Monday, October 10, 2011

Why An Old-Looking Earth? Five Possible Answers

In a comment box at Triablogue, Alex B. wrote:
Care to actually answer the question as to why your god would create a universe that looked old if he know that it would lead people from him?

I answer:

Alex didn't explain why he wants this question answered.  First, however, let's consider a few possible answers:

1) God did so, because he wanted it to lead people from him.
2) God did so, despite the fact that it would lead people from him because of a greater good.
3) God did so, despite the fact that it would lead people from him because of an equal good.
4) God did not do so, the premise that it leads people from him is wrong.
5) God did not do so, the premise that the universe looked old when God created it is wrong.

Second, let's place an important caveat on this discussion.  Alex's question may not be directly answered by Scripture.  Not every question has an answer in Scripture, even if it is a question that vexes the mind of a person who does not want to believe that his Creator exists.

Third, let's consider the options.

First, possibly God specifically made the world to look old so that many people would not believe in God.  This contradicts the unspoken premise that God's main purpose in life is to win over as many people as possible.  Nevertheless, surely it is obvious that God isn't trying to do that.  So, the contradiction of that unspoken premise is hardly of much significance.

Second, possibly God specifically made the world to look old for some greater good.  Perhaps an old-looking universe is more comfortable to live in than a new-looking universe.  After all, a new-looking universe would be extremely hot, using contemporary scientific models for what constitutes appearance of youth in universes.

Third, possibly God specifically made the world to look old for some equal good.  After all, God could have made people more heat resistant and still made the universe look younger.  But then again, perhaps in this scenario, the heat resistance would have led an equal number of people from God.  This is all just speculation, of course - but since the question calls for speculation, why not speculate?

Fourth, there isn't really any evidence that what leads people away from God is the appearance of age of the universe.  After all, people turned away from God even before modern cosmologies began claiming that the world was 13 billion years old.  So, the apparent age of the Earth may simply be an excuse of contemporary atheists and agnostics rather than the actual reason.

Fifth, the idea that the world "looks" old is largely subjective.  It depends on the presuppositions that one brings to the table.  21st century naturalistic assumptions lead one to conclude 13 billion years or so as the age of the universe.  Yet God has not left us to make assumptions.  Genesis provides a cosmology.  Using that cosmology as one's starting point, the world doesn't "look" 13 billion years old.

-TurretinFan

By the way, Fred Butler has provided his own thoughts relevant to the question.

67 comments:

Natamllc said...

TF "...why not speculate?""

Ok, I will!


TF: "Not every question has an answer in Scripture, even if it is a question that vexes the mind of a person who does not want to believe that his Creator exists."

What use to vex my mind were these Words:

"Exo 20:5 You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, ...".

Who decides who would love and who would hate God seeing God visits the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate Him?

That use to really vex me until one day in July, 1975 my heart and mind came alive after reading "you shall call His name Jesus, for it is He who will save His people from their sins"!

Now I realize that God does everything after pre-mediation and pre-determination.

Now I realize that God is God and I am not!

Now I realize that God has given to me, a wretched sinner, His Grace, Mercy and Peace by anointing me continually with His Love of Christ, His Love for Christ and He continually inspires me to love even my enemies, those who hate me, too!

It is not easy to do, that is, to love your enemies!

Now I spend my days wrestling to enter that Rest prepared for me and for all those Elect of God, called and chosen to sojourn through this veil of tears and valley of the shadow of death!

Joh 17:25 O righteous Father, even though the world does not know you, I know you, and these know that you have sent me.
Joh 17:26 I made known to them your name, and I will continue to make it known, that the love with which you have loved me may be in them, and I in them."

...

1Jn 3:7 Little children, let no one deceive you. Whoever practices righteousness is righteous, as he is righteous.
1Jn 3:8 Whoever makes a practice of sinning is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil.
1Jn 3:9 No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God's seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God.
1Jn 3:10 By this it is evident who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is the one who does not love his brother.
1Jn 3:11 For this is the message that you have heard from the beginning, that we should love one another.
1Jn 3:12 We should not be like Cain, who was of the evil one and murdered his brother. And why did he murder him? Because his own deeds were evil and his brother's righteous.
1Jn 3:13 Do not be surprised, brothers, that the world hates you.
1Jn 3:14 We know that we have passed out of death into life, because we love the brothers. Whoever does not love abides in death.
1Jn 3:15 Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.

...

1Jn 4:7 Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God.
1Jn 4:8 Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love.
1Jn 4:9 In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him.
1Jn 4:10 In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.
1Jn 4:11 Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another.


Ok, the speculation then?

It is a kind gesture of you to lay out this in answer to Alex B.'s question! :)

Ah, no speculation, then?

No, not so speculative, then, I suppose!

Alex Botten said...

Wow, more special pleading and nonsense. Well done.

Francis Turretin said...

I'm confident you don't know what special pleading is.

Rhology said...

Not if his reactions with me thus far are any indication.

Alex Botten said...

I'm confident you don't know what facts and evidence are, so what are we going to do?

Francis Turretin said...

Even if your confident error were correct, it would hardly be relevant either to your question as posed or your answers as received.

Of course, that leads us to the underlying problem. Why did you ask the question in the first place? Was it because you want to know the answer? If so, you show a remarkable absence of appreciation for the answers.

Micah Burke said...

I've never considered the "apparent" age of the Earth an issue, the Earth was created old, not seemingly old. The universe was created in-situ, and operational. Like Adam, the universe didn't go through a infantile period. God spoke it into existence and it was. Man looks at the wrinkles on another's face and assumes age and time, because that's all we know, likewise man looks at the lights of the universe, the death of men, and the passing of time and assumes that's how it has always been.

Natamllc said...

Fred: "Which means, as I noted above, the disagreement is ultimately a matter of which authority you allow to inform your perspective of the evidence as it relates to the origin of the world."

Clear enough a conclusion, it seems it is, to me, Fred.

Why I remember the article I read in National Geographic magazine some years ago is because in the early days of my ministry, I planted trees very near Mount Saint Helens. It was sometime in the late 70's? Then she blew and all of our work was burnt up in the explosions and molten lava flows that followed. In the article the writer narrows on one fact about a Stetson hat found on or near an old man who refused to leave his little place of Eden's heaven on earth that was in the direct blast zone of the eruption. They did some tests on that hat and with the process of carbon dating it was dated a million or so years old!

How can this be? How can a hat after being tested with that process be one million or so years old? Here's one historical account of John Stetson's company: "The John B. Stetson Company, founded by John B. Stetson in 1865, was the maker of the Stetson cowboy hats, but ceased manufacturing in 1970."

Maybe the process is what needs questioning and just maybe, as Fred points out, the hearts of those who won't come under God's written authority which reflects His Authority, nevertheless needs questioning, too?

Steve Drake said...

Natamllc,
Let alone the dates by radiometric dating for the dacite lava dome from the 1980 eruption which was dated at a range of 340K - 2.8mil years. Radiometric dating when tested on rocks of known age fails miserably.

Steve Drake said...

TF,
Can you explain why my reply to Natamllc was eliminated?

Steve Drake said...

TF,
Shows up again. My apologies. It didn't show up there for several minutes when I refreshed the page.

Steve Drake said...

Natamllc,
I was backpacking in the Three Sisters vicinity of Northwestern Oregon on that day in 1980 and heard the sonic boom. Didn't know what it was until driving back to Corvallis that Sunday evening and heard the reports on the radio.

Steve Drake said...

Sorry, Three Sisters is in the North Central not Northwestern part of Oregon. It was a while back.

Alex Botten said...

When you've managed to answer with something that isn't pathetic begging for your belief in magic to be accepted, I'll be sure to engage further

Steve Drake said...

alex,
Perhaps you can reply to my comment to Natamllc above where radiometric dating on the dacite lava dome formed from the 1980 Mt. St. Helen eruption gave dates of 340,000 - 2.8 mil years?

Steve Drake said...

Alex,
you there?

Steve Drake said...

Alex,
Do you have a response?

Steve Drake said...

Alex,
Come on, man. Let's go. I'm missing a baseball game here waiting for you to respond.

Steve Drake said...

Scared him off I guess. Se la vie. Signing off. Be back tomorrow.

Francis Turretin said...

It's so cute to see how your mind works. You beg and plead for your question to be answered, but when you can't do anything with the answer, your stomp your little feet, insult the person who did you a favor and tromp off.

Jon Baker said...

Steve,
All dates for that dacite were effectively zero (consider the error bars)—in line with the known age of the eruption. The only date that yielded a significantly non-zero age (~2 Ma) was a mafic phenocryst, which would be expected to be older than the flow itself. You should consider also that Dr. Austin sent his samples to a laboratory which stated up front that its equipment did not have the precision to analyze samples <2 m.y. old. Argon concentrations were far too low to give an accurate analysis. Dr. Austin knew this in advance. This constitutes basic ignorance at best, and fraud at worst. If he were serious about the claim, he would repeat the experiment with a modern Ar/Ar lab suited to analyze young samples.

Radiometric dating is far from "failing miserably", and the vast majority of age data are consistent, repeatable, and verifiable through multiple independent approaches. Anyone familiar with the published (and the unpublished) literature can tell you this. Please refrain from appealing to gross distortions of the facts, which have been documented as false on multiple occasions. It only poisons the discussion and divides God's people unnecessarily.

