Six Views on the Creation/Evolution Debate

What convincing evidence is there that today’s ANE scholars are more familiar with ANE than scholars (eg Josephus) who were thousands of years closer to the original? Further, this evidence must show why they incorrectly understood the creation days and global flood of Genesis.

Today’s ANE scholars (at least Walton, as he said so) begin with the premise that the traditional understanding of Genesis simply *cannot be true* and thus are looking for an alternative. This bias greatly effects their work.

All scholars work from their own bias. The idea of an unbiased seeker of object truth is a myth. We are all human.

richard,

How about you actually address the many excellent lines of evidence that John laid out for you before you start harping about Walton’s “bias”? Walton’s biases line up with observable, testable reality and the ANE context of Israel and the nations surrounding Israel. What does your position have going for it (scientifically or historically)?

As an aside, modern scholars have access to much better textual and archaeological evidence than Josephus would have had. Much, much better. Textual sources are even greatly improved since the time of the KJV translation in the early 1600s.

gabriel,

I never did get to listen to the end of Walton’s presentation. However, I don’t understand at all how he comes to the conclusion from the Bible that the word for create used in Genesis one never means to create material things, only functionalities. I read every verse in the Bible where that word is used in an online concordance and I simply can not follow his reasoning at all. That fact alone makes me have to doubt the rest of what he is saying. Unless there is something that I have missed completely, what he is saying is simply not backed up by any reading of Scripture that I have done.

As an aside, modern scholars have access to much better textual and archaeological evidence than Josephus would have had. Much, much better. Textual sources are even greatly improved since the time of the KJV translation in the early 1600s.

The 1600’s is not at issue. How do you know what resources were available to Josephus, and the earlier scholars that he referenced?

Regarding post # 99 etc,

There are obviously different ways that the term ancient near east is used and understood. I just noted a couple of web sites, although certainly not technical ones, that spoke of Jesus time as being ANE. One was referring to the wedding at Cana that Jesus attended and spoke of ANE wedding customs.

richard,

most of what we know about ANE cultures comes from archaeological finds. Archaeology wasn’t an interest of cultures at or before Josephus’ time.

cheryl,

I read every verse in the Bible where that word is used in an online concordance and I simply can not follow his reasoning at all. That fact alone makes me have to doubt the rest of what he is saying.

Sigh. Not meaning to be impolite, but do you really think that a few minutes with an english concordance is enough to evaluate an entire field of research? You may as well read a few verses of Genesis here and there and decide that my field (genetics) is similarly invalid. Do you really think you are skilled enough to evaluate Walton’s arguments fairly? Do you even understand how academic scholarship works? I’m not saying these things to be unkind, but to request that you humbly evaluate your approach to these issues.

We know a great deal about the ANE mindset. We have their written records, we have their pottery, their temples, their gods, their burial grounds, we have objects they produced and buried, we have what they write about each other, etc. We know about their literary conventions, we know about their language and phrases, we know about their clothing, we know about their agriculture and the weather they faced. We know about the myths they believed in, and their laws and marriage traditions and how they farmed and how they disciplined their children. We know about their money and what they valued as important. We know about their morals.

As Greg and Dave Z have constantly had to point out and remind readers of this blog, Moses did not write with 21sth century A.D. questions on his mind, nor did he have any inkling of the 21st century dispute over physical science. He was writing to a people who were facing different issues and problems.

YECs consistently fail to deal with ANE language, culture, etc., in favour of a flat, 21st century interpretation of scripture and fearmongering about what will happen if Christians “abandon” a belief in a 144 hour creation week. I’m sure convinced about that last bit, given that H. Ross, G. Wenham and H. Blocher and M. Kline, etc., and of course me, have all give up our faith in Jesus and become Satanists as a result of not believing in a 144 hour creation week.

Richard has failed to deal with EricW’s posts on Rabbis and the Talmud, which is a sufficient refutation of Richard’s point (aside from the obvious fact that Richard’s alleged proof is an example of the fallacy of authority and the fallacy of tradition and so proves nothing at all).

I would also note:

-Talmud Chaggiga 13b-14a states that there were 974 generations before God created Adam.

-“The Guide for the Perplexed”is one of the major works of Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon, better known as Maimonides or “the Rambam”. Book 2 of The Guide begins with the exposition of the physical structure of the universe, as seen by Maimonides. The world-view asserted in the work is essentially Aristotelian, with a spherical earth in the centre, surrounded by concentric Heavenly Spheres. I guess Richard believes that too, since the Rambam taught it and he was soooo much closer to the ANE world and understood their thought sooo much better even though he did not have the benefit of either archaeology or reading the original cuniform tablets and other texts (like more modern scholars).

Gee, here is another reason why the Rambam is sooo persuasive in his understanding of Genesis: his interpretation of other passages in Genesis is so literal and straightforward and obviously true.

The Rambam, in Book 2 of The Guide: “. . . as I shall explain when treating of the homonymity of ben (son). In this figurative sense, the verb yalad (to bear) is employed when it is said of Adam,” And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat (va-yoled) . . .

[cont. from my post 808]

The Rambam: “. . . as I shall explain when treating of the homonymity of ben (son). In this figurative sense, the verb yalad (to bear) is employed when it is said of Adam,” And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat (va-yoled) a son in his own likeness, in his form” (Gen. V. 3). As regards the words,” the form of Adam, and his likeness,” we have already stated (ch. i.) their meaning. Those sons of Adam who were born before that time were not human in the true sense of the word, they had not” the form of man.” With reference to Seth who had been instructed, enlightened and brought to human perfection, it could rightly be said,” he (Adam) begat a son in his likeness, in his form.” It is acknowledged that a man who does not possess this” form” (the nature of which has just been explained) is not human, but a mere animal in human shape and form. Yet such a creature has the power of causing harm and injury, a power which does not belong to other creatures. For those gifts of intelligence and judgment with which he has been endowed for the purpose of acquiring perfection, but which he has failed to apply to their proper aim, are used by him for wicked and mischievous ends; he begets evil
things, as though he merely resembled man, or simulated his outward appearance. Such was the condition of those sons of Adam who preceded Seth. In reference to this subject the Midrash says:” During the 130 years when Adam was under rebuke he begat spirits, i.e., demons; when, however, he was again restored to divine favour” he begat in his likeness, in his form.” This is the sense of the passage,” Adam lived one hundred and thirty years, and he begat in his likeness, in his form” (Gen. v. 3). (from book 2, chapter 7 of The Guide for the Perplexed, 1904 translation, http://www.teachittome.com/seforim2/seforim/the_guide_for_the_perplexed.pdf)

Wow, those Rabbis sure knew how to preserve the original interpretation and meaning of Genesis. I didn’t realize that Richard and the YECs believed that Genesis taught figuratively and that it taught that Adam and Eve gave birth to demons. I gotta make sure I stick with what the Rabbis teach, as it is sooo obviously more correct than anything a modern scholar might dream up.

And of course the Rambam taught that Genesis can only be interpreted literally, and that the ancients did so too: “CHAPTER XVII
Do not imagine that only Metaphysics should be taught with reserve to the common people and to the uninitiated: for the same is also the case with the greater part of Natural Science. In this sense we have repeatedly made use of the expression of the Sages,” Do not expound the chapter on the Creation in the presence of two” [vide Introd. page 2]. This principle was not peculiar to our Sages: ancient philosophers and scholars of other nations were likewise wont to treat of the principia rerum obscurely, and to use figurative language in discussing such subjects.”

John, yet another non-response post. The argument under consideration is *not* whether rabbinic writings are source of truth. I’ve certainly made no such claim, nor have I seen anyone else do so on in this blog.

The argument presented (and refuted) here is:

YEC understanding is a result of reading our modern scientific worldview into Genesis.

The quotes of ancient rabbi’s, Josephus, etc prove this is false.

Gabriel,

Regarding # 07,

Was not the whole beginning of Walton’s presentation based on the fact that the word used for create in the Bible is never used to refer to material things, only functionalities?

Like I said, I read all of the verses in the Bible where this word is used. Some obviously do refer to functionalities, but many of them speak of material things. And this is what he is denying. Now of course I suppose you might argue that I simply don’t understand the meaning of any of those verses, or that the translators have worded it all incorrectly. If either of those are true, I guess I had better just stop reading anything at all because I am hopelessly illiterate or I had certainly better not trust the Bible to be telling the truth about anything!

If he is basing an argument completely or in part on something that I can not substantiate in any way from a reading of all of the verses he gave to prove his point, why should I not question him?

