Re: skepticism

Bill Frix (
Wed, 9 Oct 1996 05:04:06 GMT-5


To add to a running discussion:

> ICR also rebuts arguments about the early history of the universe,
> by asking, "How do you know? Were you there?" This argument
> implies that ANY inference about the past is suspect. In other
> words, drawing any inferences from the past is not valid.
> Alternatives such as instantaneous creation with the appearance of
> age therefore cannot be falsified in principle.
> Correct, but their argument here has very much broader
> implications. The thing I have never understood about this
> argument, is that one can apply it quite similarly to the
> resurrection itself. You weren't there. How do you know? If
> such an argument is valid for origins, why is it not valid for the
> resurrection? Both events need historical inference to support
> them. To rule inference out in the case of origins, but not in
> the case of the resurrection, seems inconsistent.

There is a difference between the resurrection and the creation.
The resurrection did have an eyewitness: Jesus. We have to assume
He told the disciples what happened there during the 40 days He
remained on earth after His resurrection. This is highly plausible:
I know if I had been one of the earliest disciples and had seen Him
die and be buried, my first, natural, question would be: What
happened? So, regarding the resurrection, we do have an eyewitness
of the most impeccable veracity. In addition, we have a number of
eyewitnesses who saw the result of the resurrection, namely Jesus
Himself. The factuality of the resurrection is based on eyewitness
testimony, not experimental verification. This, ICR does not

Regarding the creation/evolution, there has been only one witness:
God Himself (of course, the angels and demons saw, but they aren't
talking). Other than atheists, no one disputes this. The questions
are, first, did God inspire Moses (or, for those who have more faith
in documentary hypothesis, the Q author) with the account written?
If so, it must be true or else God is not God. But beyond the
question of inspiration is the question of intent: did God (assuming
divine inspiration) give a "scientific" explanation or a conceptual
description, fitting for ancient inquiries? As for me, I know the
Genesis account is true because of the character of God (and since
Jesus, who should know better, attributed the authorship to Moses, I
believe Him and accept Mosaic inspiration). The question of intent
remains open, although I follow Wesley's position: if reason
contradicts Scripture, through out reason.
William M. Frix
Assistant Professor, Electrical Engineering
Box 3021
John Brown University
Siloam Springs, AR 72761
Phone: (501) 524-7466
FAX: (501) 524-9548