Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Crocker, Sisson, Cordova, Chenette: TV special on ID in Higher Education

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Caroline Crocker

Feature: The Intelligent Design Controversy in Higher Education
This week on The Coral Ridge Hour we look at Intelligent Design, a movement which is gaining adherents at colleges and universities around the world. But what about professors who dare to challenge evolution by presenting alternatives to students? As you are about to see, the consequences can be severe.

The main focus will be the case of Caroline Crocker, a former professor of biology at George Mason University. Six years ago, in the course of her research, she came to see that Darwinian evolution was scientifically indefensible and untrue. This TV report details the ordeal she endured for the cause of scientific truth in the face of those seeking to suppress it. Edward Sisson, her attorney, will also be featured along with the GMU IDEA club president Christine Chenette and myself (the co-founder of the club). (This is the same band of rebels who were featured in a cover story by the prestigious scientific journal Nature last year.)

The news report will be featured as part of the Coral Ridge Hour, but before I offer any more details, I need to state an important disclaimer: The views of the Coral Ridge organization do no necessarily reflect my views nor the views of other authors at Uncommon Descent.

That said, go to www.coralridgehour.org to get local listings of the shows. The broadcast will also be available on the internet after Sunday. So don’t worry guys if you miss it on TV. The show will last an hour. The news report will air somewhere in between parts of a religious service, but I don’t know where. However, the internet version will carry only the news report, so you all may just decide to watch that.

In addition to Caroline Crocker’s case, this story will touch on the plight of pro-ID students in our nation’s universities. The number of ID friendly students is hard to estimate, but the best numbers I have indicate the biology curriculums have between 10%-33% pro-IDers at the freshman level. No one really knows at this time how many of those will matriculate to graduation. Furthermore, these polls were conducted with varying degrees of rigor and scope. I’ve seen estimates as high as 40% of students accepting special creation, and maybe as many as 75% are at least curious about the topics of ID and special creation. There may indeed be a revolution in the making, and only time will tell, but I’m cautiously optimistic. One can only imagine the effect on scientific culture if legions of Michael Behe’s, Paul Nelson’s, Jon Wells’, Bill Dembski’s, Phil Johnson’s start graduating from our nation’s schools in the next 20 years. You get the picture. :=)

But the aspect I focus on in this essay is not the TV special, but what the TV special signifies with Coral Ridge choosing to air the story, namely, the fact Evangelicals and creationists are warming to ID. Coral Ridge and the Presbyterian Church of America (PCA) are among the first organizations that I’m aware of to have given a degree of endorsement to ID, and this broadcast is important in elevating ID’s reputation among the Evangelicals.

At Uncommon Descent we have celebrated the recent friendliness the Catholic Church has extended toward ID. What is less appreciated is that various Protestant denominations and creationists are beginning to warm to ID. This is good news for ID, because contrary to what critics of ID would have you think, there have been significant rifts between creationists and IDers. But equally important is the fact that creationists are beginning to understand that creationism is theologically premised, but ID is not.

There are many nuances to the relationship between creationists and IDers, and these nuances are not easily described. In brief, the IDers have been welcoming, but the creationists have not always reciprocated. Here was the state of affair six years ago from an IDer’s perspective:

Intelligent Design Coming Clean, November 11, 2000 by Bill Dembski

Theists of all stripes are to be sure welcome. But the boundaries of intelligent design are not limited to theism. I personally have found an enthusiastic reception for my ideas not only among traditional theists like Jews, Christians, and Muslims, but also among pantheists, New-Agers, and agnostics who don’t hold their agnosticism dogmatically. Indeed, proponents of intelligent design are willing to sit across the table from anyone willing to have us.

That willingness, however, means that some of the people at the table with us will also be young earth creationists. Throughout my brief tenure as director of Baylor’s Michael Polanyi Center, adversaries as well as supporters of my work constantly pointed to my unsavory associates. I was treated like a political figure who is unwilling to renounce ties to organized crime. It was often put to me: “Dembski, you’ve done some respectable work, but look at the disreputable company you keep.” Repeatedly I’ve been asked to distance myself not only from the obstreperous likes of Phillip Johnson but especially from the even more scandalous young earth creationists.

I’m prepared to do neither. That said, let me stress that loyalty and friendship are not principally what’s keeping me from dumping my unsavory associates. Actually, I rather like having unsavory associates

In contrast to IDers like Bill rolling out the red carpet, there has been a disappointing lack of reciprocity from the creationists, and occasional hostility. This was epitomized by an irritating YEC promotional campaign against ID: Intelligent design: is it intelligent; is it Christian? by Answers in Genesis (AiG).