JB

Steve Drake said...

Jon,
This is not the only anomaly concerning radiometric dates giving erroneous conclusions on rocks of known ages. I assume that you peg your credentials and your belief in an old earth on the supposed validity of radiometric dating which has shown to give erroneous dates on rocks of 'known' age. The Mt. St. Helen's conclusions from the dacite lava dome are just one example of a system of dating rocks that carries plenty of assumptions, some or all of which may not be valid. Don't get me wrong, we can count the atoms, but the extrapolation into the unseen past and the 'interpretation' of age which follows is highly suspect.

Rhology said...

What none of you understand is that Alex B has all the evidence on his side, and you have none. We can know this for sure because he says so. That which he accepts as evidence is evidence. That which he does not accept as evidence is *****-ing stupidity and *****-ing Bronze Age myths.

We can know this for certain. Just ask Alex.

Stephen Dalton said...

Does the universe look old? I'm sure when the universe was created, all the plants and trees were full sized, especially the giant redwoods out in what is now called California. All of the animals, especially the dinosaurs, with their giagantic build, were also "old" or of mature age. Likewise, the evironment they and the first humans had to live in had to be "old" so life could be substained for all. You had to have fully grown humans, plants, and animals to make the ecosystem work, otherwise it would all fall apart.

Jon Baker said...

Steve,
This is not an anomaly at all. The results were as expected for a ~10 year old lava flow using classic K-Ar analysis. No geologist would be surprised by them, or be inclined to question the validity of radiometric dates.

If one were to ask me why I think the earth is old, radiometric dating is perhaps the last piece of evidence I would raise. No, I don't 'peg my credentials' on this. Regardless, it's obvious to me that you do not understand how scientific models work. Every radiometric date is a model age. When assumptions turn out to be incorrect for a given case, the age data are made invalid—not the method itself.

You seem to be engaging in ignorant conjecture with respect to the results of and assumptions behind geochronology. I'm curious, have you ever analyzed age data from geological samples to use in your own research? Or did you just hear somewhere that this method commonly produces bad ages? I can show you more than 50 cases where historical lava flows yielded radiometric ages of ~0 years, but you can show none where the age was consistently erroneous.

You do have one point...we have to extrapolate. But likewise does NASA extrapolate into the unseen future when aiming the rocket carrying their Mars lander. Mock all you want, but when those rockets repeatedly hit their distant target, I gain much confidence in their methods. So it is with geochronology.

God bless,

JB

Steve Drake said...

Jon,
The question of the validity of radiometric dates is what is at issue. That you speculate that no one questions it, is just that, speculation on your part, but nothing more. You have simply not read enough of the dissenters to grasp the inherent assumptions in radiometric dating and the problems that many see with it, or have made up your mind as to whose evidence you will believe. You can continue to belittle me with your comment 'it's obvious to me that you don't understand how scientific models work', and 'you seem to be engaging in ignorant conjecture', but this gets you nowhere and masks, in my opinion, the strength of your convictions. In other words, you resort to obfuscation on who I am and my position as a means of poisoning the well and it only weakens your position. A logical fallacy wouldn't you say?

Natamllc said...

Jon Baker,

tell me, seeing you seem to have some expertise in this field and query, why didn't that Stetson hat burn up and become ash instead of remain in the condition it was found so that the tests could be done that gave the readings they did that it was as old as indicated it was was not?

Jon Baker said...

I know who questions that validity and I know how many. I gained my interest in geology by questioning it myself years ago. Now, I teach geology and I work in an isotope geochemistry lab. That doesn't make me an expert, and I don't mean to appeal to my own authority. I merely intend to convey that I have access both to published *and* unpublished radiometric data, along with the critical writings of "dissenters" (which I read regularly and respond to publicly).

I apologize if my comments sounded belittling. My accusation was based on the conditional premise that if you did understand scientific models, you would not cite the Mt. St. Helens dacites as a case where assumptions were found to be invalid, etc. Rather, those ages confirm the basic assumptions of radiometric dating (at least the K-Ar method). Lastly, my charge of ignorant conjecture is not personal. Your words led me to believe that you were not familiar with the range of relevant data and techniques used by the geochronologist. If that is false, then I am happy to remit my charge.

JB

Steve Drake said...

Natamllc,
I postulate it was because the hat was analysed by a radiometric lab whose instruments were 'not' of precision enough to give dates <2mil years old.

Jon Baker said...

Natamllc,

Could you provide a link/source for any analyses done on this hat? I was not able to find the article. In any case, the radiocarbon method is not capable of dating something as "a million years old or so". The analytical limit of radiocarbon stands at ~75,000 years, with a practical limit of ~50,000 years or less. I really cannot comment further without seeing the original data, but the story seems to be apocryphal.

