As a subscriber to the ASA list I received your Easter greeting, and
just wanted to say I felt your choice of the word "deviant" perhaps a
bit awry. Nevertheless, having then been enticed to view bits of your
book (via your web page), the only adjective I could think of to
describe some of the statements you made is the word "arrogant," which I
admit may be a bit exaggerated as well.
your book, it seems you think you have wrapped up the creation-evolution
debate. In doing so you assume that "pastors, evangelists, and lay
persons who are not steeped in science (simply)...ignore the data...and
expound on scientific matters, possibly misleading their flocks." I
happen to be an individual who has lived a life steeped in science. I
have an AA, a BS, an MS, and a DDS, all in the life sciences, have spent
many years in secular university research, worked at NIH, worked at the
USFDA, and am now building a dental practice in suburban Maryland. I
studied for years under a man who revered evolution to the extent that
he refused to work on Darwin's birthday. I have seen theories become
facts virtually overnight, not due to amazing technological advances or
unique discoveries, but because the word "fact" was redefined. I
briefly spoke with JP Moreland a couple of years ago, who admitted that
in his earlier years while studying theology and hermeneutics he became
convinced that the Genesis account referred to literal 24 hour days, yet
in recent years, due to the influence of Christian "scientists" he is
leaning away from such a view. Noone can be an expert at everything,
hence the debate continues. I only wish my practice would allow me more
time to participate on the ASA reflector. My own views, even after all
my study, are still not refined such that I can be dogmatic. I'm now
also working on an MS in theology in my "spare" time, since for the past
15 years theology texts have taken precedence to novels on my bedside
table.
What continues to bother me, and I suppose initiated this post, is that
too many people on both sides tend to become overly dogmatic without
having provided the complete basis for their claims in their
annotations. For example, you state, "Irenaeus, Origen, Basil,
Augustine, and Thomas Aquinas, to name a few, argued that the days of
creation must have been long periods of time solely from their
understanding of the biblical text. 1" citing "1. Hugh Ross, The
Fingerprint of God (Orange: Promise Publishing Co., 1989), 141." In
doing so, you make an all too common mistake. You refrain from going to
the original sources. If these five church fathers actually wrote this,
their writings should be included. Would it not be possible that someone
with a presuppositional stance that supported long creation periods
might misinterpret their writings to support their preconceived notions?
I think we'd all admit that such a thing can and does happen. (Whether
it did or did not in this instance isn't as important as the fact that
your restatement of Dr. Ross' statement neglects to be sustantiated by
your reference. In fact, Dr. Ross included references in "Creation and
Time" that could have been used to support your contention better.)
Your book may end up convincing the "lay person who [is] not steeped in
science," however I've yet to read a completely scholarly work that
leaves no stone unturned in its attempt to convince the discerning
scientist. Perhaps someone might suggest one?
I hope you'll view this post as just a bit of friendly constructive
criticism. Perhaps you never meant to be all-inclusive with respect to
your readership, but I daresay a real "solution" will have to be.
God bless you and may you and all who read this draw closer to Our
Saviour as we reflect upon the reality of His resurrection.
Christopher Root
truth@smart.net