But thankfully, there are some creationist and Evangelical organizations who have warmed to ID and understand that ID is not a theological body of ideas, but rather a theology-free science. This upcoming TV show symbolizes growing acceptance of ID’s theology-free origins science in its proper context within Evangelical and creationist circles. This is no small development, because IDers would do well to tap into a large base of potential interest (110 million Americans who accept special creation of humans) rather than trying to persuade individuals who have paid their mortgages and gained respect in society by promoting naturalistic evolution. (And if anyone criticizes me for making an ID sales pitch to religious organizations, I’ll counter by pointing to the NCSE’s Faith Project Director.)

What may be ironic is that the theology-free character of ID is what actually makes it very appealing to people of faith who may be sitting on the fence on various issues. Personally, 6 years ago, I was turned off by heavy-handed tactics by AiG and similar organizations who demanded blind acceptance of their origins theology and labeled anyone who disagreed with or doubted them as either compromisers or agents of the devil. When they lumped James Dobson along with the “compromisers” I decided I had my fill of the prevailing YEC culture, and rather found my home in ID’s big tent. YEC edicts demanding unquestioned belief conveyed desperation, rather than confidence in brute empirical facts. Thus I found the writings of Denton, Jastrow, Berlinski, Tipler, Barrow more compelling than Ken Ham or Henry Morris.

Interestingly in the secular colleges, I’ll ask of even the most conservative Evangelical creationists , “Assuming all things equal, with respect to science, who’s word would carry more weight with you, someone like Michael Denton or a Bible-believer like Ken Ham?” Almost invariably, they’ll answer Michael Denton! This again, reinforces the fact, theology-free science is more persuasive at defeating Darwinism than theology-filled edicts (see: Howard Van Till’s journey from Calvinism into freethought to see the effect of theology-filled edicts.)

For me personally, the challenge has been persuading people of the Evangelical faith that the science-alone approach of ID does not disrespect their practice of faith. This is challenging in light of Phil Johnson’s admonition to all IDers:

the first thing that has to be done is to get the Bible out of the discussion

Contrast this to creationist Ken Ham’s (AiG) approach:

Don’t let Bible be let out of the conversation

Argue from the authority of the Bible

Don’t let young age of the Earth be conceded as that’s how you’ll lose the argument

The problem is world views

But to people of faith, I argue Ken Ham’s approach to the exclusion of all other approaches is wrong, and often dishonoring to the very faith he professes. He is contradicted by Romans 1:20, Acts 17:16-32, John 10:38. Thus in matters of origins science, to honor my faith, to honor the promise that Nature will testify of design independent of theology, I side with Phil Johnson, and affirm that in many cases (not all), the right thing to do in God’s eyes is to:

get the Bible out of the discussion

Some Evangelicals reading this may have issues with what I said. I point out I’m not alone in my position:

The pressure to justify art, science, and entertainment in terms of their spiritual value or evangelistic usefulness ends up damaging both the gift of creation and the gift of the Gospel.

Michael S. Horton, Westminster Theological Seminary
Where in the World Is the Church?

Furthermore, ID does not claim to be infallible nor does it make any theological statement beyond the reasonableness of the scientific method. There is no reason therefore any Evangelical should consider ID contrary to their theology since ID makes no theological claims, and does not assert infallibility. It is no more theologically premised than chemistry, math, physics, and information science. However, I should point out that science with no theological premise does not mean a science with no theological implications. How can that be?

Consider the Laws of Thermodynamics. These laws are as theology-free as one can ask for. These laws strongly suggests stars cannot possibly burn forever, but if so, then that means the stars and all the universe must not have been around forever. This fact, combined with various astrophysical observations (like red shifts), forced scientists to reluctantly conclude the universe had a beginning. But a universe with a beginning has very strong theological implications even though the science leading to those implications was theology-free (see: God and the Astronomers by Robert Jastrow). And then more recently, Belinfante, Barrow, Tipler and others point out that Quantum Mechanics may necessitate a Universal Intelligence at the root of reality (see: Peer Reviewed Stealth ID Classic). In like manner, ID and its surrounding theories are theology-free, but they have theological implications.

