Hello Flyer,
I've been on a bit of a hiatus from posting on these forums, but I've still stopped by to read from time to time and stay up to speed with what goes on here at EvC. (Kudos to Percy for keeping it up and running in the midst of all these attacks). It's interesting to follow the development of threads and arguments, but also to see changes in individual posters' perspectives and viewpoints.
If you don't mind me asking, I've noticed that you've gone from what seemed a more open stance on biblical inerrancy vis--vis the age of the earth, to a more adamant YEC position. Is that an accurate observation? And if so, what has led you to become more closed to the possibility of a 4.5by old earth?
--------------------------------------------------
Now, in response to your post:
Flyer75 writes:
I'm a Biblical literalist and inerranst (is that the right word??). I believe God told us exactly what he wanted everyone to know, no matter the time period. In other words, I don't believe the God of the Bible is a God who sat back and said, "well, in the 19th century, they'll finally figure it out".
And yet God did leave us a lot to figure out in the 19th - 21st centuries. Besides the obvious scientific and technological discoveries like sanitation and penicillin (which you'll probably consider red herrings anyway since they don't figure in the Bible), a lot of doctrine and new ways of looking at scripture have developed over the years. Take Martin Luther or John Calvin as an example. Shall we reject their contributions to our understanding of scripture simply because they came on to the scene later with their ideas?
Flyer75 writes:
Ross, is one of those guys that for the "need to feel accepted in the scientific community" (amongst tons of others), has come up with a view of Scripture that tries to accommodate fallible man's science
Agreed. However, when there appears to be a mismatch between your understanding of scripture and the physical evidence, you have only three choices:
1. Change your view on scripture to accommodate the evidence
2. Lie about the evidence (and practice self-deception if you would avoid choice 3)
3. Just live with the cognitive dissonance
Ross clearly chose #1. It's up to you to explain why #2 or #3 is better.
Flyer75 writes:
First, the Bible doesn't say that the sun was created before the earth and only became visible later. That is an inference made by people (like Hugh Ross) that do not want to take the Bible for what it says.
I agree that Ross' interpretation of Genesis is a bit silly. It seems more honest to just go with "Genesis is an inspired myth" (as I do) than to treat it as allegory, and try to find scientific truth in it anyway. It's like saying: "Look, Genesis is allegory, except here where it gets this and this kinda right".
Flyer75 writes:
He further states: "The problem with an old-earth interpretation, which is driven solely by a desire to harmonize Scripture with secular scientific inferences, is that it opens the door to death before the fall, the loss of a historical Adam and Eve, which removes the proximal cause for the entry of sin into the world, and basically makes the first 11 books of the Bible irrelevant or completely unreliable. If you cannot read the Genesis narrative and understand it as hundreds of generations of Jews and Christians have, then the entire foundation of Christianity is destroyed.
I agree that OEC is driven by a desire to reconcile a creationist point of view with scientific knowledge, but beyond that we differ. I don't agree that death before the fall makes the entire bible unreliable or that it destroys the foundation of Christianity. And I think your friend takes an overly simplistic view of scripture. But, perhaps your or he could convince me otherwise if you can show me why.
Flyer75 writes:
The so-called 'scientific' evidence for an old earth is based on uniformitarian stratigraphy, radiometric geochronology, and a self-avowed bias against the Bible, first publicly popularized by Hutton and Lyell. The source of the underlying presuppositions for these is an anti-theistic worldview, not empirical science.
I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to call BS on your misguided notion that the scientific consensus is slanted by anti-theistic biases. A significant proportion of scientists are theists, including evolutionist Ken Miller, who I'm sure you've heard about. He clearly has a different point of view regarding scriptural inerrancy, but that doesn't make him any less Christian than you.
-------------------------------------------------------
In conclusion, I'll present my own opinion on Ross.
I started reading his books around 7th grade, after my grandfather gave me his "The Fingerprint of God". His books inspired my interest in science, and were my first real forays into "grown-up" science. Soon I had read 4 or 5 of his books, and had come to (somewhat) grasp concepts like radiometric dating, relativity, etc, beyond what I would have learned in school at the time. I believe it was partly thanks to Ross that I reached the top percentiles of my class, especially in math and physics.
Besides inspiring me to learn about science, his books bolstered my faith substantially. I even found them to be a useful witnessing tool in a predominantly secular country (I grew up in Sweden). One day in 9th grade I asked my science teacher to let me give a presentation on the anthropic principle to the class. I took a week or so to prepare it, and then when I gave the presentation that I had intended to go on for half an hour, questions from the students and the teacher made it last for the full two hours of the class. The students were impressed by Ross' arguments for the improbability of life. But not so much as the teacher who told me it was great because: "most of them are probably never going to get to hear this argument again" (I don't know whether my teacher was a believer, although in retrospect I wonder if she may have been). She then gave me a book by Stephen Hawking: "The Universe in a Nutshell", and told me I'd make a great scientist someday.
I maintained an interest in origins throughout High School, occasionally having discussions and mini-debates with friends of mine. Finally deciding that I needed to know all sides of the debate, I picked up a book by Richard Dawkins, "The Ancestor's Tale". It made so much sense, and I was surprised to see the sheer magnitude of evidence for evolution. Evidence that Ross never seemed to mention in his treatment of the theory. I was disappointed and severely disillusioned with creationism, and ever since I have continued to study and explore the topic of origins. I'm now in my second year of college, and since I began reading Ross 8 years ago, I have gone from being at first a YEC to an OEC, TE, and finally an "evolutionist who is also a theist". (There is a subtle difference between the two)
Sorry to put you through those rather lengthy auto-biographical paragraphs. My point is, thanks to Ross and his more "honest" approach to science, I was dislodged from what might have been a life as a more close-minded YEC. So I owe him a great deal for awakening my interest on this issue.
On the other hand, I think he misrepresents the evidence and deludes the public as all other creation scientists do. His only virtue is that most of his discussions on cosmology are scientifically sound, even if he screws up on scripture and biology. Whereas YEC scientists screw up all three, in my opinion.
Respectfully,
-Meldinoor
Edited by Meldinoor, : Slight clarification
Edited by Meldinoor, : No reason given.
™ Version 4.2
(1)
