Re: [asa] Storming Young-Earth Creationism

From: John Walley <john_walley@yahoo.com>
Date: Fri May 01 2009 - 21:03:29 EDT

Agreed. Cracks in the YEC foundation are starting to appear...

John

--- On Fri, 5/1/09, John Burgeson (ASA member) <hossradbourne@gmail.com> wrote:

> From: John Burgeson (ASA member) <hossradbourne@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [asa] Storming Young-Earth Creationism
> To: john_walley@yahoo.com
> Cc: "AmericanScientificAffiliation" <asa@calvin.edu>
> Date: Friday, May 1, 2009, 10:46 AM
> Also of interest is that the author is (1) a geologist and
> (2) works
> for Liberty University.
>
> My understanding is that Liberty University holds YEC as a
> faith
> position. I may be wrong on this, of course.
>
> Ross's review of Young's book is interesting. Will
> the YEC community
> learn from it?
>
> I doubt it.
>
> jb
>
> On 4/30/09, John Walley <john_walley@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > This is interesting from CHrisitianity Today.
> >
> > John
> >
> >
> >
> > Storming Young-Earth Creationism
> > But is Genesis 1 the only text at issue?
> > Review by Marcus R. Ross | posted 4/30/2009 10:00AM
> >
> >
> > The Bible, Rocks and Time
> > by Davis A. Young and Ralph F. Stearley
> > IVP Academic, September 2008
> > 510 pp., $21.99
> >
> >
> >
> > In The Bible, Rocks and Time (IVP Academic),
> geologists and Reformed
> > Christians Davis Young and Ralph Stearley try to
> convince young-earth
> > creationists (YECs) to abandon their position. First,
> they argue that the
> > Creation account in Genesis 1 need not be understood
> as a historical
> > narrative documenting the creation of the universe and
> its inhabitants in
> > six normal (rotational) days. Second, they argue that
> the data from geology
> > point unwaveringly to a planet of exceedingly ancient
> age.
> >
> > I particularly appreciated Young and Stearley's
> historical overview of
> > church beliefs on Genesis and Creation. Their careful
> documentation puts to
> > rest the claims of other old-earth proponents that the
> church fathers held
> > views compatible with an ancient earth. They likewise
> present the origins of
> > modern geology well, particularly within the broader
> historical backdrop of
> > Christian influences on scientific thought.
> >
> > But BR&T is essentially a negative critique.
> Theologically, the authors seek
> > to show that Genesis 1 need not be understood as
> describing six rotational
> > days. But if so, which competing view should we adopt?
> They clearly dislike
> > the "ruin-reconstruction theory" or
> "gap theory" (there was a large gap of
> > time between the first and second verses of Genesis),
> and display
> > reservations about the day-age view (the six days were
> much longer periods).
> > The authors favor some kind of allegorical view (e.g.,
> the "framework
> > hypothesis"), but are steadfast that they will
> not make a positive case for
> > any of these. The result is that the authors do not
> present their own views
> > clearly enough for critical evaluation.
> >
> > The authors' discussion of Noah's Flood is
> similarly vague. They argue
> > strongly against the Flood as a global, geologically
> formative event in
> > history. But what are Christians to make of Genesis
> 6-9? BR&T makes no case
> > for what the Flood actually was, or whether the
> authors even believe it
> > occurred.
> >
> > BR&T, though rigorously argued and
> well-documented, is too limited. It is
> > not that the arguments do not hit hard against
> YEC—they do. The YEC
> > community should learn from this work. But a robust
> concept of the Creation
> > cannot be articulated when Genesis 1 is evaluated in
> near isolation from
> > other relevant Scripture (e.g., Gen. 2, 3, 6-11; Rom.
> 1 and 8; 2 Pet. 3).
> > Were Adam and Eve historical individuals? Where was
> the Garden of Eden? Was
> > the Fall an actual event? And how does this relate to
> evil? These and many
> > other questions are never addressed.
> >
> > Young-earth creationism is a complex system. YEC's
> conception of history
> > includes not merely a six-rotational-day Creation, but
> also a young age of
> > the earth, miraculous creation of plant and animal
> life, a commitment to a
> > historical Adam and Eve, a historical Fall with
> universal spiritual and
> > physical consequences, and a global catastrophe.
> >
> > This comprehensive framework fosters understandings of
> sin, the problem of
> > evil, divine nature, judgment, Christ as the Second
> Adam, salvation, and
> > eschatological redemption. A full view of the Creation
> can only be acquired
> > from the whole of Scripture—from Genesis to
> Revelation—not by focusing, even
> > intently, on but one chapter.
> >
> > Marcus R. Ross, assistant professor of geology at
> Liberty University in
> > Lynchburg, Virginia
> >
> > Copyright © 2009 Christianity Today. Click for
> reprint information.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu
> with
> > "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of
> the message.
> >
>
>
> --
> Burgy
>
> www.burgy.50megs.com

      

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri May 1 21:03:49 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri May 01 2009 - 21:03:49 EDT