With that in mind, I hope the readers will excuse me for trying to reach out to my fellow Evangelicals and creationists reading this weblog by quoting from the scriptures which they reverence. By doing so up front, I can reassure them that there will be times it will be more honoring to their Christian faith to take the Bible out of the discussion than to leave it in. And thus it is my hope by appealing to the beliefs they hold dear, that they will argue the case for origins in the secular world using purely scientific arguments.

50% of the US believes in special creation and another 25% might be sympathetic to some form of ID. It is within this 75% of the nation’s populace that the theoretical underpinnings of ID have the best chance of being heard, received, and researched. This 75% figure carries over to the young, who will be the scientists of tomorrow. It is this demographic group which I think we should seek to reach and encourage more than the 25% who have a financial, social, and personal interests in maintaining the status quo.

It is to that audience, that I have principally made my appeal with this essay. And I encourage this audience to support the diversity of views under ID’s big tent, and to find ways to respectfully cooperate with others who hold different personal beliefs. When an atmosphere is fostered where creationists can be welcoming and supportive of people like Michael Denton, Frank Tipler, John Barrow, David Berlinski, John Angus Campbell, John Davison, Jeffrey Schwartz, Charles Townes, and more people than I can possibly list — then a more effective path will be open for exploration of our origins.

Salvador Cordova
Salvador Cordova
PS
The battles between the die-hard YECers and IDers are there. For example, here is a tiff within my own denomination regarding YECers, IDers and holders of other views. I’m part of the Potomac Presbytery which in the following letter is seen rebuking the Westminster Presbytery: An Open Letter to Our Brother Elders of Westminster Presbytery. Also, from the Mere Creation website, here is a very good look theological issues regarding ID: Report of the Creation Study Committee (Presbyterian Church in America). Their recommendations are welcome news for ID:

Thus, the church must be prepared to address the claimed “scientific truths” of the science communities and be prepared to “manage by fact” as the data from the science pours forth. The present day intelligent design movement would appear to be a good example of how the church in the broader evangelical context can be effective in this manner.