Thanks,

JB

Jon Baker said...

Steve,

Would you try to measure out 30 micrograms of dust on the vegetable scale at the grocery store? That is essentially what Dr. Austin did with his dacite samples. The lab was not equipped to analyze recent samples; he knew it, and they knew it.

Natamllc said...

Jon,

I could be wrong as to the source of this article I made reference too? I remember reading an article about the old man and his hat and fact that both were preserved and as I said I remember it because I actually physically planted trees there for a month of Sundays in the late seventies! For some reason the National Geographic magazine is what stuck in my mind as the source from where I read that story.

Now that I am thinking about this more, I also recall watching a Discovery Channel broadcast on all this scientific data gathering at the time and years later. It could have been mixed in that broadcast?

In any event, I am a YEC person.

I may have poisoned the well unintentionally by even bringing it into this thread?

What position do you take, that at least is a place to start between us in comments, then?

Steve Drake said...

Jon,
The geochronologist who has a rock that he/she wants to date submits it to a lab with certain parameters, correct? He/she states where it was found, what the composition of the minerals in the rock are, what fossils are found in the strata where the rock was found, etc. The lab takes all this in to account and comes back with an age. But, what most people don't understand, is that this is a trial balloon. If the geochronologist accepts this age from the lab, it is published as such, but if the goechronologist questions this age, the trial balloon is thrown out, and a new age is calculated. All ages are trial balloons and are not objective in that sense. The 'measurements' are objective, but they aren't measuring age. To calculate age, the geochronologist needs to assume the history of his/her sample---something he cannot objectively check. His/her assumptions are based on his/her naturalistic beliefs about the world

Natamllc said...

Stephen,

the mystery is solved! I can confidently assert that the chicken came first, then! :)

Jon Baker said...

I'm sorry Steve, but this is simply false. I have submitted rock samples myself and watched the analyses in our own labs. No such "trial balloons" take place.

While the geochronologist need assume something about history, it is false to say that he cannot objectively check it. Numerous methods are available to verify/falsify assumptions in dating techniques.

Also, make sure to distinguish between methodological and ontological naturalism.

Steve Drake said...

Baloney. He submitted it to Geochron Laboratories of Cambridge, Massachusetts. under the direction of Richard Reesman, the K-AR laboratory manager. The preparations were submitted to Geochron Laboratories with the statement that they came from dacite, and that the lab should expect ‘low argon’. No information was given to the lab concerning where the dacite came from or that the rock has a historically known age (ten years old at the time of the argon analysis). The lab came back with a range of 340K-2.8mil years.

Steve Drake said...

I'm sorry Jon, but your statement that this is simply false, is simply false itself. Trial balloons do exist.

Steve Drake said...

Correction. Austin submitted five samples to Geochron Laboratories.

Jon Baker said...

Alright, I am satisfied that you cannot answer my charges. Instead, you insist on deferring to spurious claims about the industry in which I work.

Steve Drake said...

Alright, Im satisifed that you can cannot answer the claim concerinng the Biblical position of old old earth with is its' subsequent claim of death before sin. The industry in which you work has nothing to do with our dialog. You seem to gravitate towards spurios claims about an old earth , but fail to analyse sin before the Fall?

Jon Baker said...

I know where he sent the samples. That's how I know that the lab (which no longer analyzes for K-Ar) stated up front that their equipment lacked precision to analyze samples younger than ~2 Ma. Austin knew this, but sent very young samples (10 years!!!) to their lab anyways. I realize the lab did not know the age of Austin's samples—I never claimed they did. But the lab *did* know the limits of their equipment, and that Austin's data were not completely trustworthy.

Moreover, the lab sent back basic K-Ar *model* ages. They did not constrain inherited argon in the sample, as would be done in a modern K-Ar or Ar-Ar lab. These results have no physical meaning, hence they falsify nothing.

Lastly, the error bars (which you do not include) on Austin's data only reflect counting statistics from the mass spectrometer. After standard contamination, analytical error, and systematic errors are taken into account, only *two* of those 5 samples give a non-zero age. Three out of five are consistent with the known age of the lava. As I stated before, the two 'older' samples come from mafic phenocrysts, which would have formed long before the eruption. Pyroxene's do not mineralize simultaneously with amphiboles and glass. When a suite of minerals shows increasing model age with decreasing silica content, the disparate age data likely reflect magmatic evolution. Increasing model ages also correspond to increasing argon retentivity, however, so crustal inheritance is a major concern for Austin's samples (which erupted from a magma that traveled through tens of kilometers of continental crust). I'm sorry, but this experiment has no impact on the validity of radiometric dating.

