Science and God

CMpunked

I was curious to try and determine how many believers also believe science and scientific theories such as evolution or the age of the earth, etc.

Personally I think a lot of it holds water. When i was growing up and evolution was being thought to me i always remembered the scripture such as one day is like a thousand years to god. So the idea of evolution playing a part in the genesis story to me seems to work well.

But thats just what i think. I know others have a very rigid litteral bible view and would like to hear from them, also.


I really hope this doesnt turn into some science v religion topic, because it is in no way intended to. Its simply to gauge together what other believers views are.

Seaneh

I believe to think the world is 6000 years old you have to be willfully ignoring the facts or just totally ignorant and indoctrinated.

Every piece of physical evidence we have shows the world to be very, very old and the universe to be a lot older.
There is no evidence, outside of a literal interpuration of Genesis, for a young world.


Also, evolution, there is far too much evidence for it and none against it.


I believe the Bible should be interpurated literally a lot of the time and as analogy/methaphor some of the time.

Genesis, to me is analogy/methaphor.

Doc Farrell

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Roman_Catholic_cleric–scientists


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_thinkers_in_science

Myself and one billion Catholics have no problem with evolving scientific theories on evolution. 

My bible, isbn 978006204835, has on the second page 'another account of the creation'. 
When I say that I grew a tree and flowers in my garden I am not literally correct as the seeds, soil, water and sun grew the flowers.

This science versus religion debate is a very silly one which has grown from fundamentalist thinking on both sides.

I will have to vote other as the bible is not a scientific treatise or manual, nor is it meant to be.

philologos

Dont believe the bible to be literal but also dont think science can play a part in the bible

I take parts which are intended to be taken literally literally. I take parts which are poetic poetically. I take parables as parables.

I believe the Bible is infallible and all true, but it does contain differing genres.

Ken bryan

My belive in God is based on evolution .
God Is a designer of Life .
Is not Logical to suggest that Such an intellgent being would not create
a procces that would result in the creation of man .
The the Purpose of the Bible was to explain a complex mind to those who have a limited knowlege of science .
Most atheist use these messages as arguement against God .
Oh the bible. Says the world was created in 7 days etc
To weaken the true message of the bible .

mark renton

can we have some more options?

CMpunked

Dont believe the bible to be literal but also dont think science can play a part in the bible

john47832 wrote: »

can we have some more options?

In hindsight I should've put more up. What would be the suggestions?

GarIT

CMpunked wrote: »

What would be the suggestions?

I don't believe the bible where science has proven different.

Manach

I'll use Science for my job and Religion for my morals.

mark renton

Manach wrote: »

I'll use Science for my job and Religion for my morals.

what happens if you do it the other way round?

Manach

Hard science per se does not reference to a moral universe, it involves dealing with the physical attributes of the world.

RichieC

Ken bryan wrote: »

My belive in God is based on evolution .
God Is a designer of Life .
Is not Logical to suggest that Such an intellgent being would not create
a procces that would result in the creation of man .
The the Purpose of the Bible was to explain a complex mind to those who have a limited knowlege of science .
Most atheist use these messages as arguement against God .
Oh the bible. Says the world was created in 7 days etc
To weaken the true message of the bible .

Are you suggesting that Young Earth creationists are deep cover atheists out to discredit the bible? It's not like a simple reading of Genesis gives you a six thousand year old planet.

Festus

Where does the Bible give the age of the Earth?

I've heard it's somewhere in Genesis 52 but I can't find it.

Manach

Offhand, the age of the Earth was calculated by Bishop Usser based on Biblical study. This was mentioned in the paleontologist Steven J. Gould in one of his book's "Rock of Ages"(?) as a excellent scholarship based on raw data, which just turned out to be wrong.

Festus

So apart from there being no Genesis 52, there is nothing, literal or otherwise, in the Bible that can be taken to mean that it has anything to say about the age of the world?

Penn

Festus wrote: »

So apart from there being no Genesis 52, there is nothing, literal or otherwise, in the Bible that can be taken to mean that it has anything to say about the age of the world?

