toldailytopic: Are the 6 days of creation in the book of Genesis a literal 6 days?

[Stripe]

Genesis isn't straightforward prose

It means what it says in a straight-forward manner. When it says "Evening and morning were the first day" that means exactly what it says. When Paulos used the sun rising as evidence for geocentrism in the bible we have to remember that "the sun rises" is a description from our point of view and not a commentary about the solar system from an external point of view.

And I can't believe we have to make such a pedantic distinction in order to advance this conversation. Learn to read!

and it's focused on things modern people such as ourselves are less interested in.

Speak for yourself! History is awesome! :thumb:

Saying "the sun stood still" is straightforward prose. It was meant exactly the way it was stated. It's only scientific knowledge that leads you to assert it's an idiom.

Wrong. It's scientific knowledge that leads me to believe you're an idiom.

There's a difference between reading what you said 5 minutes ago, in my own cultural context and reading scripture. When reading scripture, I'm reading what someone wrote thousands of years ago in a very different culture from my own and a very different understanding of the universe than my own. You do understand there's a difference between the two, right?

"There's a difference".

Great.

You know there's a difference between Genesis, Exodus, Job, Psalms, Isaiah, Matthew, Romans and 2 Peter as well, right?

The sun rises and the sun sets were not always understood to be metaphoric. They became so because of scientific knowledge.

They're not metaphors today.

Tell that to Copernicus, Luther, Calvin and Galileo.

The guys who believed the universe was created in six days? Well, since this is nothing but something to say so you don't have to concede anything right now, I'm gonna hold it until we can one day really ask them. :up:

It isn't in the context of actual Biblical interpretation.

What? :AMR:

You complaining about "rational responses" is rather rich. Repeating "it says six days" over and over is not how one has a rational discussion.

Actually, it is. When faced with evolutionists, one is forced to repeat the truth over and over in the face of all their bluster. The bible unequivocally says "Six days" in direct opposition to evolutionism. Not bad for a book written thousands of years earlier and with no right of reply. :up:

The fact that the seven day account of Genesis has poetic elements certainly not the only reason to say six days isn't the point of the passage

That means you are using it as a reason. What we need from you is an explanation for this reason. Because the poetry you claim for Genesis is used lots elsewhere in the bible for passages that you are not going to call non-historical.

It has a particular format that doesn't necessarily make sense as straight historical narrative.

And what format is that?

It's like you've read the story of the cursing of the fig tree, and someone says "it doesn't matter what kind of tree it was, that wasn't the point of the parable" and you run around saying "it was a fig tree, a fig!" As if this small detail was the whole point of the story.

We're not talking about the whole point of the story. We're talking about one particular detail. Were the six days of creation really six days? That's the title of this thread. We know evolutionists need to talk about something to disguise their rejection of the written word so they will do anything to talk about something else.

Nothing in scripture departs from geocentrism/flat earth either. Your point being?

Oh, so now you're going to talk about the evolutionist's flat Earth as well to escape the topic? How about an honest discussion for once? How does "Six days" not mean what it plainly says?

It says six days yes, but that's not the point of the passage

We're not talking about the passage. We're talking about the detail. The bible says "Six days". You say "Six days" does not mean "Six days". If it does not mean "Six days", what does it mean? And what is your justification for your made up meaning?

Telling us that the whole passage is about God creating the Earth in opposition to other stories that share pagan ideas is just you trying to escape the very specific question asked.

It does tell us that God created the universe and what the purpose and position of the objects and creatures are.

The bible very clearly teaches that the Earth and all in it were created in six days. You reject the clear teaching of the bible.

 

[Stripe]

What was the question that began that hypothetical exchange?

The exchange is complete.

Is the time period in Genesis supposed to be 6 days or billions or years?

:AMR:

I don't think anyone is saying that the author actually meant/thought the time period was billions of years but they used 6 days for poetic reasons.

I know. You just repeated the evolutionist argument.

I agree with you that poetry can be used to recount history and that saying something is poetry can't be the whole or final argument.

How can it be any argument?

You need to either show how this point is at least a worthy consideration or drop it. Every time this conversation arises we get a bunch of evolutionists in here jumping up and down yelling "Poetry" at the top of their lungs. What we want is for them to explain how poetry makes their case.

What I believe they are saying is that the author's main points were about God being the creator and His purposes in that creation and used a narrative to get those points across.

There's nothing to argue with there. But you're way off topic. We're talking about the detail of "Six days", not the overall point of the entire chapter.

