"Vandergraaf, Chuck" wrote:
> George,
>
> One must be very careful with trying to stretch the "day" in Gen.1 to
> "ages" to accommodate an old earth. ["(For that matter, when talking
> with adults on whom the light is just beginning to dawn & who say,
> "Maybe the days were millions of years long", I don't try to introduce
> more sophisticated ideas - right then.)"] Some years ago, when I
> tried this tack, the response was something along the lines that
> plants need sunlight and that they would not survive a long night
> (assuming, of course, that the night was also "millions of years
> long"). I suppose one could argue for long days and short nights, but
> that has its own problems. ;-)
>
> Having thought about this for many years now (but not as long as some
> correspondents on this ASA site), I've come to the conclusion that it
> is hopeless to look for any agreement between what God shows us in His
> Creation and what Genesis appears to tell us at first glance (or, for
> many, even after 'n' glances). A more satisfying argument, to me,
> would be that God created the Universe some 6000 or so years ago as a
> fully functional system, with the stars 'way out there and the light
> well on its way to us, with all the daughter products of the U and Th
> series in place, with the isotopic signatures that we find, etc.,
> etc. Note that I don't say I'd be happy with it, but I think I'd
> prefer it over "shoe horning" Genesis into geology or the other way
> around.
Please note the very limited way in which I said that day-age
concordism could be useful:
> For this age I don't object to some modest concordism as a kind of
> temporary resting place. The days might be much longer than 24 hours
> & the other
> land animals were created before human beings (in the 1st account!)
> The "day-age"
> thing doesn't really work on close examination & I wouldn't "teach
> it", but in
> this context it's okay to suggest it as one way of thinking about
> things.
> (For that matter, when talking with adults on whom the light
> is just
> beginning to dawn & who say, "Maybe the days were millions of years
> long", I don't
> try to introduce more sophisticated ideas - right then.)
It may be helpful temporarily for children or for adults who are
just coming to realize that a young earth isn't the article by which the
church stands and falls. "Close examination" however, will reveal
problems like the plants existing millions of years without the sun. &
then you have to say
"I don't know" or (probably for adults) "that's one of the limits of the
model." & pretty soon people will see enough limitations of the model
to realize that it really isn't helpful.
OTOH I think that the apparent age argument you suggest would
sow the seeds of disaster. It still allows one to maintain a YEC view,
it really explains nothing, & says that God created a world which was
misleading about its own character.
Shalom,
George
George L. Murphy
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
"The Science-Theology Interface"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Feb 13 2002 - 14:59:41 EST