Question about Age of the Earth

Status
Not open for further replies.
Scholar might be pushing it, but it's Plural. I can see why you'd think it was dual.
Since you're a Hebrew scholar, Clark, maybe you can tell me, as a matter of interest, whether "Heaven" in Genesis 1:1 is singular, dual or plural?


---------- Post added at 03:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:37 PM ----------

On bereshith:
Well, I can tell you what I do know about it. It's a prepositional phrase in construct to a VERB. That's highly unusual. It does occur. Interestingly, it only occurs in poetry. (That's not to say Genesis 1 is poetry. It's definitely prose. That's not to say it's not highly stylized, though.) I understand this construction happens rather frequently in Akkadian, but I take that on the authority of a very reliable source. I never learned Akkadian. I've thought about trying to teach myself, but I'm not sure the payoff would be high enough for me.
 
It would seem the ones who are "deceived" are the ones who wish to discredit the creation in the first place. And we know that God does make foolish the so-called wisdom of the wise.

The only problem with statement is that those that hold to ID do not in any way shape or form discredit creation. They argue for it vociferously in the face of loss of job, ridicule, persecution, and fear of being unemployable. They risk everything for what they believe, because they hold that the Bible is true and without error, and that creation is true and without error as it appears. They do not discredit creation, but praise the creator. To say otherwise is to not understand what they are saying, or to attempt to discredit the argument with what I believe is untrue. I've met Stephen Meyer, and I can attest to his faith in the scripture being true and without error. That he believes that a young earth interpretation of scripture is faulty is not equivalent to discrediting creation. His arguments for the beginning of life being without any plausible cause apart from God are both articulate and logical -- that he believes God created the earth long ago does not discredit creation, unless you are saying that God could not have created the earth long ago (and that you could not be mistaken in your interpretation of scripture). I would rather give charity to any that say that God created, even if I disagree with the methodology by which God created.
 
Scholar might be pushing it, but it's Plural. I can see why you'd think it was dual.
Since you're a Hebrew scholar, Clark, maybe you can tell me, as a matter of interest, whether "Heaven" in Genesis 1:1 is singular, dual or plural?

So does that basically mean that Genesis 1:1 is saying "In the beginning, God created

(a) the sky

(b) outer space

(c) God's Heaven

and

(d) the Earth".

I.e. Is Genesis 1:1 basically saying "In the beginning God created everything" ?
 
I don't think Genesis 1 is thinking in those terms. That is, I don't think it is using the plural to make such a distinction. The Hebrew word is plural, but it's always plural. So, I don't think it would be exegetically safe to push the plural like that. I think I see where you are going, though, and I wouldn't totally disagree. I think Gen 1:1 is looking at heaven comprehensively, just not distributively. Does that make sense of your question, or am I missing something?
 
Semigroup Theory

For what it's worth, there's a very interesting result in the mathematics of semigroup theory that I believe is highly relevant to this earth-age question. The result goes like this: suppose you have a system that starts in time at state A, evolves in time through state B and ends up at state C. Now, suppose you have the identical system start at B and evolve to C. So you can see that one of them started out at an earlier time than the other, although they both ended up in the same place. Further, suppose there is an observer in the system. For system, you could substitute "earth" if you like. Semigroup theory says that unless the observer has memory reaching back to state A, he will have no method whatsoever of deducing whether the system started at A or at B.

I claim this result shows that the theory of mature creation cannot be disproved by any science whatever. Even supposing there is evidence that the earth is billions of years old (which, as above posts have shown, is a disputed point), this result shows that you can simply side-step the issue. It certainly makes sense that God created Adam looking more like a 20-year-old than a few seconds old, in order to make him capable of tending the garden. If that's so with Adam, why not have light from stars already streaming to the earth? Why not have plants and animals that look years old instead of seconds old?

Poythress's argument against the deception counter-argument has already been mentioned.

My conclusion: true science and the Christian faith can have no contradiction. If there is an apparent contradiction, well, too bad for the science! Maybe they'd better re-examine their science. This is why I rather grin at the guys who make fun of Christians for "believing that the sun revolves around the earth." The joke's actually on those guys, because general relativity says there is no preferred frame of reference. You might just as well say the sun revolves around the earth as that the earth revolves around the sun. Neither of those statements can be proved, says general relativity.
 
