Afterthought
Puritan Board Senior
Oftentimes, the YEC/OEC/Evolution debate focuses on the term "appearance of age." But that doesn't seem to be a real problem; why couldn't God have made a fully functioning universe? Of course, there's no misleading fact of the universe, because God has told us the truth of the matter in the Bible and because we are functioning in the domain of human observation--even observation of the universe functioning under the rules of ordinary Providence--when it comes to this sort of science. Not to mention that natural revelation doesn't have to do with facts about the universe in themselves anyway. The real problem that should be focused on seems to be the "appearance of history." Why does there seem to be an appearance of history in the universe?
Take Niagra Falls for example (though probably a bad example because it could perhaps be explained in terms of flood geology; but it would be nice if we weren't forced to make a "scientific" explanation for these sorts of situations, unless by the nature of the question it is a "scientific" one?) which shows erosion patterns which suggest it has been eroding backwards for a long time. Or take supernovae that we see exploding at a distant time in the past and so never existed if YEC is true; I realise there is a YEC creation science which might explain this, but I'd really like to see if there's a way to avoid forcing ourselves into scientific explanations. Or finally, take evolution for example in which we can trace a history of genes that leads us back to animals. It's not just a similarity of genes between humans and animals, but an actual history.
What should we make of such, if we believe God created "in the space of six days", especially if YEC is correct? Is there a way to apply the two domains of knowledge to solving this problem? Perhaps it is incorrect thinking--indeed, putting God in a box we should not put Him--that God would not create with an appearance of history as well as appearance of age?
To show what I mean by the "two domains of knowledge" and to provide an example of answering these sorts of issues without being forced to give some scientific hypothesis to explain it (notice that Turretin gave none), see this thread.
Take Niagra Falls for example (though probably a bad example because it could perhaps be explained in terms of flood geology; but it would be nice if we weren't forced to make a "scientific" explanation for these sorts of situations, unless by the nature of the question it is a "scientific" one?) which shows erosion patterns which suggest it has been eroding backwards for a long time. Or take supernovae that we see exploding at a distant time in the past and so never existed if YEC is true; I realise there is a YEC creation science which might explain this, but I'd really like to see if there's a way to avoid forcing ourselves into scientific explanations. Or finally, take evolution for example in which we can trace a history of genes that leads us back to animals. It's not just a similarity of genes between humans and animals, but an actual history.
What should we make of such, if we believe God created "in the space of six days", especially if YEC is correct? Is there a way to apply the two domains of knowledge to solving this problem? Perhaps it is incorrect thinking--indeed, putting God in a box we should not put Him--that God would not create with an appearance of history as well as appearance of age?
To show what I mean by the "two domains of knowledge" and to provide an example of answering these sorts of issues without being forced to give some scientific hypothesis to explain it (notice that Turretin gave none), see this thread.
Last edited: