I sent a private email to Allan concurring with that decision,
as well as to address some personal reactions to his closing post.
Allan then reopened a new Metaphysics discussion thread prompted
by that private correspondence,
which he unilaterally chose to publicize in part in his opening post
of this new discussion thread.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metaphysics
Allanita
2-21-00
Greetings!
After closing out "Age Of The Earth," I received an email from Hill Roberts calling on me to repent of my wrong interpretation of Genesis 1 and my belief that the earth is young as "it sets up young people for a loss of faith in Jesus." In this email, he stated:
"While this discussion board may appear to be an elephant from your world view, it is hardly a wart on the nat [sic] on the elephant's whisker in mine. So to judge that I am making this a big deal in my life is totally inaccurate. When have you ever heard me SAY anything about "this issue?" I dare say never. When have you ever read anything of mine on this topic that you did not ASK for or seek out from obscure sources? I dare say never."
So, even though I doubt Hill Roberts will stoop again to post on this lowly discussion board, his questions beg for answers. As our conversation has been public up to this point, I see no reason for it to suddenly go private. So, I answer by saying that I have never HEARD Hill SAY anything, as I have never heard him speak. But, is he saying that because I've never heard him speak audibly that he's not saying anything about this issue? Surely not! What, then, is his point? The first time I ever heard of Hill Roberts was when a Christian, who was temporarily working in the area, vigorously touted the "Lord I Believe" seminar as something the Newton church needed to host. It was obvious that this brother was very high on Hill Roberts and his old earth position, as he believed it offered him the chance to avoid the intellectual suicide he thought was necessary in the young earth position. He offered me Hill's voluminous CD, which is chocked full of information on Hill's views on this and other related subjects. Then, and I'm not sure just when, I read come critiques of Hill's position in various publications put out by brethren. After this, and in response to a discussion I was having with a young Atheist on my website, Hill emailed me. A short email exchange then took place, during which he offered to send me his updated CD, which I accepted. When the discussion board was added to the website, Hill and several others were invited to participate in the discussion. Hill knew that I was critical of his position but sympathetic to the idea that he ought not to be wrongly identified as a theistic evolutionist. It is clear from Hill's writings here and on his CD that he is an Old Earth proponent. It is this position that has come in for criticism here and elsewhere. Hill's Old Earth position was the buzz before, during, and after last year's F.C. Lectures, where he spoke, albeit not on this subject. Further, this year's F.C. Lectures had 3 lectures dealing with the brouhaha generated by his, and other's Old Earth positions. So, I'm not making this all up, as Hill seems to be saying, and I'm certainly not putting words in his mouth on this subject. In fact, he's done quite well along these lines without any help from me. If anything, Hill is quite thorough! So, Hill is correct when he ungraciously makes mention of the relatively insignificant influence of this discussion board in regard to this matter.
In the original Age Of The Earth discussion, I described this issue as a "fire storm," sweeping through the churches, but I was immediately chided by Hill for doing so. I then conceded that my categorization might be overstated, but that time would tell. Presently, the clock is still ticking, but I suspect when brethren find out that Hill believes they ought to repent for believing the earth is relatively young and not billions of years old, as he believes, the flames of whatever you want to call this thing are going to burn a bit hotter and brighter.
In closing out the original discussion, I pointed out that some OECs (Old Earth Creationists) had, in my opinion, clearly stepped over the line by advocating that the Earth "is" billions of years old and that the six days of Genesis 1 "cannot" be literal days, but "must," instead, be long periods of time. I pointed out that these had, in my opinion, gone too far and were in need of repentance. Although I've repeatedly identified Hill as being much more careful than some, he has chosen to include himself in the category of saying/writing those things I noted as needing repentance. So, if Hill believes the Earth IS billions of years old, and that the ONLY correct interpretation of Genesis 1 is that it encompasses billions of years, then I certainly believe he has stepped over the line and needs to repent.
Frankly, I had hoped bro. Roberts would back off a bit. Instead, it appears he's getting bolder in his belief that OECs alone have the right position on this issue, and that all of us "literal days" folks ought to repent or perish. Believe me, I understand why he and others believe the evidence indicates the Earth is billions of years old, and I have been, and continue to be, willing to grant the possibility that they may be right. Therefore, I have not been willing to make the age of the earth per se an issue of fellowship. I have made this position clear. But, and this is extremely important, this is not what Hill et al. really want. They evidently want us to confess that the time span covered by the six days of Creation "cannot" be literal days, but "must" reflect very long periods of time. I cannot, in good conscience, do so, and I categorically reject any and all efforts demanding I do so. As this issue plays out among brethren, perhaps we'll soon see who is willing to make this issue a test of fellowship.