That being said, do you have any insight as to why most geological samples contain so much argon, and other radiogenic elements? For example, why do Cretaceous lava flows in Israel (i.e. interbedded with Cretaceous fossils) show increasing argon content with increasing stratigraphic age (i.e. lower in the geologic column)? Or the ocean floor, from ridge to coast? Most unexplainable, in my opinion, are mineral precipitates (e.g. stalagmites in caves) that have abundant thorium. Thorium is not soluble in water and should not be present in significant quantities when these formed. Since cave formations necessarily formed 'after the flood', and radioactive decay is the only known process to produce it—how does so much thorium get there in ~5,000 years or less?

Steve Drake said...

Jon,
Your biases are showing forthwith. You believe the evidence you want to believe. I'm actually praying for you.

Jon Baker said...

You never asked me about sin before the Fall or the biblical question. You simply made false claims about the scientific invalidity of geochronology. It shouldn't surprise you that I stayed on topic with regard to your original question.

I believe you have made it evident, however, that your opposition to everything I say is rooted in a particular, dogmatic position on the text of scripture. The simple answer is: Genesis 1–3 is not a monological narrative, and neither is it written as a documentary history. Our tendency to read it as such results from a projection of our modern paradigms back onto the text. Genesis 1–3 presents truth in dialogical tension, and is written as poetic history (in terms of Ricoeur's usage).

If we apply the most basic literary analysis to Gen. 1–3, it becomes apparent that the story is not about a single man that sinned at a single point in time. Rather, the story concerns us all, and that's why it is told in the first place (the canonical importance). The structure of Gen. 1–3 is that of a literary diptych, which gravitates toward the hinge point in Gen. 2:4. The sabbath rest of God and communion in the Garden are not past realities, but the very telos of the cosmos.

That is why the story of Genesis 1–3 can be told over and over and over again, culminating in the work of Jesus, in his ministry and on the cross, and the future restoration of all things. Read back through Genesis–Joshua, and see how often subsequent narratives link themselves intertextually to the situation found in 1–3: e.g., the spirit of God over the waters in Gen. 1 and 8, over Egypt before the exodus, over the sea of Reeds in the exodus, and eventually over the waters of Jesus in his baptism. Anyways, that's a start...

Jon Baker said...

Thank you, I need it.

Steve Drake said...

Complete hogwash Jon. Austin submitted five samples that were analysed by Geochron Labs as ranging from 340K to 2.8mil years old, yet the dacite lava dome was only 10 years old.

Steve Drake said...

Jon,
Why do you need it? The Scriptures you claim to believe?

Steve Drake said...

Jon,
Your need? Email me at drakesteve805@gmail.com.

Jon Baker said...

Steve, I know you disagree sharply with me on this topic, but consider my position. I do confess the Scriptures as my final authority in matters of faith and practice. I am an active member in a reformed congregation. But I am also human, with a history of being wrong and falling into temptation. I am always in need of prayer. If you are right about me—even more so.

So I won't refuse your prayer so as to exult in my confidence. That being said, please consider that I began my academic career in the sciences in hope that I could bring glory to God. I struggle now on two fronts: I work among scientists that mock my faith; I worship among believers that think I am blinded by naturalism. Whatever the case, I cannot now maintain intellectual honesty while trying to affirm a young Earth or one that 'appears' old. I do what I do because I think science, faithfully applied, can accurately describe natural phenomena and bring glory to God. At this point, I see no major conflict with Scripture—only motivation to press on.

JB

Steve Drake said...

jon, you are sorely mistaken. The text of Gen. 1-11 is historical narrative and should be interpreted and understood as such. Adam and Eve were real historical people: the progenitors of the human race. Cain slew the historical Abel, the first murder recorded in Scripture. Adam lived 1 30 years and became the father of Seth, and Seth lived 105 years and became the father of Enoch, and Enoch lived 90 years and became the father of Kenan.

I grieve for you Jon, unwilling to accept the testimony if both the Old and New Testaments as the authoritative and infallible Word of God.

Steve Drake said...

Jon,
I replyed to your comment here earlier, but it doesn't post on the blog. Don't know why it takes so long.

Steve Drake said...

Brother Jon,
It is of utmost praise that you wish as a scientist to bring praise to the glory of God. However, this praise must be directed to God in the correct sense. His creation ex nihilo, in six days is worthy of praise. Nothing else compares. May you be protected as a Christian scientist, and may the Lord bless you and protect you, and give you courage to speak in the workplace. May you be bold in your proclamation of the good news of the gospel, and may you find peace in your soul as you proclaim the gospel that leads to salvation. Peace my brother.