I'm pretty sure it's calculated by the age of descendants of Adam through to Abraham:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/05/30/how-old-is-earth

Of course, the Bible doesn’t say explicitly anywhere, “the earth is 6,000 years old.” Good thing it doesn’t; otherwise it would be out of date the following year. But we wouldn’t expect an all-knowing God to make that kind of a mistake.
God gave us something better. In essence, He gave us a “birth certificate.” For example, using my personal birth certificate, I can calculate how old I am at any point. It is similar with the earth. Genesis 1 says that the earth was created on the first day of creation (Genesis 1:1–5). From there, we can begin calculations of the age of the earth.
Let’s do a rough calculation to show how this works. The age of the earth can be estimated by taking the first 5 days of creation (from earth’s creation to Adam), then following the genealogies from Adam to Abraham in Genesis 5 and 11, then adding in the time from Abraham to today.
Adam was created on Day 6, so there were 5 days before him. If we add up the dates from Adam to Abraham, we get about 2,000 years, using the Masoretic Hebrew text of Genesis 5 and 11.3 Whether Christian or secular, most scholars would agree that Abraham lived about 2,000 B.C. (4,000 years ago).
So a simple calculation is:
5 days
+ ~2000 years
+ ~4000 years
______________
~6000 years
At this point, the first 5 days are negligible. Quite a few people have done this calculation using the Masoretic text (which is what most English translations are based on) and, with careful attention to the biblical details, have arrived at the same time-frame of about 6,000 years, or about 4,000 B.C.

Festus

CMpunked wrote: »

In hindsight I should've put more up. What would be the suggestions?

Believe the Bible is the word of God, contains the Truth and is complimentary to science.

or

Believe there is no such thing as mutual exclusivity between the Bible (Word of God) and Science.

I really do not understand why this comes up again and again and again and again. While there may be some religion or cult out there that puts itself into opposition with science that is not the case with the majority of Christianity. The only time there is friction is when scientists want to "play God" or want to present theory as fact without sufficient supporting evidence.

Festus

Penn wrote: »

I'm pretty sure it's calculated by the age of descendants of Adam through to Abraham:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/05/30/how-old-is-earth

So you would agree that the Bible says that God created the universe a long long time ago, then formed the earth later and then after than humans.

Festus

Nearly forgot, for the record I voted Other because I can see no conflict between the Bible and science, nor as a Catholic can I see any conflict between the teachings of the Church and science save where previously mentioned man decides he has the right to play God and get involved in areas he should not for moral reasons.

dlofnep

philologos wrote: »

I believe the Bible is infallible and all true, but it does contain differing genres.

So you believe that the Noah's Ark tale is a historical fact?

Penn

Festus wrote: »

So you would agree that the Bible says that God created the universe a long long time ago, then formed the earth later and then after than humans.

Universe, maybe. Earth, no. Genesis says that the Earth was "without form and void", so what "the earth" actually was before he made the land (which is the earth) is unclear.

First Day - Light
Second Day - Water/Heaven
Third Day - Land/Trees
Fourth Day - Sun/Stars
Fifth Day - Birds/Fish
Sixth Day - Animals/Man

http://kingjbible.com/genesis/1.htm

So, if the earth was "without form" and neither land nor water were created until after the first day, and humans weren't created until the sixth day (and each day was not a few thousand years because to God, thousands of years are like a day, each day was a day as the Bible says "evening and morning"), then to me the Bible says that the earth (as we know it) and humans were created pretty much within a few days of each other. As for the Universe, the Universe as we know it couldn't have been created until the sun and stars were. It doesn't say if God created the darkness and void which was there before, nor does it say what created God or where he came from.

RichieC

At what point did incest become bad? since we all originate from Adam and eve then surely their children must have procreated with each other. And how many kids disd they have since it was only 6000 years ago and there's 7 billion of us now?

Festus

Penn wrote: »

Universe, maybe. Earth, no. Genesis says that the Earth was "without form and void", so what "the earth" actually was before he made the land (which is the earth) is unclear.

First Day - Light
Second Day - Water/Heaven
Third Day - Land/Trees
Fourth Day - Sun/Stars
Fifth Day - Birds/Fish
Sixth Day - Animals/Man

http://kingjbible.com/genesis/1.htm

So, if the earth was "without form" and neither land nor water were created until after the first day, and humans weren't created until the sixth day (and each day was not a few thousand years because to God, thousands of years are like a day, each day was a day as the Bible says "evening and morning"), then to me the Bible says that the earth (as we know it) and humans were created pretty much within a few days of each other. As for the Universe, the Universe as we know it couldn't have been created until the sun and stars were. It doesn't say if God created the darkness and void which was there before, nor does it say what created God or where he came from.