"The Facts"
All systems of thought (uniformitarianism, catastrophism, et cetera) rest on assumptions or beliefs. Although it has been attempted in the discussion of this issue, there can be no simple appeal to the "facts," because factuality cannot be considered apart from the philosophy by which the facts are interpreted. The inductive method of the sciences ensures a certain tentativeness to all their findings because the addition of new instances supporting a generalization do not provide any logical necessity for it, because a single experiment or observation to the contrary destroys it. This is why it has seemed strange to me that my OEC brethren have made such bold assertions about their beliefs. When questioned about this, they are quick to tell us that these are not bold assertions at all, but are, instead, "the facts" — facts, I might add, that they say prove conclusively that the most natural and normal reading of Genesis 1 "cannot" be correct.
Doy Moyer and I, from the very beginning of this discussion, tried to show that metaphysics was at the very core of this discussion. (If you're not sure what metaphysics means, look up "ontology" and "epistemology" in any dictionary.) Then, in a barrage of "the facts" for OECism, which I was then forced to deal with, the metaphysical framework of this issue was denigrated and dismissed. At the time, I though that was very unfortunate. But, looking back, I realize that it was best that the original discussion went the way it did. The issue seems much clearer now. Nevertheless, thinking metaphysics to be at the heart of this matter, I invite my OEC brethren to engage me at this point. If the metaphysical approach is folly, then I am sure they will be able to effectively point this out in open discussion.
Faith
Everyone has some kind of metaphysics, even if he thinks he doesn't. Indeed, the only-the-facts, I-only-go-by-what-I-see fellow is apt to have a very dangerous kind of metaphysics. Such metaphysics is dangerous because, in it, assumptions and inferences are being mistaken for directly observed facts which, in turn, become riveted into the very structure of one's thought. In other words, when a theory becomes part of the common working knowledge of an entire community, it becomes the context within which that community understands the world. Within such a construct, doubt comes to be thought of as something less than legitimate, and the critics find themselves listening only to each other. However, it is equally true that most past majority viewpoints in the history of science have eventually been abandoned, with a previously minority viewpoint taking its place. Consequently, the consensus among modern scientists (who all share uniformitarian assumptions) that the Universe and Earth are very ancient, remains suspect in my mind.
OECs see the world in the context of their beliefs, and they interpret the "evidence" by their own theory. This, in essence, makes their theory unbeatable because it is the very thing used to interpret the observations. This has repeatably happened in this discussion and is the reason why OECs feel so confident in their bold assertions. They are convinced that their observations are overwhelming, and as we've admitted, THEY ARE, but only when interpreted by their uniformitarian assumptions. The fact that all of the OECs on this board have bristled at any suggestion that they are blinded by their own uniformitarian assumptions, is proof that they are, in fact, guilty. I, too, am not without guilt. All through this discussion, I have readily admitted my OWN catastrophic ASSUMPTIONS, so, at least, I'm not playing the hypocrite here.
Ultimately, we are not talking about facts vs. faith, as the more scientifically oriented generally try to make it appear. Instead, we are talking about faith vs. faith. As I said earlier, the question is not whether one is biased — we all are. Instead, the question is what bias is the best bias to be biased with.
In closing his email to me, Hill remarks, "If we could all just say we don't know the age of the earth and the Bible doesn't give us an age of the earth it would be so much better," like this is what this issue is all about. Who, in his right mind, theologically or scientifically, would be so bold as to put a year, month, day, hour date on the beginning of Genesis 1? I certainly would not! Therefore, I believe some knowingly equivocate when they ask, "Can you put a date on the beginning," expecting reasonable men and women to say, "No," so they can then turn around and say, "Then the age of the earth is an open question," as if these two things were related. This is equivocation, and is an effort to obfuscate the issue. The issue under discussion is clear, and there is no place for such rhetoric. We are discussing an Old Earth or Young Earth interpretation of the Bible, particularly as it relates to Genesis 1. YECs believe the Bible teaches, beginning in Genesis 1, that the earth is relatively young. OECs argue that the Bible is silent on this point. However, if you think OECs are saying this is the end of the matter, you are mistaken. The "facts" of the sciences, which they claim to be God's natural revelation, speak loud and clear that the Earth IS billions of years old. This is why YECs ought to repent and accept the OECs' uniformitarian interpretation of "the facts," as if it were the 67th book of the Bible.