This is why I rather grin at the guys who make fun of Christians for "believing that the sun revolves around the earth." The joke's actually on those guys, because general relativity says there is no preferred frame of reference. You might just as well say the sun revolves around the earth as that the earth revolves around the sun. Neither of those statements can be proved, says general relativity.

Share that with a guy who needs to work with physics and gravity and he'll not be impressed. Launch a satellite and expect the earth to revolve around it. Sure, you can say it does, if you take the right perspective and talk about general relativity. But that perspective is really meaningless. The fact of the matter is, it is the gravitational pull of the earth that keeps the satellite revolving around the earth. Similarly, the earth is in orbit around the sun. To say that the sun is in orbit around the earth is ridiculous -- at least to me.
 
Well, I am by no means an expert in General Relativity (GR). However, with a Ph.D. in Mathematical Physics from Virginia Tech, I do know the basics of GR. One of those basics is that there is no preferred frame of reference, inertial or otherwise. Thinking that the earth revolves around the sun sure makes the mathematics easier, but that is neither here nor there; the same is true of a satellite around the earth, or the moon for that matter. If you think about a guy kicking a stone (like Dr. Johnson), and you consider two possible frames of reference: one is that of the stone, where the guy's foot appears to move in to strike the stone, and the other is that of the entire universe rotating in such a way that the stone moves in to strike the foot, there is no way to say one is preferred over the other. The laws of physics are the same in ALL frames of reference, period. It doesn't matter whether they are inertial or not. So, if you like, you can attach a frame of reference to any object whatever (a frame of reference should be thought of as three rulers in the x, y, and z directions, along with a clock) and do your physics from that frame just as correctly as a frame attached to a different object.

So, I can attach a frame to the earth, and say that the sun revolves around the earth. Or, I can attach a frame to the sun, and say the earth revolves around the sun. You can come to the same conclusions, from the different points of view, in either case.

That's what the physics says.

For the record, I sure find it easier to think of the earth revolving around the sun, and the moon around the earth, and so on, in the Copernican/Galilean fashion. But GR prohibits me from making fun of the guy who says the sun revolves around the earth. GR says that question is irrelevant. If he wants to do physics in the earth frame, great!
 
That reminds me of Zeno's argument that motion is impossible, since an object has to move half-way. To get there it has to move half-way. To get there it has to move half-way -- ad infinitum. Since it takes at least some amount of time to move any distance, to move an infinite number of distances requires an infinite number of time intervals. No movement, therefore is possible at all.

But this is ridiculous.

I'm no expert in the field, but to a simple country boy, it looks to me like GR has a problem. I can't just change my frame of reference to anything I like. If I launch a satellite, I might try to change the reference so that the earth revolves around it, but the moon and the sun are still relating to the earth as they were in the previous frame of reference. That is, they aren't relating to the satellite (the new frame of reference) in a mathematically explicable way at all. Rather, the moon is rotating around the earth and the earth the sun and the satellite the earth.

GR can claim anything it likes. Call me simple, but it's just too ridiculous for my mind to give it any more credence than I give Zeno's argument.
 
Would you say that the moon is currently revolving around the Earth or the Sun? Or perhaps a better question: Two brothers are walking in opposite directions. One is walking from the bathroom to the cockpit aboard a 747 traveling 500mph due west. The other brother is walking on a country road 2 mph due East. Meanwhile the Earth is traveling rotationally 1037mph due east. Which brother is moving faster?

The point that I would make is that GR is helpful in putting us in our intellectual place. With questions of the age of the Earth, we are trying to argue from the finite to the infinite. Semigroup theory works along similar lines of thought. Even if every bit of scientific testing points toward movement from A to B to C, there is no way to disprove that it was simply a movement from B to C.

My issue with the YE/OE discussion on the whole is that both stances assume absolutes that aren't absolute at all. Time, location, age, weight, velocity; these are all variable. So even claiming a YE stance of 6000 years is off the mark, because time is itself a created thing--a fallen thing. So back to the original question, I'm inclined to believe that 6 24 hour periods is exactly 6 24 hour periods. There are simply too many variables to reconcile when trying to take a stance other than 6-24.

The main problem if find with the "formless Earth" prior to creation, is that it serves no theological function other than to debunk scientific data about the age of the Earth. However, it never really succeeds in debunking the science. I.E. Those million year old limestone formations are easier to understand since there was a formless Earth prior to the 6000 year clock starting. But what do we do with the fact that limestone is made up of seashells and other decomposed organic matter. What does this say about the truth behind the fall, and death entering? It doesn't answer the question about light from distant stars reaching us. The stars were created after the 6000 year clock started.