As I have already said, I do not take this literally. You may continue to do so if you wish.

A couple of points however.

the universe being created after the sun and stars? Very strange concept. Have you heard of the big bang theory and the order in which things happen: Universe created, stars form, planets form.
Creating darkness? even stranger. Darkness cannot be created. It is the absence of light. Have you ever seen the dark put out the light?
Similarly void. You cannot create nothing or empty out of something - its the other way around, something fills the void or occupies emptyiness.

As for God and where He came from? God knows.

Benny_Cake

RichieC wrote: »

At what point did incest become bad? since we all originate from Adam and eve then surely their children must have procreated with each other. And how many kids disd they have since it was only 6000 years ago and there's 7 billion of us now?

You'll have to find someone who believes that Genesis is a literal account of how it all happened in order to find an answer for that, and I'd doubt that there is anyone here who views it that way. Anyone who believes that the earth is 6000 years old after doing the slightest amount of study is really deluding themselves.

There is no conflict between faith and science for me, I'm happy to let science answer as to how we all came to be here,but faith is about finding meaning as to why we are here.

Festus

RichieC wrote: »

At what point did incest become bad? since we all originate from Adam and eve then surely their children must have procreated with each other. And how many kids disd they have since it was only 6000 years ago and there's 7 billion of us now?

Where does the Bible have anything to say about the age of the Earth?

RichieC

There are plenty YEC's on here.

Benny_Cake

RichieC wrote: »

There are plenty YEC's on here.

You could be right, they are probably all in the megathread which I steer well clear of!:D They're entitled to their views but it strikes me as a fundamentally dishonest position in the light of evidence and it is completely unnecessary to hold such views in order to be a Christian.

Festus

Benny_Cake wrote: »

There is no conflict between faith and science for me, I'm happy to let science answer as to how we all came to be here,but faith is about finding meaning as to why we are here.

+

Were we came from is of interest but it is where we are going to that is of importance

dlofnep

Benny_Cake wrote: »

There is no conflict between faith and science for me, I'm happy to let science answer as to how we all came to be here,but faith is about finding meaning as to why we are here.

Science can also answer that question. I don't see how faith could ever answer such a question. We know that homo sapiens being here is the result of eons of evolution. We know the earth is here as a direct result of the effect gravity has on dust and gas. As for the 'meaning' of life - Life is what you make it.

Benny_Cake

dlofnep wrote: »

Science can also answer that question. I don't see how faith could ever answer such a question. We know that homo sapiens being here is the result of eons of evolution. We know the earth is here as a direct result of the effect gravity has on dust and gas. As for the 'meaning' of life - Life is what you make it.

Let me rephrase it slightly - my faith helps me find meaning in why I am here. An atheist would obviously find meaning in a somewhat different way (but would hold much of the same outlook as to what is good and what is evil). Without wanting to get too much into the mechanics behind the creation of the universe, as a layman I accept the current scientific consensus. I don't think science can fully explain, in way that is satisfactory to me, why I love my family, why I find beauty in nature, and why a parent would sacrifice their life for their children. Now I'm sure there is a lot of chemistry going on in the brain in relation to this, but I think there is a little more to it as well!

mark renton

Penn wrote: »

Universe, maybe. Earth, no. Genesis says that the Earth was "without form and void", so what "the earth" actually was before he made the land (which is the earth) is unclear.

First Day - Light
Second Day - Water/Heaven
Third Day - Land/Trees
Fourth Day - Sun/Stars
Fifth Day - Birds/Fish
Sixth Day - Animals/Man

First Day - Light
Obviously - mans gotta be able to see what he's doing

Second Day - Water/Heaven
Gotta have somethin to quench the thirst and somewhere to rest over the next couple of days hard work

Third Day - Land/Trees
Makes sense, Foundation going down

Fourth Day - Sun/Stars
Seems like a day off here - got the papers in

Fifth Day - Birds/Fish
Ahh yes - it seems the Sun had an influence here

Sixth Day - Animals/Man
Must be finished with the birds at this point as the competition is allowed in

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

mark renton

Great work Plowman - wasnt sure if those two were going to kiss or kill each other

Gumbi

Benny_Cake wrote: »

Let me rephrase it slightly - my faith helps me find meaning in why I am here. An atheist would obviously find meaning in a somewhat different way (but would hold much of the same outlook as to what is good and what is evil). Without wanting to get too much into the mechanics behind the creation of the universe, as a layman I accept the current scientific consensus. I don't think science can fully explain, in way that is satisfactory to me, why I love my family, why I find beauty in nature, and why a parent would sacrifice their life for their children. Now I'm sure there is a lot of chemistry going on in the brain in relation to this, but I think there is a little more to it as well!

