). We are also told in Gen 2/1 that the "heavens and earth" were finished, thus, if so, any evolutionary principle stopped then, which rather defies evolution in any case.

— Colin (talk) 03:59, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Bruce suggested this for a Reconciliation Challenge: (resonances in bold; see below for highlight.)

According to one common understanding, Scripture teaches that creation took six literal days in Genesis 1:1 to 2:3 and elsewhere (e.g. Exodus 20:11 and 31:17). There is a body of scientific evidence requiring it to have taken very much longer. Can these be reconciled?

This closely follows the task in hand ("...reconciling our various understandings of Scripture with the discoveries of science...")

User:Colin replied by email 11 May 2018:

iro the PQRC suggestion below, I am not of the YEC mould. If needed I would re-phrase as:

Scripture teaches that God's creation took six literal days in Genesis 1:3 to 1:31 and elsewhere (e.g. Exodus 20:11 and 31:17), after which He rested on the seventh day. Some scientists claim scientific evidence requiring it to have taken very much longer. Can these be reconciled?"

What do you think Prue?

Prue replied by email 11 May 2018:

I prefer Bruce’s for the following three reasons:

(i) stating that “scripture teaches...” is an assertion that the literal six day interpretation is the (only) correct reading of the passages quoted. Prefacing with “According to a common understanding,“ removes this bias or prejudice from the question.

(ii) “after which he rested on the seventh day” - nothing wrong with adding this but it’s not as concise.

(iii)“There is a body of scientific evidence” is more accurate than “some scientists”. Timescales involved in mainstream astronomy, geology, biology, genetics and I’m sure other disciplines are very long. There may be some scientists who disagree but this is not helpful to the overall discussion.

My criticisms of Bruce’s phrasing:

1. What is being queried as being reconcilable? The scriptures and science, or the interpretation of scripture and science? Suggest clarifying: “is it possible to accept both (this view of scripture)/(that these biblical passages are true) and the implications of scientific evidence?”

It might be simpler to stick to one point of science eg the long time scale between the creation of the sun and the beginnings of life on earth, or even say the immense timescale between first and second generation stars.

2. “Indicating” might be better than “requiring” but “require” is reasonable - the science is solid enough to “require” immense timescales before life was formed.

Sorry - this would be more usefully discussed on the wiki. I haven’t yet got it logged in to on my phone otherwise I would respond there instead.

---

Bruce — I agree with Prue's points (i) and (iii). "Some scientists" is a big understatement, so big that it's misleading. "Claim" is biased, too. As for (ii) it's for Colin to answer, but I assume it relates back to the end of his answer B, arguing that "finished" precludes on-going evolution nowadays. This argument is commonly met, and is worth a RC of its own. I think I see how my phrasing implied YEC, not sure.

Re Prue's (1), always back to our marching orders! – problems reconciling "our various understandings of Scripture" and "the discoveries of science" are the difficulties that we must give attention to solving. Re the other points, well, it's all up to Colin, this was only a suggestion. I do like the idea of concentrating on the gap between 1st and 2nd gen stars, but I was actually thinking of more terrestrial things that require mere hundreds of millions of years!

---