Answers in Genesis responds to Modern Reformation Magazine

[LawrenceU]

Lawrence, the problem with your explanation is that it is not scientific or rational in the eyes of modern science. They see you as a myopic bible thumper who, at best, is quaint and, at worst, is dangerous.

Guilty as charged, I reckon.

 

[jayce475]

I would posit that a great deal of difficulty that exists in trying to teach Christ and Him crucified that we have today stems from the fact that several key scholars of the middle 19th century bent to the pressure of 'proven science' and adopted an Old Earth, non literal view of the first portion of Genesis. It is a linchpin, like it or not. I know that not all who hold to an Old Earth view pervert the Gospel, but it opens wide Pandora's box of subjective interpretation of Scripture. That may sound like a hard line, and perhaps it is; but I see NO compelling reason in Scripture to not hold a literal six / twenty four hour day view of the creation week. There is none. The only 'compelling' reason is in the sciences, and they are not even solid. Hypotheses and theories are constantly tweaked and abandoned as new evidence comes to light in almost every field. There was a time when every intelligent student of history, archaeology, and many students of Scripture admitted that there was never a people known as Hittites. Low and behold a vast culture of Hittites was discovered and many experts learned that crow is edible, though not all that tasty. Some were unwilling to admit that they were wrong and to this day a minority deny that the excavations that were done were the same people as Biblical Hittites, even though it has been confirmed in repeated manners.

Why bring that up? Because the Bible will never be proven wrong. I think that all on this board will agree to that. It then brings us back to the question that must be answered: Where is the compelling internal evidence for the abandonment of a literal 24 hour / six day creation?

Pardon my puny mind, but I don't get this whole argument that Genesis 1:1 to 2:3 is polemical poetry. Genesis, Acts and the Gospels appear to me as historical as any book can possibly be. If I want poetry, it's there, in Song of Songs etc. If no other part of Genesis is poetry, why are we wrenching out this portion and scripture and trying to fit our own misguided science into it? Let God be true and every man a liar.

 

[he beholds]

We do not make the word day poetic but scripture does use the word day in other than 24 hour "days." the framework theory does not say it is NOT 6/24, it says that is not the issue. The days of creation are set up in 2 sets of 3 parallels. Day 1 creation, day 4 filling, day 2 creation, day 5 filling etc. It very well may have been 6 literal 24 hour days, but that is not clear from the text.

If I am not mistaken, the word for day used in the creation account is "yom" and the other 2,300 times "yom" is used it not challenged as a 24 hour day. No one is arguing that Jonah was 300,000 years in the belly of the fish or that it took 790,000 years to march around Jericho. in my opinion, the only reason it is only said to not be a "day" in Genesis is because the proponents of evolution have to make it that way to fit their end result.

I'm wondering why you blame this on evolutionists?
I am very unscientific, which makes it easy for the science guys to get me to question whether Gen 2 is describing a week or a longer period of time, and when this was. However, I do not think that one needs to believe in evolution in order to consider or even believe that the world was created more than 6,000 years ago. I just settle on the 6 days, because it is easier, but when I listen to what other ideas are out there, and even consider them, I still never once consider evolution.

I cannot tell you how many people I have met who have little faith, or no faith in Scripture, that where brought up in conservative churches which allowed that the creation account in Genesis could be interpreted to mean something other than what the simple reading of the text leads one to believe. Once we begin to do that to Scripture where do we stop? If God's word says that he created the world in six days and puts the modifier of 'evening and morning' there so that it is even more clear who are we to go and redefine what God has defined. I really do think it is that serious - and that simple.

I totally believe in my heart and know in my head that the Lord is God, He has revealed Himself to us in his perfect, infallible Word, and that Word is the only authority I have as to how to know and love God and how I am known and loved by God. I sometimes doubt things about God, of course, but I always know that He is God and that the Bible is True. Yet, I can see a world where I could be persuaded, with my faith in the Lord a constant, to believe that perhaps God created the world more than 6,000 years ago, or perhaps the Bible doesn't explain the exact act of creation, because it never intended to (and not because it is a deficiency of the Word of the Perfect Lord!). I don't think (but I could be wrong) that this would mean that my faith is little or none.

 

[Philip]

As a counter, is it really conservative to be hesitant to deny something that is in the text. Now I know you are against gay marriage, but this way of argument would be equivalent to saying, "I don't want to say gay marriage is biblical or not, I am just not sure." And then trying to label such as the more conservative position.