And you jump from this "feeling" to God? You "feel" that science can't fully explain it. Therefore, God? Seems like a big jump to me on the basis of a "feeling".

ISAW

Dont believe the bible to be literal but also dont think science can play a part in the bible

john47832 wrote: »

can we have some more options?

Yeah where is Atari Jaguar?

ISAW

Dont believe the bible to be literal but also dont think science can play a part in the bible

Penn wrote: »

I'm pretty sure it's calculated by the age of descendants of Adam through to Abraham:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/05/30/how-old-is-earth

this theory usually trotted out by fundamentaliss was in fact developed by an irish bishop!

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/ussher.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ussher_chronology
http://www.christianworldviewofhistoryandculture.com/files/3660680/uploaded/Ussher%20Timeline.jpg
http://www.bibletimeline.org/webdocs/Items/Details5.cfm

Peregrinus

ISAW wrote: »

this theory usually trotted out by fundamentaliss was in fact developed by an irish bishop!

One of Irleland's many contributions to the world of Christian thought.

Another, interestingly, is "end times" rapture theology, which was given to us by the Rev. John Darby, an (originally Church of Ireland) clergyman from Offaly.

Who would have guessed that American fundamentalism owed so much to the Church of Ireland?

philologos

Dont believe the bible to be literal but also dont think science can play a part in the bible

End times theology is Biblical, Jesus and Paul both clearly teach about it in Scripture. What is discussed in Christian circles generally is at what stage does it happen. Pre-tribulation, or post-tribulation. Tribulation being the trials that Jesus tells that the world will endure before his coming. There's more speculation as to whether or not the trials happening in Matthew 24 are already upon us or if they are not. I think they are already with us.

However, fobbing off something as Biblical as eschatology and the end of the world does need to be challenged. Again, if it is fundamentalism to trust in God's word, then I'm happy to be regarded as such. Indeed, such a word would be pointing out a positive characteristic rather than a negative one.

It seems that ISAW's definition of "fundamentalism" would include pretty much everyone of a Reformed denomination.

As for the development of American Christianity, a whole lot of it comes down to British preachers like John Wesley, and George Whitfield in the 18th century during the First Great Awakening. Likewise American preachers such as Jonathan Edwards were a key part of this.

Peregrinus

philologos wrote: »

End times theology is Biblical, Jesus and Paul both clearly teach about it in Scripture. What is discussed in Christian circles generally is at what stage does it happen. Pre-tribulation, or post-tribulation. Tribulation being the trials that Jesus tells that the world will endure before his coming.

Well, isn’t that a bit of an over-simplification? Or, perhaps more fairly, doesn’t it lend itself to an oversimplified understanding?

It isn’t really true to suggest that the principal issue in Christian eschatology is the pretribulation/posttribulation debate; that’s actually pretty small issue and, in many eschatological traditions, not really an issue at all. A much bigger issue - and, logically, a prior issue - is whether the “end times” in the Darbyite sense is intended as an actual account of events to come, or whether it is symbolic language.

Eschatology is certainly a major preoccupation of Christian theology, but it’s an enormously broad field. Eschatology is the study of the end of things (a person, an epoch of history, the world), but not primarily “end” in the sense of “when it comes to a stop”; it’s “end” in the sense of “destiny”. The major preoccupation of Christian eschatology, therefore, is the coming kingdom, or reign, of Christ, and the significance of the church as a sign of the coming kingdom. But you cannot reduce it to a prediction of exactly when the kingdom will come, or even insist that it must involve a prediction of exactly when the kingdom will come.

The coming of the kingdom has been a preoccupation since the very earliest days of the church, but thinking has developed considerably since then, not least because the early church appears to have expected the realization of the kingdom in early course - within a human lifetime - and of course this didn’t happen, which led to reflection and reevaluation. (We can see the beginnings of this in the later-composed scriptures.)