Alex Botten said...

Looks like Jon has already comprehensively handed you your arse on that one.

Alex Botten said...

Francis, I'm sorry that you don't understand how reality works, but projecting will get you nowhere.

Steve Drake said...

Looks like Jon had to step in where you were afraid to tread.

Francis Turretin said...

Alex. You seem to be under the impression that I want to go somewhere. Silly you.

Francis Turretin said...

Not really. Jon's amounted to saying it's fraud to test his area of science with rocks of known ages.

Jon Baker said...

Nat,

I know these texts very well, but thank you for bringing them to light. My aim is not to trust in man to the exclusion of God's word, but to discern where man's word corresponds to God's reality. Sometimes, the task is seemingly straightforward. Our confidence is never warrant, however, to dismiss hermeneutical challenges raised in the course of the life of the church. If I am in error, then please tell me why. A mere repetition of the postulate that "God created [the universe] in six literal days" adds nothing to the conversation.

You need not assume that my asking for prayer reflects a personal lack thereof. I have reached the conclusions I now hold through many years of prayer and deliberation, as well as dialogue with elders and laymen in the congregation. I call myself a "Reformed Brother" because I hold good standing in a reformed congregation, and I affirm the reformed confessions (intrinsically, that implies my acceptance of scripture as the sole infallible rule of faith, etc.). I do not believe in an old earth out of rejecting the scriptures; rather, I question the human traditions that have narrowly bound the meaning and function of Genesis 1–3 so as to remove it from its canonical context. I affirm that God created the heavens and the earth in 6 days and rested on the seventh; I reject that this narrative has anything to do with the passage of time on earth for literary, canonical, historical, and (lastly) scientific reasons. You warn of trusting in man, but seem to neglect that our study of God's word always involves the (man-made) methodological principles of linguistics (it needs to be translated), cultural anthropology, history, literary analysis, and theology.

In scripture, God appeals on numerous occasions to what was right in front of his audience (the events of the exodus, conquest, exile, and—of course—the resurrection). He exhorts us to marvel at his works, and so I have taken up the task. I have discovered that our cosmos is more complicated and much larger (in space and time) than Israel could have imagined, and this amazes me. Why should I reject that in favor of a particular hermeneutical tradition that now stands contrary to the facts? I appeal to my intellectual honesty because the age of the earth (its grand prehistory) is as plain to me its size, roundness, and position in the solar system. I cannot affirm a young earth honestly any more than I can affirm a small, flat one (i.e. the Babylonian architecture assumed in most of scripture).

Genesis is likewise a beautiful, theologically rich text that can be studied for a lifetime. Please, do not withhold its depth for the sake of fighting skepticism or liberalism. The arbitrary reduction of Genesis to a plain, monological narrative about prehistoric/primeval events not only shuts our ears to God's truth—it fuels the fires of liberalism and skepticism.

Lastly, I think it is unfair to liken my studies to idolatry, simply because I study stones. Not only is the logical connection absent, but you assume something false about my heart and my character. It would be no more appropriate to liken my studies to the 'stones' of the new temple of God! Are you of the opinion that no Christian should become a geologist?

Let us reason together, and beat our diatribal swords into dialogical plowshares.

JB

Steve Drake said...

Jon said:
'I question the human traditions that have narrowly bound the meaning and function of Genesis 1–3 so as to remove it from its canonical context.'

What human traditions are you referring to here, and what canonical context is Gen. 1-3 removed from?

'I affirm that God created the heavens and the earth in 6 days and rested on the seventh; I reject that this narrative has anything to do with the passage of time on earth for literary, canonical, historical, and (lastly) scientific reasons.'

Where does the passage of time on earth start then for you in the book of Genesis?

'Why should I reject that in favor of a particular hermeneutical tradition that now stands contrary to the facts?'

This is exactly what is at debate. A claim you hold about hermeneutic tradition that you have assumed but haven't proven. You also assume 'facts' are without interpretation by the one holding them. Another claim not proven.

You also appeal to the word 'prehistory', as in and of itself is not laden with presuppositional meaning and undertones. A claim that can rightly be debated.

Steve Drake said...

Natamllc,
From what I perceive of what Jon has written, he takes the 'analogical' day view of Gen. 1. In other words, the days of Genesis 1 are not to be seen as chronological in time and space, but rather as a symbolic story about 'new creation'. The 'grand history' of God in symbolic form, Adam and Eve emerging from a group of hominids (probably from a group of about 10,000 or so), they themselves being the descendants of earlier hominids like Homo erectus, australopithecines, leading back to earlier marsupials, etc. etc, and the rest of the evolutionary projection. God may or may not have intervened here over millions and millions of years, not sure of Jon's particular persuasion here as we have not gotten that far in our discussions.

