You wrote in part:
> The fundamental objection to apparent age, whether in its philosophical or
> religious guise, is theological - it makes God the creator of an illusion or,
> more pointedly, a hoax.
In drawing attention to the 'water into wine' miracle, I believe Walt has
refuted this charge. Indeed, it is clear that the outcome of many of the Lord's
miracles involved an element of 'apparent age' - as, for example, the fragments
bread gathered up following the feeding of the 5000, the healed limbs and their
accompanying muscle tissue and tendons, the eyes of the once blind Bartimaeus,
and so on.
Were these miracles performed with deception in mind? Surely not
(though we would
have to admit that a pedantic analyst might be misled by them!). Would you
not agree that, once one accepts the principle of miracle, then the possibility
of 'apparent age'
What then of the miracle of creation? God has provided an account of the
unfolding of this event along with a timescale. Thus He can hardly be
a deliberate deception if current observation and deduction (based on
assumptions) lead men to conclude otherwise. Surely it has then become a matter
of _self-deception_ fuelled by unbelief on their part.
> The apparent age idea cannot be refuted scientifically. Neither can the idea
> that any physical phenomenon we don't understand is brought about
> demons. But apparent age in a religious context is a counsel
> of desperation and should be rejected by anyone who takes the doctrine of
> creation seriously.
George, I have argued that 'apparent age' is a necessary outcome of certain
types of miracle - which include the miracle of creation. It is
a 'counsel of desperation' for those of my persuasion, but rather a truth
which is clearly demonstrated in the Scriptures and one that is - and
ever will be - a thorn in the flesh for the Christian evolutionist.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat May 25 2002 - 18:57:03 EDT