In that narrative God did certain things on certain days but the timeframe wasn't the primary point. Or even a secondary point.

And how does the idea that a point is not primary or secondary mean the point is not accurate?

The purpose of Genesis wasn't to explain how it happened.

And how does the idea that Genesis wasn't meant to explain how it happened mean "Six days" is not accurate?

Perhaps you think that all boils down to "BUT IT'S POETRY" but I don't see it that way.

You've just introduced two completely unrelated arguments that are irrelevant in exactly the same way. None of your arguments are any reason to believe "Six days" does not mean exactly what it says.

Just curious, do you think we can learn anything from looking at other ANE texts? Or looking at the culture and time period in which Genesis was written?

Yes. We can learn how evolutionists got their ideas.

I don't think the author was talking about a different length of time. And I think that anyone who tries to force a different time period onto those "days" or tries to force a huge gap somewhere in the text to get an old earth aren't being honest with the text.

Uh huh. So you reject the plain teaching of the bible in order to believe in evolution.

If you are so smart then you should know that saying things like "well, I'm a lot smarter than you so..." usually won't get you much progress in a discussion with someone.

Please don't you start crying as well.

Emotional blackmail? Who am I blackmailing?

You're not.

All I meant was that your challenge to either reject the "clear teaching" of Genesis or reject evolution doesn't accomplish anything.

Yes, it does.

So what, someone can deny the "clear teaching of Genesis". I don't understand why you are so concerned about forcing someone into that decision.

It makes for a rational discussion. Do you know how impossible it is to have a rational discussion when the other guy has a foundation where "Six days" can mean pretty much anything he likes?

Words have meaning. You've gotta pick a reasonable position on that meaning and stick to it. When evolutionists declare "Six days" to not mean what it plainly says, they have to declare Genesis to be inaccurate because there is no way "Six days" means anything other than what it plainly says.

 

[Alate_One]

When Paulos used the sun rising as evidence for geocentrism in the bible we have to remember that "the sun rises" is a description from our point of view and not a commentary about the solar system from an external point of view.

And we only know that because of science! Nobody in Biblical times thought that, they assumed their perspective was real. Can we possibly get this through your thick skull?

Speak for yourself! History is awesome!

You totally missed the point. Ancient people would have thought this argument was silly. And you aren't interested in what they were interested in, you're standing on your head over six days rather than what happened on those days.

The guys who believed the universe was created in six days? Well, since this is nothing but something to say so you don't have to concede anything right now, I'm gonna hold it until we can one day really ask them.

Luther and Calvin believed in geocentrism because of the Bible. why don't you?

And what format is that?

The first three days are about organizing the cosmos, while the second set are about about filling that structure. Why else would light be created before sun, moon and stars? They're three days apart, I wonder why that is? If this is chronological history as you assert, you have three "days" with evening and morning, with no sun to mark them.

We're not talking about the passage. We're talking about the detail. The bible says "Six days". You say "Six days" does not mean "Six days". If it does not mean "Six days", what does it mean? And what is your justification for your made up meaning?

Almost nobody in this thread has said six days doesn't mean six days. I don't think anyone that's tried to turn days into ages is making any sense of the text. And you have to look at things in context to make sense of them, that much should be obvious even to you.

You seem to expect people in my position have some kind of magic decoder ring so we can turn six days into something else. There isn't one and you're simply demanding an answer to the wrong question ad infinitum.

The question is, was the whole point of the story to tell us X was made on Day 3, which was made then just because. Or is there a pattern to those days that is more than just a laundry list of stuff God did on a particular day.

The bible very clearly teaches that the Earth and all in it were created in six days. You reject the clear teaching of the bible.

The creation story is given in the context of six days, that doesn't mean it's a laundry list style history that has no broader context or meaning. You're missing the meaning for the laundry list. The seven day framework is just that, a framework for presenting the information, perhaps also a memory device and a way of relating to human daily structure. They're intended as literal days within the story but the entire account is not intended as a play by play of "how the universe was made" in a scientific sense.

The people of the time weren't interested in where and how so much as what was the order and function of the universe. And the Biblical account of purposeful, ordered creation is in stark contrast to the chaos presented in other ANE creation accounts.

 

[Stripe]

And we only know that because of science! Nobody in Biblical times thought that, they assumed their perspective was real. Can we possibly get this through your thick skull?

You can get it through my thick skull. You cannot now convince me that I must disbelieve the accuracy of "Six days" for similar reasons.