Comments
[...] And I did have lesser honors like being on National TV in defense of ID: Crocker, Sisson, Cordova, Chenette TV Special [...]Dissing a pro-ID author without reading his book — will Sal do a Nick Matzke immitation? | Uncommon Descent
July 6, 2013
July
07
Jul
6
06
2013
07:44 AM
7
07
44
AM
PDT
Rick, As far as discernment to know whether to look for hidden meaning or larger context, I think one has to determine whether that which is being conveyed relates to a present time or the future/past. Can you point to a prophesy which was literally written? I don't believe any thing foretold in scripture has been literal. Now then, take commandments or instructions for building the temple or the ark. Both are "here and now" terms relating to how we are to act or what we are to do - in the present. Nothing in holy scripture which is obviously literal deals with conveying past or future events from God's lips to man's ears. I'll say this - God is so great, so multi-faceted, so glorious - his written word is layered with meanings within meanings and parables within parables. There are historical accounts of ancient Israel which are parables for all time. Cities and defending cities can be read and understood as spiritual instruction for building and guarding our own lives and families! As for the issue at hand, understand that I am also sympathetic to YEC - indeed, it is the evidence for OE that lead me away. However, having now read some of Setterfield's stuff on his web page (http://www.setterfield.org), I'm beginning to think perhaps the evidence for OE might not be so conclusive after all. I mean, if light is really slowing down, then decay rates and other universal constants are also affected and our calculations are meaningless suppositions from a perspective which has nothing upon which to fix a position! I plan on reading more of Setterfield's stuff from his web page (there is a great deal of data) and looking to see if his critics are as insubstantial in their criticism as Darwin's cultists usually are! I'm not wedded to OEC, it just seems to fit what our(my) senses tell us. I know better than to make doctrinal book on it, which is (I think) Sal's main point in this thread. My salvation does not rest upon the Genesis account being literal. Praise God! So, my prayer is that we and our brothers and sisters in Christ do not major on minor stuff and instead glory in Christ, building each other up in the faith, yielding our selves to put on the life of Christ. The kingdom of God is now - and we will miss it if we are too busy condemning each other for having unique perspectives on the literalism of certain scripture. I pray not that your eyes be open, gently or otherwise, but that we both love the truth enough to be humbly wrong. That we learn and incorporate the lesson of the Pharisees - it is easy to miss God when we are not aware how frequently human understanding suffers from lack of perspective. Like the inference of common descent - why cannot the same evidence of commonality be evidence of a common designer? The answer is, that it can, because it is philosophy (a formalized viewpoint lens) which informs the inference! Anyhow, it has been a pleasure discussing this with you! regards, Toddtodd
August 17, 2006
August
08
Aug
17
17
2006
07:36 PM
7
07
36
PM
PDT
Hello Todd, Thanks for the clarification. It is not your view, then, that the Jewish leaders misunderstood the Scriptures entirely but rather overlooked the spirit as they focused on the letter. If that's a better summary of your perspective, then I would certainly agree. As for the other issues, I've already responded to the idea that God communicated in a way to accommodate a limited perspective, such as we're suggesting Moses would have had. Prophecy is another issue--and, I think, a rather complex one. The Jewish leaders weren't entirely unjustified in expecting a King; however, they missed the parts about the suffering Servant. Also, it must be admitted that Jesus provided them with plenty of evidence that he wasn't merely a megalomaniac seeking to arrogate divine prerogatives. As he said, "Which is easier--to say to the paralytic, 'Your sins are forgiven', or to say 'Get up, take your mat, and walk'?" Whether reading people's thoughts, multiplying food to feed thousands of people, raising the dead, etc., Jesus provided much evidence to justify taking a serious look at his claims. This evidence wasn't "only" in the form of miracles, either, but in his teaching. When the Jewish leaders sent a contingent to arrest him, they returned "empty handed." Questioned, they responded, "No one ever spoke as this man does." I don't believe it was primarily because of a misunderstanding of messianic prophecy that the Jewish leaders rejected Jesus but because of a refusal to bow before a God who called them on their cherished sins rather than pamper their national pride and kick butt on the Romans. You probably don't expect me to be particularly impressed by the "misunderstood prophecy" argument, and you're right. I can think of at least a couple of specific points against it. For one thing, the Jews did not entirely misunderstand. They weren't wrong to expect a King. For another thing, prophecy is a good deal more complex in content than is the creation account. We have Genesis 1 and Exodus 20:11, for instance, telling us that God created our world in six days. We don't have any other reference where he speaks of these days as representing vast ages of time. Also, the context of the six days is pretty much literal and was generally accepted as such until the Church bought the line that "science" had proved otherwise. As for Jesus speaking in parables, you're right. In fact, in the gospels it says that that was pretty much his preferred method of teaching. However, he not only taught in parables, he also gave their meaning. So today, we don't have to debate over how to interpret, say, the parable of the Sower or of the Good Samaritan. Also, we know that God often communicated in very literal and specific language. A handy example is the instructions for building the tabernacle that God gave to Moses. Also, while Jesus taught that such commands as "do not kill" and "do not commit adultery" go well beyond overt physical acts, this certainly doesn't detract from their literal meaning. I guess it comes down to this question: does God communicate to us in a way that we can understand, or must we look elsewhere to try to determine what he "really means"? I would regard the latter as problematic, since it would suggest that we can't be certain of anything God has said, unless we have some source of independent evidence against which to check our understanding. Now, having said all that, I acknowledge that I'm highly biased in favor of YEC and that I believe myself clever enough to pick holes in most arguments I disagree with, as long as they don't depend on specialized knowledge I don't possess. Since I'm convinced that YEC is the only biblically consistent approach, it's probable that, while I think I've carefully considered it, I've not subjected it to quite the scrutiny I would apply to something I was desirous of disproving. As a brothers in Christ I trust we can both live with the fact that we happen to disagree on this issue? If you do feel that my perspective is potentially damaging, you could probably do no better than pray that God will gently nudge me to open my mind to something better. Best regards, Rickintp147
