Re: appearance of history

Arthur V. Chadwick (
Mon, 09 Feb 1998 11:28:22 -0800

At 12:44 PM 2/9/98 -0400, David Campbell wrote:

> 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.

What kind of cooling would you like to see??? I just do not see how you
could distinguish one from the other. I am not arguing with you, just
trying to understand what you are saying. I am not sure I understand what
a created granite (or created sediments) would look like. If God created
sandstone, would you not want to see crossbeds or ripple marks or raindrop
impressions or parting lineations or grain alignments, or would you want
God not to make sandstone? Again, I am not saying that He did this, just
probing what you would allow God to do (in the benign sense).

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.

I contend that there is no difference between apparent history and apparent
process, and this is an artificial distinction (especially since I am in
the habit of using them interchangeably!).

> 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 think Leonard Brand's view of an interventionist God is a good one. His
book: "Faith, Reason, and Earth History : A Paradigm of Earth and
Biological Origins by Intelligent Design", (available through Amazon or
from the publisher, Andrews University Press) exposits a view of God I like
a lot.

> 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.

I acknowledge your position as one perspective one can hold. I think it is
an attempt to accommodate scripture to science, and I have taken a
different road.