(By the way, remember that he posted Scriputure verses using that word, so I would assume that he intended people to look at them.)

cheryl,

yes, you’ve misunderstood Walton. Try listening to his talk again. He is not saying that bara is only used to describe non-material items. His point is that the ANE understanding of bara is not “to bring into material existence” but “to endow with functionality.” Many of the items in Genesis 1 are material entities. Walton is making the point that the ANE focus in the creation story is not “when and how did these things get made?” but rather “who controls and endows these things with function in the cosmos?” One of the first examples, early in the talk, is about light – a material entity. The ANE understanding of “create” in this case is not “when and how did God make photons?” but rather “who is the author and controller of this cosmic function?”

Cheryl,

I’ve quoted part of Walton’s own blog in post 784. You can read more here:
http://www.koinoniablog.net/2008/09/we-have-been-di.html

Notice that the ANE advocates have so far been silent on responding to my questions, such as those repeated in post 784. It appears that they can’t back up what they’re saying, other than to claim Walton et al are “scholars” so we should believe them.

gabriel:

Re: your post #812

Richard Elliott Friedman in his Torah translation and commentary states that Genesis 1:1-2 does NOT teach creation ex nihilo. This statement of Friedman’s seems like it could support what I think you are saying that Walton is meaning when Walton says the bara is not about bringing things into existence.

Gabriel,

I did listen to the first part of Walton’s presentation again. In it, starting at approximately 10 minutes, he very specifically says that the Hebrew word for create never means creating material things, but only establishing functionalities or roles.

It may be that he says something else in other of his works, but that is definetly what he says there. (I have listened to that part at least 3 times now).

Gabriel wrote:

Archaeology wasn’t an interest of cultures at or before Josephus’ time.

I find such statements very interesting. How can we know what someone 2000 yrs ago did not do? Can you provide references?

Re post 913 and 916. Richard, perhaps you should go into those big buildings filled with bound sheets of paper called “books”. The buildings are called “libaries” in English. There you will find lots of bound. I say the forgoing tongue in cheek, only because I find Richard’s response about ANE cultures to be anti-knowledge and quite funny, though probably unintentionally funny. Richard’s post 784 is not a refutation of anything, but only a questioning of Walton’s theses. I note also that Richard does not provide any evidence that of what ANE peoples believed, or that they believed in the same manner as YECs.

As for YECs foisting science questions onto Genesis that the ANE peoples did not ask, Richard has not gone to any source or reference work on ANE people’s but to the works of medieval Rabbis and Josephus. I have quite clearly shown that the Rabbis did not preserve some pure tradition about Genesis, or about the interpretation of any parts of the Bible. Thus they do not support any of Richard’s contentions (Richard, by the way, has been unable to refute any actual science, and so now has retreated to arguing about interpretations.)

That some Rabbi’s interpreted the creation week as 144 days has nothing to do with the issues of science (flood geology, rapid post flood evolution, massive plate tectonic movements during the flood, time dilation, theories of relativity, etc.) that YECs introduce into the text. Moreover, and this is the fundamental point, ANE peoples did not have any physical sciences, such as geology or radiometric dating, etc., that they needed to relate to their theology. They did not have the science – theology conflicts that YECs allege, that is, they did not have a conflict between science proving that the earth is old on the one hand and an allegedly infallible interpretation of Genesis that tells us that the earth is young. That is the issue and question of science that YECs insert and the issue that ANE people’s had no knowledge of.

That issue was still not present at the time of Josephus or Maimonides. Rabbis at the time were dealing with Platonic and other Greek philosphical theories about the eternal existence of matter and time. Most (but not all) Jewish Rabbis held that God created both matter and time (though the phrase “ex nihilo” was a Christian invention). Thus when Maimonides, etc. argue about the nature of creation and the days of creation, there are not arguing against a science that indicates a great age for the universe, but against (mostly pagan) philosophers who were arguing that the universe was eternal. That is a HUGE difference, and one that invalidates the propositions that Richard has been trying to derive from Rabbinic literature.

Maimonides in particular did not require Genesis to be interpreted literally. [cont.]

[cont. from my post 817]

The works of Maimonides and other Jews who wrote about creation must also be handled carefully, because they believed it was wrong to discuss the secrets of creation publicly, or before those who were not worthy and who had not been properly trained. Inote also that there was a longstanding Rabbinic dispute about what God used, if anything, to create the various things described in Genesis.

In countering the beliefs of philosophers who believed in the eternal existence of time and matter (though Maimonides was not unalterably opposed to the eternal existence of time), he wrote in his Guide to the Perplexed that God created the entire universe and all it contains on the first day. The remaining days are a description of how God revealed and organized his creation.

“In short, in these questions, do not take notice of the utterances of any person. I told you that the foundation of our faith is the belief that God created the Universe from nothing; that time did not exist previously, but was created: for it depends on the motion of the sphere, and the sphere has been created. You must know that the particle et in the phrase et ha-shamayim ve-et ha-arez (” the heavens and the earth” ) signifies” together with” : our Sages have explained the word in the same sense in many instances. Accordingly they assume that God created with the heavens everything that the heavens contain, and with the earth everything the earth includes. They further say that the simultaneous Creation of the heavens and the earth is implied in the words,” I call unto them, they stand up together” (Ps. xlviii.). Consequently, all things were created together, but were separated from each other successively. Our Sages illustrated this by the following simile : We sow various seeds at the same time; some spring forth after one day, some after two, and some after three days, although all have been sown at the same time. According to this interpretation, which is undoubtedly correct, the difficulty is removed . . . In Bereshit Rabba, our Sages, speaking of the light created on the first day according to the Scriptural account, say as follows: these lights [of the luminaries mentioned in the Creation of the fourth day] are the same that were created on the first day, but were only fixed in their places on the fourth day. The meaning [of the first verse] has thus been clearly stated.”

In this regard, one should note the literary nature of the Genesis text and pay attention to the words used. During the time of Moses and the ANE peoples, other nations had mythologies of conflict between the gods and monsters and between gods and chaos. Some of this is reflected in such verses as Psalm 74:12-15 and Isaiah 51:9-10. Moses counters these beliefs by describing God’s creation as unopposed; all God has to do is say something and immediately it is as He has said.

Furthermore, even apart from whether Walton’s discussion of “bara” is correct, it is important that that word is uniquely used in Genesis 1. It appears only in Gen. 1:1. that firs sentence stands apart from everything else in Genesis 1 and 2.

In Genesis 1:7 and Gen. 1:31 it states that God made the firmanent and all creation (respectively). In Genesis 1:4 it says that God separated the light from darkness. In Genesis 2:7 it says that God formed man from the dust of the earth. Isaiah 45:7and 48:13 state that God spread out the light and formed light. The variation in wording is significant and we must decide what to make of it. Did God engage in several different activities in the first 6 days, or do the various words all describe the same activity. In other words, was the only creation from nothing (ex nihilo) activity in the first verse of Genesis, and the remaining words speak to what God did with what he created? Is initial creation fundamentally different from the production of one existing thing from another?

These considerations lead one to literary investigations. As part of a more fulsome and accurate presentation of the various plausible interpretations of Genesis, I give below some aspects of the
literary framework interpretations of Genesis 1, as might be found in the works of such authors as Meredith Kline, Gordon Wenham (an evangelical) or Henri Blocher, and which has some antecedants in the works of St. Augustine of Hippo (it is often just called the “framework view”). The seven day “framework” in Genesis 1 is, within this view, not seen as meant to be chronological but rather is seen as a literary or symbolic structure designed to reinforce the purposefulness of God in creation and the Sabbath commandment. The framework view argues that the “Creation week” should be read as a monotheistic polemic on creation theology directed against pagan creation myths. Klein and others have pointed out that Genesis 1 is built upon a literary framework where the sequence of events is topical rather than chronological, and builds to the establishment of the Sabbath

Structural / Framework Aspects of the Text of Genesis

Polemics

A polemic text on a topic, such as Genesis 1 & 2 on creation, is written to dispute or refute a position or theory that is widely viewed to be beyond reproach. This fits the ancient near eastern setting, which was characterized by a milieu of competing world-views, deities and theories about creation. Framework advocates argue that the author of Genesis constructed his creation account with the intention of combating these various animistic, pantheistic and polytheistic ideas. For example, Genesis 1:16 counters the religious views of those who worshipped the sun and moon as deities because in the text the sun and the moon are deliberately not mentioned by their names.

#John1453:

Re: Rambam’s comment:

I thought that the Hebrew particle et (aleph tav):

1. can mean “(together) with” and
2. functions as the accusative/direct object marker

Context determines how it is being used and/or what it means – i.e., whether to translate it as “with” or to not translate it because it simply indicates the object of the verb.

