Copied from re:thinking Discussion Board
Topic: Age of the Earth
website: http://server5.ezboard.com/brethinkingsbulletinboard
This compilation provided by Hill Roberts.
No edits of any content were performed.
Some of the sequence of posts were rearranged for clarity.
Some posts to this discussion are contained in other threads within
these archives.
[HRobLIB@aol.com]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[The following post by Hill is from Thread 1 and is repeated here by way of reminder because this subthread is responding several weeks later to Hill’s original post. HR]
Hill
11/4/99 2:42:20 pm
Data vs Philosophy
Allan's response I believe fairly represents the nature of reasoned objections to an ancient age view of creation. It is not about who has faith, or better faith; it is not about integrity or lack thereof; it is not about who's seeking truth or not. However, I perceive a trend that is already counterproductive. On the one hand, if I am circumspect, that is honest. But if David is forthright, he is castigated for boldness. A bit of Catch-22. Likewise, this post is probably not as gracious as it should be, since I'm blind to my own failure. But I've tried. I respect Allan's response.
The most natural way (least contrived) to understand Genesis 1 is the traditional 6x24hrs concept. On the other hand the most natural way (least contrived) to understand natural history is in a framework of antiquity. The truth probably lies in a mixture of the two interpretations.
[Sidetrack: This difference is not because scientists as a community have some hidden conspiracy to do in the Bible, or God, or Christianity. That is a personal philosophical agenda predicated upon naturalism and atheism. In fact, polls (which I detest) suggest that prevalence in America of belief in a God to whom one prays is about the same among scientists as in the general population, 40 -50 %. Less than 10% of the responding American populace affirms there is no God. (Albeit actions speak louder than polls.) This poll is a strange result to that very small, but vocal, minority: a minority which seems to control the academic halls. Yet, I have never once in my professional circles been openly ridiculed for my faith. Instead, I find many of my scientific colleagues accept Christ, in agreement with the poll. In contrast, among my brethren in Christ I am frequently ridiculed and held in suspicion for my profession. Go figure. But back to the prior paragraph's thought.]
Resolving those two least contrived interpretations of Genesis 1 and Natural History is problematic for any serious student of both realms. I know of over a dozen approaches that make some attempt to do that. I know of none of those approaches that is without problem, including mine. Beyond such attempts to harmonize, are views that make no such attempt. The most offensive to me of these is the one that avers that "science is right, Genesis is myth, and has nothing to contribute to understanding questions of origins." What some Christians do not seem to understand is that the opposite non-harmonizing view that "Genesis 1 is right, science is wrong and has nothing to contribute to understanding questions of origins" is equally offensive and destructive. Both realms have meaningful information to contribute as one makes informed conclusions concerning origins. It is all about mis-interpretation and mis-trust in both realms. Take whatever animosity you detect in this issue between brethren, multiply that by a million, and you have the mis-trust that exists between you, a believer, and the scientific skeptic.
Generally the defense of Christian belief is termed "Apologetics." [I know this is elementary for you readers - indulge me.] It comes from "apologia" as used for example in 1 Peter 3:15 - to make a defense. However, we more commonly refer to this field of study as "Christian Evidences." Apologetics and evidences are not exactly the same. "Apologetics" may use evidence, but it encompasses far more. It is more of a legal concept of arguing for a point through tools of rhetoric and logic, or sometimes even manipulation. "Evidences" implies that evidence is discovered, analyzed and drives one to consistent logical conclusions regardless of personality. David's response was evidences. Allan's response was apologetics. Both are valid ways to reason. They are just different. [Allan is certainly correct: science is not pure in its practice of this methodology.] This difference in reasoning approach is a common problem I encounter in this issue. Those from a more Bible-only side tend to want to discuss the philosophical underpinnings of the arguments, because that's what they understand. Those having more familiarity with physical data want to talk about just that - data. I am a mixture of the two. I am data/evidence driven to formulate philosophical foundations of faith, not the other way around. It is the classic issue in apologetics of presuppositionalism versus evidentialism. It is my opinion - probably will get creamed for this - that evidence is the last thing many of those engaged in the apologetics of "Christian Evidences" want to contend with. It is actually quite ironic to me that we call apologetics "Christian Evidences." Apologetics, as it is practiced today, is seldom about "evidence." It is mostly rhetoric. This post being an excellent example of just that.
