From: Gary Collins (gary@algol.co.uk)
Date: Tue Apr 01 2003 - 08:14:32 EST
Hello George,
I quite agree. We don't need to postulate an instantaneous (or
nearly so) creation. However, I don't think that makes the argument itself
implausible. For it is not _impossible_ that God could have chosen
to create the universe much the way we see it in the recent past
(though I don't think he did) any more than it is _impossible_ for God
to have created the universe much the way we see it last Thursday week
(though I don't think he did). But IF he did, then some appearance of age
_would_ be _necessary_; but it seems to me that a lot of the indications of age
that we see could not be considered necessary. To me, this indicates that
the age we detect is in fact real; otherwise the conclusion that God
gave spurious and unnecessary indications of age seems inescapable,
and that would seem to imply capricious deceit.
Best,
/Gary
On Tue, 01 Apr 2003 07:31:14 -0500, George Murphy wrote:
>Gary Collins wrote:
>>
>> Hello List,
>>
>> Alan Hayward discusses the 'apparent age' theory briefly in
>> 'Creation and Evolution - the Facts and the Fallacies.'
>> He points out that instant (or nearly instant) creation would
>> inevitably carry appearance of age. An instantly created oak
>> tree might look as if it were hundreds of years old.
>> Similarly, when Jesus turned the water into wine, it would have
>> given the appearance of having matured over a long time.
>> However, many of the appearances of age we see in the
>> Creation would not seem to fall into the category of being
>> _necessary_. It is as though Jesus, when he turned the water
>> into wine, had also created some labels displaying a vintage
>> year from a Galilean wine merchant. That would have been
>> an act of deceit.
>
> This might have been a plausible argument when Gosse wrote in the 19th century,
>but it isn't today. If we can understand the development of the structures we observe
>today, from basic particles through atoms, stars, galaxies, planets, & living things, in
>terms of natural processes, then there is no need to have anything with "apparent age"
>to start with. All we need is the basic fields and the laws they obey. I am NOT saying
>that we yet have a complete understanding of that sort, but we have made enough progress
>toward it that it's reasonable to have that hope. & what I'm talking about WOULDN'T be
>_creatio ex nihilo_ in the theological sense because we do need the basic fields & laws
>- but they don't have "apparent age."
>
>
>> "By tying up the weak case for a young earth in the same package as the strong case for creation, recent-creationists are almost asking to be defeated."
>> -- Alan Hayward, "Creation and Evolution: The Facts and Fallacies," p.81
>
> The sad thing is that "recent-creationists" have already been defeated over &
>over - as is shown by the fact that they finally have to fall back on the apparent age
>arguments. They just don't realize that they've been defeated.
>
> Shalom,
> George
>
>--
>George L. Murphy
>gmurphy@raex.com
>http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
"By tying up the weak case for a young earth in the same package as the strong case for creation, recent-creationists are almost asking to be defeated."
-- Alan Hayward, "Creation and Evolution: The Facts and Fallacies," p.81
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Apr 01 2003 - 08:23:37 EST