Like Dave, I also had an *ephipany* -- and I too grew up believing every single
thing I had been fed in my science classes. As a college student, I minored in
Biological science, and was suddenly and unexpectedly confronted with a
tremendous amount of information which called into question nearly all I had
been taught -- a body of argument which until then had been kept completely
out of my view. No one had ever even bothered to mention to me that there
were disputes about evolutionary evidence. I assumed that the vast majority of
scientists had rightly concluded that evolution was true, and couldn't possibly
be misled on such an obvious issue. Everywhere I turned, I was met with
confirmation of evolution, with not even so much as a credible whisper to the
contrary.
Within a matter of a few short months, that was completely turned around. And
I came out of it all pretty upset. I felt like I had been sold a bill of
goods, and
deliberately mislead. The more I got into the literature, the more I began
to see
how imagination was presented as evidence and assumptions were glossed
over. My sentiments could not be better expressed than has already been
done:
*When I learned my basic Darwin in high school -- and neo-Darwinism
and new gentics in college -- I learned it as dogmatic truth, as I might have
learned a religious catechism. Not in the sense that no physical evidence
was adduced -- there was enough of that -- but in the sense that no alterna-
tive theory of the evidence was ever introduced, no critical examination of
assumtions and incongruities ever encouraged. Indeed, I was led to believe
that the only alternative to orthodox biology was biblical fundamentalism and
the "creationist" movement.
Only later reading acquainted me with the fact that, without reaching be-
yond science, one can find, within the province of professional biology itself,
a rich body of speculation and research that directly challenges neo-Darwin-
ism for its incompleteness, inconsistency, and shallowness*
-- T. Roszak, Unfinished Business (pgs. 99-100) (1975)
But of course, I was never exposed to any of that as a maturing student.
I suppose I could speculate endlessly as to why, however, I think the terms
bias, prejudice, special interest, and a host of related terms come to mind
with minimal effort. Having said all this, let's take another look at what
Glenn said.
Glenn wrote:
>With all this evidence of human-like activity, how can one reasonably expect
>their child to still believe your explanation after a semester of this? He
>or she will probably then want to take a geology course and from personal
>experience, the YEC explanation won't work and your child will be in deep
>trouble. I know a well known YEC whose son went into geology, and now
>believes nothing his father does..
[snip]
That's a decision the son made, not the fault of YEC explanations. As you
can see, there are at LEAST two sides to this sword. I was brought up to
see evolution as the unquestioned truth. When I found out that there
existed a substantial body of evidence that had been deliberately witheld
from me, I was shocked and angry. So Glenn, do you see the common
denominator here? It isn't the YEC view that was the problem, really, it
was the witholding of information. It wasn't that the *science* presented to
this young man you mentioned was so compelling, it was probably the case
that he had not been exposed to an alternative view. You need to look a
little more carefully into the examples you use. Let's not assume that it
was all this great *science* he was suddenly exposed to -- because it
wasn't that great. He got what Dave and I got.
[snip]
> My goal is to point out that Christianity needs to somehow account for
>this data, not to hurt Christianity. My view will do explain the scientific
>data! But I know people are repulsed by the very different course I say we
>ought Views like Hugh Ross's which believe in a relatively recent creation of
>man, simply leave out the data from an earlier time period. Only a view
>which allows mankind to have existed far longer than Christians have
>historically wanted can explain the data; all others must explain the data
>away.
> There are two approaches to explaining this data away. First you can say
>these guys really weren't human, in spite of all the evidence that their
>actions are like modern hunter-gatherers. This view holds that the
>activities are merely animal instinct. Second, you can take the tack of the
>young-earth creationists and say that the dating processes don't work and the
>earth is really only 10,000 years old. Thus, these "men" lived within the
>past few thousand years (probably post-flood people). Then there is my view
>which says human history is much much older and the flood was 5.5 million
>years ago. I can not think of another approach to incorporate human
>activities into a Christian world view.
>Which option do you choose?
====================================================
You wanted a comment from a *lurker*. Well, here you go.
I have read many of the comments you have submitted in the last month or so
since this thread started. And I have to say that will the passage of time,
you have
become even more insistent that your arguments are the only really reasonable
ones.
Well, they're not.
I take issue with your entire approach -- and it's unfortunate that I don't
have as
much time on my hands to rebut your arguments as you obviously have. But I
will give you a brief piece of my mind.
1) You discount the value of REVELATION. Revealed stuff contains information
that neither you or the 10 best paleontologists in the world could know
about using
scientific tools. You make revelation play second fiddle to science --
which is
neither as compelling or necessary as you would have us all believe. You've
gone to great lengths to present your arguments, but in the end, you bend
the sensibility
of scripture to make it fit with an explanation promoted by men who discount
the
value of Revelation. That's a shame, literally. I'll take the reliability
of scripture
as my starting point, thank you. And to hell with your suggestion that
scripture
must conform to science, and that the only scripture could possibly make sense
is if it fits with the *evidence* you have put forward. Better rethink that
one Glenn.