It is clearly the case that our belief that homosexuality is immoral stems from clear Biblical teachings that cannot be interpreted as poetry or norms peculiar to one set of cultural circumstances (indeed, Paul's teaching of the subject was as counter-cultural then as it is now). This has not been debated in the history of the Church until the modern breakdown of morality.

It is not clearly the case that Genesis 1 is not a theological account intended as an apologetic to counter the remnants of Egyptian paganism in Israel. Again, I would point you to the example of the book of John where the events have been clearly rearranged to make a theological point.

If this is the case, why did some start to say the meanings of the words are not what we thought they were?

Again, this isn't some new theory. Versions of this idea have been around since the Patristic period.

Also how one reconciles general and special revelation is not some small point. That is the point where we hammer the false theistic systems. There is exactly where Islam etc fails.

Islam rejects general revelation, so such a critique would be irrelevant. In fact, no other theistic religion (ie: one with a transcendent God) that I am aware of has a doctrine of general revelation.

The Framework view also resolves the quite apparent problem of the lack of parallelism between the "1st" and "2nd" accounts of Creation (1:1-2:3 & 2:4ff). Really, it is not the critiques of our 'cultured despisers' that makes me strongly consider the FW view, but this latter issue of the differences in the 2 accounts of Creation.

Amen. The reasons why I take this view seriously are, I think, Biblical not cultural. It's the apparent discrepancy between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 that gives me pause.

 

[ChristianTrader]

Well said, but if I'm not mistaken, something like the Framework view has been around since the days of Augustine. The issue, I believe, comes down to one of genre. If Genesis 1:1-2:3 is history, then we end up with one view. If it is poetry (particularly polemical poetry) then we have another. Clearly, based on the interpretation of Gen 2:4ff in subsequent passages of Scripture, that passage is meant by Moses to be history. The Framework view also resolves the quite apparent problem of the lack of parallelism between the "1st" and "2nd" accounts of Creation (1:1-2:3 & 2:4ff). Really, it is not the critiques of our 'cultured despisers' that makes me strongly consider the FW view, but this latter issue of the differences in the 2 accounts of Creation.

Actually from what I understand of Augustine's case, it was an issue of also taking an outside position and imposing it on the Bible. He did not exegetically come to the his creation week views. So if FH folks want to claim him, go right ahead

Also you never addressed the "no new scripture was found but new inconsistencies just all of a sudden appeared" counter, in my above post. The same differences have been in scripture from the beginning. Why now has the skeptical position gained traction?

CT

 

[Philip]

Also you never addressed the "no new scripture was found but new inconsistencies just all of a sudden appeared" counter, in my above post. The same differences have been in scripture from the beginning. Why now has the skeptical position gained traction?

People notice different things at different times. Luther noticed that Paul defined justification differently than the Church had been defining it for eight hundred years. It was as logical for people to notice these discrepancies more acutely during a time of skepticism as it was for Luther to notice the discrepancy during a time of humanism. Regardless of how the question arose, we have to take it seriously and consider seriously the claims of proponents, even if we eventually reject them.

 

[Austin]

Agreed. We notice different things at different times and in different ways. No one would have questioned Christ's divinity or the Trinitarian nature of the Godhead had not some heretics called it into question. Similarly, when it 'seemed' to most that the sun revolved around the earth, it was easy to take Scripture's poetical descriptions of said observation as being in accord w/ scientific fact. Again, In the time of the Reformation it was radical to assert the view of Justification that Luther et al asserted. But they merely did so at that time b/c there was significant external pressure that caused the Reformers to reassess the majority opinion about this doctrine.

More often than not, it is external pressures (whether theological, scientific, cultural, or political) that have forced the Church either to amend its assessment of what is the case, or to more specifically define an issue or issues that have not needed significant precision previously.

It is easy, when there are no data to suggest otherwise, that the earth (indeed, the cosmos) is young. But when the increasing weight of the scientific evidence (including bona fide Christians in the academy) suggests that perhaps our facile reading of Gen 1:1-2:3 has been imprecise, it behooves the Church to be humble enough to say that perhaps the Lord did not mean to say what we think He meant to say in the relevant passages.

That's all. Remember, it wasn't until the mid-19th century that Christians began to accept the then-novel concept that perhaps species could die off & become extinct. But then both archaeological evidence (of megafauna which no longer exist) and experiential evidence (people saw species go extinct) showed that the theological consensus on this matter was in error.