For example, Allan engages is a time-honored tradition of questioning uniformitarianism. This is rhetoric. Everyone, except the post-modernist, believes in uniformitarianism. Else one would have no basis to expect supper tonight just like last night. But everyone also knows that sometimes there is no supper due to some irregularity. So everyone also believes in catastrophism. [Or for you wives, you expect us deadbeats to go work tomorrow, just like today, but sometimes we get sick.] Or maybe more importantly, we all expect the sun to rise tomorrow. It is far more justifiable to expect that the sun has been rising every morning in the past just like today, than it is to expect it will be so tomorrow. Why? Because one is based on evidence, the other is based on philosophy. Most of us accept that big trees were once little trees. That's uniformitarianism. Most of us accept that little rocks come from big rocks. That's uniformitarianism. If one believes there is evidence of a recent creation, he is using uniformitarianism, just as is a geologist who watches deposits accumulate slowly over time. All dating processes assume some degree of uniformitarianism. Biblical chronologies assume uniformitarianism, or else they don't work. So ultimately it isn't about the rhetoric or -isms; it comes down to the data. Does the data substantiate the conclusion? That is the question that must be dealt with. I find that, among those from the clerical side of the issue, data is the last thing they want to deal with. Allan failed completely to deal with the data, the evidence, of continental drift. He "drifted" into the rhetoric device of authoritarianism by quoting from Gould. Point: Gould is simply wrong on this. There did not exist in the nineteenth or early twentieth century sufficient evidence to drive the conclusion, precisely because alternative explanations were valid based on the evidence. It was sufficient for the hypothesis, but not the conclusion. When submarine geodesics and magnetic anomaly data became well developed after WWII, the case became overwhelming. It was data that converted the "unbelievers" in spite of whatever philosophical objections they previously held. If one wants to counter an argument such as David presented, one must deal with the data. That might convert him to your viewpoint. Philosophical rhetoric won't.
In my first post I directed the readers to a document that presents a wealth of data for the antiquity of creation. Since the content of this document was first briefed to a collection of preachers, I have never yet had anyone critical of it deal with the data. It is not "my" data, it is data accessible to anyone who wants to spend the time to collect it. The only critiques offered have been philosophical, of the nature of Allan's response to David. If the volume of data in that document seems overwhelming then try just the SN1987a Brain Teaser at http://lordibelieve.org/page16.html If your head begins to hurt over that one example, then aren't you glad the Bible doesn't require you to know about such things? You can simply and correctly believe God created the world and you and everything there is and you will have no problems with anything else you will read in the Bible, regardless of whether you think its old or young. For example, see Dr. Northcutt's article in the October FCMagazine at http://flcoll.edu/pdfs/dnorth.pdf A strong apologetic is offered without once requiring some view concerning timescales. But can you see that for an unbeliever who already does know about SN1987a, we cannot have any hope of converting him to our philosophical view, if our opening line to him is "Okay, SN1987a is all an illusion, but let me tell you about a dead guy who really rose from the grave over 2000 years ago." ?
If you want to convert a scientist to some philosophical viewpoint one must start with the data. You may not like that, but it is reality. The data may not be your specialty. If not, you might want to get some help from someone who's specialty is the natural data. Starting with data is essentially Paul's point in Romans 1:19-20. To bring the Gentiles to a proper philosophical viewpoint concerning sin and salvation, he argued that God first presented them with the evidence of natural history. Obviously natural history is not going to provide information about God's will for dealing with sin and salvation. That can only come from the special revelation. This argument is not about elevating one revelation over the other. Both have God-designed roles. Nature argues for God's existence, His power and His Divine-ness on the basis of physical evidence. The Word cannot do that. On the other hand the Word condemns man's sin and presents God's plan for man. Nature cannot do that. Each revelation has a realm in which it dominates and illuminates the other. They must harmonize. Science has now given us tools to pursue that which is "plainly seen" in ways not available before. The message is the same at any scale of observation: God is, He is awesome! The part or detail of that natural revelation that appeals to one may not the same part or detail that appeals to another, therefore we need to keep digging to understand as much as possible of the evidence God has provided. [It is the same in the written revelation, is it not. We all have our favorite passages that motivate us and clarify beyond that of others. But we keep digging nonetheless.] It is an awesome testimony to me personally that in the very time man's knowledge has increased concerning the physical realm so that some felt justified in proclaiming God just a myth, God's creation in those very details seen via microscope or telescope simply exposes His divine-ness at an even deeper level. At the time when philosophies of man aggressively challenged the existence of God, God provided us the tools through science to reveal in scale both large and small that He does exist! He is there and He is not silent. [Pardon me, that's rhetoric, and in sentences too long, to boot.]