Is this a bit of rabbinic legerdemain whereby they sometimes freight words or texts with extra or double meanings or see “hidden” meanings in the text?

I think I read from some rabbis somewhere that the word et here in Genesis 1:1 signifies that God created here everything when he created the heavens and the earth because the word et is made of the first and the last letters of the Hebrew alphabet, and hence implies from first to last and contains everything in between – i.e., everything. 🙂

re post 820: Possibly, EricW, I don’t know.

[cont. from my post 819]

The text is thus written to convey the point that the one true Elohim (the God of Israel; Phoenecian, Canaanite, and Babylonian cultures also worshiped El as a supreme god, though eventually Baal rose to supremacy over El) as supremely transcendent and sovereign over creation. The details of the creation account in Geneis thus serve this end, rather than to satisfy the scientific curiosity of the modern era. Accordingly, it is argued that it is the YEC literalists (who wish to derive scientific data from Genesis) that commit the hermeneutic error of interpreting the text outside of its original context.

Literary Structure

Genesis 1 represents a unique literary genre which differs significantly from the later, straightforward narrative sections of Genesis, because the text is full of repetitive formulae, symbolism and quasi-poetic language (poetic features like parallelism (Genesis 1:27; Gen. 2:2) and Hebrew alliteration (Genesis 1:1)). Such language does not mean that Genesis 1 & 2 are merely legends or not true. As Lee Irons states, “The days are ordinary solar days, but taken as a whole, the total picture of the divine work week is figurative. Although the temporal framework has a non-literal meaning, the events narrated within the days are real historical events of divine creative activity.” ((2000) “The Framework Interpretation: An Exegetical Summary” )

Structurally, Genesis 1 consists of eight acts of creation within a six day framework. Each of the first three days is an act of division: dark/light, waters/skies, sea/land & plants. In the next three days this framework is populated: heavenly bodies for the dark and light, fish and birds for the seas and skies, animals and (finally) man for the land. This six-day structure is symmetrically bracketed by day zero when primeval chaos reigns and day seven representing cosmic order.

The same literary structure is used to construct an overal structure for Genesis 1 – 11. Genesis 1 – 11 mimics or retraces Genesis 1’s intricate structure of parallel halves. The first half runs from Creation to Noah, the second from the Flood to Abraham. Each half is marked by the passage of ten generations (ten from Adam to Noah, another ten from Noah to Abraham). In the first half, God creates a perfect world for man, but man sins and God eventually returns his creation to its original state of chaos (i.e., the water of tehom). In the second half, man finds himself in a newly created post-Flood world, as if given a chance to start again, but sins again (the Tower). But the result the second time is different: God choses Abram and makes his name (Heb. shem) great. [cont.]

Richard,

Re: Post #784

meaning YEC. However, this has *not* been shown to be implausible.

Like water off a duck’s back….

If it makes me *wrong*, then it would also make Walton *wrong* …

Hypocritical. Your holding someone up to a standard that you yourself do not adhere to. You chastise people because they search for an alternative interpretation when science has shown the previously held one to be implausible.

I will quote from post #358 that explains your hypocrisy:

Did you know you use science to inform your view of scripture? You interpret any verse on the placement and movement of the sun and earth phenomenologically. Not because you understand scripture better than Luther, Calvin, and the Catholic Church. No, you understand the science of astronomy. Because of that, you know the verses cannot be understood literally, unlike the church prior to Copernicus and Galileo. Why did the church change? Why do we know all those great interpreters of scripture were wrong?

Be careful what you accuse me of doing. You may be guilty of it too.

If you aren’t a geocentrist, then you use science to inform your interpretation of geocentric verses. That is why you interpret them phenomenologically.

Or, let me put it very plainly:

RICHARD USES SCIENCE TO GUIDE HIS INTERPRETATIONS

An obvious reach. Since when is the cosmos, people, creatures, etc *not material* in nature??

Did you read the comments on Walton’s blog? A reader asked a similar question and Walton responded.

Joe
I am not sure I understand.

Aren’t all of the following material in nature?

If the cosmos, people, blacksmiths, Israel, geographic objects, etc. are not material what are they?

Cosmos (10, including New Cosmos)
People in general (10)
Specific groups of people (6)
Specific individuals or types of individuals (5)
Creatures (2)
Components of cosmic geography (3)

I am sure I am just being dense as this is probably supposed to be obvious.

Thanks,

Joe

John H.Walton
Thanks for the chance to clarify Joe. It is not that any of these are not material at all. Israel is arguably material, but when the text says God created Israel it is not talking about him creating (materially) each and every Israelite. God is the originator of the idea of Israel and the group that is Israel–of the people. It is not a material statement. He has caused them to function as a people–as HIS people. Even in cases where the object of the verb is potentially material, it is also potentially functional. The fact is, however, that there are many occurrences where it can ONLY be functional. There are no passages where it can ONLY be material. This leads us to focus on the functional aspects.

John wrote:

Furthermore, even apart from whether Walton’s discussion of “bara” is correct, it is important that that word is uniquely used in Genesis 1. It appears only in Gen. 1:1. that firs sentence stands apart from everything else in Genesis 1 and 2.

What?

According to everything that I’ve read, ‘bara’ is used in verses 1, 21, and three times in 27 of Gen 1.

Richard,

Re: Post #784

Greg, Gabriel, John and all push ANE, but continue to avoid my challenge to explain why the terms of time and distance measurement in the flood account can’t be properly understood.

John, and all of his posts, says hi!

Seems to me your grasping at straws, but I’ll give it a shot.

Just off the top of my head, but does it anywhere say in the Bible how long a cubit is? I can’t recall one, maybe you can? If not, how do you know how long a cubit is, biblically? Or must we get the information from studying ANE archeology and literature, etc.? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubit)

😉

But anyways, I don’t see how time should come into this discussion. Surely a large globally local flood such as that would hang around for a while. And I wouldn’t bring questions of physics into this discussion. They are a much bigger problem for YEC than for anyone else. Like how all the global flood water could evaporate so quickly.

I gave a brief description of the ANE concept of the world in post #68 as it related to the flood. Another aspect of it that I didn’t mention, but is important (and all from memory, mind you), is that the so-called “foundations of Heaven”, that is, the mountains that held up the firmament, off in the distance, were not necessarily included in an ancient’s descriptions of the local geography. They were in a different “class”, so to speak.

But all the smaller mountains in the general area were included, so I see no discrepancy here in anything that you found a problem with. It certainly helps to realize also that the Hebrew word for “mountain” in the flood account (har) can also refer to hills, which is how it was translated in the KJV.

Re post 823: Yes, Richard you are correct and I was unclear and incorrect in relation to the appearance of “bara” overall in Genesis 1 & 2. I meant to contrast the use of bara with the other words for God’s activity and note that the author of Genesis intended such distinctions. I was focussing on the first three days (the first triad in Genesis 1). Anyway, I typed too quickly, so thanks for the correction. However, the correction does not change my point.

I note also, that the Jewish Encyclopaedia (1906 edition), it states ” Most Jewish philosophers find in (Gen. i. 1) creation ex nihilo (). The etymological meaning of the verb , however, is “to cut out and put into shape,” and thus presupposes the use of material. This fact was recognized by Ibn Ezra and Naḥmanides, for instance (commentaries on Gen. i. 1; see also Maimonides, “Moreh Nebukim,” ii. 30), and constitutes one of the arguments in the discussion of the problem.”

I note also that Rabbis have disputed whether the earth was created first or the heavens, and disputed how many “elements” God used in creation.

Before I continue with a further explication of the literary nature of Genesis 1, I note that you have not yet responded to the geocentricity argument that has been raised against the YEC interpretive principle.

The literary aspects of Genesis that I raise must be taken into account, even if one does not subscribe to the “Framework View”.

[cont. from my post 821]

A literary framework also makes sense of the conflicting chronologies between Genesis 1 and 2 (which the YEC view does not).The first account, in Genesis 1, which uses the Hebrew word Elohim in reference to God, places the creation of man and woman on the sixth day, at the very end of creation. In contrast, the second account, which begins in Gensis 2:4 uses the name “Yahweh” for God and has plants, animals and birds created after the man. This apparent “conflict” is a further indication that the treatment of creation is topical rather than chronological.

Symbolism

The number 7 was very symbolic in the Ancient Near East, and is symbolic within the Bible generally. The number 7 occurs prominently both in the text and structure of Genesis. Seven was regarded as a significant number in the ancient Near East. It has been argued that the author of has intentionally embedded it into the text in a number of ways, besides the obvious seven-day framework: the word “God” occurs 35 times (7 × 5) and “earth” 21 times (7 × 3). The phrases “and it was so” and “God saw that it was good” occur 7 times each. The first sentence of contains 7 Hebrew words, and the second sentence contains 14 words, while the verses about the seventh day contain 35 words in total. [cont.]