What I fear we lose is the principle of the Sabbath in all this. I really don't have a dog in the fight apart from that. I fear that an Old Earth, or a formless Earth prior to day 1 of creation doesn't really solve as many problems as it creates. If God did form the Earth prior to day 1, Why did he rest on day 7? And how is this a rest from ALL His work in creation?

I do think the exegetical digging is admirable though. We do tend to lump everything into day 1 without necessarily finding the evidence in Genesis 1. I think Genesis 2 and of course Exodus provide the grounds to place all of creation on day 1 and following.
 
Hmm. Mathematically, I've understood Zeno's paradox to say that motion is impossible because, with this infinite dividing by two, there can be no "first step". However, I believe the answer to that can be found in quantum mechanics, along with an assumption that space is discrete. (This is by no means mainstream science, by the way.) If you assume space is discrete, then Zeno's hidden assumption that you can keep on dividing by two is incorrect. There is a smallest space between two points. Furthermore, quantum mechanically, a particle can tunnel from one location to the next, thus enabling motion. I do think Zeno's paradox requires more effort than either "That's ridiculous", or the usual calculus argument that the sum of infinitely many numbers can be finite. However, this is a tangent (pun intended).

Concerning frames of reference, you wrote:
I can't just change my frame of reference to anything I like.
Sure you can. Just get into a car and wave goodby to someone standing outside the car as you move off. According to the person outside the car, the earth is stationary, and the car moves off. According to you, the earth is accelerating beneath the car.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "relating" or "not relating". Newton's law of gravitation says that all mass attracts all mass according to the inverse square law. The sun does pull on the moon, and the moon on the sun. This makes the moon's motion very difficult to calculate, because it's a 3-body problem (earth, sun, moon), a problem that has not yet been solved exactly in the general case. And that, incidentally, is why Newton didn't include a solution of the moon's motion in his Principia, though he tried very hard.

You can call yourself simple, but a pastor in the OPC has to have studied quite a bit to get to that position. I imagine you can probably wipe the floor with me in exegesis, and that's a good thing.
 
Brandon
The main problem if find with the "formless Earth" prior to creation, is that it serves no theological function other than to debunk scientific data about the age of the Earth.

But if we're not told on what day the formless Heavens and Earth were created, they must have been created before God created light, according to a 24-hour view. Maybe 5 minutes before, but before nevertheless.

There could be theological functions. The creation of the Earth, Outer Space, and the Heaven of Heavens would give time for the rebellion and fall of the angels.

I don't see the problem with the Sabbath. If the work of the Six Days of Creation is forming and filling then it is presupposed that something is prepared for that beforehand.

Besides the First Day was created on the First Day, so time as we understand it before then is somewhat mysterious.

Were the Heaven of Heavens not created before the creation week, anyway. And would God not have prepared the Earth to some extent at the same time as He created the Heaven of Heavens, since the Earth is where He intended to become Man and glorify Himself in a peculiar manner.

Earth wasn't an "afterthought" that was created after the Heaven of Heavens was created, after the angels were created, and after they fell?

I agree that the idea of a formless and empty Earth and Universe alongside God's Heaven, before the Creation Week, may be of little use to Creationism, but we're first of all interested in the Truth of what Scripture says, only secondarily whether it's useful to apologetic arguments or not.

Anyway, you want to defend what you really believe the Bible says, according to proper rules of interpretation, and you don't know if a clearer view of what the Bible is saying may help your apologetic in the future.

For the reasons given in post #24 above, I believe that Heavenly and Earthly time are co-ordinate. Would Adam have died after the Fall, gone to Heaven (if he was a believer) only to find out that Lucifer and his angels had not yet fallen? Would the OT saints die and go to Heaven to find the incarnate Christ there?
 
Last edited:
As I listen to men over at ID the future, or William Lane Craig, or Plantinga, or whomever, it is evident that many of the leading Christian voices out there in the realm of science and philosophy hold to an old Earth position. I'm not unaware how presuppositions and all the rest factor into the equation, but it still makes me wonder about this issue.

I grew up under a creationist teacher who believed the earth was only thousands of years old. And you know, the whole created with age response still makes a ton of sense to me. I've never heard anything that really trumps that idea. But then again, I would like to know what's out there. If I wanted to get an answer to this question, what would you recommend?

