Good to see you erupt from lurk-mode! :-)
On 14 Sep 95 18:35:16 EDT you wrote:
GM>Which option do you choose?>>
JB>The option left out, which is a better interpretation of the data,
one which
>is not colored by an inner motive to shoot down a particular fundamentalist
>view. One, in other words, without bias.
Yes. Glenn completely ignores PC interpretations. For him the only
alternative is YEC. This leaves his view the winner in what Macbeth
calls the "best-in-field" fallacy:
"Darwinism has had to compete with various rival theories, each of
which aimed to be a more or less complete explanation. The most
famous rivals were vitalism, fundamentalism, Lamarckism, and the
hopeful-monster suggestion of Goldschmidt. The Darwinians have shown
that none of these theories are any good. Simpson can shoot down each
and every one of them with ease. Thus the Darwinians are able to say
that Darwin made a better try than anyone else, and they find real
comfort in this. Does this mean that Darwinism is correct? No. Sir
Julian Huxley says that, once the hypothesis of special creation is
ruled out, adaptation can only be ascribed to natural selection, but
this is utterly unjustified. He should say only that Darwinism is
better than the others. But when the others are no good, this is
faint praise. Is there any glory in outrunning a cripple in a foot
race? Being best-in-field means nothing if the field is made up of
fumblers." (Macbeth N., "Darwin Retried: An Appeal to Reason",
1978 (reprint), Garnstone Press, London, p77)
JB>There is no naturalistic explanation for the sudden leap in modern
>man, even if dated earlier than some believe. Glenn's flaw is in
>assuming naturalistic common ancestry. But the data is not
>suggestive of this, absent bias. Here, I will quote from Goodman's
>"The Genesis Mystery" (Times, 1983):
[...] Thanks for the quotes.
JB>Which leaves us an option Glenn fails to consider, and one Goodman
>proposes: the non-naturalistic explanation [Goodman prefers the term
>"interventionism"]. Why does Glenn exclude this option? Not because
>the data compels him, but because his prevailing bias is Naturalism.
Agreed.
JB>Now consider that bias being passed along to the students in
>Professor Morton's college classroom. Are they closer to, or further
>from, the truth? Are they well served or not?
This is the ultimate test. Christian history is littered with
the theories of well-meaning intellectuals who sought to make the
Bible more palatable to the common man. The problem with most of
them is that themselves were uncommon men and the common man could
not accept there theories.
The bottom line is this. Few if any students from Christian homes
could accept an Adam and Noah who lived 5.5 million years ago. If
forced to chose between Ussher and Glenn, most would chose Ussher!
IMHO, a more moderate view of an old-Earth/young Adam as espoused by
Progressive Creationists like Ramm, Carnell, Pun, Erickson, et. al
is preferable both Biblically and even scientifically.
God bless.
Stephen