Re post 824

Greg makes some very valid points. In addition, the ANE Hebrews would not only have noticed the literary aspects of Genesis 1 & 2 that I point out, but those literary aspects would have been very important to them because they had a primarily oral culture and they memorized lengthy stories, and when the Bible was written they memorized large portions of it as well (it is also likely that not only did Moses draw on oral histories and stories regarding creation and the generations of Adam, but he also likely had written texts to draw on as well. The Hebrews were not completely illiterate).

Contination of Literary Aspects and Symbology, etc.

The word shem (“name”) also has symbolic and structural significance: in Genesis 1, God names the elements of his Creation; in Genesis 2, “the man” (not at this stage named Adam), names the creatures over which he has been given dominion; Noah’s eldest son is “Shem”, and Yahweh is identified as “the God of Shem,” ancestor of Abraham and the Chosen People.

Structural Triad with Recapitulation and Repitition

The framework view observes that Genesis 1 has a deliberate double grouping of threes (days 1 – 3 are one group, days 4 – 6 another). This literary framework suggests that the several creative works of God have been arranged for theological and literary, rather than chronological and scientific reasons. Such a repetitive grouping, with the second grouping adding further theological and other details is a known structure in written Hebrew.

In the first grouping we have
(1) light on day 1,
(2) sky and seas on day 2, and
(3) dry land and vegetation on day 3.

In the second grouping we have
(1) the sun and moon and other luminaries on day 4,
(2) winged creatures (sky creatures) and sea creatures on day 5, and
(3) mankind on day 6.

Meredith Kline notes that the second grouping provides the rulers or governors or inhabitants that correspond to the three kingdoms or realms created in the first three days. So, for example, with days 1 and 4 we have the basic creation of light described in a manner that opposes the Egyptian and Babylonian myths, and then on day 4 we are provided with further details about the exact mechanisms or bodies that produce the light. The obvious implication is that the sun and moon and stars were not created on the “fourth day”, but on the “first day”. The use of “days” is a literary approach that sets up God’s establishment of an analogical cycle for mankind: 6 days of work and 1 day of rest. [cont.; I’m going in to more detail on these literary issues not only because they are important to all interpretations, but also because Richard complains about the lack of detail in what Greg and DaveZ and I have set out]

Richard,

Can you tell me what it means for God to create something? I’d be interested in understanding this in relation to Genesis 1 with some examples. I want to see what you place an emphasis on.

*Honest question*

I just copied all posts into a Word doc – 407 pages – it’s a book!

[cont. from 826]

The Description of God as Working Through Ordinary Processes

Genesis 2:5, which describes a time when the earth had no vegetation, clearly shows that God creates through the ordinary processes of “nature”, through the constants and regularities that He has embedded in creation and which continue to operate in that same manner in the present day. He did not create by way of making full grown trees and plants to appear instantaneously, with all the appearance of age and maturity. Rather, He had the plants grow naturally, from within the ground, as they received water. And what is the explanation that God Himself gives for the absence of vegetation? A natural explanation that any ANE person and any person alive today would understand: “for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth”.

Furthermore, it is obvious to both ANE peoples and modern readers that on Monday (day 2 of creation) there was plenty of water (water and land get separated), so how can there be a lack of water for plant growth on Tuesday (day 2 of creation) as indicated by Genesis 2:5? Are we to believe that God is hesitant to create plants on Tuesday morning because there is a lack of water until the afternoon? Why the details about the reason for the absence of plants? As Meredith Kline writes, “How can a serious exegete fail to see that such a reconstruction of a “Tuesday morning” in a literal creation week is completely foreign to the historical perspectives of Gen. 2:5? It is a strange blindness that questions the orthodoxy of all who reject the traditional twenty-four-hour day theory when the truth is that endorsement of that theory is incompatible with belief in the self-consistency of the Scriptures.” (“Because It Had Not Rained”, 1958).

“The scenario conjured by the literalists’ solar-day interpretation is, in fact, utterly alien to the climate and tenor of Gen. 2:5. Within the flurry of stupendous events which their view entails, each new cosmic happening coming hard on the heels of the last and all transpiring within a few hours or days, the absence of vegetation or anything else at any given point would not last long enough to occasion special consideration of the reasons for it. Within that time-frame such a question would be practically irrelevant. Gen. 2:5 reflects an environmental situation that has obviously lasted for a while; it assumes a far more leisurely pace on the part of the Creator, for whom a thousand years are as one day. (“Space and Time in the Genesis Cosmogony”, by Meredith G. Kline, in Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, 48:2-15 (1996)).

[That’s it, except for some links to further reading and some bio’s on some of the writers on this topic. Back to catching up with my index]

Regards,
#John

P.S. still waiting for a YEC to engage the science. They can’t do it, but the effort is informative and demonstrative of the many failings of that system.

corals – not “coffin nails”

Many absolute assertions have been made in this blog, without even a citation. If fact entire sections of documents have been copied, and then very slightly edited. For example, John (post 721and 728) wrote about coral reefs. He begins:

“Studies of reef growth in the modern Pacific show that even under ideal conditions, the growth of the actual reefs is only on the order of 8-10mm a year. It is true that individual corals can grow a bit faster than this, but this cannot be used to estimate the growth rate of the *reef* itself, since the reef is not one giant coral, but is largely composed of billions of coral fragments that are broken by waves and cemented to the growing mass.”

…

Carbon dating of drowned reefs on the side of Hawaii show that it has subsided at this slow rate for hundreds of thousands of years.

Almost all of this set of posts comes from http://www.asa3.org/asa/education/ORIGINS/coralreefs.htm. This article is an assembly and the section John copied from is titled as “Reefs and Young-Earth Creationism” by EarthHistory.org. Unfortunately that domain is now for sale. I did find what may be the original article at http://www.geocities.com/earthhistory/reef.htm however there is no author listed. So the best I can tell, John copied from an anonymous article. If there is another source, John please tell us. However, the source isn’t very important. What got me looking was the ridiculous statement about using carbon dating to measure “hundreds of thousands of years”. This is impossible as it’s only good for about 50,000 yrs. This seemed like an obvious blunder and I didn’t think John would make this up…

I’ll provide the YEC response later in this set of posts, but first I must deal with the “poison the well” tactic that has been used…
[continued]

corals – not “coffin nails” (continued from post 830)

The YEC who has probably done the most research on coral growth is Dr. Ariel Roth. John also wrote the following:

Finally, in 1981 there was a trial of a recently passed Arkansas law which required that creationism be taught in schools (McLean v. Arkansas). The creationist witness Dr. Ariel Roth testified in respect of, among other things, the rate of coral growth:

“Roth, [who was] not a member of the CRS [Creation Research Society], was presented as an expert on coral reefs whose thesis is that corals grow very rapidly and do not need millions of years to form massive reefs. He testified for 70 minutes, but the cross-examination was brief. Q: “What is the last sentence of your article on the growth of coral reefs?” A: “…this does not establish rapid growth of coral development.” Q: “Is there any evidence that coral reefs were created in recent times?” A: “No.” Q: “No further questions.”” (Berra, Tim M. 1990. Evolution and the Myth of Creationism Standford University Press, Stanford, California, pp. 134-5) See also the McLean v. Arkansas Documentation Project, http://www.antievolution.org/projects/mclean/new_site/index.htm

Now Dr. Roth’s 1979 article in question (see below) clearly provides analysis that addresses corals from a YEC perspective. For him to make the statements attributed to him would mean that he is a complete moron and deliberately deceitful. Of course, it’s easy for John and other OEs to believe this as they are constantly told this is the case — in fact this attitude has been clearly conveyed all too often in this blog.

Regarding the supposed cross-examination of Roth, had John followed his own link to the documents, he’d have found that the defense testimony was not transcribed, and (conveniently) the short-hand is also missing.

http://www.antievolution.org/projects/mclean/new_site/index.htm
“An effort was made to obtain the defendant’s portion of the trial transcript. Unfortunately, it had not been transcribed at the time of the case (the state of Arkansas did not appeal Overton’s ruling). This meant that we would be paying page transcription charges, not just copying charges. However, the court reporter said that her request for the original shorthand record came back with a “not found” result. These materials have apparently been mislaid at the storage facility that the state of Arkansas uses for older legal records. ”

[continued]

corals – not “coffin nails” (continued from post 831)

Also, there is an accounting of these very days of testimony, from the anti-creationist organisation NCSE, including comments on Roth’s testimony and the cross-examination testimony from others on the same day. However, the supposed Roth question and answer is not there. If the account were true, NCSE would never cover it up. The only reasonable conclusion is that it never happened.
http://ncseweb.org/cej/3/1/victory-arkansas

Finally the last sentence of Roth’s article says “Our present knowledge does not preclude rapid rates of development; some factors definitely facilitate it.” not what is claimed in the cross-examination story. Thus the evidence is that Berra simply made it up, and it has been faithfully repeated ad nauseum. Now why would this occur? Because Dr. Roth’s work deals with the issue of corals quite well.

