Re: appearance of history

David Campbell (
Mon, 9 Feb 1998 12:44:58 -0400

>At 11:04 AM 2/9/98 -0400, David wrote:
>>If He made granite instantaneously, I would not expect it to have
>>xenoliths, different radiometric ages in agreement with its stratigraphic
>>position, mineral formation as expected from gradual cooling, etc. The
>>amount of apparently non-functional detail supporting an age of several
>>billion years is too much for me. Thus, it seems evident to me that God
>>tells us what and why He created, but not how or when in the Genesis
>Well, this would indeed be strange granite then. Would it have large or
>small crystals (i.e. did it appear to have cooled slowly or rapidly), or
>did it have crystals at all, since we assume that crystal size is related
>to cooling history. I think you cannot avoid the "problem" (since it is a
>problem only for those naturalists who cannot tolerate a god who doesn't do
>things the way they think they should be done) of having God do things that
>give the appearance of process that did not occur. Otherwise, you have a
>God who can do nothing, because anything He does, someone will not approve
>of, because it appears that it occurred through process. I think if some
>of us were teaching God how to do things, this would indeed be a very
>different world (maybe still molten!). The issue has to do not with
>whether we were fooled by something we understood, but whether God was
>deliberately trying to decieve us. Since He did give us an account of what
>He did, we cannot accuse Him of decieving us unless the account in Genesis
>is not true. Then we could accuse Him of deceiving us.

It would indeed be strange granite, which is why I don't think
ordinary granite is young. It could have large or small crystals
(microscopic or no crystals, and it would not be granite, by definition),
but there's no need to replicate the crystallization pattern that would
occur by gradual cooling. Conversely, if the oldest granite often had
patterns of crystallization not expected from gradual cooling, if Gentry's
halo claims were geologically sound, etc. it would be more plausible that
the granite was created as is. Again, it is not mere process but history
that is the problem.
It's not how I think things should be done, but how I think things
were done that is the problem here. Jesus is the same yesterday, today,
and forever, so it seems like a good assumption that He has run the
universe similarly in the past as in the present. If the physical
condition of the earth is not a meaningful source of information about its
past, why do you try to find geological evidence compatible with your
views? We agree that creation should be comprehensible and in accord with
I do see claims about how God should have created imposed by
current "intelligent design". The claims for the necessity of gaps within
biological evolution seem to be based on a non-Scriptural philosophical
premise. Why should God be constrained by Plato?
Although I can see the possibility of justifying a young-earth view
from Scripture (in contrast to the issue of evolution, which seems
unmentioned), it also seems possible to interpret these passages
figuratively. ["Not literal" is often used as a euphemism for "not true,
but you might realize I'm attacking the Bible if I came out and said it".
I'm referring to intentional use of metaphor in the original, rather than
my ability to ignore the verses.] As I see two possible interpretations of
the Scripture and one of creation, I favor compatibility.

David C.