First, in answer to Ron's question:
>>Is there any hope that fundamentalist-evangelical Christians will begin
>>to question the YEC position?
While there is probably a good deal of agreement with the YEC view in both
the churches I have been associated with over the past 16 years, I don't
find many in either church who are very eager to discuss it. A couple
creationists started a campaign to get creationist teaching in the Sunday
School at every level a number of years ago, but that effort fizzled. The
impression I get -- and I agree with it -- is that young-earth creationism
concentrates too much on the details of geology and biology and not enough
on Jesus Christ.
I have considerable sympathy with Glenn's view that a nonhistorical Bible
would damage the credibility of Christianity. However, I am willing to
accept that God provided an outline of His activity in history in order to
move quickly to matters that are more crucial: Who He is and what He
expects of us. This seems even more plausible when you consider that He
led believers to canonize one and only one book of His written revelation
for all generations. Of necessity such a book could not concentrate in any
great detail on peripheral issues that would be understood differently by
different generations.
Glenn continues
>In order to solve this creation/evolution/flood issue, we know that if it
>is to be solved, several things must happen. Someone must know or learn a
>whole lot about a whole lot of different fields of study--geology, physics,
>astronomy, anthropology and biology. Superficiallity will not solve it;
>specialization in one area to the exclusion of the others will not solve
>it.
To Glenn's list I would add philosophy and theology. Perhaps I am naive,
but I don't believe we will ever succeed in reconciling theology and
science until theologians and scientists once again populate the same
universities and attend one another's colloquia. That won't be as easy as
it was in Newton's day, but it's not impossible. I hold Glenn up as an
example. By an amount of library research that would probably stagger evan
a compulsive reader like me, Glenn has been able to go significantly beyond
layman's knowledge in a number of fields important to the C/E debate. More
Christians ought to do what Glenn is doing. I would also add that there
are more reasons than the one Glenn gives for Christians extending their
expertise into a number of fields. It goes back to the cultural mandate in
Genesis (Gen 1:26-28). Nature is a whole that can, to some extent, be
understood by decomposing it into subsystems which are easier to study.
But to be essentially a steward over the entire system of nature -- as much
of it as we can master -- requires that someone study systems as wholes.
Finally, I want to comment on the "no one was there to observe [the
creation, the big bang, ...]" sort of argument you hear from YEC's.
Granted if you don't have direct evidence you must be more cautious in how
you interpret the evidence you do have. But lack of direct evidence should
not keep you from investigating what evidence you do have, and from
devising means of learning about phenomena. Howard pointed out in his book
"The fourth day..." that the theory of nuclear fusion helped make
predictions about what should be seen in the evolution of stars, and that
when astronomers looked for evidence of these phenomena, they found them.
I had the pleasure of attending a seminar at Calvin College several years
ago in which John Horner explained how he had concluded that T. Rex was
more likely a scavenger than a predator. He examined the fossilized bones
and found the places where the muscles had been attached. That allowed him
to estimate the strength of T. Rex's arms, and from that he concluded they
were not well-designed for holding and tearing up prey. An investigation
of the animal's brain cavity showed that it had a very large olfactory
lobe, indicating it had much better sense of smell than vision -- which
again you would expect in a scavenger. Finally, he found that the upper
and lower leg bones (tibia and fibula??) were the same length, which
resulted in T. Rex not being well-adapted for running. None of this
categorically proves T. Rex was a scavenger, but it certainly raises
questions that ought to be further investigated. My fear about the "... no
one was there" argument is that it will encourage people who accept it to
conclude that some phenomena are outside the realm which can be
investigated. Maybe some phenomena are outside the investigable realm, but
we ought not to let a philosophical position which may be wrong prevent us
from trying.
Bill Hamilton
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
William E. Hamilton, Jr., Ph.D.
Staff Research Engineer
Electrical and Controls Integration MC 480-106-390
GM R&D Center
30500 Mound Road
Warren, MI
hamilton@predator.cs.gmr.com / whamilto@mich.com (home)