Espresso Shots [10-13-05]
Here are a few shots for you: Good post on Naturalism's "ethics" over at Evangelical Outpost. If you get lost somewhere in the middle of this post, hang in there...the ending is good. Also, Al Mohler just finished a three-part series on apologetics in a postmodern age. Finally, William Dembski comments on Creationists distancing themselves from ID...an interesting twist since most evolutionists accuse ID proponents of being Creationists.
Labels: David C. Price
posted by DAVID C. PRICE at 10/13/2005 08:25:00 PM
|
2 Comments:
Creationists should distance themselves. I was branded a liberal for even thinking something like ID could be a possibility a few years ago. I had to keep such thoughts to myself or share them only with close friends.
I must say that I kinda feel that some of the conservative leaders have sold out their convictions (unless they never believed in strict creationism, but were waiting for someone like Dempski to come along).
ID is an affront to YEC proponents every where, which is what you had to be to be "orthodox" until a memo went out a few years ago. I remember hearing about ID from SBC ministers and thinking, "you believe this?" This is almost heresy (not that I have a problem with it myself- of course I don't find it the big deal you and Alex do).
I am still confused by Mohler and such believing in anything but 7 days of creation.
I still don't understand how ID aligns with strict literal inerrancy (again, I did not get my "church leaders accept ID and are not branded liberal heretics" memo).
ID is good not because it is an end in itself. Creationists had long since taken an anti-intellectual stance, causing many to outright reject them as irrational holy-rollers who need not be taken seriously. ID opens the door to further apologetic approaches, bringing down many walls that, until now, were unnecessarily constructed. One of the main apologetic hurdles in moving from naturalism to theism is the simple, basic idea of "is there a God?". ID takes the argument to the scientists turf, showing evidence that those who propose a divine creator not only have a leg to stand on, but outright cut the darwinists legs out from under him at the same time. From this point, a Christian theist can continue the argument from the existence of God through the other arguments for the truth of Scripture and the deity of Christ, all of which are very strong arguments. It is just one more (and very good!) tool for the Christian apologist to utilize in explaining the truth of Scripture. Of course, we can never expect for arguments alone to convince anyone since it is a work of the Holy Spirit that saves. However, since God chooses to use means in which to reach the lost, these are very good tools.
As for the literal seven days argument: theologians have widely accepted the possibility of a day-age theory that proposes that Scripture never intended to be taken as seven literal days. Instead, in much the same was that Scripture talks of "the day of the Lord," or in the day of such and such a person, etc., the intention is a period of time. This derives from the usage of the Hebrew word "yom," which, though it means a twenty-four hour period, is not exclusively translated as such. It can also mean long periods of time. According to adherents, the geological and fossil records correspond to these "days." There seems to be no reason why this interpretation could not easily be accepted taking into account that 1. though the light was created immediately (Genesis 1:3), the "lights in the expanse" or sun seems to have been created on the fourth day (Genesis 1:14). Further, there is a bit of difficulty if we interpret that the entire cosmos is governed by our one sun in the solar system when our galaxy is so minute compared to that entire expanse. 2. This gels with what has been observed in our world. Maintaining a "young earth" position is difficult, at best, leading us to simply close our eyes to the evidence of an older earth as the early fundamentalists did with one possible exception: some have argued that God simply created a young earth that "looks" old (i.e. shows all the scientific evidence of being billions of years old but is, in reality, only several thousands).
Frankly, I think God could have done any of these He cared to, though it doesn't seem likely that God's nature leaves much room for that kind of deception that seems evident in the latter theory.
So, all that to say, it seems quite legitimate for someone to hold to inerrancy while still both accepting ID as legitimate and leaving the door open for the possibility that the earth is older than several thousand years. Either way, the only memo that went out is, "church leaders no longer afraid of science (which was first developed by Christians anyway)and are finally taking their heads out of the sand."
For a fuller treatment of the "Age-Day Theory," see Millard Erickson's Christian Theology, pp. 404-408.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home