It is always valuable in the study of Scripture to be dogmatic on the one hand and humbly teachable on the other. We stand fast till we must admit we were wrong. As Luther so famously said, "Unless you can convince me by Scripture & sound reason... here I stand I cannot do otherwise. So help me God, amen."

 

[LawrenceU]

I agree with much of what you post, Austin. But, the truth is that aside from the fact that there is no internal evidence that compels an Old Earth theory, there is also no scientific data that demands an Old Earth theory. The theories that do are for the most part based upon two ideas that are both false. One is Uniformitarianism. No Christian can believe that. The other is the acceptance of the geologic table. . . which has never been observed, never. It is simply a result of the theories of Smith and Lyell. Theories that are completely circular. How are they circular? Well, strata period is determined by what fossils it contains. Simple enough. So, how are the ages of fossils determined? By the strata in which they are located. Circular.

Much of the original reason that was brought out of science that demanded an Old Earth has been observed to take less than a lifetime to occur. Hundreds of feet of sedimentary rock layers can be laid down in hours and become established in months. Fossilisation can take place in weeks. The list could go on, but I must be off.

 

[Marrow Man]

It would probably be wise to cease discussions on this thread in honor of the Lord's Day and resume comments on Monday.

 

[MW]

It is not clearly the case that Genesis 1 is not a theological account intended as an apologetic to counter the remnants of Egyptian paganism in Israel.

First, it is not propaganda, and it could only counter pagan notions if it was relating fact. The six day schema would be seen as necessary to countering the mythological understanding as to how things developed, so any statement about the polemical nature of the work would only serve to strengthen the importance of the fact that creation was made in six days. Secondly, it is clear that the six day schema is utilised in a non polemical way in the fourth command of the decalogue. Whatever value the polemical interpretation possesses, it cannot be used in an exclusive way so as to rule out literal applications in other areas. Thirdly, other biblical passages look to the creation account of Genesis one as literal and draw implications from its chronology. E.g., God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness; the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water; from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. These statements invest more than polemical value in the narrative; they draw historical and chronological details from the account.

 

[SRoper]

I haven't jumped in before now since I don't have a whole lot to add. I appreciate the mostly civil tone of the discussion. Thank you.

I have to admit that Genesis was a major obstacle to me becoming a Christian. When I did become a Christian, I decided I would ignore the whole Genesis debate for a while as I still could not reconcile the first chapters of Genesis with what I understood science to reveal about the earth. That may seem rather silly and completely unworkable, but I'm glad God rescued me and is continually renewing me. Now, ten years later, I still have great difficulty with reconciling the biblical evidence with the scientific evidence. I think that dealing with the global flood is more difficult than the issue of the nature of the days in chapter one. That is, it seems strange to me to accept findings that the Earth is old and also hold to a global flood. In my estimation, the exegetical arguments for a global flood are much stronger than the arguments for a young earth from Gen. 1, so I don't understand why more of the debate doesn't center around Gen. 6-8.

Perhaps the way I understand the place of scientific evidence is completely wrong. It seems to me there is a place for scientific evidence unless one takes Gordon Clark's highly skeptical view. I like Austin's example of the idea that a species could go extinct (I was toying with using the example of the of the belief that Hebrew was the mother-tongue that all other languages descended from, but this example is much better). I'm not sure what the biblical arguments were at the time, but it seems that one could make the case that the God who saved two of every kind from the Flood would not allow a kind to go extinct after the Flood. It doesn't seem that there is any internal biblical evidence that could be used against the idea that God wouldn't let a kind go extinct. Yet this idea seems to have passed away on scientific grounds. Isn't there a point at which the biblical evidence is too weak and the scientific or historical evidence too strong to overturn a certain interpretation? I'm not suggesting that this should be done lightly, only asking if this tipping point exists.

 

[Peairtach]

There was no "evening and morning" for day 7.

Scripture doesn't explicitly use the words "evening and morning" for each "day" mentioned in Gen. 2:17, 3:5, 3:8, 4:14, and, well, just about every other time the word "day" occurs in the rest of Scripture (including the Fourth Commandment). Are you going to conclude that those days don't have mornings and evenings? If the text actually said that the "seventh day had no morning or evening" you'd have an argument.