Because I am data driven toward my faith, I feel compelled to understand how the written and natural revelations fit together respecting the question of creation. I have offered one possibility that I believe preserves the literal "days" reading of Genesis 1, while allowing the possibility of any amount of time, young or old, for the overall creation process. (See the Appendix at http://lordibelieve.org/page15.html , especially page 11 of http://lordibelieve.org/time/age8.PDF ) It is not a novel approach, dating back to Augustine. It may be right, it may be wrong. It is probably wrong, given that man fundamentally cannot grasp such things. But it is an effort. There are other efforts by other believers worth your study. It is not railing in the wind. It is not an attempt to stir things up or undermine your faith. It is an attempt to reach the unbeliever in God's Word, with the truth as best I can know it from God's Natural Revelation. While pragmatism is no marker of truth, the fact is this approach has a proven track record among the unbeliever raised on naturalism. That is the problem nearly all our children face. They need answers that help them preserve their faith in the face of physical evidence. Answers that are better than "just forget the physical evidence, believe anyway." Our traditional "forget science" approach hasn't seemed to work too well in that regard. If you have a better way to reach that skeptical audience, use it. I don't care one wit about "winning" this argument. I care about winning souls out of the secular, humanistic and naturalistic worldview. One author/critic this year charged my approach with causing "young people to lose their faith in the young earth and flood geology." To all readers: Is that the basis of your faith? If so, I suggest you need a better faith. Instead of young earth flood geology, faith should be founded on the eternal Creator-Son and the overflowing blood of His cross.
Godspeed,
Hill
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Robson
12-20-99
RE: Data vs Philosophy
Hello Hill,
I would like to address two of your statements.
First:"Starting with data is essentially Paul's point in Romans 1:19-20. To bring the Gentiles to a proper philosophical viewpoint concerning sin and salvation, he argued that God first presented them with the evidence of natural history." I think you're reading too much into this passage when you bring in "natural history".
Natural history does not appear here. Paul is referring to the creation as it is. By looking at the creation, any person of ordinary intelligence, regardless of his level of scientific knowledge (even if it is zero) can deduce that it had to have been created by a magnificently powerful God. I don't need to know a thing about natural history to conclude that there is a God; I just need to observe and consider the creation as it stands. In fact, Paul asserts that this has been the case "since the foundation of the world." Ever since the world was founded, it has been possible for man to look at the creation and conclude that God exists. Necessarily, then, man has existed since the foundation of the world, or else Paul's assertion is untrue. This precludes billions of years of time between the creation of the planet and the appearance of man on it.
Second:"Nature argues for God's existence, His power and His Divine-ness on the basis of physical evidence. The Word cannot do that."
The word is all we need to prove the existence and omnipotence of God, and some of its multitude of proofs are based on physical evidence (the kind used in a courtroom). For example, see Kenneth Chumbley's book, "The Gospel Argument for God", or Josh McDowell's "Evidence that Demands a Verdict". More importantly, see John 20:30-31. John affirms that his Gospel can produce a saving faith. He does not say, "these are written that you who already believe there's a God may believe that Jesus is the Christ". On the contrary, he clearly states that we may come to believe that Jesus is the Son of God based upon the evidence set forth in his Gospel. If John's Gospel convinces an atheist that Jesus is the son of God, then it has convinced him de facto that God exists.
Brotherly,
Jim