<< I simply
can not see a reason to believe a document purportedly inspired by God which
is so erroneous in its science that a freshman has trouble accomodating the
data he learns. This leaves me with two choices: Either reject the Bible, or
reject the interpretation which is taught.>>
The problem is that Glenn has calcified around a single view of Scripture.
That being so, his conclusions are perhaps inevitable.
We've been over this ground before. But while science marches on, so does
theology. Indeed, the "queen of the sciences" deserves more careful attention
for all would-be radicals out there.
I highly recommend Donald Bloesch in this regard. He is, in my opinion, the
finest evangelical theologian today. He is working on a multi-volume
systematic, the first being "Holy Scripture: Revelation, Inspiration &
Interpretation" (IVP, 1994). He goes into great detail about myth, saga and
how to view the opening chapters of Genesis (see also the works of Clark
Pinnock). In sum,this hermeneutic essentially renders Glenn's Scriptural
problems moot.
That being so, there is no reason to "reject" anything. There is no need,
either, to posit things like a 5.5 million year old Noah in order to make a
theory work (e.g., "That's the only way to harmonize the data").
That leaves the scientific data to be taken at face value. One is free to
look at the entire record and just take it as it is. This is freedom indeed!
And what I see there is a suddenly appearing modern man. This accords well
with the Cambrian explosion and the explosion that brought about the cosmos.
All frustrate naturalistic attempts at explanation, leaving the door open to
another Possibility.
Jim