A revised edition is available here. I recommend that interested parties examine these sources and place comments below. Newman and a scientifically-trained pastor, Herman J. Eckelmann, Jr. The revised edition of this book is also available on the internet. That should not be surprising. Indeed, to some extent the OEC view has been subsumed within ID, though covertly rather than overtly.
I will say more about this in my upcoming columns about ID. Simultaneously with the books by Wonderley and Newman, geologist Davis A. However, his scholarship is impeccable and everything he writes is well worth reading, whether or not it advances a concordist model. Rabbitt History of Geology Award in Reed responds to Young and several other conservative Reformed geologists who accept an old earth here.
Incidentally, I met all three of these men Wonderley, Newman, and Young not too long after their books came out. We were all involved with the American Scientific Affiliation. Readers who are very serious about Christianity and science should join that excellent organization: there simply is no substitute for the kind of live human interaction they foster.
No blog or list-serve can come close to matching it. OECs not only accept the geological evidence for antiquity, they also accept its implications for interpreting Genesis—including its implications for theodicy. OECs today still talk about death before the fall, partly because the absence of animal suffering prior to the fall is absolutely crucial to the YEC view of God and the Bible.
OECs hold similar views about God and the Bible, alongside different views about natural history, so pardon the pun they take great pains to explain pain in a manner consistent with their OEC stance.
A nice contemporary example is physicist David Snoke, who is also a licensed preacher in a very conservative denomination, the Presbyterian Church in America. A recent concordist book about theodicy by William Dembski has drawn substantial attention—partly because the author is a leading advocate of ID, and partly because when he wrote it he was teaching at a seminary owned by the Southern Baptist Convention, a denomination in which the YEC view has many influential advocates especially R.
Albert Mohler, Jr. Entitled The End of Christianity: Finding a Good God in an Evil World , Dembski states that this particular book, unlike his others, is not about ID, even though the problem of evil is highly relevant to the nature of an intelligent designer. Hugh Ross apparently thinks that millions of creatures were created separately. Of course, the crucial issue is human origins: whatever a given OEC thinks about how many other creatures were separately created, God created Adam and Eve ex nihilo!
Courtesy of Edward B. During the Reformation and the 17th century, the literal view received very strong support. Allegorical readings that had been viable alternatives in earlier centuries became increasingly unpopular among both Protestant and Catholic scholars. This language was grounded in the interpretation provided almost a century earlier by the greatest theologian of the 16th century, John Calvin. In his Commentary on Genesis , originally published in Latin in , Calvin said concerning Genesis ,.
Here the error of those is manifestly refuted, who maintain that the world was made in a moment. For it is too violent a cavil to contend that Moses distributes the work which God perfected at once into six days, for the mere purpose of conveying instruction.
Let us rather conclude that God himself took the space of six days, for the purpose of accommodating his works to the capacity of men… [God] distributed the creation of the world into successive portions, that he might fix our attention, and compel us, as if he had laid his hand upon us, to pause and to reflect.
In this pithy paragraph, Calvin juxtaposed the two main alternatives available to pre-modern interpreters of Genesis. The option Calvin defended, the literal creation week, was strongly favored by the early reformers and rooted in the earliest Christian commentaries. The option he rejected, in which all things were created instantaneously sometimes based on Ecclesiasticus , as Calvin indicated with evident disagreement , fell out of favor in early modern times, but it, too, was rooted in the earliest Christian commentaries—to say nothing of the great Jewish scholar, Philo of Alexandria, a contemporary of Jesus.
Stromata , Book 6, Chapter The instantaneous view was advanced especially by the most important Western theologian of the first millennium, Augustine of Hippo , who wrote a work in multiple versions called On the Literal Meaning of Genesis ca. Influenced by Ecclesiasticus , he taught that in the beginning God made matter and all material things simultaneously.
However, to aid our poor understanding, God told us about it in the pattern of six days. They indicate logical order, not temporal order, and must be interpreted subtly. How can this be? Were the first three days unlike the next three days in some way? As we will see in my next column, the fourth day is crucial to the Framework view, but the questions addressed by that modern view are not modern at all.
Before the late s, it was generally assumed that the entire pre-human world was at most only a few days older than humans. There was hardly any scientific evidence bearing on the age of humanity, the Earth, or the universe. People interpreted Genesis on its own , without knowledge of modern geology or modern astronomy or Ancient Near East literature. Peter Enns underscores the significance of this in his splendid book, The Evolution of Adam.
Given the pre-modern understanding, the question naturally arises: how old is the Earth, according to the Bible? Several specific dates have been endorsed, all clustering around years.
The traditional Jewish date since the 12th century for the creation of the world is either 29 March or 22 September BC. The Byzantine date, based on the Septuagint in which some of the genealogies are different from the Hebrew version , is 1 September BC.
AIG fails to use good science because their only arguments are to use scientifically-inaccurate claims to try to disprove scientific methods. In their attempt to do this, they fail to provide any proof or evidence of their own to demonstrate the earth is only 6, years as they claim.
In fact, they invalidate their own argument in their attempt. Nature: Molecular Clock Methods. Nature: Dating Rocks Using Methods. Skip to content. The Use of Radiometric Dating If the Earth is only 6, years old, why does radiometric dating techniques used by geologists suggest the age is around much older?
For more information on dating techniques and scientific evidence, check out these sites! And God has created every animal from water.
Of them there are some that creep on their bellies, some that walk on two legs and some that walk on four. God creates what he wills for verily God has power over all things. The Intelligent Design theory claims that some sort of supernatural designer was involved in the creation of life on Earth.
It differs from Creationism because it divorces Creationist ideas from their roots in Scripture. The important part of the Intelligent Design theory is "design", and the idea that the Universe and life must somehow be designed is a very old one, going right back to Aristotle.
Most intelligent design arguments avoid any reference to scripture and try to eliminate anything that might look as if it was derived from religious belief. This may be partly to ensure that the theory doesn't fall foul of the separation of Religion and State in the US constitution, since there seems no inherent reason why the designer shouldn't be 'God'.
In the case of Kitzmiller v. Dover USA the key issue was whether intelligent design was or was not science, because if it wasn't science then it would be a religious theory like creationism, and so could not be taught in US publically funded schools under the constitutional provision of the separation of religion and state.
The modern concept of intelligent design owes much to Phillip Johnson, an American professor of Law. Johnson published the book Darwin on Trial , and in established the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute. Johnson put ID forward not as a creationist theory, but as a theory that acknowledged that there was more to the development of life on Earth than could be explained by a totally naturalistic account. In the US and UK, significant groups of Christians believe that evolution is an unproved theory which may devalue religious belief, and want schools to teach pupils that creationism or intelligent design are alternative theories that should be considered.
This argument is very important in the USA because publicly funded schools must be religiously neutral under the Constitution, and so neither creationism nor intelligent design can be taught in such schools if they amount to religious theories.
Proponents of intelligent design and creation science have made several attempts to get these theories taught in school science lessons as alternatives to evolution, but American court decisions have generally concluded that both creationism and intelligent design are religious theories rather than scientific ones, and so are barred from the school system.
Creationism might be losing the battle in the courts, but it's very much alive in other aspects of US life. Over 2, participants took part in the survey, and were asked what best described their view of the origin and development of life:. In one UK examination board admitted that a biology course due to be introduced that September would encourage schools to consider alternatives to the theory of evolution. Search term:. Read more. This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets CSS enabled.
While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience.
0コメント