And that process of reflection was ongoing, and is still ongoing. If a Darbyite understanding of the end times is “biblical”, something that Jesus and Paul both “clearly” taught about, how come nobody developed a Darbyite understanding until Darby? How clear could the teaching have been, if it took 1,800 years before even one person could understand it? Augustine of Hippo read the same scriptures as John Darby, but understood them completely differently, as a symbolic description of a spiritual reality, rather than as a field guide to a history yet to unfold. You don’t have to accept that Augustine was right, but nobody could accuse him of been a careless or insightless reader of scripture.

I’m not saying that a Darbyite “end times” eschatology is impossible; it clearly isn’t. But it’s only one of a wide range of eschatological traditions within Christianity, a comparatively recent one, and by no means the dominant one. It’s notable that it arose in modern times, as a reaction to modernism, and that all those who have embraced a Darbyite understanding have invariably identified their own times, and events occurring within their own times, as the events to which the scriptures refer. That observation alone, I would think, should give rise to a certain tentativeness.

philologos

Dont believe the bible to be literal but also dont think science can play a part in the bible

The Biblical text is unequivocal that what exists in the here and now, will end, and that all will be brought to judgement before Jesus Christ. That's all the way through the New Testament. Therefore, making snide remarks about people for teaching "end times" theology (which ultimately every form of Christianity should be teaching in some form if they aren't already) is essentially shooting the Gospel in the foot. The idea that the world as we know it is coming to an end, and that all things will be restored through Jesus Christ is central to Christianity.

The idea that nobody taught about "end times" until Darby is silly. It's been taught since the very beginning of the Christian church. As for whether or not Darby is correct about what he says about it, I don't know, I'd have to read up on what he wrote rather than trusting mere speculation but to criticise him for preaching about "end times" is absurd given that Jesus Himself spoke about in the Gospels (Matthew 24, Mark 13 in particular)

Peregrinus

My comments were specifically about end times rapture theology, philologos, as orginated by Darby and as exemplified today by certain much-noticed American fundamentalists. I don't think you can leverage that into a general condemnation by me of Christian eschatology.

philologos

Dont believe the bible to be literal but also dont think science can play a part in the bible

Peregrinus wrote: »

My comments were specifically about end times rapture theology, philologos, as orginated by Darby and as exemplified today by certain much-noticed American fundamentalists. I don't think you can leverage that into a general condemnation by me of Christian eschatology.

Again I don't feel that as an idea it should be fobbed off with derision but examined Biblically.

ISAW

Dont believe the bible to be literal but also dont think science can play a part in the bible

philologos wrote: »

End times theology is Biblical, Jesus and Paul both clearly teach about it in Scripture. What is discussed in Christian circles generally is at what stage does it happen. Pre-tribulation, or post-tribulation. Tribulation being the trials that Jesus tells that the world will endure before his coming. There's more speculation as to whether or not the trials happening in Matthew 24 are already upon us or if they are not. I think they are already with us.

there is also the idea that much of what is mentioned in the Book of revalations has already happened and most of it isnt about the end of the universe so much as the end of the Roman Empire.

It seems that ISAW's definition of "fundamentalism" would include pretty much everyone of a Reformed denomination.

It might be more helpful to say what is doesnt include
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity#Major_groupings_within_Christianity

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8b/ChristianityBranches.svg/659px-ChristianityBranches.svg.png

Everything not in green.

Of the green part of the Church
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0c/Protestantbranches.svg/800px-Protestantbranches.svg.png

You could possibly remove all the Magesterial ones.

Out of 2.2 billion that would be of the oprder of tens to maybe 100 million.
http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html#Christianity

As for the development of American Christianity, a whole lot of it comes down to British preachers like John Wesley, and George Whitfield in the 18th century during the First Great Awakening. Likewise American preachers such as Jonathan Edwards were a key part of this.

Wesley was ironically very similar to the philosophy of the Roman Opus Dei.
I wouldnt regard him as "fire brimstone and punishment as promised in the bible"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesleyanism
. Thomas Jay Oord and Michael Lodahl, for instance, argue that love is the core notion that unites and gives meaning to other understandings of holiness found in scripture and tradition.

ISAW

Dont believe the bible to be literal but also dont think science can play a part in the bible

Peregrinus wrote: »

One of Irleland's many contributions to the world of Christian thought.

Another, interestingly, is "end times" rapture theology, which was given to us by the Rev. John Darby, an (originally Church of Ireland) clergyman from Offaly.

Who would have guessed that American fundamentalism owed so much to the Church of Ireland?

