The Scripture has been edited and revised over the course of a couple thousand years, meaning we are implicitly putting faith in a bunch of fallible human beings when we read it in its current form.
In addition, we cannot argue effectively that metaphor has no place in the Bible, and that everything must be taken literally, because we know that some of the descriptions in the Bible, is taken literally, are demonstrably untrue, physically. If there's a way around this, I'd like to hear it. In addition, I believe there's room in Christianity for faith in more than just a literal reading of the Scripture.
Granted, if the Scripture was metaphorical, indeed both might be true.
Excellent :) We're getting somewhere - I agree that a metaphorical interpretation allows for us to reconcile evolution and Creation.
Nevertheless, as one is seeking truth, care needs to be taken where that faith is placed.
Absolutely.
2) The example of speed of light and discussion regarding 10000 light years or more as evidence of history extending beyond literal Scriptural accounts. A counterexample looming in my background is associated with arguments postulating wormholes.
...so we're to believe in a theory postulating wormholes, with no physical evidence, while we disbelieve in other theories that, while imperfect, have at least some physical evidence to support them? This seems logically inconsistent.
Additional variables might seem to complicate issues, but it might also be the case that those other variables might be the 'missing pieces' to the Creation/Evolution puzzle.
Anything is possible :) But again, since this is a debate revolving around science, let's concentrate on what we can support via the scientific method - Otherwise we will just be speculating ("hand-waving", as they always say), which can be fun and interesting, for sure, but not too productive or rigorous, in the end - We need more than unsupported postulates here.
I have no problem associating evolution timelines with simply un-normalized sequential timelines,
Excellent! So, in short, we can agree that the timeline given for Creation may not be with respect to the same kind of "time" we're used to, therefore allowing us to reconcile the age of the universe, as we observe it using our current scientific methods (this is a much more basic issue even than evolution, I should add) with the age of the universe as implied by a literal reading of the biblical description of Creation. Sounds good to me!
but I've found those who insist upon evolution to also fall into a trap of assuming such timelines are invariant.
I will absolutely grant you that it is certainly possible that the nature of time has changed, over the course of what we believe to be the age of the universe. But again, we are dealing with a postulate with no physical evidence that I have seen so far. There's a big difference between that's possible and the best theory to explain what we observe regarding the nature of the universe. In addition, it pays to remember Occum's Razor - Paraphrasing, the simplest explanation to fit the facts is the best one. We need not invoke complications like changes in the speed of light or the nuclear binding energy, neither of which have ever been witnessed, in order to explain how the universe is really only 10,000 years old, when all we need do is recognize that the Bible was never meant to be read 100% literally, cover to cover.
As for your third point, I won't quote it, for the purposes of making this a reasonable length. There are two things to consider, however:
When the scientific method allows us to accept something that is not physically accurate, this is not a failure of the method; it is due to incomplete evidence, or improper application by the author of the theory (which is what our description implies). I don't deny that this happens, but no one ever said scientists were perfect. What alternative method would you have us use, in the study of science?
You say that you find a number of areas where "science isn't nearly as truthful as the Scripture". Let's be fair, that's your interpretation on the Scripture, and not all Christians are uniform in this interpretation; this statement blurs the line between interpretation (even if it is completely literal, as others are possible) and fact. Remember, this is the same Scripture that we talked about before, edited by numerous imperfect human beings, and including descriptions that are known to be physically inaccurate, if they are taken (too) literally.
We can put an end to all arguments regarding mathematics and exponentials and how accurate or inaccurate things may or may not being depending on what the scientists in question might or might not do by answering a simple question. Since your postulate is that the age of the universe that science currently gives us as its best guess is wrong...
In your scientific opinion, by how much is our estimate of the age of the universe "off"?
Whatever your answer is, if it's well supported and the simplest way of explaining our observations of the physical world you'll have my agreement. But you're going to have to stick your neck out eventually :) We can't just keep postulating about possible problems with things - There are always possible problems with theories, but that doesn't necessarily mean we completely throw out the results - We need a better theory to replace the first one with, before we do that.
I suspect even most Christians probably don't give much thought to those miracles. Many rigorous Christians are still quite scarred in carnal, fleshly, and natural worlds to simply attribute blind faith that these events occurred. Too many might resort to the metaphor world in order to retain conviction to other mammon, by placing other gods before Him,
I do not see how believing in a metaphorical interpretation of the Bible, in some cases, either A.) detracts from the message of Christianity or B.) constitutes a lesser degree of faith (for the reasons I've already explained, that the Bible was written and edited over thousands of years by fallible human beings, who have our implicit faith nevertheless). If you can explain this to me, I would greatly appreciate it.
...in these cases perhaps scientific materialism.
Accepting a scientific theory does not imply a belief in scientific materialism, nor does an acceptance of the value of science imply an acceptance of materialism. Likewise, an acceptance of the value of the Christian faith does not imply a rejection of science, or vice-versa.
My main point of contention to the arguments posed is that it is unneccessary to alter one's faith in Him in order to understand pertinent things in the natural or fleshly world,..including science.
You are absolutely right, and here we agree 100%! You can pursue and accept a scientific understanding of the laws of the universe without altering your faith in God! I'm glad we're on the same page here - That's what I've been saying all along. In other words, we can reconcile science and religion, without harming the core principles of either.
Thanks for reading,
DFS
Not only have you failed to explain, you have failed to justify your statements and in this particular case exhibit a predetermined desire to promote false statements. Your statements speak volumes to your lack of faith, lack of knowledge and desire to decieve.