We had some discussion of the "two books" last year - and I think
it is relevant here. I'm not really happy with the three "basic"
ways above. We can "accept" the Bible - but import our own
culture/worldviews/etc and fail to submit our minds to God's
revelation. We can "accept" science - without recognising that
today's science will be tomorrow's inadequate theories. What we
need it a Christian mind that approaches the Bible and science
in a way that honours God as the author of all truth and the
revealer of himself in Christ.
So why is the "Two Books" issue relevant? - it is because the
perception of these Books over the past 300+ years is that they
are essentially distinct and separate. Science is given an
autonomy of its own as a revelation of God. This is, in my view,
a very dangerous position for a Christian to take (please note
Steve that I am not wanting to read this into your post - but I
am writing to bring out a potential ambiguity of importance).
Jitse's helpful paper refers to the same problem in Section 4:
"The division of reality into a natural and a supernatural realm
does not necessarily exclude interaction between these realms or
between the ways we come to know them, that is between faith and
science. In practice, however, a split view of reality is often
associated with a split view of knowledge of the two realms. ...
Moreover, there are reasons to believe that religious beliefs
ought to make a difference in science. If this is correct, and
I believe it is, then the preference of a majority of Christian
scientists for a dualistic separation of religion and science is
a bad omen for Christian scholarship."
You refer to Ramm who says: "If the Author of Nature and
Scripture are the same God, then the two books of God must
eventually recite the same story.... We are to pay due respect
to both science and Scripture."
Much as I respect Ramm, my concern is that he does not satisfy
me as to what this "due respect" actually means! He also does
not seem to give warnings about the "autonomy of science"
movement which I consider hostile to the development of a truly
Christian mind.
It is always of interest to learn of how God has led different
people - so thanks for your words of testimony. I think that one
of the marks of being a Christian is that we have an openness to
change - we are not people who are adopting a "position" and
sticking by it at all costs. Our allegiance is to God - and we
should expect to find God showing us where we need to change all
through our lives - in our minds, actions, motives, commitments,
etc. If we're not changing with time - maybe we've stopped
listening to God :-)
I've been wondering whether to try an illustrate some of these
points related to "science" - and have decided to take the
plunge. I have to say, though, that I'm not going to be able to
sustain a quick-fire style of response if it comes! But I will
do my best ...
Steve, you wrote about the "age of the earth" issues as follows.
There are three points, and I will give a short response to each,
indicating where I think presuppositions have been elevated to
the status of "fact" or "truth":
SJ: "I have no "training in geology", so I will pass. But for
what it's worth, the following appear decisive to me as a layman:
1. Evidence for ordinary rate processes 100 years before Darwin
were sufficient to establish that the earth was millions of years
old."
There are a few cases of theorists speculating about millions of
years - but 100 years before Darwin most people who had a
contribution in earth science did not adopt long chronologies.
But, by this time, the "Two Books" perspective discussed above
was getting entrenched in geological literature - and speculative
thinking was unconstrained by Biblical history. The people who
worked most with rocks were sympathetic to catastrophism of one
kind or another. Your reference to "evidence for ordinary rate
processes" is problematic. When we get to the time of James
Hutton, we reach the controversy between catastrophists and the
uniformitarians. The latter presupposed ordinary rate processes
in order to interpret the rocks; the former argued that ordinary
rate processes were inadequate to account for the evidences in
the rocks. Hutton's ideas gained acceptance - but not without
the crucial influence of Charles Lyell, who said, in effect, "if
we don't adopt the principle of uniformity of rate, we have no
science of Geology". In this he was wrong - as Gould, Ager and
others have ably argued recently. Whilst neo-catastrophism has
changed the climate in geology, there is a long way to go! Most
sedimentological studies are still rooted in uniformitarianism -
and there are plenty of surprises ahead! Was it Bill Hamilton
who posted a comment on the Grand Canyon? - I'm willing to
express a few thoughts on that, but I've not archived his post.
SJ: "2. Then radiometric dating established that the earth is
thousands of millions of years old. Even if radiometric dating
is partly wrong, it would have to be *several million times
wrong* if the Earth was really 10^3 years old, when it appears
to be 4.6 x 10^9 years old."
This is undoubtedly the key evidence for an old earth. However,
I'm going to argue that we have not explored adequately the
presuppositions inherent in the methods. All of these methods
operate on the premise that it is possible to know the initial
conditions. However, there are indications that our models are
imposed on the data - not a consequence of the data. Take the
U-Th-Pb system: Melvin Cook showed in "Prehistory and Earth
Models" that the distinction between "normal lead" and "abnormal
lead" is artificial. The continuity in isotopic distributions
suggests that we do not really know how much radiogenic lead was
present in any mineral at its time of formation. Or the Rb/Sr
system, where the isochron technique is presented as a sure way
of finding initial conditions: there are numerous examples of
isochrons which have no meaningful age, and where substantial
recycling/reworking of minerals is indicated. There is also the
recognition that some isochrons are associated with magma mixing.
(I am conscious that last year, Jim Foley sent me some posts
relating to Steve Austin's work in the Grand Canyon. I've not
forgotten that - but I've completely misplaced my copy of "Grand
Canyon: Monument to catastrophe", and I would like to consult
that before responding to Jim).
SJ: "3. The universe appears to be between 8 and 20 billion years
old, based on red-shift observations and star burning rates."
One thing that can be said about all cosmologies is that they are
presupposition-based. They are a paradise for mathematicians.
Have we really explored alternative cosmologies - based on other
presuppositions. For example, instead of thinking that the
universe is infinite and it appears the same from every
perspective within it, try developing the idea that the universe
is finite.
SJ: "4. There is no positive evidence that the Earth is 10,000
years old. Dates that YECs use to discredit radiometric dating,
for example, still yield ages far in excess of 10,000 years."
I think I am going to end on a note of agreement! In my view,
all "clocks" have been so disrupted by catastrophes in the past
that we cannot be sure of the accuracy of any dating method.
Some are useful for relative dates (C14 for example) but I think
our general desire to define accurately a chronology of the earth
will always meet insurmountable problems.
Best wishes,
*** From David J. Tyler, CDT Department, Hollings Faculty,
Manchester Metropolitan University, UK.
Telephone: 0161-247-2636 ***