Re: Kurt Wise on the creation crisis in Christian colleges

From: David Opderbeck <>
Date: Sat Feb 04 2006 - 17:22:15 EST

Chuck does make an interesting point here, I think, about the historical
contingency of what we know. Does anyone here really think that the
scientific understanding natural history will look the same a few hundred
years from now as it does today? Or a millenium from now? We barely have
an inkling today of the nature of quantum mechanics or the relationship of
time to space and matter. Maybe we'll find that some sort of "multiverse"
theory is true; that "Eden" is a parallell universe with a different
history, from which humanity was banished to the one we inhabit now. Think
about the huge slices of creation we have almost no understanding of at
all: the nature of angels, demons, the "rulers and authorities," "the
spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms" (Eph. 6:12) -- an aspect of
the universe that scripture tells us is in some ways more immediate than the
parts of the world we're able to perceive directly (e.g., Eph. 6:10-18). It
does seem incredibly presumptuous for us to say "this is what we know of the
natural world today so thus-and-so *must* be how scripture and general
revelation relate" -- whether "thus-and-so" is YEC, concordism, theistic
evolution, or whatever. The truth is that theistic evolution combined with
some sort of "framework" view of Genesis 1 and 2 seems like a reasonable
option today, but we really just don't know enough, IMHO, to place too much
stock in any one understanding of these things.

On 2/4/06, Tjalle T Vandergraaf <> wrote:

> There may yet be another response. I'm thinking about 1 Cor. 13: 12, "Now
> we
> see but a poor reflection as in a mirror" [NIV], although Paul referred to
> spiritual things. Is it conceivable that there may be another
> interpretation to the geological and fossil records that scientists have
> not
> yet stumbled upon? As scientists, we need to have an open mind and always
> be ready to throw out existing theories if a better theory is presented.
> Chuck Vandergraaf
> >
> > >
> > The only response I've encountered is that the Bible/revelation
> > takes
> > precedence. But this is no real answer.
> > Dave
> >
> >
> Sorry that I forgot a couple other responses. One is that God made the
> universe different to test our faith. The second is that Satan messed up
> the universe. This seems to me to require that the fall of Satan and his
> minions occurred after the fall of Adam and Eve, or at least between
> God's pronouncement that it was very good and Adam's fall. But
> consistency has never been a strong point of YEC eisegesis.
> Dave
Received on Sat Feb 4 17:22:46 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Feb 04 2006 - 17:22:46 EST