The reason that there is no evening and morning on the Seventh Day is that God only started resting from the work of creation on that Day and has been resting from it ever since, see Hebrews 4.

I don't see much evidence of the days of Genesis One being meant to be taken metaphorically.

Regarding the science, scientists would have just as much difficulty puzzling over the age of the wine that Jesus made at Cana as they do with the age of the Earth. Once naturalism is accepted as the governing principle for origins science the Earth has to have taken a long time to develop.

When you examine Day One in Genesis Chapter One, you see that God ingeneously created day and night on Day One.

If a metaphorical view of the Days is correct, we thus have God creating metaphorical Days (and Nights) on metaphorical Day One, do we?

 

[Peairtach]

It is unusual that the Sun isn't made until the Fourth Day, because if we were going to make day and night, we would think it essential to have the Sun. It's maybe one of the better points that that is made against ordinary 24-hour days.

But God ingeniously makes the First Day and Night on the First Day by creating an independent light source.

Then on the Fourth Day the Sun takes over.

If this is all metaphor or a literary framework of Days it's fairly clumsy for the reason given in the last post. With a literary framework of Six Days why would it be necessary for Moses, or the original author that Moses under inspiration drew this from, to tell us about the creation of day and night on the First Day?

" I'm going to use the Six Days of the working week as a literary framework in which to present God's creation of the World! Just a minute; I'll have to explain first of all how God created day and night so I can have days on which God can create! My First Day won't involve the Sun though - as one would expect in any literary account of the creation of day and night - because I want to leave the creation of the Sun to Day Four."

If it was a literary account in which the order of creation doesn't matter too much, you would think that the Sun would be the first thing created after the Heavens and the Earth, in order for there to be Days on which God could create. Or you would think that the creation of day and night might be left out completely as being unduly clumsy in a literary work built around a metaphorical week.

If Genesis 1:3-5 is telling us about the creation of day and night, another Q for the OECs is what kind of day and night is it telling us about the creation of? A metaphorical day and night that lasts for millions or billions of years, or a normal day and night - albeit without the Sun?

 

[Reformed Baptist]

The second reason is of perhaps greater importance. If the earth is old and Christians insist it is young, we risk becoming a tragic obstacle to faith for those both inside and outside the church. Non-Christians who logically understand geology conclude that the path to Christ requires belief in an intentionally deceptive god and choose to place their faith elsewhere. Covenant children who are raised with the impression that a young earth is integral to Christianity have their faith needlessly undermined when they are later confronted with the overwhelming evidence of the earth's antiquity, and many leave the faith. It is our prayer that no Christian would be such an obstacle!

Glad to see the topic gets some attention.

I find this statement from the article rather surprising. Are they really serious about basing their pragmatism on soteriological issues? If so, this statement seems to smack of a real Arminian/Humanistic way of thinking of such things. It's as if to say, "Hey, let's not insist on a young earth because some folks might not get saved!" Do you really think a YEC is going to prevent God's elect?

Secondly, they argue from a moral standpoint: If the earth is young, and looks old, then it makes God out to be deceptive. Really? Was God keeping a nursery for Eve until Adam could take her as wife? Or did God present to Adam a mature woman when she was only seconds old? Of course, the article antipates this:

Young-earth advocates counter that Creation had to have the appearance of age, without deception, because Adam, mature forests, and even flowing rivers would all of necessity have the appearance of age. This confuses maturity with history. A miraculously created tree might well appear mature, but apparent age arguments suggest that if Adam cut down several of these trees, he may have found 50 growth rings with matching patterns of variable growth and burn marks at rings 21 and 43. These data represent not just maturity or age but history--a history that never actually occurred. This is not the Creator described in Romans 1. We may not always have a complete understanding of the history revealed in the earth's layers, but Reformed theology should insist it is a real history.

So are these folks arguing that the first trees didn't have rings? Really...this reasoning comes accross to me as weak and even babyish. Personally, I don't really give a hoo-ha what these men think about which view impugns the character of God. WHat I care about is "Thus saith the Lord." And without having read the AIG response, I know they take their stand there. I have listened to men say "The Scripture isn't clear..." Well, I have read the Scripture. It is clear. And if its not clear to you, it is to me. And it was abundantly clear the Westminster Divines. Not only do these men seek to obscure the clear statements of Scripture, but also their own Confession! Well, what did the Divines mean by "..a space of six days.." ?

