Re: [asa] Storming Young-Earth Creationism

From: John Burgeson (ASA member) <hossradbourne@gmail.com>
Date: Sat May 02 2009 - 10:00:22 EDT

There have been "cracks" (crackpots) in the YEC for a long time.

In deference to George, I'll refrain from my usual observation here. <G>

Burgy

On 5/1/09, John Walley <john_walley@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> 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
>
>
>
>

-- 
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 Sat May 2 10:00:34 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat May 02 2009 - 10:00:34 EDT