A problem in the transition between the apparent age of the wine at
Cana and the argument for apparent age in creation is the difference
between apparent age and apparent history. To function as quality
wine for the banquet, the stuff had to at least have the appearance
normally associated with the product of a season's work by a grape
vine. However, there was no need for a placard to appear on the
cistern declaring "Bottled by Naboth's Vineyard, 3rd year of
Tiberias". Likewise, if God decided to create Eden in a brief
interval of time and wanted to include a large shady oak, creating an
acorn and letting it grow might not have produced a tree before Adam
and Eve got themselves kicked out. However, a full-sized oak does
not need growth rings, dead branches, leaves from last fall
underneath, and other traces of history in order to provide shade.
I do not find the argument that a universe created for man should not
have a 15 billion year history very convincing; should we not rather
be more impressed that God thought it
worth that much effort and more ashamed of our misuse? Of course, it
is also true that the universe was created primarily for God, not for
us.
The appearance of age argument that I do find coherent is the claim
that the full appearance of a 15 billion year history is intended by
God to teach us about the workings of natural laws. This view
provides a function for all observed features (as opposed to the ad
hoc appeals to appearance of age for anything that proves difficult
to explain) and accepts radiometric dates, stratigraphy, evolution,
etc. as legitimate scientific study.
My impression is that Gosse in Omphalos is somewhere between these
two versions of apparent age. He does apply it consistently to
everything, rather than using it as a stopgap, but apparently seeking
individual functions for each feature (e.g., tree rings being a
structural necessity, which is incorrect) rather than providing a
unifying purpose for the whole appearance.
It still has the problem of why God would do things this way, as it
seems simpler to me for Him to simply create things 15 billion years
ago. However, we do not know why God does things the way He does.
Also, I do not see Genesis 1 as requiring a recent creation, and thus
do not feel compelled to assert that the acual age differs from the
appearance.
Dr. David Campbell
Old Seashells
University of Alabama
Biodiversity & Systematics
Dept. Biological Sciences
Box 870345
Tuscaloosa, AL 35487 USA
bivalve@mail.davidson.alumlink.com
That is Uncle Joe, taken in the masonic regalia of a Grand Exalted
Periwinkle of the Mystic Order of Whelks-P.G. Wodehouse, Romance at
Droitgate Spa
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon May 27 2002 - 13:58:03 EDT