My suggestion is we stop pandering to every whim of science. Let's start with the Word of God. Let's make that our presupposition. God is true, every man a liar. I cannot lab-test the subject of origins because I CANNOT directly observe it. I wasn't there. God was. I trust Him.

 

[Grimmson]

These data represent not just maturity or age but history--a history that never actually occurred. This is not the Creator described in Romans 1. We may not always have a complete understanding of the history revealed in the earth's layers, but Reformed theology should insist it is a real history.

So are these folks arguing that the first trees didn't have rings?

I do not have time to discuss this because am going to a bible study am leading in a hour, but the issue of tree rings is extremely important considering the worldwide flood. The trees that God created during creation would have been destroyed during the flood. All trees coming up after the flood would have the characteristic of tree rings today if they started by the normal natural process of tree development. Therefore the issue of trees showing more then 6000 to 9,000 years worth of rings is a solid legitimate issue against those New Earthers who try to force a strict 6000 year date. This of course bypasses the issue if God originally created trees without rings, because there no way to really prove the issue one way or the other from scripture and the reality is that all the trees we have today would have started to grow after the great flood and thus have rings indicating their true age.

 

[Willem van Oranje]

The OEC's will have to contend with all the geological evidence which prove that the earth must be less than 10,000 years old. For example, the accumulated dust on the moon, the chemical make-up of the earth's oceans, the amount of helium in the atmosphere, etc.

 

[Reformed Baptist]

These data represent not just maturity or age but history--a history that never actually occurred. This is not the Creator described in Romans 1. We may not always have a complete understanding of the history revealed in the earth's layers, but Reformed theology should insist it is a real history.

So are these folks arguing that the first trees didn't have rings?

I do not have time to discuss this because am going to a bible study am leading in a hour, but the issue of tree rings is extremely important considering the worldwide flood. The trees that God created during creation would have been destroyed during the flood. All trees coming up after the flood would have the characteristic of tree rings today if they started by the normal natural process of tree development. Therefore the issue of trees showing more then 6000 to 9,000 years worth of rings is a solid legitimate issue against those New Earthers who try to force a strict 6000 year date. This of course bypasses the issue if God originally created trees without rings, because there no way to really prove the issue one way or the other from scripture and the reality is that all the trees we have today would have started to grow after the great flood and thus have rings indicating their true age.

I don't care what trees show, primarily. I care what God says. I will evaluate the data in light of the Scripture, not the Scripture in light of the data.

---------- Post added at 05:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:32 PM ----------

See the links here: The Ruling Elder: Modern Reformation's Piece on Non-6 Day Creation Answered

Something should be said of AiG's rebuttal. Here are some important points I see:

"One of the most interesting aspects of the eight geologists’ case is what is omitted. The PCA is a confessional church with a high view of biblical inerrancy and authority. Yet no arguments are made from the Bible or the Westminster Confession of Faith. Instead, these geologists believe that science interprets Scripture. "

They then list 8 points they noticed in the article and made this comment "The first four points set the stage for the fifth and sixth points, which are the heart of their article." This is exactly true.

The final thing I took away from AiG's reubuttal: "There is nothing new within this article—any well-read creationist will recognize the same tired arguments that have been answered many times."

And they are exactly right on that. ONe wonders about these things. lol

 

[he beholds]

Regarding the science, scientists would have just as much difficulty puzzling over the age of the wine that Jesus made at Cana as they do with the age of the Earth.

That is a great reminder!

 

[Peairtach]

The OEC's will have to contend with all the geological evidence which prove that the earth must be less than 10,000 years old. For example, the accumulated dust on the moon, the chemical make-up of the earth's oceans, the amount of helium in the atmosphere, etc.

Any evidence that does not fit the prevailing paradigm gets swept under the carpet, being unthinkable and uncontemplateable.

The YECs on the other hand have to deal with some evidence that (seems to point) points to an old Earth and/or Universe.

 

[Grimmson]

These data represent not just maturity or age but history--a history that never actually occurred. This is not the Creator described in Romans 1. We may not always have a complete understanding of the history revealed in the earth's layers, but Reformed theology should insist it is a real history.

So are these folks arguing that the first trees didn't have rings?