Natamllc said...

agreed

Steve Drake said...

'pseudo Christian scientist reformed brother studying rocks and sticks '

Hey Natamllc,
The study of rocks and sticks as part of God's creation is worthwhile, don't you think? Yet, the studier of rocks and sticks, if Christian, should pare there conclusions against the Word of God first, right?

Natamllc said...

yes & yes

Jon Baker said...

Nat,

This is not a discussion. After admitting to bearing false witness about me, you merely tried to back me into a corner that I would confess myself as a liar who knows nothing. Why do you do this?

I am very confused, moreover, by your view of science. What do you think science actually is? And why do you insist that it is a worthless endeavor? I find it strange that you end by quoting Psalm 19, since I have no idea how you would apply the verse. You have reduced the heavens and the earth to something that cannot be studied; something that does not "declare the glory of God" because it is unknowable and an illusion. I believe that science is a valuable tool to study God's earth and retell his story. God's people have believed and practiced this principle for thousands of years.

I know it sounds simple to say "Scripture should guide our scientific study", but you undermine this approach from the start. What you accept/reject in science is not guided by scripture, but by your presuppositions about what scripture says. You have arbitrarily applied a literalistic hermeneutic whenever convenient. If I am wrong, please explain why you believe (assuming you do) that the sky is not a solid dome, that the earth is neither flat nor the center of the sun's orbit? Do you also believe that the stars are more distant than our sun, which is more distant than the moon? Yet scripture assumes, and her initial readers believed, all of these architectural statements about the cosmos.

"Ok Jon, which is it? Is it literally a seven day narrative or is it not? Or is the present heavens and earth millions and millions of years old?"

Both. They are not mutually exclusive.

"It may very well be commendable that you are a pseudo Christian scientist reformed brother studying rocks and sticks...but it does nothing to stop the indulgences of the flesh or the greed and covetousness that is soiling the hearts and minds of so many human beings around the world today."

Pseudo? Is that supposed to define 'Christian' because you doubt that I am a believer? Unless you are willing to remit your diatribe against me for disagreeing with you, there is nothing I can say.

Jon Baker said...

I wouldn't confine myself to any particular 'school of thought' on Genesis 1 (including the 'analogical day' view). Most of these interpretive methods begin with the modern controversy over the age of the earth, etc. and project that back onto the text (the young-Earth approach is likewise guilty of this). My goal has been rather to step pass that modern controversy and discover the text's relevance to its initial audiences. That's why I reject that the age of the earth can be answered in Genesis 1. It's not there, and it's simply not a concern to ancient Israel.

Regardless of what you believe about the historical significance of Genesis 1, the text does present a "symbolic story about new creation" and that Adam/Eve are archetypal figures. This need not be a reductionistic approach (i.e. Adam is 'just' an archetype...), but a variegated one that is more consistent with the history of Hebrew thought.

I don't distinguish between God 'intervening' and not, as though he is only present when working miraculously. I affirm the providential sovereignty of God over creation, so that there is no clear distinction between 'natural' and 'supernatural' events. Human history is no less miraculous, therefore, if it can be described by 'natural' processes. Miracles are such because they defy our expectations and because God has given them grander theological significance through his word.

Jon Baker said...

"What human traditions..."

The literalistic hermeneutical tradition that demands we read Gen. 1–3 as documentary historiography (i.e. young-Earth creationism?).

"Where does the passage of time on earth start then for you in the book of Genesis?"

Genesis 1:1.

"A claim you hold about hermeneutic tradition that you have assumed but haven't proven. You also assume 'facts' are without interpretation by the one holding them. Another claim not proven."

What you mean is that I haven't proven it to you (or better, persuaded you). Most likely, I never will, but if that is the prerequisite for sharing my thoughts then I suppose my tongue is cut off. I never charged that facts are without interpretation. I have stated the opposite on many occasions (brute facts are mute facts; communicated facts are hermeneutical). But any interpretation that cannot account for the relevant facts should be challenged, don't you think? In other words, an interpretation that forces contradiction, etc.?

When I say "prehistory", I am simply referring to the time before man was there to witness it himself. For you, the first 5 days are what I would call "prehistory", regardless of whether that history was revealed to man later on. Read my previous comments again with this definition in mind. I didn't intend to be subtle.

JB

Natamllc said...

Jon,

just curious, can you go back to my posts and copy and paste where I admitted to bearing false witness about you?

You wrote: "...After admitting to bearing false witness about me, ...".

Where do I say you "know nothing"? I assert you know something, albeit, I believe it is erroneous and an error. That is a far cry from asserting that you know nothing!

