Three quick questions:
(1) Suppose archaeologists were to assuredly discover the remains of
Joshua's marker: in your view, that discovery would be "scientific evidence
which we can study to verify the supernatural"?
(2) Why would any matter created ex nihilo necessarily have the appearance
of age?
(3) In defending the YEC position, you agree that the defense is more
theological than scientific, right? that no one who came to science lacking
a commitment to YEC would ever derive such from science? I.e. (roughly)
that YEC is derived from what YEC's take to be the revelation of God's word
and world combined in some high ratio, rather than from God's world alone?
--John
-----Original Message-----
From: evolution-owner@udomo2.calvin.edu
[mailto:evolution-owner@udomo2.calvin.edu]On Behalf Of Bill Payne
Sent: Saturday, August 01, 1998 1:44 AM
To: R. Joel Duff
Cc: evolution@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: Bill's flood and acidic waters
R. Joel Duff wrote:
> Wouldn't it seem eminently more plausible and within the nature of God
that
> he would create the whole geological column and fossils in his creation.
> After all there is nothing in Scripture that necessitates fossils being of
a
> certain origin. Your answers above leave you with absolutely no ability,
> that I can see, to choose between any two theories. Basically any theory
is
> just as valid as long as it doesn't violate Scripture. If this is so then
> there why are YECs putting so much effort into a global flood model as an
> explanation for nearly all geology? If at some point I feel compelled
> though my examination of Scripture to accept a young earth interpretation
> why should I opt for the flood geology model. Given your attitude about
> science and what it can learn it appears that an appearance of age model
is
> much more plausible and doesn't strain the Biblical record to any greater
> extent.
Hi Joel,
Sorry for the delay in responding.
I think science deals with the results of two processes of cause and
effect: 1) purely naturalistic, and 2) supernatural (miracles). It may
be impossible to determine which cause produced a given data set.
I think Glenn said miracles leave no scientific evidence which we can
study to verify the supernatural. I would disagree. When the Isralites
crossed the Jordan, "They took twelve stoones from the middle of the
Jordan, according to the number of the tribes of the Isralites, as the
Lord had told Joshua; and they carried them over with them to their
camp, where they put them down. Joshua set up the twelve stones that
had been in the middle of the Jordan at the spot where the priests who
carried the ark of the covenant had stood. And they are there to this
day. (Joshua 4:8-9)
God had the Israelites erect a monument to His miracle in parting the
Jordan River. In like manner, I believe fossils are a mute testimony to
the judgement of God against the wickedness of man in the past, which
resulted in the death of all humans except those in the ark of Noah. I
further believe that these fossils and most geologic formations are a
reminder of the future judgement of God against all not within
(figuratively) the ark of the covenant.
Regarding the appearance of age, I can accept any age for the
universe/earth, but I do lean toward a YEC position. Personally, I feel
no strain in these positions, although I think I understand your point.
I believe the universe may have an "appearance" of age (just as any
created ex nihilo matter would), but I believe fossils really were once
living plants/animals.
Bill