Saturday, January 31, 2004

Some answers to comments on my previous creation post...

  1. Tim, Your "not necessarily a valid test of orthodoxy" (a belief in a literal six day creation and, by extension, a young earth) is not very precise. It either is or it isn't.

  2. I like MacArthur, but he is dispensational, so I understand why he takes Genesis literally. That said, I never understand "don't believe (a) because it might lead to (b)" arguments. Like "don’t believe postmillennialism because it might lead to liberalism". These are essentially "you can't handle the truth" arguments. If the earth is old, should we still teach a literal six days creation because it is "safer"? (Actually I have wondered about this--should I just keep quiet about this question lest I endanger the faith of others? Then the Calvinist within reminds me how foolish that notion is.)

  3. As I put in a footnote, lexicographic ambiguities regarding yôm open the door for some old-earther's to claim literality--given that they affirm the chronology of Genesis (sea life before mammals, historicity of Adam and Eve, etc.) To me this argument (over the correct translation for yôm) is not critical (affirming the historicity of Adam and Eve is critical), but it is oft-heard in the Christian wing of the intelligent-design community.

  4. Regarding the literality of Genesis: Perhaps the most important verse in Genesis is the first Messianic prophecy of Gen. 3:15. That critical verse, as we all know, was not fulfilled literally. Christ defeated Satan on the cross, but He did not literally crush Satan's head nor did Satan strike His heel.

  5. I have very poor opinion of creation scientists, answersingenesis, etc. In some sense I hope my worst suspicions are not valid, that many have latched on to a niche cottage industry, not unlike the writers of countless prophecy books. They talk the talk of science, but they use a combination of bad science, quotes from scientist-atheists—especially those with their own niche economic concerns (the late ungreat Sagan) that demand outrageous statements, and anecdotes from isolated scientific blunders, all to weave a fiction. Nobody, for example, has credibly explained how different radiometric methods produce consistent (i.e., within their error bars) dates in the billions of years, geological evidence that is consistent with various and unrelated cosmological dating methods. And how the same physics (quantum mechanics) that supposedly conspires to give wrong (but consistent) answers works so flawlessly in the semi-conducting chips inside the computers they use to post their silliness.

No comments:

Post a Comment