Del Ratzsch writes:
>But most of the rest of Part IV involves interpretation, Bible
>scholarship, etc. Thus, many of the *facts* you claim to be dealing
>with lie exactly in the area you have admitted to being non-professional
>about. The claim to being just "a scientist reasoning through the
>available facts" rings a bit hollow here.
Glenn Morton raised a similar objection. My response is that I believe
I have something to contribute. If I don't, then I trust that the
members of the Reflector will correct my arrogance on a point by point
basis.
Del continues:
> A bit of caution might be in order here. For one thing, some of the
>things advanced by creationists as "problems with evolution" simply are
>not. For another, confidence that some problem does have an
>evolutionarily viable solution, and paying it little attention because
>of that confidence, does not necessarily constitute lack of
>forthrightness. I think that you may be right that there have sometimes
>been some fast and loose dismissals of problems, but I suspect that the
>cited "loss of credibility" has more often involved the first two things
>just mentioned than the third.
This is written for Christian readers who will be very cognizant of the
failure of evolutionists to recognize the problems with artifact theory
and embryology, and not so aware of the small details where a naturalistic
confidence will seem more warranted. It may turn off people with an extensive
evolutionary background, but this is not a priority of mine.
Del continues:
>If RFT says that, then, it seems to me, RFT is in serious trouble.
>Psalm 19:1 and Romans 1:20 would appear to make the "removed all traces"
>claim seriously problematic. And it also seems to me that it is one of
>the clearest, most basic teachings of Scripture that God absolutely did
>not leave Adam and Eve and their descendants "to their own devices".
>What is the Gospel story if not a denial of that?
I was not attempting a detailed defence of RFT. If I were, I would go
into more detail into why I think that God would allow human beings to have
superficial reasons to doubt His existence. (If the only way to please God
is faith, then He is giving us the gift of being able to please him by allowing
us to doubt his existence) I went into this a bit in an exchange with
Loren Haarsma the last time I was on the reflector. I will not go into it
again. Suffice it to say, I think an ingenious enough person could rationalize
RFT if he wanted to take the time. (Though I haven't because I am old earth PC)
Del then asks:
>Are you referring back to earlier portions of the pamphlet? Because in
>this part, all you've done is to claim - without any support given at
>all - that God removed all traces of his having had a hand in the
>creation.
All I was doing was suggesting a defence of YEC that does not depend on
bogus scientific evidence. I then go on to demonstrate why I think old
earth is consistent with the Bible.
Del continues:
>What exactly is the connection here? Are you suggesting that we
>couldn't squabble over grammatical points if it hadn't been faithfully
>transmitted? Why not? Is there more such squabbling over Biblical
>texts than other ancient texts? And (in the next couple sentences) do
>you mean to be suggesting that Hebrew has not changed in ways
>corresponding to the changes in English? Is that true?
Simply admiring the evidence for faithful transmission of the Bible. See
Josh Mcdowell's works on the subject for more details.
Del continues:
>Another alternative is that "day" meant something other than 24 hours
>here. We cannot have *both* 'day' meaning 24 hours and 'die' meaning
>physical death, but that does not yet tell us which we have to change.
But it does mean we have to change one or the other and either is fatal
to the young earth position.
Del goes on:
>Arguments from silence are usually not very powerful.
Agreed but that doesn't mean I am not going to note them for whatever
they are worth.
Del observes:
>Of course, many creationists will respond that each thing God did create
>was created instantaneously - just not all simultaneously.
But what was the purpose of the gaps between instantaneous creations?
Del concludes:
>Why is that? Saying that God did not do something is not to say that
>God could not do that thing. You claim that God did not create
>instantaneously. Are you "denying the infinite power and glory of God"
>in making that claim? Of course not. So why does saying that although
>God could have taken eons he chose not to - and told us of that choice -
>constitute a denial of God's power?
I specified "in my mind" which means that this is an admittedly subjective
statement which I am entitled to make. I am not claiming that it is absolutely
true, just that it seems that way to me.
In fact, this whole section is speculation and is meant to be more subjective
than the other sections. I will label it more clearly, but I can't see
how I can change it despite Del's suggestions.
In Christ,
robert van de water
associate researcher
UCLA