1. Ideal time is convenient. It can explain nearly everything in
dispute in the origins debate. It is within Gods prerogative and power.
2. Yet at once Ideal time also explains basically nothing. It is the
ulitmate "just so" story of origins. Few things are really as they seem
in terms of origins, relationships, development, data, and change.
Science is a nearly futile exercise in this paradigm. Ideal time
over-explains all the data and would seem to often mock rationality of
inquiry.
3. The creation/origins/evolution/change story could (and in my
opinion) might very well be a mixture of a sort of devine "big bang"
(big voice) event AND rare interjected "ideal time" events.
4. YEC arguements undermine the correspondence model of truth.
Thorough ideal time theory is a primary energy aiding the undermining of
said truth model. This brings YEC perspective close to postmodern view
of truth--where each creates his own reality for one's one
covenience/power/theology/tradition. Much of Eastern thought also falls
into this catagory of "personal reality creation", denying the existance
of both "real" reality and the meta-narrative of our existence. Both
science and Christian theology are large players in defining and
understanding the cosmos and the meta-narrative, and neither science nor
theology should avoid the hard work of good, thorough, and honest
scholarship. YEC doctrine, IMO, is a wrongheaded shortcut and an
unfortunate shadow on the Church.
5. Not that Modernity ever offered a complete answer, but Post
Modernism, while corrective in some aspects, has frightful pitfalls that
we would all be wise to learn and avoid, or science will be handed over
to power brokers (be it money or theology) who decide which truth model
to apply. IMO YEC tends to more than dabble in this arena.
-- Brian W. Neuschwander