(http://www.grisda.org/origins/06088.htm) Dr. Roth (PhD Biology) directed a university team for underwater research on coral, which was sponsored by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. He wrote:

“Rates of coral and coral reef growth have been studied by a number of investigators. Chave, Smith and Roy (1972) have analyzed some of the findings of other investigators and suggest net rates of growth of 0.8 to 26 mm/year. The net growth rate of a reef is the combination of total carbonate production less carbonate losses by biological, chemical and physical factors. Odum and Odum (1955) suggest a growth rate of 80 mm/year. Smith and Kinsey (1976), using an analysis of the CO2 system in seawater, suggest growth of 2-5 mm/year. Adey (1978) feels that this figure is too low for Atlantic reefs that must grow 2-3 times faster.

The figures given above contrast sharply with some figures based on actual soundings of reefs. Sewell (1935) reported 280 mm/year in the Andaman Islands in the Bay of Bengal, and Verstelle (1932) reported a maximum rate of growth of 414 mm/year in the Celebes. This latter figure would allow for the development of the 1405 m of the Enewetak reef in less than 3400 years”

So there is evidence of grow rates significantly higher that John quoted. It has also been the case that many “fossil reefs” have been reinterpreted to not be reefs at all, but rather a type of deposit. http://www.grisda.org/origins/22086.htm (“FOSSIL REEFS AND TIME”)
[continued]

corals – not “coffin nails” (continued from post 832 (4 of 4)

An article “The paradox of Pacific guyots and a possible solution for the thick ‘reefal’ limestone on Eniwetok” is in Creation Technical Journal 13(1) 1999. The following discussion is based on this article. All references are documented there.

Eniwetok in particular is surrounded by guyots which have been considered to be drowned reefs. The basic problem is that a reef can grow several times faster than normal sea level rise, so they should not normally drown. The proposed mechanisms to drown them are very problematic with surviving atolls, such as Eniwetok surrounding them. An article in Nature stated “Nevertheless, the mechanisms responsible for drowning remains poorly explained.” Furthermore, the assumed reefal nature of the carbonate cap can be challenged. New information from dredging and ODP drilling cores supports this reinterpretation. The carbonate cap has both biogenic (reef derived) and inorganic components. The carbonate is very thick on some guyots, which surprised the shipboard scientists on ODP leg 143 and 144. For instance, ODP 143 drilled through 1620 m of carbonate on Resolution Guyot in the Mid-Pacific Mountains. ODP legs 143 and 144 discovered that reefal organisms are rare and isolated in the carbonate. Their reefal nature is thus questionable. This is similar to carbonates on land that are claimed by some to be reefs, but yet there is evidence against this hypothesis. Scientists on ODP leg 143 drilled into a perimeter mound that they thought was an ancient barrier reef on Resolution Guyot, but found it was not a reef. Thus, the new results have not supported previous hypotheses: “…the drilling results show that many long-held ideas are misconceptions.”

It was suggested by the shipboard scientific party of leg 143 that some guyots are remnants of a broken up, drowned carbonate platform. Hence the guyots in the Mid-Pacific Mountains may be remnants of an extensive carbonate platform and not a series of drowned reefs:

“This finding suggests that the Mid-Pacific Mountains may have been an extensive shallow-water platform during the Early Cretaceous. The contribution of reefs to the building of the shallow-water limestone cap may have been overestimated, as reef debris is surprisingly sparse thoughout the section at Site 866.”

Fragments of woody plants and coal (obviously not reef debris) were also found in the carbonate. So it’s entirely possible that Eniwetok Island is one of several coral atolls in the region and stands on top of about 1200 to 1400 meters of carbonate rock interpreted as reef rock.

ref:
Wilson, P.A., et all 1998. The paradox of drowned carbonate platforms and the origin of Cretaceous Pacify guyots. Nature, 392(6679):889-894

, etc. (out of space – happy to supply on request)

Does Genesis 2:5 teach that only normal providence (nothing miraculous) was used?

from http://creation.com/is-genesis-poetry-/-figurative-a-theological-argument-polemic-and-thus-not-history

[Meredith] Kline rightly states that God did not make plants before the earth had rain or a man (although this is talking about cultivated plants not all plants ). So, Kline asks, what’s to stop God making them anyway because He could miraculously sustain them? The answer, according to Kline, is that God was working by ordinary providence:

‘The unargued presupposition of Gen. 2:5 is clearly that the divine providence was operating during the creation period through processes which any reader would recognize as normal in the natural world of his day.’

Note that Kline admits that this alleged presupposition is not argued in the text. This would explain why no Bible scholar saw this for thousands of years. Then he makes another amazing leap to say that there was ordinary providence operating throughout Creation Week:

‘Embedded in Genesis 2:5 ff. is the principle that the modus operandi of the divine providence was the same during the creation period as that of ordinary providence at the present time.’

But this is desperation. Even if normal providence were operating, it would not follow that miracles were not. In fact, there is no miracle in the Bible that does not operate in the midst of normal providence. Michael Horton points out that those who reject God acting in the normal course of events do it from an a priori philosophical assumption and not from anything in the text.

…

A miracle is properly understood not as a ‘violation’ of providence but an addition. So when Jesus turned water into wine (John 2), the other aspects of ‘providence’ were still operating. Perhaps Jesus created the dazzling variety of organic compounds in the water to make the wine, but gravity still held the liquid in the barrels, taste buds were still working in the guests, their hearts pumped blood without skipping a beat, etc.

Furthermore, Genesis 2:5 shows that normal providence was not operating: note that ‘God had not caused it to rain upon the earth’. If creation happened over billions of years (by Kline’s version of ‘normal providence’), how could there have been no rain? And if there had been no rain for eons of time since plants appeared, how did they survive? This only makes sense if the time-frame of Genesis 1 is real so there are no eons of time, only days.

So Kline incorrectly presupposes normal providence as God’s sole modus operandi for Genesis 2:5, wildly extrapolates it to the entire Creation Week, and further presumes that normal providence excludes miracles. This error is compounded by failing to note the narrow focus of Genesis 2 on man in the Garden (it is not a ‘second account’ of Creation).

I first heard about Kline’s perspective in the book “The Genesis Debate: Three Views on the Days of Creation”. I was somewhat impressed with its literary analysis of the creation account, but after that everything else kind of fell out.

The book was interesting, and while I had by then moved on from YEC, I thought they had made the best case in the book.

The reason I prefer the ANE view currently is that it takes all the “literalness” of the YEC perspective and filters it through an ancient perspective, which naturally gets rid of all the bad baggage that YEC brings with it.

So you stay true to scripture more so than any other view, and you don’t have all these extra problems with science that tend to plague every other view.

Kind of what I said way back in post #3.

Dealing with posts in reverse order.

Re 834: Greg, aren’t you glad it only took 831 posts to demonstrate that you were correct? : )

Re post 833 on Kline’s arguments for the Framework View

Obviously, it’s not like Kline has never heard these arguments raised against his view, and he is not convinced by them nor by arguments raised in favour of the “literal day view”. And that is precisely one of my points: in doing hermeneutics we are into the arena of sifting of evidence and judgment calls. It is not like science where either a bar of iron has a mass of 10 kilograms or it doesn’t.

What Richard is doing is discussing the evidence and how it should be evaluated. Fine; that sort of thing cuts both ways and if Richard believes it is legitimate to engage in such argumentation against the Framework View, then he has to admit that it is also legitimate to engage in such argmentation against his YEC view.

Which raises another one of the points that I have been continually making: there are a number of legitimate options for interpreting Genesis 1 & 2, and the hermeneutics of the language alone is not decisive in showing one interpretation only to be the uncontroversially correct one. On the other hand, testable observations of God’s universe can decisively eliminate some interpretations, such as the YEC catastrophic flood geology and the young earth view.

I could engage Richard’s arguments about Genesis 2:5, and show why I don’t think he has the stronger arguments, but the fact that we can have that argument proves my points, so I don’t see the need to go further down that path. This isn’t a thread about all the arguments for and against the Framework View, and I only put forward enough of the arguments to demonstrate that it is a real and viable option and one that takes into account the ANE culture, worldview and language of the Hebrews and their surrounding natinos.