I do not have time to discuss this because am going to a bible study am leading in a hour, but the issue of tree rings is extremely important considering the worldwide flood. The trees that God created during creation would have been destroyed during the flood. All trees coming up after the flood would have the characteristic of tree rings today if they started by the normal natural process of tree development. Therefore the issue of trees showing more then 6000 to 9,000 years worth of rings is a solid legitimate issue against those New Earthers who try to force a strict 6000 year date. This of course bypasses the issue if God originally created trees without rings, because there no way to really prove the issue one way or the other from scripture and the reality is that all the trees we have today would have started to grow after the great flood and thus have rings indicating their true age.

I don't care what trees show, primarily. I care what God says. I will evaluate the data in light of the Scripture, not the Scripture in light of the data.

There are two sources of truth one must consider. The first being scripture under the category of special revelation. The second source is from general revelation, such as in the case of the sciences; including physics, chemistry, and biology. This is not to mean however that science itself is infallible, because man is not infallible in the process of interpreting the data. Also man is not infallible when it comes interpreting the word of God. God is a god of truth; therefore we should see his truth in nature and in scripture.
I agree with the following quote from the article:

Because God loves truth, any disagreement over truth, especially that He revealed, is important. But it is equally clear that the reason for disagreement among Christians is their imperfect understanding, due either to natural limits, faulty intellectual consistency (including assumptions about the past), or indwelling sin.

However the assumption given by the AIG article when going to the infallible scripture is that it will be interpreted properly; that there is no missing knowledge to interpret the text properly because of current limits, natural or otherwise.

The reason why I mentioned the issue of tree rings after the flood methodically was so one could not make the claim as seen in the answers in genesis article of confusing maturity with history or age. It also assumes the flood presuppositionly as a real world wide flood event, which I do affirm.

A statement like “ I don’t care what trees show” is exactly why it is hard to evangelize to people of a scientific mind. It communicates that are unwilling to engage in truth that we are suppose to represent as Christians. I do not know if it is true, but the story goes near Glen Rose Texas when the dinosaur and human footprints were unearthed and analyzed a evolutionist said that he sees no contradiction here for evolution. Of course that would upset the creationists to scream prejudice and to look at the data. Well likewise if were unwilling to look at dendrochronology data such scientist would scream the same thing towards us and we then will have egg on our face and it could have long term spiritual consequences to not only who we are witnessing to, but also to our children down the road. I should know, because I dealt with the pieces of children who were taught anti-evolution material and saw what they were seeing in college overwhelming and then I need come along and show the issues and real problems of both sides; otherwise there gone in the faith. People need concrete facts and for it to be given in a honest way, not rhetoric. Honestly the methods you use will develop the level of the believers. If blind sighted superficial arguments are used then you develop surface level, non crucially minded, believers. Your content and means does matter and praise God that when people come to faith it is not because of us, but instead despite of us and our efforts. That does not mean that we neglect the teaching of facts; and not just in biology or physics, but also in language, history, and textual criticism.

We need to look at the data not just in light of scripture, but also with respect to general revelation, for the two should be in harmony and support each other. And if we see problems with the two, we shouldn’t blow it off, but instead struggle with it till the day we have the answers we seek or till we die or Jesus returns; which ever comes first in the providence of God. People respect more that we don’t necessarily have the answer if were honest about it, instead of blowing smoke in their direction. If they think ere trying to deceive them or that were just dumb concerning the facts of the history and science of a particular subject then we lose our ground for communicating the history of the death and burial of Jesus Christ; which we should all try to be prepared for.

 

[jayce475]

These data represent not just maturity or age but history--a history that never actually occurred. This is not the Creator described in Romans 1. We may not always have a complete understanding of the history revealed in the earth's layers, but Reformed theology should insist it is a real history.

So are these folks arguing that the first trees didn't have rings?

I do not have time to discuss this because am going to a bible study am leading in a hour, but the issue of tree rings is extremely important considering the worldwide flood. The trees that God created during creation would have been destroyed during the flood. All trees coming up after the flood would have the characteristic of tree rings today if they started by the normal natural process of tree development. Therefore the issue of trees showing more then 6000 to 9,000 years worth of rings is a solid legitimate issue against those New Earthers who try to force a strict 6000 year date. This of course bypasses the issue if God originally created trees without rings, because there no way to really prove the issue one way or the other from scripture and the reality is that all the trees we have today would have started to grow after the great flood and thus have rings indicating their true age.

I don't care what trees show, primarily. I care what God says. I will evaluate the data in light of the Scripture, not the Scripture in light of the data.

