Re: appearance of history

Arthur V. Chadwick (
Sat, 07 Feb 1998 19:00:57 -0800

At 05:21 PM 2/7/98 -0400, David wrote:

>I'm using "appearance of history" to refer to traces of a past, not
>necessary for the function of something if it had been created
>instantaneously. The wine at Cana had apparent age, but not apparent
>God does not lie (or otherwise sin). Therefore, I find the suggestion that
>He created things with an appearance of history theologically questionable.
>It's not impossible that there is some function, not yet evident (e.g.,
>Dorothy Sayers's analogy of a allusions to the past in a novel). The
>alternative that creation accurately reflects how it was created seems much
>more credible to me.

I think you tie God's hands too much. If God did create the actual
physical substance of this planet 6000 years ago (something that neither of
us believes to be correct, but which at least I allow as a possibility to
God), is there any possible way He could have done that that would be to
your liking? If He made granite, that reveals a cooling history that would
falsify its de novo creation. If He made sedimentary rocks, that reveals
process, and thus falsifies His act, If Adam had a navel, etc. We cannot
tie His hands or impose our constructs of what is a lie and what is not on
Him. After all, that's why He told us what He did, precisely because we
could not have figured it out without His help (though some would deny
this, I fear).