Is the evidence that compelling? I tend to think it must be, given that many of the ID guys get ridiculed for other views, thus showing that they don't simply capitulate to the latest fad (This doesn't mean I don't frown on their methodology as a Vantillian).

So what would you say? Help me out.

Austin

There a methodological issue we need to consider in determining the age of the earth. Are we to look at the genealogical years and associate to him our understanding of a year? When considering this question we must ask ourselves another question, “ did the time of Abraham and that of Noah interact? Go ahead and do the math in counting the years. I get the impression from the text and from studying the issue historically that the answer is no. Augustine, himself, when looking at the Egyptian year did not equate it with his own. If I remember right in City of God he said that four Egyptian years made up one of his years. There are many biblical factors at play with determining the age of the earth and requires some look at historical Jewish and Christian interpretative approaches along with careful analysis of the use of terms within a genre context as it relates to the grammar.
 
I guess I would have answered Zeno differently. I'd say that to move half as far takes half as long. To move half that far again takes half that long again. However he divides the distance, the time is correspondingly divided. It may not be mathematical or anything, but it's enough for me to go on with life :D

All I'm saying with regard to frames of reference is this: You can say that I'm spinning around a top. Fine. I suppose if you were a top that would make sense to you. But I'm not getting dizzy. The reason I brought up Zeno is because common sense tells you he's wrong -- not to mention observation. Likewise, common sense tells me that the mass of the earth being so much larger, it doesn't make sense to say the earth revolves around the moon. I'm sure the moon would disagree with me. But 'ridiculous' is the only way I can deal with something that so contradicts my common sense. I have no doubt that the motion of two bodies are relative to one another, and that motion can be described from either perspective. But to say that the earth orbits the moon, while the sun is orbiting the earth seems to evoke for me a mental image of Ptolemy's model, with lots of cams and such to account for oddities. Occam's razor did that model in, and your take on GR seems to be trying to bring it back. I'm just skeptical is all. But I'm no physicist, nor even a mathematician. My brother's a ME, maybe I'll pick his brain on this stuff.


Hmm. Mathematically, I've understood Zeno's paradox to say that motion is impossible because, with this infinite dividing by two, there can be no "first step". However, I believe the answer to that can be found in quantum mechanics, along with an assumption that space is discrete. (This is by no means mainstream science, by the way.) If you assume space is discrete, then Zeno's hidden assumption that you can keep on dividing by two is incorrect. There is a smallest space between two points. Furthermore, quantum mechanically, a particle can tunnel from one location to the next, thus enabling motion. I do think Zeno's paradox requires more effort than either "That's ridiculous", or the usual calculus argument that the sum of infinitely many numbers can be finite. However, this is a tangent (pun intended).

Concerning frames of reference, you wrote:
I can't just change my frame of reference to anything I like.
Sure you can. Just get into a car and wave goodby to someone standing outside the car as you move off. According to the person outside the car, the earth is stationary, and the car moves off. According to you, the earth is accelerating beneath the car.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "relating" or "not relating". Newton's law of gravitation says that all mass attracts all mass according to the inverse square law. The sun does pull on the moon, and the moon on the sun. This makes the moon's motion very difficult to calculate, because it's a 3-body problem (earth, sun, moon), a problem that has not yet been solved exactly in the general case. And that, incidentally, is why Newton didn't include a solution of the moon's motion in his Principia, though he tried very hard.

You can call yourself simple, but a pastor in the OPC has to have studied quite a bit to get to that position. I imagine you can probably wipe the floor with me in exegesis, and that's a good thing.
 
Occam's razor actually is in favor of GR, because GR is the same in ALL frames of reference, inertial or not. You don't have to change the equations like you do for Newtonian mechanics. I've seen the Newtonian equation for motion in a non-inertial reference frame, and it's terribly complex compared to the inertial version. Now, granted, GR is complex. But it doesn't have THAT complexity added to it.

Skeptical is great.
 
Yeah, I can see why you'd say that re: Occam. My point was not GR, but this particular inference from it. I.e., Try to build a model explaining the rotation of all the heavenly bodies relative to the earth where earth is the hub, the center about which everything moves -- that was where my Occam comment was directed.
 