There are two sources of truth one must consider. The first being scripture under the category of special revelation. The second source is from general revelation, such as in the case of the sciences; including physics, chemistry, and biology. This is not to mean however that science itself is infallible, because man is not infallible in the process of interpreting the data. Also man is not infallible when it comes interpreting the word of God. God is a god of truth; therefore we should see his truth in nature and in scripture.
I agree with the following quote from the article:

Because God loves truth, any disagreement over truth, especially that He revealed, is important. But it is equally clear that the reason for disagreement among Christians is their imperfect understanding, due either to natural limits, faulty intellectual consistency (including assumptions about the past), or indwelling sin.

However the assumption given by the AIG article when going to the infallible scripture is that it will be interpreted properly; that there is no missing knowledge to interpret the text properly because of current limits, natural or otherwise.

The reason why I mentioned the issue of tree rings after the flood methodically was so one could not make the claim as seen in the answers in genesis article of confusing maturity with history or age. It also assumes the flood presuppositionly as a real world wide flood event, which I do affirm.

A statement like “ I don’t care what trees show” is exactly why it is hard to evangelize to people of a scientific mind. It communicates that are unwilling to engage in truth that we are suppose to represent as Christians. I do not know if it is true, but the story goes near Glen Rose Texas when the dinosaur and human footprints were unearthed and analyzed a evolutionist said that he sees no contradiction here for evolution. Of course that would upset the creationists to scream prejudice and to look at the data. Well likewise if were unwilling to look at dendrochronology data such scientist would scream the same thing towards us and we then will have egg on our face and it could have long term spiritual consequences to not only who we are witnessing to, but also to our children down the road. I should know, because I dealt with the pieces of children who were taught anti-evolution material and saw what they were seeing in college overwhelming and then I need come along and show the issues and real problems of both sides; otherwise there gone in the faith. People need concrete facts and for it to be given in a honest way, not rhetoric. Honestly the methods you use will develop the level of the believers. If blind sighted superficial arguments are used then you develop surface level, non crucially minded, believers. Your content and means does matter and praise God that when people come to faith it is not because of us, but instead despite of us and our efforts. That does not mean that we neglect the teaching of facts; and not just in biology or physics, but also in language, history, and textual criticism.

We need to look at the data not just in light of scripture, but also with respect to general revelation, for the two should be in harmony and support each other. And if we see problems with the two, we shouldn’t blow it off, but instead struggle with it till the day we have the answers we seek or till we die or Jesus returns; which ever comes first in the providence of God. People respect more that we don’t necessarily have the answer if were honest about it, instead of blowing smoke in their direction. If they think ere trying to deceive them or that were just dumb concerning the facts of the history and science of a particular subject then we lose our ground for communicating the history of the death and burial of Jesus Christ; which we should all try to be prepared for.

As you have said so yourself in the other thread, you do not consider the bible to be inerrant in the matters of science. Your rhetoric on the interaction between science and God's Word is therefore unreasonable due to this presupposition towards the Holy Scriptures. Since you do not claim to have a bible that is inerrant on matters of science, it is not expected that you would end up having the same conclusions as those of us who do hold that the bible is indeed inerrant on all matters of science. "People of a scientific mind" is a euphemism for those with minds as described by Romans 1. They also go by the names "intelligent people", "philosophical people", "modern people". Oh, and "unbelieving people".

 

[Semper Fidelis]

There are two sources of truth one must consider. The first being scripture under the category of special revelation. The second source is from general revelation, such as in the case of the sciences; including physics, chemistry, and biology. This is not to mean however that science itself is infallible, because man is not infallible in the process of interpreting the data. Also man is not infallible when it comes interpreting the word of God. God is a god of truth; therefore we should see his truth in nature and in scripture.
I agree with the following quote from the article:

Because God loves truth, any disagreement over truth, especially that He revealed, is important. But it is equally clear that the reason for disagreement among Christians is their imperfect understanding, due either to natural limits, faulty intellectual consistency (including assumptions about the past), or indwelling sin.

However the assumption given by the AIG article when going to the infallible scripture is that it will be interpreted properly; that there is no missing knowledge to interpret the text properly because of current limits, natural or otherwise.

The reason why I mentioned the issue of tree rings after the flood methodically was so one could not make the claim as seen in the answers in genesis article of confusing maturity with history or age. It also assumes the flood presuppositionly as a real world wide flood event, which I do affirm.