Science is the study of matter and after tests, repeated tests that don't seem to vary from one test to the other, the scientific method, one can reasonably postulate that this is this and that is that regard to the matter.

Of course after this simplistic definition we enter into some very deep worlds of science, math, chemistry, metaphysics, theories and then we fall off the deep end into postulating erroneous stuff like the earth's matter is millions of millions of years old when the Bible shows us clearly the Son of God, after being One of Three Who created the heavens and earth and everything, came to live in society following the 7 day principle. He observed blamelessly the proscribed process for keeping the Passover and other other festivals each year so much so that He became the very Passover Lamb to month, week and day of that celebration right under the noses of the very intelligent religious and civil rulers of that day! For me, that alone refutes any other theory but the YEC reality this present heavens and earth is.

Jon, you write: "...I find it strange that you end by quoting Psalm 19, since I have no idea how you would apply the verse. "

What can I say about that? I can't help it if you are reasoning with vain imaginings about Psalm 19! :) That Psalm fits perfectly into the rhythm of YEC. Psa 19:1 To the choirmaster. A Psalm of David. The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork. Verses like that make it even more marvelous what astronomers are discovering everyday when pictures of galaxies and orbits in universes far from ours are sent back to earth's eye, don't you suppose?

You write: "... I believe that science is a valuable tool to study God's earth and retell his story. God's people have believed and practiced this principle for thousands of years."

Agreed.

You write: "...What you accept/reject in science is not guided by scripture, but by your presuppositions about what scripture says. You have arbitrarily applied a literalistic hermeneutic whenever convenient. "

You're wrong. I refer you to the Book of Job, chapter 28. That is what I believe about science and being guided by Scripture.

Jon, I am not the judge whether or not you are a Christian. I do oppose your science, though. Your ability to "know" God is a God thing not a science thing. Take a look at the way the Apostle Peter uses these two Greek Words in 2 Peter 1


ἐπίγνωσις
epignōsis
ip-ig'-no-sis
From G1921; recognition, that is, (by implication) full discernment, acknowledgement: - (ac-) knowledge (-ing, -ment).

and


γνῶσις
gnōsis
gno'-sis
From G1097; knowing (the act), that is, (by implication) knowledge: - knowledge, science.

What I believe is you are giving way more weight to gnosis and not nearly enough weight to epignosis so that you, too, will adhere to the YEC, six days work, seventh day rest, Laws of Moses cycles, Christ's submission to His Own Words to establish the real age of these present created heavens and earth.

Steve Drake said...

Jon,
"I wouldn't confine myself to any particular 'school of thought' on Genesis 1 (including the 'analogical day' view)."

The 'Analogical' or 'Framework Hypothesis' views are very popular in reformed circles today. It allows the billions of years of earth believer to say that they believe the days of Gen. 1 are six days (thus conforming to the Westminster Standard of Faith), yet all the while denying its (Gen.1) historicity in terms of sequence and duration, thus able to hold on to their old earth views. Have your cake and eat it too, sort of thing. It's a ploy that many intelligent people can see right through. It is not clear that the Framework or Analogical Views differ significantly. They both seem extremely vague when it comes to describing what the creation "days" actually are and what the word “historical” really means. Indeed, it seems to me that these views entail that Genesis 1 says absolutely nothing of historical or scientific significance other than that God made everything. So, unless you're postulating some new way of understanding Gen. 1, your views do confine themselves to a particular school of thought. There is nothing new under the Sun, Jon, contrary to your stated belief otherwise.

"Most of these interpretive methods begin with the modern controversy over the age of the earth, etc. and project that back onto the text (the young-Earth approach is likewise guilty of this)."

Most of orthodox Christianity believed the days of Gen. 1 were 6-24 days and that the earth and its history were 'old' (thousands of years, not billions) until the late 1700's, early 1800's with the advent of modern geology (a separate field of science with systematic field studies, collection and classification of rocks and fossils, and the development of theoretical reconstructions of the historical events that formed those rock layers and fossils of rocks), itself being the product of speculation and imagination rooted in anti-biblical philosophical assumptions that were happening at the same time. It was philosophical assumptions that drove the development of old-earth theories, not any argument over hermeneutics. You've got it completely backwards. It was the compromise by the Church in the early and later 1800's that has led us to where we are today with this controversy.

"I don't distinguish between God 'intervening' and not, as though he is only present when working miraculously. I affirm the providential sovereignty of God over creation, so that there is no clear distinction between 'natural' and 'supernatural' events."

Why sure. Deny any clear distinction between a natural and supernatural event in Scripture, claiming God is sovereign over all, thus able to hold on to your belief system that God used evolution as His means of creation and the earth is billions of years old. Sounds like the what the BioLogos guys are pandering. Is this what you believe?