My conclusion: true science and the Christian faith can have no contradiction. If there is an apparent contradiction, well, too bad for the science! Maybe they'd better re-examine their science.

Both the scientist and the theologian should examine their spheres. There can be no contradiction between general revelation and special revelation, so if there is an apparent contradiction, the interpretation of one or the other is wrong, or both. One thing is sure, the geocentric model of the solar system is useless for predicting the required forces needed to send a vehicle to the outer reaches of the solar system, while the heliocentric model has been used to calculate the required forces to send the Cassini probe to Saturn. Philosophically, one can maintain a geocentric solar system, but one has to do so with no hope of reliably sending probes to other planets. While others will state their interpretation of scripture requires a geocentric solar system and they deny the possibility of error in that interpretation, there is little they can do to support how that would be useful in piloting a probe to the moon, let alone Saturn. If they have not done the mathematics and seen what it does to what we otherwise see as laws of physics, there is little to argue. A fixed observer in a closed system tends to be at the mercy of your presupposition. Give the observer a means of escape from the framework, and things change rapidly. Being able to see one has use for prediction (and the outcome follows) tends to support the theory. Having a system which not only is useless for predicting behavior of a space probe, but that contradicts what we see every day provides a good basis for questioning the validity of the system that is otherwise useless.

---------- Post added at 03:16 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:04 AM ----------

For the record, I sure find it easier to think of the earth revolving around the sun, and the moon around the earth, and so on, in the Copernican/Galilean fashion. But GR prohibits me from making fun of the guy who says the sun revolves around the earth. GR says that question is irrelevant. If he wants to do physics in the earth frame, great!

So the centripetal forces and masses work just as well to force the Sun into orbit around the earth? I'd like to see the mathematics for the force equations that allow that, and still have the moon not crash into the earth, and that Venus has such a wild orbit, and that allowed Cassini to escape Earth orbit, and travel to Saturn. Not just two bodies, but those five. I realize the force equations for just Venus, Sun and Earth are rather difficult, especially if you have the Earth exerting a consistent gravitational force that doesn't change moment by moment, and is far from being as uniform as it appears at the slow (C relative) speeds of the planets, Moon and Sun.
 
I guess that echoes my point. I'm not saying you can't choose another frame of reference. And, theoretically, you could do the math to make it work, but we don't, and I'll bet you'd have a hard time finding anyone who COULD. And you are right, of course, that Occam applies, in that GR simplifies the system, but to choose the earth as the reference point would require math FAR more complex. GR says no frame of reference has priority, but what does that mean? To state the theoretical possibility of working with any reference point doesn't seem (to me) to preclude the pragmatic preference of the one that is calculable by your ordinary, every day, run of the mill rocket scientist. And so, by a mathematical application of Occam's razor, or at least by a utilitarian one, couldn't we say one has preference over another?

I wonder what the theological implications are in the choice of one reference point over another. On the one hand, a geocentric view highlights man as the image-bearer, and makes the story of redemption central to the entire creation (very attractive). On the other hand, a look at the stars has always led men to see how SMALL and INSIGNIFICANT they are -- and to highlight the WONDER and MERCY of God in paying them any attention whatsoever (likewise very attractive). I'm sure this could be looked at from many angles. That would be an interesting discussion: GR says there's NO priority. But what does theology say? It may be difficult to rise to the level of necessary consequence, but it would be interesting to lay out both the practical and theological implications of various views: geocentricity, heliocentricity, galaxiacentricity, etc. What if I regarded myself, personally, as the reference point?
 
It would seem the ones who are "deceived" are the ones who wish to discredit the creation in the first place. And we know that God does make foolish the so-called wisdom of the wise.

The only problem with statement is that those that hold to ID do not in any way shape or form discredit creation. They argue for it vociferously in the face of loss of job, ridicule, persecution, and fear of being unemployable. They risk everything for what they believe, because they hold that the Bible is true and without error, and that creation is true and without error as it appears. They do not discredit creation, but praise the creator. To say otherwise is to not understand what they are saying, or to attempt to discredit the argument with what I believe is untrue. I've met Stephen Meyer, and I can attest to his faith in the scripture being true and without error. That he believes that a young earth interpretation of scripture is faulty is not equivalent to discrediting creation. His arguments for the beginning of life being without any plausible cause apart from God are both articulate and logical -- that he believes God created the earth long ago does not discredit creation, unless you are saying that God could not have created the earth long ago (and that you could not be mistaken in your interpretation of scripture). I would rather give charity to any that say that God created, even if I disagree with the methodology by which God created.