A statement like “ I don’t care what trees show” is exactly why it is hard to evangelize to people of a scientific mind. It communicates that are unwilling to engage in truth that we are suppose to represent as Christians. I do not know if it is true, but the story goes near Glen Rose Texas when the dinosaur and human footprints were unearthed and analyzed a evolutionist said that he sees no contradiction here for evolution. Of course that would upset the creationists to scream prejudice and to look at the data. Well likewise if were unwilling to look at dendrochronology data such scientist would scream the same thing towards us and we then will have egg on our face and it could have long term spiritual consequences to not only who we are witnessing to, but also to our children down the road. I should know, because I dealt with the pieces of children who were taught anti-evolution material and saw what they were seeing in college overwhelming and then I need come along and show the issues and real problems of both sides; otherwise there gone in the faith. People need concrete facts and for it to be given in a honest way, not rhetoric. Honestly the methods you use will develop the level of the believers. If blind sighted superficial arguments are used then you develop surface level, non crucially minded, believers. Your content and means does matter and praise God that when people come to faith it is not because of us, but instead despite of us and our efforts. That does not mean that we neglect the teaching of facts; and not just in biology or physics, but also in language, history, and textual criticism.

We need to look at the data not just in light of scripture, but also with respect to general revelation, for the two should be in harmony and support each other. And if we see problems with the two, we shouldn’t blow it off, but instead struggle with it till the day we have the answers we seek or till we die or Jesus returns; which ever comes first in the providence of God. People respect more that we don’t necessarily have the answer if were honest about it, instead of blowing smoke in their direction. If they think ere trying to deceive them or that were just dumb concerning the facts of the history and science of a particular subject then we lose our ground for communicating the history of the death and burial of Jesus Christ; which we should all try to be prepared for.

David,

By way of introduction, I have two Engineering degrees and one might say I have a "scientific mind". I don't believe in having an uneducated credulity about such things.

We have to be clear that it is not merely the "scientific establishment" that owns the data and sets the playing field with respect to general revelation.

Consider this data: all men are created in the image of God and their consciences bear witness to Him. The heavens declare the glory of God. (Romans 1:18ff)

Also consider this data: Death came into the world through one man. (Romans 5:12)

Physical phenomena, as we witness them today with our instrumentation, allows us to use that information predictably. I'm using a computer because of the predictability of that phenomena.

I think science oversteps its bounds when it tries to extrapolate from the current phenomena, attach a hypothesis of uniformity for all ages, and then tries to draw a straight line backward to a date. In fact, many of the dates are chosen to allow for unguided, random processes to create the phenomena.

It's sort of hard to "choose in the middle". Let's say we just stick with tree rings and allow that data to push us back to a couple of million years old. That's not going to satisfy the "scientific mind" who insists that "modern science" tells us that a billion years had to pass in order to allow a big explosion to slowly form into stars and then planets and then life and then us.

It is entirely possible to draw a "line" from current phenomena to a Young Earth if one does not simply assume uniformity of the decay process or other processes. Some "scientific minds" may not find that palatable but that says nothing about how useful and reliable "current data" is to usability in the physical world and what it can tell us about the world as it is now. After all, the only thing it disrupts are attempts to draw lines backwards where we have no measurements to compare to. It disrupts theories and not evidence.

The data is being interpreted a certain way and scientific minds need to be made aware of their presuppositions rather than simply allowing them to assume that their presuppositions are what general revelation is all about. In other words, I believe in general revelation but that's different than saying I have to buy the metaphysical underpinnings of everything that calls itself a "science". That's where you educate a kid that's prepared to see through the blind confidence that most people have walking through any area of life. The irony is that the average university has several sciences within it whose presuppositions completely contradict one another and all are "science".

 

[MW]

I think science oversteps its bounds when it tries to extrapolate from the current phenomena, attach a hypothesis of uniformity for all ages, and then tries to draw a straight line backward to a date.

I can't imagine human observation functioning in any other way. It seems to me that this process is setting out the obvious limitations which are placed on human observation when it is not enlightened by special revelation. It certainly has its temporal uses, but it can never serve to provide an ultimate explanation of our world. Human observation begs us to look to the Creator to teach and guide us. The problem with many modern scientists is that they do not regard their field of expertise as one of beggary.

 

[Austin]

All said, one pf the prime attractions of the Framework view is that it leaves open a YEC position, while being able to be agnostic about the actual timeline of things prior to Gen 2:4.