2) You discount the possibility of the miraculous. Did Balaam's ass really
talk? Did
the walls of Jericho really fall? Did the river Nile actually turn to
blood -- or was it just
a localized spill of cherry juice from a ship navigating nearby? Did Moses
have a rod
that turned into a snake (not to mention, did it really consume the other
snakes)? Were
Cain and Abel REALLY sons of Adam and Eve? Was Sarah's womb REALLY dead?
It says in scripture that her womb was dead, meaning, it was physically
IMPOSSIBLE
for her to conceive. It's no less impossible than the virgin birth. If
true, why did God
wait until Sarah could not conceive to deliver to Abraham the child of
promise? Did
Jesus REALLY turn water into wine? You know -- it takes TIME for wine to
form.
Why would Jesus create something that had the *appearance of age*? Did he
really
raise Lazarus from the dead, or was he just taking a nap? How do we know
that ANY of
these things REALLY took place? And what was their purpose? Can we establish
any one of them using our scientific reasoning? No way Jose! So why is it so
necessary for you to write a big long piece of work just to say that our
kids are going
to have a problem when they are confronted with [real] scientific *evidence*?
3) You discount the possibility that the *evidence* of ancient age might be
wrong.
What if the chronometers used to determine the age of ancient stuff IS
incorrect? Isn't
that possible? I think it is. Their accuracy is based on assumptions,
which may or may
not be true (as joe reimers has already pointed out...).
4) You discount our calling. You seem to think that we MUST present an
argument
to fallen mankind and Christians which makes sense to them. No, that is not
our calling.
Our calling is to give an answer where we can. But that does NOT mean we
need to agree
with conclusions which are not compellingly established. Or that we need to
put out
answers which conflict with scripture or provide answers to make us look
like we're
every bit as hip as the paleontologist down the street. Hey -- the reality
is -- sometimes
no answer is Ok! You know! It's the race to find that missing link
mentality that gets
us into trouble: should we also blindly assume that there IS a missing link
to be found...
5) You discount God. This is your biggest calamity of all. Maybe God has
a reason
for doing things the way He did -- just like He has done many other things
which are
fairly incomprehensible. Maybe He wants us to take some things, like
Abraham did,
on faith in His trustworthiness. It says in Genesis that God destroyed the
ENTIRE PLANET.
If we turn that into a little itty bitty local flood, we miss the point.
The point is, THERE
WAS A REASON WHY HE DESTROYED THE WORLD. If you say He didn't really
destroy the world, then, you also remove the lesson He was attempting to convey.
It was the salamander story remark you made a while ago that really got me
going...
If we abandon the concept that Genesis 1-11 has historical content, then in my
opinion the scriptural account DOES become just another Salamander story.
With that view of scripture, I have a question:
1. On what moral authority then, do we tell the New Guinea tribesman to
believe our "salamander" story rather than his fish tale? After all, neither
one tells us anything historical or scientific about the earth!
Glenn, I think this is probably the point where I take issue with you. See,
you are
pitting yourself against a "salamander story" which claims to be the direct
revelation
of God to mankind. Jesus makes mention of Adam and Eve and he even refers to
Noah. Why would our Lord do such a thing if there were no historical truth
to these
individuals as specific people? You are leaning heavily and argue profusely
down a
path leading to rejection of a revealed truth in favor of what SEEMS to be
logical,
rational, and (in your view) more obvious. I see that you are (as you so
often make
mention of) "wrestling" with this issue. But the fact of the matter is, you
have already
made a basic decision which are no longer really wrestling with, but should
be (I
would propose). That issue is: to what extent can we rely on what *seems*
to be
compelling EVIDENCE in the face of allegedly revealed truth?
Keep in mind that Revelation is intended to impart information to us that we
would
not otherwise be able to know about. While I can appreciate your struggle,
I cannot
condone or appreciate at all your suggestion that any large segment of
Genesis be
treated as just another "salamander story". That flies directly in the face
of what the
Bible is expressly intended to be: a revelation from God. So you see, you
are not
just arguing against a YEC view, you are ALSO arguing for the rejection of
significant
portions of scripture which you really can't provide a compelling case for.
Nor, in my humble opinion Glenn, despite all the work you have done to date,
can you
provide us all with a COMPELLING case for your other positions. Despite the
problems
with ICR or Davis Young, or anyone else -- all of the arguements rely on
certain
assumptions being true, argurments made from an absence of evidence (so where
ARE all those bodies of humans destroyed in the flood?), etc. etc. That's weak.
