Creation / Evolution Books?

[darinhouston]

They seem, in general, to be pretty reputable and seem to take a fairly even-handed approach to bringing science into proofs of a Christian worldview and a Creator God; however, they don't really distinguish themselves as having a mission of proving the young earth position, or dinosaurs and men living together, etc.

[TK]

I was watching a program the other night on the History Channel called "How the Earth was Made" or something like that. Now of course this program assumes old earth, etc.

They were talking about the Yellowstone Volcano-- they say it erupted 640,000 years ago and laid down dust to 2 ft deep across most of the continental US. apparently they have discovered herds of rhinos that choked to death on this dust that were 1000 miles away from the explosion.

The question of course becomes if this really happened 640,000 years ago (and they say it also happened about 1.2 million years ago) one could see how the land could recover; the dust would dissipate and ultimately light would be let through and plants could begin to grow again etc. But if it only happened a few thousand years ago (because we know for a fact it happened-- there's a massive crater there-- well I dont know.

TK

[Paidion]

There is a striking parallel between the geological formations which resulted from the eruption of Mt. St. Helen's and those of the Grand Canyon. It makes me think that the day may come in the distant future when people postulate that the changes which took place at Mt. St. Helen's took millions of years to come about.

It is interesting that at one time, it was believed that the moon and the earth had a common origin, and that they "broke off" from the Sun. Now it is known that moon rocks which have been brought back to earth are constituted quite differently from earth rocks, and thus seem to have a different origin.

Scientists expected the moon to have accumulated at least 6 feet of dust and probably much more --- dust which originated from space over many millions of years. I have heard that first astronauts on the moon were cautioned about the depth of dust expected. But the dust depth turned out to be about two inches.

[darinhouston]

Did I ever say that all the old earth "science" was sound?

[Jess]

Paidion wrote:

"There is a striking parallel between the geological formations which resulted from the eruption of Mt. St. Helen's and those of the Grand Canyon. It makes me think that the day may come in the distant future when people postulate that the changes which took place at Mt. St. Helen's took millions of years to come about."

An interesting thought. People would have to ignore the historical records and reports of the actual event (Mt. St. Helens eruption) to accept their "millions of years scenario". Just like most people do now by ignoring the historical record/report (Genesis) of the flood account.

[darinhouston]

I'm not a geologist (my father-in-law is and I work with many of them), but my understanding is that the stratification from Mt. St. Helens is local (as one would expect from a local cataclysmic event) while the layers in the Grand Canyon (and elsewhere) generally coordinate with layers on a wide-spread regional or even continental scope. Even if similar visually, though, I also understand that the Grand Canyon's layers are dated radiometrically consistent with their apparent ages while this is not true for Mt. St. Helens.

If either responses are true, this begins to look like the sort of thing that desperate fundamentalists use out of fear for an old earth that can turn away "skeptics." If it has the immediate look of something that could on first blush crush a blow, go ahead and use it they say -- never mind its truth. I agree it's interesting, but I also understand there are some interesting studies on species evolution in insects among "islands" separated by lava flows of the mountain that folks use to suggest evolution on a time scale consistent with a young earth, so I think you just have to be careful how you use "pop-science" in evangelism.

[mattrose]

For the past 3-5 years I've tried to be very open to convincing from the Old Earth side of things, but I still find the Young Earth position far more persuasive.

But rather than using the YE position as a desperate evangelistic tool, I hardly ever mention my YE creationism when talking to non-Christians. I figure it's something that people won't be open to believing until they've come to a point where they see Jesus and Scripture as authoritative.

[TK]

Matt wrote:

I figure it's something that people won't be open to believing until they've come to a point where they see Jesus and Scripture as authoritative.

But people like Hugh Ross DO view scripture, and Jesus as authoritative. In fact he goes to great lengths to explain just how Genesis 1 IS consistent with ages old cosmology. Of course YE'ers would disagree, but I dont think it is quite fair to say that OE'ers dont view scripture or Jesus as authoritative. I lean toward the OE view, but I have no question that the bible is authoritative.

Since, according to that theology, God created the universe and is also responsible for the words of the Bible, and since He does not lie or deceive, there can be no contradiction between the words of the Bible and the facts of nature. Any conflict between science and Christian theology must be attributed to human misinterpretation. Such conflicts should be viewed with neither fear for the integrity of the Bible nor outrage against science, but rather should be accepted for the time being as indications that further research is needed. The Christian expectation is that such research will lead to greater understanding of both science and theology and to an eventual reconciliation that will uphold both the Bible and the data from nature. (Hugh Ross, from Creation and Time)

TK

[darinhouston]

I think it's interesting that Ross is a vocal critic of the "Intelligent Design" movement, and is not interested in proving the existince of "a God," but only the God of the bible. He believes it has no evangelistic value to prove that "a God" likely exists, but finds increasing evidence for the Creation and the God of the bible as long as you let go of one little wooden literal definition of "yom." If not, you really do have a great seeming contradiction between God's general and special revelation -- anyone who believes otherwise is either blindly committed to a system of interpretation or is ignorant of the science (and I think that most honest men would either recognize that their lay understandings of the science involved is deficient or they are so ignorant that they don't recognize their ignorance). Yes, there are scientists in the YEC camp, but they're a great minority and I think you'll find their fundamentalism has blinded them. I am very glad they're there to critique their peers and to cast doubt on the conclusions of their secular brethren, but they just carry it too far in my opinion trying to "prove too much" and seem to me afraid to let truth win out over time and leave their proofs narrow to the subject at hand. Ross frequently says "we don't know XYZ, but due to the increasing proofs, we are confident over time we'll figure that one out. What we do know is ABC."

Has anyone who supports the YEC scientists ever read some of the scientific literature supporting the Flat Earth Society? They can sound really authoritative and scientific to a lay person. There still are "scientists" (believe it or not) who cling to that silliness, but we have no problem recognizing their lunacy. I trust one day we'll look back at YEC science and see it in equal disdain with no detrimental effect on our belief in inspired Scripture and/or a True and Creator God.

That said, (like Steve as to his YEC view) I have no particular need for an Old Earth view -- if a compelling theory came forward I would have no problem seeing my world through a YEC lens. But, I've tried. Believe me, I've tried.

[darinhouston]

Don't get me wrong -- I have very little respect for the larger scientific community in regards its conclusions and "self-limited" peer review of controversial things. There is as much religion in their science as with the YEC crowd, I think, but there are some things that have been beaten up by Christian peers over time to the extent that we have a pretty good comfort as to our present understanding. I believe the scientific method has been used and abused by skeptics so long that it has affected many scientists' view of the world, but there are still enough people doing pure science with commercial or truly academic / non-religious objectives that much of it is just incontrovertable.