And, in fact, there's nothing wrong with describing the solar system with the Earth as a stationary object. Unless you're trying to make things simpler.

You totally missed the point. Ancient people would have thought this argument was silly.

What argument? :idunno:

And you aren't interested in what they were interested in

What does it matter what they were interested in? :idunno:

you're standing on your head over six days rather than what happened on those days.

That's what this thread is about. :up:

Luther and Calvin believed in geocentrism because of the Bible. why don't you?

I have more knowledge than they.

The first three days are about organizing the cosmos, while the second set are about about filling that structure. Why else would light be created before sun, moon and stars? They're three days apart, I wonder why that is? If this is chronological history as you assert, you have three "days" with evening and morning, with no sun to mark them.

Uh huh. That's my problem.

Your problem is that the bible is unequivocal. "Six days". And you reject what the bible plainly says.

Almost nobody in this thread has said six days doesn't mean six days.

Then we have no argument. :idunno:

The question is, was the whole point of the story to tell us X was made on Day 3, which was made then just because.

No, that's the question you wish Knight had asked so you wouldn't have to deal with the one he did ask.

The bible says "Six days". You reject that plain teaching.

The creation story is given in the context of six days, that doesn't mean it's a laundry list style history that has no broader context or meaning.

That's nice.

How does a "broader meaning" negate the plain reading?

You're missing the meaning for the laundry list. The seven day framework is just that, a framework for presenting the information, perhaps also a memory device and a way of relating to human daily structure. They're intended as literal days within the story but the entire account is not intended as a play by play of "how the universe was made" in a scientific sense. The people of the time weren't interested in where and how so much as what was the order and function of the universe.

Because you say so?

And the Biblical account of purposeful, ordered creation is in stark contrast to the chaos presented in other ANE creation accounts.

That's nice. How does this make "Six days" mean something other than what it plainly says?

 

[Desert Reign]

Historical narrative.

Sure. But only a maximum of one from these two histories can be correct.

Why?

What are you talking about? The vague and malleable term "species" was invented only recently.

So why not answer the question then? Did the original human author have any concerns about biological history? I'm getting the impression that you don't want to answer this question. It must have taken you some time to work out that the original author had never heard of the word 'species', especially considering that the English language was non-existent at the time. But you understand it so can you please answer - did the original human author have any concerns about speciation? Was he addressing the issue of speciation or taxonomy? Was he addressing the issue of geology or tectonics or earth movements generally?

 

[xAvarice]

Maybe you should draw some venn diagrams to check your logic there. :chuckle:

You just want some images to compliment my ingenuity.

 

[Stripe]

Why?

:AMR:

Have you ever read Genesis 1?

So why not answer the question then? Did the original human author have any concerns about biological history?

There probably was no original human author.

I'm getting the impression that you don't want to answer this question.

I'm getting the impression you did not read my answer.

It must have taken you some time to work out that the original author had never heard of the word 'species', especially considering that the English language was non-existent at the time.

Took about 0.0023 seconds. :idunno:

But then my brain works pretty slow.

But you understand it so can you please answer - did the original human author have any concerns about speciation?

No.

Was he addressing the issue of speciation or taxonomy? Was he addressing the issue of geology or tectonics or earth movements generally?

No.

You just want some images to compliment my ingenuity.

Oh, yes please.

I love optical illusions. :up:

 

[noguru]

Oh, yes please.

I love optical illusions. :up:

And psychological delusions. :up:

 

[andyc]

Lying scum.

Thank you.

Believing certain things were written to and for certain people, and that some of those things were not written to us; the Body of Christ; does not equate to disbelieving them.

:chuckle:

 

[xAvarice]

Oh, yes please.

I love optical illusions. :up:

I must go back and check that message, I'm sure I wrote MY. How careless of me otherwise.

I'll try that one where Jesus appears on the wall and call it ontological evidence... anything you can do - I can improve superfluously, isn't it a shame I don't go into pseudo-science?

 

[resurrected]

I cut out all the bunny trails in an attempt to focus the conversation. Note that my initial post was a response to AMR, in which I was generally agreeing with his points.

You will pardon me if I proclaim my adherence to a book, the Bible, as it is my sole rule in all matters of life.

