But the facts the apologist must deal with are not only observational, they
are also Biblical. It is a fact that Genesis 4:2 says, "Cain worked the
soil". One can argue that Cain really didn't work the soil and thus the
verse is erroneous, but one can not deny the fact of WHAT the Bible says.
What must be determined is, Is this fact worth defending as an event? Jim
would say no.
How is the apologist to carry out his task? It would seem that the apologist
must have an intimate, detailed knowledge of the observational facts which
must be dealt with. Any lack of knowledge of the facts will hinder the
apologist. While no one can know everything, the apologist must be willing
to spend a lot of time learning those facts. Secondly, the apologist must
know what Christian doctrines and events should and shouldn't be defended.
(Here lies a big place for argumentation). But in general, it seems to me,
that it is better to incorporate and defend as many historical events
described by the Bible as is possible. This follows from the general
principle, that the more points of conformity to actuality that an apologetic
has, the better it is liable to be viewed by the skeptic.
An apologetic which only shows how one historical event in an entire
book of historically described events is likely to be viewed as insufficient
to prove the validity of the book. Herodotus has often been criticised for
having lots of events which can not be shown to actually have happened. As a
result, his reputation as an accurate historian has suffered. Homer, while
describing some events in broad strokes accurately describes many events
which would be considered not inconformity with actuality. Similarly, if only
one event in the Bible could be shown to actually have occurred, not many
would believe in it's inspiration!. From this I conclude that it is better
to have explanations for as many events as possible.
If I am correct that it is better for an apologetical view to
harmonize as many points as possible with the observed facts of nature, then
in the case of Genesis 4:2 which said "Cain worked the soil", is it not
better to incorporate this than not to incorporate this? It would seem to me
that in the best of all possible apologetics we would have historical proof
of each and every event described by the Bible. There would be no doubt
about when the Exodus occurred, no doubt about where the Ark was, no doubt
about the existence of Eber, and no doubt about Cain's activities - farming
and murder. Would we refuse to accept such an apologetic if one were to be
found? I would contend that we would all gleefully jump on such a view with
a vengence and pound the table with the proof of the Bible's correctness. We
would gleefully tell all other religions that they were demonstrably,
scientifically wrong and that they ought to become Christians.
Most christians believe that Genesis 1:1 is a Christian Doctrine which
is quite important to defend. This is a necessary and sufficient condition
to explain the existence of this reflector. What are we trying to do here?
We all are trying to show that the actual events of the world are
conformable to the doctrine that God created the universe!. We are trying to
show that the facts of nature conform to the description of the Bible.
When Jim says that the Cambrian explosion is evidence of God's creative
activity or that the sudden appearance of complex tools in the Upper
Paleolithic are evidence of God creating man, he is using scientific
observations to support his view of Scripture. Jim is using a realist view
of nature. The data from nature can be used to support his view.
But what are we to do with an apologetic which is contradicted by the
data? Is such an apologetic useful? I would contend that it is not useful
because if the data implies one actuality and the apologetic implies another
actuality, since both can't be correct at the same time, one is most
assuredly wrong. The data must be rejected to support the apologetic or the
apologetic must be rejected to support the data. It is the former which I
believe Christians have done with the appearance of Age argument, and the
latter is what I have done with the widely accepted apologetics of ICR and
Hugh Ross. When their apologetics violate data, I find that I am forced to
make a choice between what the data says or what their apologetic says.
Rejecting their apologetic does not imply rejecting the Bible.
But if an apologetic does not match all the facts, we should be honest
enough to admit the facts we do not match. I will start. My view does not
explain the MHC polymorphism. No one's view does. The 50,000 year old
creation of man has problems with the existence of Broca's brain in animals
prior to 2 million years ago. It does not have the ability to explain the
art work prior to 50,000 years. Nor does it easily explain the first wooden
spear in the fossil record from Clacton-on-Sea, from 400,000 years ago. This
thing was sharpened! It does not explain the burials, and the buildings
from prior to that time.
Under the standard set by Jim for my view (that no gaps are allowed in
the fossil record prior to the first proven occurrence of an artifact or
bones) the 50,000 year creation of man view also fails. It fails for the
reasons I have cited earlier the first evidence of cities, metalurgy, farming
etc occure 10,000 years ago. Since we can not allow no gaps when applied to
my view and allow gaps when applied to this view, if we are to hold to this
standard then BOTH views are wrong.
I do not believe that either should be rejected for this reason. I would
even say that Jim would have a better theory if he allowed the gaps. Then
the farming, cities, etc could have existed but have been limited in
geographical extent. And as mentioned above, the more Biblical events we can
fit into our apologetic the better off we are. I would suggest to Jim that
if he allowed the gaps in the fossil record, then he could assimilate Genesis
4 and 5 into his account as accurate history. I really do not understand why
he doesn't want to do this. Unless it is because he would have to allow gaps
for my view also.
As I mentioned, the best apologetic is the one which incorporates the
most Biblical events and shows how they actually happened. This should be the
goal of the apologist, to incorporate the most events into the fabric of
history.
glenn