This question was spurred by the latest "Facts and Faith" by Hugh Ross. In
two articles he cites what I view as a self-imposed limitation on what the
Bible is purported to teach.
In the first article, he is discussing the discovery of some African bone
tools with barbs (which I believe are usually attributed to modern man in the
European upper paleolithic <35,000 years ago), except these tools dated from
the middle paleolithic 89,000 years ago.
Hugh Ross is on record as saying that modern, spiritual man was a recent
creation and thus any activity in the past was simply due to instinct on the
part of the non-human men. Hugh, I believe, is forced into this position to
avoid having to explain why human activities took place prior to the advent
of modern man. This is to avoid evolution.
He writes:
>>How does this archeological data square with the biblical record of
humankind? As I discuss in my book _Creation and Time_, the design and use
of tools is a function of intelligence, perhaps emotions and will, too, but
not necessarily of the spiritual dimension of a creature. Therefore tool
design and use is something all birds and mamals could exhibit, given
adequate intelligence." Hugh Ross, "Art and Fabric Shed New LIght on Human
History," Facts & Faith, p.2
He then goes on to say,
"However, the dates for these finds are well within the biblically acceptable
range for the appearance of Adam and Eve -- somewhere between 10,000 and
60,000 years ago according to Bible scolars who have carefully analyzed the
genealogies. Since the oldest art and fabrics date between 25,000 and 30,000
years ago, no contradiction exists between anthropology and Scripture on this
issue." IBID., p. 2
In the next article Hugh Ross, speaking of the molecular data indicating a
human origin from one female around 200,000 years ago, wrote:
"If this is the case, we should see biologists' date for "Adam and Eve" drop
from a maximum of about 200,000 years ago to a date within the biblical range
of about 10,000 to 60,000 years ago."Hugh Ross, "Chromosome Study Stuns
Evolutionists," Facts & Faith, 9:3, p. 3
My question is two fold really. First, what Biblical data proves that 60,000
years is O.K. and 90,000 years is unacceptable? What about 200,000 years
ago? ICR would say that 60,000 years is unacceptable. I see nothing implying
a limit to the amount of gap one can put in the genealogies. Secondly, if
evidence for human activities are found from earlier ages, does what Ross has
said here, mean that the Bible would therefore be wrong and disproven? I
mean, after all, if the Bible does indeed teach that we can go 60,000 years
old and no further what are we to do with the Golan Venus, which is a statue
of a human form from 300,000 years ago? Do these types of dicoveries
disprove both Ross and ICR's views or does it disprove the Bible? (Hugh Ross
said that the biblically acceptable range was 10- 60 thousand year) If not,
when does the observational data disprove an apologetical view and when the
Bible?
Secondly, what I see Hugh Ross doing here is explaining data which does not
fit his theory away. He is refusing to accept the validity of these most
complex of bone tools, tools which later in Europe are made by modern man.
So the question is, should our views of prehistory, be more robust (more
able to incorporate new data) than what has been proposed by ICR or Hugh Ross
so that new discoveries do not need to be explained away?
Or should Christians retreat to a position which is inherently unverifiable
and does not really interact with the historical record?
glenn