"Tempest in a teapot"? We'll see.
Allan Turner
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hill
Local user
(2/22/00 10:42:24 am)
Reply Metaphysics
Here is the entire note I sent to Allan upon his closing these discussions, which I endorse. They should be closed in this format. Enough has been presented. I did not understand that closing the public discussion meant a private note sent to Allan would be made public (in part). To that end here is the full note I sent to Allan. I began by referring to remarks in his closing post which I found personnally objectionable and which I felt obligated to correspond privately with Allan concerning. I now understand that such private correspondence should be considered public from the outset. To that end I offer the note for your consideration in comparison to Allan's post above. Other than this, I have no further comment. HR
Subject: your closing
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 10:01:20 -0600
From: Hill Roberts <Hill.Roberts@stg.srs.com>
Organization: SRS Technologies
To: Allan Turner <allanita@twave.net>
"Does it make a difference? Some think not. Brother Roberts closes by saying, "Frankly, I don't think it matters much what one believes about such things." I find it strange that Hill would write such a thing after all he's said and written about this issue. He has also made it very clear how important he thinks it is to evangelizing a scientifically informed populace. So, this all sounds a bit disingenuous to me."
Allan, if you're going to call me a liar, do so plainly. The ONLY reason I have written anything is because of your invitation. It is otherwise a topic I avoid like the plague in public and only speak to when forcefully asked, and then preferable face to face and in private. While this discussion board may appear to be an elephant from your world view, it is hardly a wart on the nat on the elephant's whisker in mine. So to judge that I am making this a big deal in my life is totally inaccurate. When have you ever heard me SAY anything about "this issue?" I dare say never. When have you ever read anything of mine on this topic that you did not ASK for or seek out from obscure sources? I dare say never.
I do not know of one YEC who has ever learned the earth is old lose their faith over that. I do know of literally hundreds (I keep a file, though unlike Todd most wish to remain anonymous) of young christians who lose their faith when they discover it IS old (in their judgment) yet were so indoctrinated in non Biblical human doctrines of YEC that they have no intellectual recourse but to abandon the whole doctrinal system entirely. It isn't the OECers who are causing the loss of faith over this issue, brother. They will learn it's probably old if I had never been born. Yes, they may lose their faith in a young earth doctrine. If so, that is a good thing to happen. Yes, they may lose they confidence in a man who told them they don't/can't respect the Bible if they accept an old earth. That is probably also a good thing. So if I help towards those ends, I believe the Lord is pleased.
'BUT IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME, TEACHING AS DOCTRINES THE PRECEPTS OF MEN.'
I don't teach any age of the earth as doctrine. Apparently you do -- in spite of publicly acknowledging on your own board you have no scripture for it. "Thou art the man!"
I don't think it matters to God what you think about the age of the earth. I do think it matters as a practical matter if one is attempting to convert people who respect the messages of nature they can read there as easily as you can read your Bible. What we offer our brothers is the realization that it truly doesn't matter, the Bible leaves that as an "open issue." According to Wolfgang at FC, those were the words penned on the chart in your basement for use in Buddy's debate some years back. Is it really an open issue?
Having said all that, know that I do appreciate your interest in truth, your labor in the gospel, and especially your unwillingness to characterize all OECs as theistic evolutionists. This demonstrates an integrity on your part which is easy for me to forget in the heat of such discussions. For this integrity I count you a friend. I appreciate your calling for repentance in that you must therefore care about me. For this I count you a friend. I believe you are likewise in error on this matter and that it sets up young people for a loss of faith in Jesus, and I pray you will understand a similar call for repentance in the same light and count me as a friend in Christ for that. If we could all just say we don't know the age of the earth and the Bible doesn't give us an age of the earth it would be so much better.
VERY sincerely,
and still hoping to see you next weekend in Winston-Salem,
Hill
allanita
Administrator
(2/23/00 1:58:11 am)
Reply
Re: Metaphysics
I thank bro. Roberts for making the above email public. I'll have some more comments as soon as I can find the time.
Allan