Ill now have to correct myself; whild much "High church" Anglicanism is the same as Roman Catholic there is a "low church" element (and indeed some High Church Anglicans) who may tend to fundamentalism. Particularly in southern africa and the US alshough it applies to the CofE and CofI too. I dont regard it as mainstream however although it is an element within Mainstram Anglicanism. And indeed a problematic one for them since it would have a problem with say openly gay Anglican Bishops or women priests. But the Catholics would want these fundamentalists either.

Benny_Cake

I can't go through the links that you've provided right now ISAW but if pre-millenial dispensationalism is considered specifically fundamentalist, there are many people with such beliefs across denominational lines. The success of the "Left Behind" novels would seem to indicate that this is the case anyway! Complete nonsense in my view but it certainly has a following, particularly in the United States.

philologos

Dont believe the bible to be literal but also dont think science can play a part in the bible

So anyone who goes to a church which isn't similar to the RCC is a "fundamentalist" ISAW?

Again, I think most people are going to need better than that. Also this term "mainstream" seems to imply that the RCC is the earliest Christian church. There's no conclusive evidence to state that that is true.

The difference I think between this POV and the one that post-Reformation movements take is that the latter examine as to whether or not something is truthful to the original Christian Gospel by looking to God's word, the POV you expouse seems to be comparing what is truthful to Christianity merely on the basis of tradition.

I'd say that the Biblical analysis side of it is going to be more accurate. Traditions are man made and man crafted for the most part.

Ush1

Seaneh wrote: »

I believe to think the world is 6000 years old you have to be willfully ignoring the facts or just totally ignorant and indoctrinated.

Every piece of physical evidence we have shows the world to be very, very old and the universe to be a lot older.
There is no evidence, outside of a literal interpuration of Genesis, for a young world.


Also, evolution, there is far too much evidence for it and none against it.


I believe the Bible should be interpurated literally a lot of the time and as analogy/methaphor some of the time.

Genesis, to me is analogy/methaphor.

Presumably then you take as metphor many of the other non scientific sections of the bible?

For example, Jesus walking on water, immaculate conception, fishes and loaves, eucharistic rite etc...

Not wanting to derail this but interested in the logic.

mark renton

Ush1 wrote: »

Presumably then you take as metphor many of the other non scientific sections of the bible?

For example, Jesus walking on water, immaculate conception, fishes and loaves, eucharistic rite etc...

Not wanting to derail this but interested in the logic.

immaculate conception - very difficult to disprove an action that supposedly never happened

Jesus walking on water - David Blaine has seemingly achieved similar or more

... need i go on?

HamletOrHecuba

ISAW wrote: »

Ill now have to correct myself; whild much "High church" Anglicanism is the same as Roman Catholic there is a "low church" element (and indeed some High Church Anglicans) who may tend to fundamentalism. Particularly in southern africa and the US alshough it applies to the CofE and CofI too. I dont regard it as mainstream however although it is an element within Mainstram Anglicanism. And indeed a problematic one for them since it would have a problem with say openly gay Anglican Bishops or women priests. But the Catholics would want these fundamentalists either.

Define fundamentalism?

Young earth creationism for instance is mainstream Christianity, very much so if you consider things in terms of time as well as space.

Benny_Cake

HamletOrHecuba wrote: »

Define fundamentalism?

Young earth creationism for instance is mainstream Christianity, very much so if you consider things in terms of time as well as space.

If by young-Earth creationism you are referring to the belief that the Earth was created over the course of 6 24-hour days sometime in the last 10000 years, then I would have to say it isn't a mainstream. Christian belief, and looking at the denominations and church bodies which promote such a theory, they appear to me to be at the fundamentalist end of the spectrum.

lmaopml

HamletOrHecuba wrote: »

Define fundamentalism?

Young earth creationism for instance is mainstream Christianity, very much so if you consider things in terms of time as well as space.

Actually the term 'Fundamentalist' was coined by a movement within the Protestant tradition in opposition to modernism and liberals - it was, to them a thing of honour to call themselves fundamentalists -

Many reject the term today as perjorative, especially when 'fundie' is thrown about by some in a negative fashion - however, it may not necessarily be meant in that way depending on the context of a debate, which I believe ISAW and Peregrinus were doing. It could just mean to describe a set of beliefs derived from the fundamentalists movement, and whether one fits into that 'set' if you like.