Once we admit evolution we now have to come up with some very fancy hermeneutical hoops to jump through to deal with the very clear literal meaning of days in Exodus 20:11. The Sabbath ordinance then comes into doubt. Next we have the first Adam as allegorical, so the last Adam is also allegorical. Paul treats Adam as the first human sinner, not any of the assumed millions of humanoids needed by evolution. The Adam and Christ comparison in Romans depends upon a literal Adam. The Bible teaches that death came through Adamic sin. Millions of years of death and destruction prior to "Adam" turns that explanation upside down.

Context, hermeneutics, grammar, etc. all side with normal days. Only when one feels insecure in the face of naturalistic science do we have any reason for stretching "days" beyond their plain reading.

I lay out the logical sequence that results from treating the first Adam as allegorical:

No Adam?

No sin.

No sin?

No condemnation.

No condemnation?

No need for salvation.

No need for salvation?

No need for Jesus.

nog jumps in with an unsupported assertion:

There was an Adam whether he was born and grew into an adult or whether he was created as a fully grown adult.

I try to get nog to support his assertion:

How do you know this?

Why don't you take the Adam tale as allusion or amplification or poetry?

nog struggles:

From a few different lines of evidence, the two main ones being:

1.) This sort of thing (knowledge of good and evil) happens to all of us at that point in our life where we transform for not having capacity to having capacity.

2.) From either model, a first human with this developed/created capacity is inevitable.



I don't take Adam as an allusion and amplification. I take the literary device used to describe, for Adam and us, the creation and incorporate that acknowledgement into a weekly human time frame as an allusion and an amplification.

What exactly would you like me to prove?

I try again to nail him down:

Your premise :duh:

"There was an Adam whether he was born and grew into an adult or whether he was created as a fully grown adult."

What proof do you have that there was an Adam?

nog waffles:

Do you think Adam had to actually have the name "Adam" for there to have been a first human that fits the requirements I have already outlined?

You do realize that even in scripture God has changed his followers names once they had faith in Him, right?

Let me ask this another way.

Nog - do you believe that Adam was a real, live distinct human being, the progenitor of the human race, a man created directly by God's hand (and breath), who walked and talked with God in a real factual Garden of Eden, a man who disobeyed God's command and brought sin and condemnation into the world?

 

[gcthomas]

Uh huh. So you reject the plain teaching of the bible in order to believe in evolution.

It's only plain if you claim that it was written in a literal sense. Most Christians don't, some do.

It makes for a rational discussion. Do you know how impossible it is to have a rational discussion when the other guy has a foundation where "Six days" can mean pretty much anything he likes?

Only impossible if you are making a fundamentalist reading where no-one else's opinion counts for anything. In which case, why are you here discussing?

Words have meaning. You've gotta pick a reasonable position on that meaning and stick to it. When evolutionists declare "Six days" to not mean what it plainly says, they have to declare Genesis to be inaccurate because there is no way "Six days" means anything other than what it plainly says.

Words have meaning, but so does context and shared knowledge. If someone responds to teasing by a friend with "I'm gonna kill you!", then you'd be rather dim to take the words literally, even though, as you say, "words have meaning".

It is not just evolutionists, of course. Try this from Reading Genesis with Cardinal Ratzinger:

But he must not on that account consider that it is forbidden when just cause exists, to push inquiry and exposition beyond what the Fathers have done; provided he carefully observes the rule so wisely laid down by St. Augustine-not to depart from the literal and obvious sense, except only where reason makes it untenable or necessity requires; a rule to which it is the more necessary to adhere strictly in these times, when the thirst for novelty and unrestrained freedom of thought make the danger of error most real and proximate.​

What I'd like to know, is what made you read the bible literally when other choices were available?

 

[noguru]

Nog - do you believe that Adam was a real, live distinct human being,

Yes, I do believe that. I did answer that very clearly.

the progenitor of the human race, a man created directly by God's hand (and breath),

Yes.

How do you propose God "directly" created Adam?

who walked and talked with God in a real factual Garden of Eden,

Yes, I believe he walked and talked with God.

What do you propose as your understanding of a "real factual Garden of Eden", just the basic vaguely described one mentioned in Genesis?

Is your understanding of this "real factual Garden of Eden" based on empirical evidence?

a man who disobeyed God's command and brought sin and condemnation into the world?

Yes, I certainly agree with that.

Do you believe that all animals were vegetarian, no harmful viruses/bacteria, poisonus snakes, parasitic organisms... before Adam brought sin and condemnation into the world?

Oh and I do appreciate you cutting to the chase and directly asking these questions rather than using your previous strategy. I prefer straightforward and direct questions. And have no problem answering yours. Will you answer mine, because some of my answers do depend on your understanding of these things.