Re Post 832 on Corals

It’s a invalid stretch to call the YEC glossy magazine (now called “Creation Journal) a “journal” let alone a “technical journal” because it (1) is not a peer review journal, (2) does not print original research, etc. at variance with its accepted view, (3) is a propaganda organ (what real scientific journal has guidelines that specify that “[it] is dedicated to upholding the authority of the 66 books of the Bible, especially in the area of origins. All our editors adhere to the Creation Ministries International (CMI) Statement of Faith and most papers will be designed to support this.”), (4) does not predominantly contain original research or field studies, (5) and is not used, read or recognized by any organizations or associations of scientists in any of the relevant scientific fields, and etc. Nevertheless, let us deal with the points raised, as the truth value of an argument is not determined by the wrapping it comes in.

[cont.]

[continuation of my post 835]

I had discussed the Eniwetok coral because it is quite well known in the OE/YEC debates, has been studied for a long time (the U.S. has been taking cores for over 50 years), it was the site of a famous and important WWII battle, etc. However, it is not the only large coral, nor the only one that has been extensively studied.

The creation magazine’s use of an article in Nature another example of the YEC inconsistent and contradictory use of real science whenever a portion of that science would appear to support a YEC speculation. Yes, the article indictes that reef growth and submergence is a complex phenomena, and not one of simply assuming that the entire thickness of a reef is the result of continuous growth by corals. But the article in Nature is premised upon, and only makes sense in light of, oceanic and island features that are millions of years old. I’ll return to this issue.

Before discussing the article further, it must be pointed out that the author, Michael J. Oard, is a retired meterologist who holds only a B.S. and M.S. in atmospheric science, and not even remotely an expert in corals (which is a further reason why the creation magazine is not a true journal, it publishes pieces by people who write on subjects that are far out of their field of expertise). The fact that an article by a person who has done no research in the field nor obtained any recognized degrees or research fellowships in the field continues to be cited by YECs is another example of the very low quality science inherent in the YEC position and demonstrative of the lack of science backing up their speculations. Now, back to the real science.

We see from the article that the criticism arises from an alternate explanations for the presence of carbonate rock not formed from the direct deposits of growing corals. The article in Nature puts forward a hypothesis which can be further modelled and tested by laboratory research or field studies. The Nature hypothesis relies on existence of shallow seas and on time periords measured in the millions of years.

Obviously, the YEC cannot accept that hypothesis, so what do they put forward as an alternate testable hypothesis? Nothing. There is speculation that a violant catastrophic global flood could do it, but no model of how the currents and deposition processes would work. There is also no YEC explanation for the fact that these coral deposits are found in a specific tropical band and linked to shallow seas or volcanic mountains. If there were a flood, with global currents, we would expect the deposits to be distributed randomly and mechanically according to the laws of fluid dynamics, Stokes law, and the like.

Furthermore, the taking of pot shots at one particular reef does not invalidate the findings of slow continuous growth, annual coral banding, the correlation of fossilized or historical reef features with other geologic processes and historical events [cont.]

[continuation of my post 836]

. . . and historical events such as climate change or volcanic eruptions, etc.

Neither the creation magazine article nor Richard’s response deal with some of the facts I raised, such as the evidence of periods of reef growth interspersed with layers that show evidence of exposure to air, erosion, and the growth of surface plants such as Mangroves. I note also that Richard and other YECs to this day cite the article as a definitive refutation of real reef science and research even though the article itself only presents the view of meterologist M. Oard as a “possible” solution.

Reef growth is, like any area of science, a complex topic and there are entire journals devoted to the study of reefs, and university research and degree granting programs that focus on reefs.

The articles Richard referred to, both in the creation magazine and the journal Nature, both relied on the work of the Ocean Drilling Program. “ODP was the direct successor of the Deep Sea Drilling Project (DSDP), which began in 1968. DSDP sampled the global seafloor by deep ocean coring and downhole logging, and its accomplishments were striking. Research based on the samples strongly supported the hypotheses of seafloor spreading—the relationship of crustal age to the record of Earth’s magnetic reversals—and plate tectonics.” (from the Executive Summary of the 2007 ODP Final Technical Report, located at http://www-odp.tamu.edu/publications/ODP_Final_Technical_Report.pdf)

The 2007 Techinical report indicates how incredible the ODP program was: “The Ocean Drilling Program (ODP) ranks as one of the most significant international scientific endeavors
ever, rivaling the international collaborations among physicists in the early 20th century. ODP traversed the world’s oceans from the Arctic Ocean to the Weddell Sea, collecting sediment and rock samples, recording downhole geophysical and geochemical information, and establishing long-term borehole observatories. More than 2,500 scientists representing more than 220 institutions sailed on ODP legs”

Among the findings:

“ODP scientists established the hypothesis that uplift of the Himalayas
enhanced global cooling, determined the history of sea level rise and fall over the past 60 million years, and discovered global environmental impacts caused by the extrusion of large volumes of igneous rocks known as “large igneous provinces.”

“Scientific ocean drilling research confirmed the catastrophic impact of a meteorite with Earth 65 million years ago that led to the extinction of dinosaurs and other plants and animals at the end of the Cretaceous Period.”

Volume 144 of the ODP Scientific Results was titled “Northwest Pacific Atolls and Guyots Sites 871 – 880 and Site 801” which included the Eniwetok (or Anewetak) Atoll. There are other volumes dealing with other reef areas, such as volume 110 on the Barbados. The results reported in volume 144, [cont.]

[continuation of post my 837 regarding the Eniwetok Reef]

The results reported in vol. 144 did not upset at all the multi-million year dating of the formation of the Eniwetok Atoll, but rather confirmed it. The drilling provided proof that the growth of the corals was not continuous, and that not all the carbonate rock was laid down in situ by growing corals. However, the drilling did identify layers of exposure and submergence and did identify other phenomena (including that noted in Oard’s article) that would require millions of years to form. None of the phenomena reported on, or mentioned by Oard, gave evidence of rapid formation, but on the contrary gave the opposite evidence. Thus, nothing in the ODP reports, or in the Nature article provides any support for Oard’s contention of rapid deposition during a violent Noahic flood.

Oard speculates that it is possible that the carbonate rock (that was not laid down by growing corals) could have been deposited in such a YEC flood, but it remains only a speculative possibility. Oard does not provide any testable model, nor any detailed description of how the carbonate sediments could have been laid down and lithified (turned into rock)–which is not suprising since he’s a meterologist and not a coral reef specialist. Nor does he provide any explanation for the other observed phenomena: the layers of coral that were observed, the discontinuities in the layers, the evidence of long term cycles of surface exposure for long periods of time followed by submergence for long periods of time, the correlation with other worldwide geological and climatic phenomena, the correlation with radiometrid dating, the correlation with slow plate tectonic movements, etc.

In brief, the YECs are out of their depth on this issue, have no relevant qualified experts to deal with the topic, cannot provide testable models, cannot make predictions in this field, cannot account for the wide variety of interrelated phenomena (unlike the OE model which can), cannot account even for specific phenomena on their own terms without relating them to other phenomenal, have not produced any original field work or experiments, etc. Lastly, I note that Oard’s brief article was written almost a decade ago, and continues to be quoted by YECs because they have not produced anything significant on this issue in the decade since.

Is it any wonder that real scientists dismiss YECs out of hand and laugh at their feeble, preposterous and unsupported speculations? YECs are chaining the Bible to a false view of science, and chaining their followers to that same view and to an incorrect and unsupported interpretation of Scripture. Their pseudo-science is crashing and burning just as geocentric science based on a Biblically “unmoved” earth crashed at the time of Galileo. As their pseudo-science crashes and burns, so does their theology, Bible interpretation and the faith of their followers and potential converts.

Re Post 831, as I move backwards through Richard’s posts

Who’s fault is it that Ariel Ross looked like a moron? His, of course. It’s something that I find often happens during cross-examinations as a witnesses’ assertions, evidences, calculations, etc. are tested. Errors and incorrect reasoning are exposed.

In my original post, and in Richard’s replay of that post, I provided the link to the Arkansas creation trial documentation project, which clearly indicates that transcripts of the defence witnesses do not yet exist. However, the court reporter was not the only person in the courtroom, and others where there who reported on the testimony. For example Norman Geisler wrote a book that summarized the various defence testimonies and excerpts of the book are reproduced with permission on the Mclean Project website. I also provide the reference to the source of the quote regarding Roth’s cross-examination. So the event and the cross-examination did happen and are not in doubt, and, as Richard put it, Roth looked like a moron. His initial assertions respecting quick coral growth and a global flood turned out not to be supported either by facts or by his testimony.