Brian, I think some clarification is needed here. While individuals who hold to ID may in fact be creationists of some sort (OEC or YEC), ID itself is NOT a creationist theory. ID in no way claims to explain origins of the universe. I would refer you to Traipsing Into Evolution put out by the Discovery Institute. The DI has tried to make it clear that they are NOT creationists and that ID makes no claims as to the identity of a "designer".

This is not said to disparage any individuals who hold to ID, such as Stephen Meyer. I only want to make sure we are clear that ID is not a creationist movement, even if certain proponents of ID are in fact Christians who hold to divine creation.
 
Here's a 1916 paper by Thirring, and you can also google the Lense-Thirring effect. They did some computations, some of them incomplete (but have since been completed) that show that centrifugal forces of a rotating object as measured in the "fixed stars" frame can just as easily be explained by gravitational effects of the "fixed stars" rotating in the object's frame. I should mention that the website I got that Thirring paper from might not be the most reliable source ever. However, the paper is mentioned elsewhere, and certainly the Lense-Thirring effect is well-documented.

Incidentally, in response to various statements above, I should point out that in celestial mechanics it is technically incorrect to speak of object A orbiting object B. Even in Newtonian mechanics this is incorrect. Because of Newton's Third Law (equal and opposite forces), two objects attracted by gravity will rotate about their mutual center of mass. This effect is difficult to measure in the earth-sun system, because the earth-sun center of mass is extremely close to the sun's center of mass, since the earth's mass is so much smaller than the sun's. In addition, of course, you have other planets, notably Jupiter, throwing things off.

In Christ.
 
Incidentally, in response to various statements above, I should point out that in celestial mechanics it is technically incorrect to speak of object A orbiting object B. Even in Newtonian mechanics this is incorrect. Because of Newton's Third Law (equal and opposite forces), two objects attracted by gravity will rotate about their mutual center of mass. This effect is difficult to measure in the earth-sun system, because the earth-sun center of mass is extremely close to the sun's center of mass, since the earth's mass is so much smaller than the sun's. In addition, of course, you have other planets, notably Jupiter, throwing things off.

In Christ.

Yes, that's a good point. I'll have to think on these things -- in all my spare time -- lol
 
It would seem the ones who are "deceived" are the ones who wish to discredit the creation in the first place. And we know that God does make foolish the so-called wisdom of the wise.

The only problem with statement is that those that hold to ID do not in any way shape or form discredit creation. They argue for it vociferously in the face of loss of job, ridicule, persecution, and fear of being unemployable. They risk everything for what they believe, because they hold that the Bible is true and without error, and that creation is true and without error as it appears. They do not discredit creation, but praise the creator. To say otherwise is to not understand what they are saying, or to attempt to discredit the argument with what I believe is untrue. I've met Stephen Meyer, and I can attest to his faith in the scripture being true and without error. That he believes that a young earth interpretation of scripture is faulty is not equivalent to discrediting creation. His arguments for the beginning of life being without any plausible cause apart from God are both articulate and logical -- that he believes God created the earth long ago does not discredit creation, unless you are saying that God could not have created the earth long ago (and that you could not be mistaken in your interpretation of scripture). I would rather give charity to any that say that God created, even if I disagree with the methodology by which God created.

Brian, I think some clarification is needed here. While individuals who hold to ID may in fact be creationists of some sort (OEC or YEC), ID itself is NOT a creationist theory. ID in no way claims to explain origins of the universe. I would refer you to Traipsing Into Evolution put out by the Discovery Institute. The DI has tried to make it clear that they are NOT creationists and that ID makes no claims as to the identity of a "designer".

This is not said to disparage any individuals who hold to ID, such as Stephen Meyer. I only want to make sure we are clear that ID is not a creationist movement, even if certain proponents of ID are in fact Christians who hold to divine creation.

This is the case.

Whatever the merits of the movement and the merits of its arguments and style of argumentation, getting under non-ID radar by not being creationist, the reviews of Michael Behe's book "The Edge of Evolution" indicate that he goes so far as to accept common descent.

However welcome his challenges to the self-assembly of life by impersonal and irrational forces, he is not a creationist.

More power to his arm, as far as he goes, and for standing for a degree of truth, in the face of severe opposition.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top