 

[Alate_One]

You can get it through my thick skull. You cannot now convince me that I must disbelieve the accuracy of "Six days" for similar reasons.

And, in fact, there's nothing wrong with describing the solar system with the Earth as a stationary object. Unless you're trying to make things simpler.

It isn't correct to think of the sun as moving around the earth. It's a scientifically incorrect statement. Much as your literal, chronological interpretation of Genesis is.

I have more knowledge than they.

Knowledge that doesn't come from the bible. You disbelieve the cosmology of scripture because of science, making you no different from the "evolutionists" you despise.

Your problem is that the bible is unequivocal. "Six days". And you reject what the bible plainly says.

No. Your argument is actually more than what you're making it out to be. Not only do you want the six days to be literal days you want them to be chronological and reflective of actual history. If we do that we have God creating light on the first day and then waited three days (evenings and mornings that weren't real) to create the sun moon and stars. I don't have to use extra-biblical sources to realize that doesn't make a lot of sense.

However, I can use extra-biblical sources to make sense of it. Here is one option:

Here is the worldview approach to Genesis 1. The whole chapter of Genesis 1 is based on a system of numerical harmony. Not only is the number seven fundamental to its main theme (God created the world in six days and rested on the seventh), but it also serves to determine many of its details. To the Mesopotamians, seven was the number of fullness and perfection, and thus the basis of ordered arrangement; also, particular importance was attached to it in the symbolism of numbers. It was considered a perfect period (unit of time) in which to develop an important work, the action lasting six days and reaching its conclusion and outcome on the seventh day. It was also customary to divide the six days of work into three pairs; i.e., into two parallel triads of days. So, a completely harmonious account of creation, in accord with other ancient examples of similar schemes in the literature of that time, and using the rules of style in ancient epic poetry and narrative prose of the ancient Near East, would be the parallel form of symmetry found in Genesis 1. In Genesis 1 the first set of three days represents a general account of creation, while the second triad is a more specific account of the first three days.

Source (also has more detailed information about the framework view).

How does a "broader meaning" negate the plain reading?

The "plain meaning" you're asserting is a minor detail and unnecessary to the broader meaning, which is the important one, not the six days.

That's nice. How does this make "Six days" mean something other than what it plainly says?

Don't you ever get tired of repeating your refrains when it never gets anyone to agree with you?

 

[Stripe]

It's only plain if you claim that it was written in a literal sense. Most Christians don't, some do.

Evolutionists love to know they have plenty of people on their side.

Only impossible if you are making a fundamentalist reading where no-one else's opinion counts for anything. In which case, why are you here discussing?

Facts discount opinions in reality.

Sorry.

Words have meaning, but so does context and shared knowledge. If someone responds to teasing by a friend with "I'm gonna kill you!", then you'd be rather dim to take the words literally, even though, as you say, "words have meaning".

Those words have meaning. What meaning do you think they have? I think they mean the speaker is somewhat angry.

What I'd like to know, is what made you read the bible literally when other choices were available?

I don't read the bible literally.

It isn't correct to think of the sun as moving around the earth. It's a scientifically incorrect statement.

No, it's not.

Much as your literal, chronological interpretation of Genesis is.

I don't have a literal, chronological interpretation of Genesis. :idunno:

Genesis is historical narrative.

Knowledge that doesn't come from the bible. You disbelieve the cosmology of scripture because of science, making you no different from the "evolutionists" you despise.

The cosmology of the bible is extremely limited. And isn't it you who constantly claims the bible to not be a science textbook? Why are you now declaring it to have a cosmology?

No. Your argument is actually more than what you're making it out to be.

Nope. Pretty simple. The bible says "Six days". There is no good reason to believe it means anything but "Six days".

Not only do you want the six days to be literal days you want them to be chronological and reflective of actual history.

:chuckle:

There's not much point in talking about six days if they aren't real, chronological days.

If we do that we have God creating light on the first day and then waited three days (evenings and mornings that weren't real) to create the sun moon and stars. I don't have to use extra-biblical sources to realize that doesn't make a lot of sense.

That's my problem. Your problem is you reject the plain teaching of the bible.

However, I can use extra-biblical sources to make sense of it.

Only if by "make sense" you mean "reject".

Here is the worldview approach to Genesis 1. The whole chapter of Genesis 1 is based on a system of numerical harmony. Not only is the number seven fundamental to its main theme (God created the world in six days and rested on the seventh), but it also serves to determine many of its details. To the Mesopotamians, seven was the number of fullness and perfection, and thus the basis of ordered arrangement; also, particular importance was attached to it in the symbolism of numbers. It was considered a perfect period (unit of time) in which to develop an important work, the action lasting six days and reaching its conclusion and outcome on the seventh day. It was also customary to divide the six days of work into three pairs; i.e., into two parallel triads of days. So, a completely harmonious account of creation, in accord with other ancient examples of similar schemes in the literature of that time, and using the rules of style in ancient epic poetry and narrative prose of the ancient Near East, would be the parallel form of symmetry found in Genesis 1. In Genesis 1 the first set of three days represents a general account of creation, while the second triad is a more specific account of the first three days.

None of this is any different to the "It's poetry" mantra. What you need to show us is why all this means "Six days" cannot mean what it plainly states.

The "plain meaning" you're asserting is a minor detail and unnecessary to the broader meaning, which is the important one, not the six days.

What you need to show us is why all this means "Six days" cannot mean what it plainly states. Saying it is an unimportant detail does not achieve that.

Don't you ever get tired of repeating your refrains when it never gets anyone to agree with you?

I'd prefer you to disagree with me rather than continue the nonsense you continue with. The bible says "Six days". You're trying to agree with that by saying it is unimportant. Highly irrational non sequitur thinking. I prefer a rational discussion.

And who says nobody agrees with me anyway? And why would someone agreeing with me change what I would say in this conversation?

Evolutionists sure do love and crave company even at the expense of the truth.

 

[sesseltheologe]

Yes, they are. It just depends which of the literal definitions of yom one wants to use.

 

[Desert Reign]

:AMR:

No.

No.

Good. So you are in agreement that the original author did not address the issues that modern biologists or geologists try to address?

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Clearly, these verses teach that the earth is stationary and that the sun revolves around the earth. So, where did you get the idea that the earth rotates and revolves around the sun?

No these verses do not "clearly" teach what you are asserting. If anything they simply point out the geocentric nature of the text is understood as anthropocentric and not as dogma. The lesson learned is to take the findings from science very cautiously.

See also:
http://www.opc.org/GA/CreationReport.pdf

AMR

 

[Alate_One]

The cosmology of the bible is extremely limited. And isn't it you who constantly claims the bible to not be a science textbook? Why are you now declaring it to have a cosmology?

The Bible isn't a science textbook, yet it reflects the "science" of the time occasionally. You can either demand that modern science match the "science" of the Bible, or you can recognize the point of the Bible isn't to teach science.

There's not much point in talking about six days if they aren't real, chronological days.

Then we disagree on that point. I think the text itself gives good reasons for them NOT to be chronological.

That's my problem. Your problem is you reject the plain teaching of the bible.

Except it isn't plain because of your problem which you haven't addressed at all. What's your explanation for it?

None of this is any different to the "It's poetry" mantra. What you need to show us is why all this means "Six days" cannot mean what it plainly states.

I did, in context. You called it "your problem". How about you explain it?

And who says nobody agrees with me anyway? And why would someone agreeing with me change what I would say in this conversation?

I'm saying it changes no minds, and is irrational and pointless. You're not engaging in a discussion, you're repeating your "point" ad infinitum. I may as well talk to a voice recorder set on repeat of "it says six days". It would be about as productive.

 

[noguru]

No these verses do not "clearly" teach what you are asserting. If anything they simply point out the geocentric nature of the text is understood as anthropocentric and not as dogma. The lesson learned is to take the findings from science very cautiously.

See also:
http://www.opc.org/GA/CreationReport.pdf

AMR

I agree with that 100%. We should be cautious and self critical of any one of our beliefs, as well as being honest about why we have such beliefs. The more acutely aware we are of the weaknesses of our own position and the more thoroughly prepared for defense of that position, the more likely we will be of seeing things accurately when such evidence is presented to us. Anyone who truly understands the nature of science knows it is progressive and we can never be 100% certain of any scientific theory.

I would rather admit that I am wrong on an issue and therefore become more accurate for the present and future in my subjective perspective, than to deny the objective reality and cling to a past subjective perspective that appears to to be wrong based on the evidence I currently have.

Many people are embarrassed to be shown to be wrong. I am not embarrassed by being wrong. It serves no one any good (including myself) to remain convinced of a perspective that currently appears to be wrong.