So post 831 summarizes my post, but does not rebut it. The fact remains that he admitted he had not established the rapid growth of coral development and that there was no evidence that coral reefs were created in recent times.

As this thread develops, we see again and again that there is no valid science supporting the YEC views respecting either the age of the earth or the nature of the Noahic flood. YEC views belong in the same category as views of Christ’s resurrection as being an illusion, that Christ was two persons, that God is not a trinity / triunity, that one can get to heaven by good works, etc. That is, they are not views on which Christians can have legitimate “leanings” toward, but rather are views that should be repudiated.

Regards,
#John

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/24/AR2009062403202.html

Scientists study foes’ ways at Creation Museum

By JEFFREY McMURRAY
The Associated Press
Wednesday, June 24, 2009 6:56 PM

PETERSBURG, Ky. — In a dimly lit corner of the Creation Museum stands a life-size replica of a wrecking ball labeled “Millions of Years” demolishing the facade of a brick church.

For the more than six dozen paleontologists who visited the museum Wednesday, the ball might as well have read “Science.”

In one of the largest gatherings of critics since the northern Kentucky museum opened two years ago, the scientists in the area for a conference took a field trip to get a glimpse of the marketing tactics used by the other side of the evolution debate.

Paleontologists spend their careers studying evolution, and here they were visiting a place where nearly every room is dedicated to disproving it.

“The real purpose of the museum visit is to give some of my colleagues an opportunity to sense how they’re being portrayed,” said Arnold Miller, a professor of paleontology at the University of Cincinnati, which is hosting the conference. “They’re being demonized, I feel, in this museum as people who are responsible for all the ills of society.”

Miller and other paleontologists object to numerous other aspects of the museum they say imply science is doing more harm than good.

For example, multiple rooms are devoted to the great flood, which a strict biblical interpretation might explain was a rebuke for questioning God. The implication, some of the paleontologists say, is that their studies concluding Earth is millions of years old – not thousands as creationists claim – must pose a similar threat to mankind.

Scientists also disagree with the depiction of Noah’s ark itself. Inside a miniature ark is a compartment holding two small dinosaurs, living alongside the monkeys, cows and other animals.

“It’s like a theme park, but the problem is it masquerades as truth,” said Derek Briggs, a Yale University paleontologist.

The scientists Miller brought with him got a group discount but otherwise had minimal interaction with museum staff. A line of other visitors led outside into the full parking lot for much of the day.

David Menton, a cell biology professor and researcher with Answers In Genesis, which founded the museum, made no apologies for the fact that the museum’s teachings are rooted in the Old Testament. He insists they rely on largely the same facts scientists use, just with a starting point millions of years later. Anything before that can’t really be proven by science anyway, he says.

“I’ve spent enough of my professional life in science that I know science being compatible with religion is not the sort of thing that keeps scientists up at night,” Menton said. “There’s a lot of scientists out there that rather applaud that idea.”

(cont’d)

(con’t)

He defended the displays that argue people and dinosaurs are contemporaries, including one at the museum entrance that show two young girls playing in a field near a dinosaur.

“I’m not saying dinosaurs and man frequently hobnobbed,” Menton said. “I live on Earth at the same time as grizzly bears, but if I could stay as far away from grizzly bears, that suits me fine.”

The critique of scientists even extends to the gift shop, where among the DVDs for sale is one entitled, “The Cure for a Culture in Crisis: It doesn’t take a Ph.D.”

It all had Wednesday’s visitors shaking their heads.

“Faith is one thing,” said Mark Terry, a high school science teacher from Seattle, “but when it comes to their science statements, they’re completely off the wall.”

Interesting Eric, thanks. Here’s another interesting one (full article at NYT, if one joins for free): Rock of Ages, Ages of Rock by HANNA ROSIN, November 25, 2007

“. . . The museum sends the message that belief in a young earth is the only way to salvation. The failure to understand Genesis is literally “undermining the entire word of God,” Ken Ham, the founder of Answers in Genesis, says in a video. The collapse of Christianity believed to result from that failure is drawn out in a series of exhibits: school shootings, gay marriage, drugs, porn and pregnant teens. At the same time, it presents biblical literalism as perfectly defensible science. A fossil shows a perch eating a herring, evidence, they claim, of animals instantaneously trapped by catastrophic events after the flood. In a video, geologists use evidence from Mount St. Helens to show how a mud flow can cut a deep canyon in a single day. “This is what I see based on science,” said Andrew Snelling, one of the many creationist geologists at the conference in July who consulted with the museum.

At the conference, participants got together to tackle some difficult questions: How is radioisotope dating flawed? How was the Grand Canyon formed? If all those animals died in one cataclysmic event, why do their fossils appear in such distinct order? Their discussions recall a pre-Darwinian age, before science and faith became enemies. The old-earthers see their discipline as more pure than intelligent design; the intelligent-design people focus on a notion of a mystery “designer,” without specifying who that might be and what the mechanisms are. To the young-earth creationists, this is both unscientific and dubiously religious. “We don’t subscribe to this idea of the ‘God of gaps,’ meaning if you can’t explain something, then blame God,” Whitmore told me before describing a method that hardly seemed more scientific. “Instead, we think: ‘Here’s what the Bible says. Now let’s go to the rocks and see if we find the evidence for it.’ ”

The heads of all the leading scientific creationist institutes from several countries showed up for the Cedarville event, along with the movement’s other stars: John Baumgardner, a geophysicist who worked for 20 years at Los Alamos National Laboratory; Kurt Wise, who got his Ph.D. in paleontology from Harvard in the ’80s as a student of Stephen Jay Gould, the nation’s most famous opponent of creationism; and Marcus Ross, 31, the latest inductee into the movement, who got his Ph.D. in environmental science from the University of Rhode Island last summer.

Like any group of elites, they were snobs about their superior degrees. During lunch breaks or car rides, they traded jokes about the “vulgar creationists” and the “uneducated masses,” and, in their least Christian moments, the “idiots on the Web.” One leader of a creationist institute complained about all the cranks who call on the phone . . .”

[cont.] “One leader of a creationist institute complained about all the cranks who call on the phone claiming to have seen dinosaurs or to have had a vision of Noah’s ark. (How Noah fit the entire animal kingdom onto the ark is a perennial obsession.) . . .

The new creationists are not likely to make much of a dent among secular scientists, who often just roll their eyes at the mention of flood geology. But they have become a burden to many geologists at Christian colleges around the country.

In recent years a number of Christian institutions have been undergoing what Alan Wolfe, a sociologist, calls “the opening of the evangelical mind.” Instead of teaching a fundamentalist world-view that is always at odds with secular academia, many evangelical colleges are easing their students into the mainstream.

The statement of faith for Wheaton College in Illinois, Billy Graham’s alma mater, for example, says that Scripture is “inerrant in the original writing” and that “God directly created Adam and Eve,” but when it comes to pinning down the age of the earth, the school balks. Wheaton has a strong geology department. Its professors argue that the Bible makes no specific mention of the age of the earth. They belong to groups like the Geological Society of America and wring their hands about the “geo-literacy” of the church. “Geology at Wheaton is presented and practiced much the same way as at secular universities,” the department chairman, Stephen Moshier, said in a recent talk. Other professors have issued long tracts comparing the various methods of radiometric dating and showing that they all agree: The earth is over four billion years old.

Most members of the American Scientific Affiliation, a collection of Christians with degrees in the sciences, qualify as old-earthers, according to Moshier. But the young-earthers have “a lot more influence,” he told me. They have “tremendous clout” with Christian publishers and are “very, very successful at getting their word out,” he said. “I know so many Christians who have tried to write books from a different perspective and been rejected.” . . . ”

****************

Here’s an interesting tidbit I found while reading about the so-called creation museum: “When a curious museum visitor asks, why exactly T. rex had six-inch long serrated teeth, the guides go on to explain that T. rex used his big teeth to open coconuts. Apparently it was only after Adam and Eve sinned and were cast out of paradise that the dinosaurs started to eat flesh.”

Regards,
#John

Thanks Eric and John, interesting reads.

I hope to go to Wheaton College someday, so I was pleased to hear their stance on the earth’s age. I wonder what their biology department is like?

I want to recommend two books that I think everyone involved in this discussion should read.

Both are from John H. Walton. The first one is geared towards a more popular audience, while the second one is more technical and scholarly (and hasn’t been released yet, but should be soon).