Look -- you know as well as the rest of us who have studied this issue for
years that the
case you are arguing for can NEVER be more than a good argument. That being
the case,
let's keep some perspective here and not go off the deep end. I see you
heading in a
direction where you become so enamored by your position that you begin to
lose perpective
with regard to how far you ought to promote your arguments (due to the
constraints of lack of
evidence I alluded to earlier). Philosophy is one thing: evidence is quite
another matter.
Let's keep the distinction clear.
I urge caution. And greater perspective. And more balance: you really do
need to famliarize
yourself more with scripture and not lose sight of what it is intended to be
and convey. It is
NOT just another salamander story! Adam and Eve were real people who had
real kids
called Cain and Abel. Noah went through a real flood which destroyed all
people on the planet.
Hey! You cannot *compellingly* argue by use of any known scientific
examination or
argument that the nature of this account is either untrue or just another
salamander story.
Food for thought.
Here is God Almighty (allegedly) talking to Noah:
"I establish my covenant (i.e., unbreakable under any circumstances) with
you: Never again
will *all life* be cut off by the waters of a flood; never again will there
be a flood to destroy the
earth". (Genesis 9:11) This tells ME that *all life* WAS cut off! Come
on, Glenn. How can
anyone reviewing your book say that you are being respectful of scripture
yet supportive of a
*local* Genesis flood? Sorry, but no way Jose.
In Genesis 6:7 we read that the Lord said "I will wipe mankind, whom I have
created, from the
face of the earth -- men and animals and creatures...for I am grieved that I
have made them".
Why was he grieved? Well, for one thing, because of violence. But I
digress...the point is,
God didn't say he was going to wipe SOME men from a PIECE of the planet --
He said --
*You're ALL outta here!*
Jesus himself is reported in Luke 17:26 to have said: "Just as it was in the
days of Noah,
so shall it be in the days of the Son of Man. People were eating and
drinking and marrying
and being given in marriage up to the day Noah entered the ark. Then the
flood came and
destroyed them all.* (Notice, Jesus said the flood destroyed them *ALL*).
Now -- what I make of this is the following:
Either these and other scriptures have been translated into English in such
a convoluted
manner from the original Hebrew and Greek text that I and many unfortunate
others have
just simply been flat out mislead, OR it's just a story (in which case Jesus
flat out lied...)
OR I just don't understand accurately what I'm reading here. Any Hebrew
and/or Greek
scholars out there care to enlighten us as to the finer points of this
section of scripture??
(Hint Hint).
One thing IS for sure: there is NO WAY you can read Biblical texts like
these and conclude
that we had a *local* flood event here and that only some people died. It
doesn't work
contextually. It specifically says that ALL men died (except for Noah and
his family) In
Gen. 7:19 it specifically says that *...all the high mountains under the
entire heavens were
covered*. How could a local flood do THAT? So, either scripture is out to
lunch totally, or
you are. Guess what? I'm not taking any bets on you Glenn -- no offense.
Sorry.
In your search to find the truth, you reject the very pieces of the puzzle
which are the most
cogent to the issue at hand. Salamander story indeed.
Using your approach, we should also likewise reject as a *story* any other
incident reported
in Scripture which is scientifically impossible. And oh -- let's not allow
God to have his way
and perform any miracles at all. Please. Can't have that. Balaam's
talking ass, walking around
Jericho until the walls fall down, Joshua doing battle and having the sun
stand still, the plagues
of Moses against Pharaoah, and -- oh yes -- the turning of water into wine,
the blind receiving
sight, the lame suddenly being able to walk.
Should I go on? Do you see where your approach takes us? None of these
things makes sense,
none are replicable or falsifiable scientifically, and, we are left with
only the account of witnesses
who wrote this stuff down. Do you reject this as well? If you intend to
discard significant portions
of Genesis, then this should not be a problem for you.
Sorry Glenn -- but though I can still admire your intention, it ends up
bringing more harm than
good. You have gone to great lengths to justify a position you have
maintained, and you want
so much for so many of us to go along with you. But some of us simply
won't. And it's not be-
cause we can't *see* what you see -- actually -- it's because we see some
stuff you are not
willing to view as potentially damaging to your perspective. Many of us
were students who
got a taste of perspective at just the right time -- and it woke us up.
Thank God.
Just keep in mind this one little thing. With it, we have reasonable doubt.
And as long as there
is reasonable doubt, you won't see me budge:
The *evidence* can be construed. It's not always as it seems to be. I've
seen enough
monkey business to convince me that hidden agendas and personal preferences
play a
HUGE role in the way the scientific *evidence* is rolled out. If ANY of the
dating
issues are predicated on assumptions, then there is reasonable cause to
refrain from
endorsing your arguments. I must go...I've spent too much time on this already.
Best regards,
Kevin
========================
Kevin Wirth
1420 NW Gilman Blvd. #2563
Issaquah, WA 98027
(206) 391-3698 Voice
(206) 392-0192 FAX