1. The Lost World of Genesis One, published by IVP Academic
2. Genesis One as Ancient Cosmology, forthcoming from Eisenbrauns

Here are two blog posts on the IVP website about Lost World:
http://addenda-errata.ivpress.com/2009/05/the_lost_world_of_genesis_one.php

http://addenda-errata.ivpress.com/2009/05/the_lost_world_of_genesis_one_1.php

I’m currently reading Lost World and simply cannot recommend it enough. I’ve read up to chapter 7, and so far Walton has gone through the creation account, explaining why it is about functional, not material, origins, and how three functions of the cosmos, namely time, weather, and food, where set up in the first three days. (see Genesis 8:22 for a post-flood repeat of these same functions).

Days 4-6 are concerned with functionaries, with God assigning them various tasks they perform in their respected domains (like the lights and stars for keeping time, first created on Day 1)

The chapter I just read described God’s rest on Day 7 and explained how, in the mind of an ancient, a deity at rest meant all the “problems” had been dealt with and now they could go about governing their domain. In Genesis the earth was formless and void; this was the problem God started fixing in Genesis 1:3. A parallel can be seen in Deuteronomy 12:10, Joshua 21:44, and Joshua 23:1 where the Israelites gain rest from their enemies so they can live safely in their land and go about their daily lives.

In the ANE, a deity governs from his temple, like the president governs from the White House. I haven’t read chapter 8 yet, but apparently it explains how the cosmos itself is God’s temple, and now that He is resting from His work He can begin the process of keeping things in order, which the ancients saw as a specific function of deity (we later see Jesus taking up this role in Colossians 1:17 and Hebrews 1:3).

So now that God has put the universe in order, He’ll start the task of ensuring it runs smoothly from His cosmic temple.

Really good book so far, and I’m understanding Genesis 1 in so many new and helpful ways it just makes me giddy inside! I almost want to kick myself for never seeing these things after reading it all these years.

Richard, I’ll put my money where my mouth is and buy you a copy of Lost World. I think a clear presentation of the ANE view of Genesis, which I cannot provide but the book can, would help you understand the creation account sufficiently and in ways you hadn’t thought of before.

Here is another sermon/lecture from Walton:

http://www.blackhawkchurch.org/resources/events.php

His is the first one, “How Can We Understand What the Bible Really Says, and What Does it Say About Creation?” and it seems to be a summary of his Lost World book (which is a popular summary of his unpublished Genesis One as Ancient Cosmology book).

Audio and video can both be downloaded, and there’s 4 pages of lecture notes too.

Greg, those are very interesting points from the Walton book. Now I have another book I want to buy.

Greg, given your interest in Wheaton (and also in response to the question many posts ago about books to recommend on the OE dating and OE view) I would recommend the following (which I don’t have yet, but which is on my list to get):

The Bible, Rocks and Time
Geological Evidence for the Age of the Earth
(paperback)

By Davis A. Young
and Ralph Stearley

You can read more about it at the IVP website at:
http://www.ivpress.com/cgi-ivpress/book.pl/review/code=2876

Regards,
#John

35,000-year-old flute:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-sci-flute25-2009jun25,0,3533361.story

Is this a problem for those who hold to a 10,000-year-old (or less) creation and/or creation of man? Any idea how they determined the age of the flute and the other artifacts, and how valid the dating is? How do they know the age of its carving vs. the age of the bone itself?

35,000-year-old flute is oldest known musical instrument

The discovery, reported in the journal Nature, suggests that the first humans to occupy Europe had a fairly sophisticated culture. The instrument was excavated from a cave in Germany.

By Thomas H. Maugh II
June 25, 2009

The wing bone of a griffon vulture with five precisely drilled holes in it is the oldest known musical instrument, a 35,000-year-old relic of an early human society that drank beer, played flute and drums and danced around the campfire on cold winter evenings, researchers said Wednesday.

Excavated from a cave in Germany, the nearly complete flute suggests that the first humans to occupy Europe had a fairly sophisticated culture, complete with alcohol, adornments, art objects and music that they developed there or even brought with them from Africa when they moved to the new continent 40,000 years or so ago.

“It is not too surprising that music was a part of their culture,” said archaeologist John J. Shea of Stony Brook University, who was not involved in the research. “Every single society we know of has music. The more widespread a characteristic is today, the more likely it is to spread back into the past.”

The making of music probably extended even further back into the past, he said, but the flute may represent “the first time that people invested time and energy in making instruments that were [durable enough to be] preserved.”

The flute was discovered last summer in the Hohle Fels cave, about 14 miles southwest of the city of Ulm, by archaeologist Nicholas J. Conard of University of Tubingen in Germany. Conard described the find in a report published online by the journal Nature.

The cave is the same one where Conard found the recently described 40,000-year-old Venus figurine, the oldest known representation of the female form; as well as a host of other artifacts, including ivory carvings of a horse’s or bear’s head; a water bird that may be in flight; and a half-human, half-lion figure.

The cave, which was occupied for millenniums, “is one of the most wonderfully clear windows into the past, where conditions of preservation are just right,” Shea said. “Combine that with a gifted excavator, and you get truly great archaeology.”

(cont’d)

(cont’d)

The reconstructed flute, a little under 9 inches long, was found in 12 pieces in a layer of sediment nearly 9 feet below the cave’s floor. The team also found fragments of two ivory flutes — which are less durable — that are probably not quite as old.

The surfaces of the flute and the structure of the bone are in excellent condition and reveal many details about its manufacture. The maker carved two deep, V-shaped notches into one end of the instrument, presumably to form the end into which the musician blew, and four fine lines near the finger holes. The other end is broken off, but, based on the normal size of the vultures, Conard estimates the intact flute was probably 2 to 3 inches longer.

In 2004, Conard found a 30,000-year-old, 7-inch, three-holed ivory flute at the nearby Geissenklosterle cave, and he has found fragments of several others, although none are as old as the Hohle Fels artifact. Combined, the finds indicate the development of a strong musical tradition in the region, accompanied by the development of figurative art and other innovations, Conard said.

The presence of music did not directly produce a more effective subsistence economy and greater reproductive success, he concluded, but it seems to have contributed to improved social cohesion and new forms of communication, which indirectly contributed to demographic expansion of modern humans to the detriment of the culturally more conservative Neanderthals.

On Context

I do sympathize with the struggles of people (such as our blogger cherylu) who do not know the orginal languages and wonder if the Bible is being put out of reach. As I have written, there is much in the Bible that is pretty plain no matter what–like the death and resurrection of Jesus and His invitation to follow. Second, a careful reading of the Bible, using the principle of reading verses in their immediate context and in the context of the entire Bible can be done using any translation. Much of the Framework View is merely paying attention to context.

One can’t avoid context and worldview (from http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2009/06/how-to-create-a-heresy):

“While bored during his cousin’s bat mitzvah, Plotz—“a proud Jew, but never a very observant one”—unsuspectingly picked up the Bible on the pew in front of him and started reading. Unfortunately (or fortunately), he just happened to open it up to the story of Dinah. He was so shocked by the grim sexual details, and the fact that he had never heard them before, that he decided then and there to read the entire book and blog his responses to it. “Blogging the Bible” then became this book in which Plotz chronicles his interpretations and summaries to nearly every chapter of the Hebrew Bible. His goal was simple: “find out what happens when an ignorant person actually reads the book on which his religion is based.”

Witnessing a sarcastic, biblically illiterate person read the Bible “unmediated by teachers or rabbis or parents,” is quite the experience, akin to watching a frat boy try to make spaghetti for the first time without a recipe. It is at times humorous, unsettling, and enlightening (sometimes it helps to see all the ways something can go wrong before the right way makes sense). But is there lasting value to seeing God’s word through such a sloppy inspection? What do his snappy, irreverent observations—“God is like Norman Mailer on a bad day” (in reference to his treatment of women)—accumulate to?

Plotz hoped that Good Book would give readers a raw version of the Bible: “I didn’t want to spend a lot of time trying to contextualize [the Bible], forgive it, and make excuses for it,” he said in an interview with Christianity Today. But, ironically, every comment he makes is seeped in contextualization—of a most untraditional sort. He contextualizes with pop culture, referencing Married with Children, the Lifetime Channel, David Mamet, Entourage, Pulp Fiction, and Jack Nicholson. He contextualizes with politics, comparing David to Bill Clinton, Joseph to Chairman Mao; he picks up on pro-choice language in Exodus, notes that Leviticus has the first separation of Church and state, and draws in some Adam Smith. And Plotz is very transparent about contextualizing with his own personal experiences. In short, his take on the Bible is anything but the uncontaminated version that he was hoping to communicate.”