August 16, 2006
August
08
Aug
16
16
2006
10:31 PM
10
10
31
PM
PDT
Salvador, One of the things occurring to me when I think on my layman's understanding of natural forces, especially as it relates to cosmology and relativity, is the question of what the expanding mass of the big bang's singularity had on space and time. If space-time is warped by gravity, what properties did it have when all that matter was packed so closely together? I googled Setterfield and found his website and his summary of his theories. Fascinating stuff - my eyes were opened to the impossible position we find ourselves in relation to space and time! Rick, That about sums it up, but for one point. I don't say the Pharisees and scribes completely misunderstood scripture. I say they created an image of God the Messiah as King. Remember when Israel demanded God reveal himself at the beginning of their 40 years and he did in a pillar of fire, admonishing them to not make an image of him - this is both a literal and figurative warning. One the Pharisees failed to heed. The Cornerstone had become a stumbling block, fulfilling prophesy...todd
August 16, 2006
August
08
Aug
16
16
2006
06:55 PM
6
06
55
PM
PDT
Sal told me I was stretching this a biot, but I still thought it was interesting. Perhaps others might like to ponder it. It's an interesting consequence of the standard YEC timeline: 0-------1000--fld--2000-------3000-------4000-------5000-------6000---(Christ rules 1000yrs; rest?) Present (2006AD) ^ ^Christ & Church appear(Jesus bride) Note: Jesus "I am the light.."; Church reflects Christ. ^ Approx. End of Ice Age (ice melts). Vegetation and land RE-appear. ^ Earth flooded with the waters from above and below (not good!). ^ Adam died at 930 years old - God said he would die the day he ate the fruit. ^End of creation week and Adam sinned (ate the fruit). Man now knows Good and Evil. Interestingly, this all seems to line up with Genesis 1: [0----Day 1][----Day 2][----Day 3][----Day 4][----Day 5][----Day 6][--Day 7 Rest) ^ Man and animlas created. ^ Sun Moon (greater and lesser light) created. note: Sun is light to world; moon reflects that light. ^ Land and Vegetation appear. ^ God seperated the waters above & below (Day 2; the only day in Gen1 not said good!) ^ Heaven and Earth created (earth was void). Light called to be. There are many other parallels, but this is a pobably a fair overview. I'm not sure if this formated properly.. but I will hope so. Also, with the above, consider the scripture... a day with God is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as a day ;)JGuy
August 16, 2006
August
08
Aug
16
16
2006
04:16 PM
4
04
16
PM
PDT
Saxe:
On a side note, it is interesting that “day” in Hebrew is never associated with a long period of time when an ordinal adjective (i.e. the sixth day) is associated with it.
Please consider the following passage. Hosea 6:2
After two days he will revive us; on the third day he will restore us, that we may live in his presence.
This Hosea prophesy is normally interpreted as “not 24 hour” periods, though the same word for day is used as in Genesis 1. Yet another example of YEC presenting questionable “facts” as gospel truth. bFast, I don't think this passage from Hosea is necessarily anything other than a normal earth day. I personally do not know the passage well enough to comment more, but appranently there are some direct challenges to this by AIG (perhaps it is prophetic to the resurection of Christ - or a normal three days):
"People like Genesis re-interpreter Hugh Ross try to make out that Hosea 6:2 is an exception. However, when one correctly understands the prophetic nature of this passage and how the word day is used here, one has to accept that it means an ordinary day, or the prophetic passage wouldn't make sense. (For further information on this, I refer you to the book Creation and Time: a report on the progressive creationist book by Hugh Ross by Van Bebber/Taylor, page 74.) "
http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/overheads/pages/oh20020208_104.asp
"Some say that Hosea 6:2 is an exception to this, because of the figurative language. However, the Hebrew idiomatic expression used, ‘After two days ... in the third day ... ,’ meaning ‘in a short time,’ only makes sense if ‘day’ is understood in its normal sense. See Ref. 1, pp. 74–5, for a more details. ",
http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/answersbook/sixdays2.asp
"Guest:… we’ve talked personally about some of these things, and yet this is directed because we do have some differences. And so Dr Ross, with, in relation to the word yom used in the Old Testament, 359 times it is linked with a number, numerical index. All but a few times, like Hosea 6:2, it refers to a literal 24-hour solar day. Ross: Sure. Hosea 6:2 ‘After two days he will revive us; on the third day he will restore us, that we may live in his presence’ is no exception. This verse exhibits a particular kind of Semitic poetic parallelism of the form X / X + 1 (cf. Job 5:19; Proverbs 6:16; 30:15,18; Amos 1:3, 6, 9). So it must be interpreted according to the specific context, so that ‘two days’ and ‘three days’ mean that God’s healing of the broken Israel, promised in the previous verse, will occur in a short time. In fact, Ross’s ‘exception’ reinforces the literal day interpretation, because if these days were millions of years long, the restoration would not exactly be quick.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/Ross_Hovind_Analysis.asp
There is a cryptic reference to the resurrection of both the nation of Israel and also her Messiah in Hosea 6:2: "After two days will He revive us: in the third day He will raise us up." Also note Zechariah 12:10: "They shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for Him, as one mourneth for his only son."
http://icr.org/article/815/ Thoguh, there seems there could be a double entendre from this even. I might add myself, even though it was not a numerated day, that there is a prophetic passage of scripture that read something like ~can a nation be born in a day?~ And indeed, Isreal was born on one normal day in 1948. Yet, it might even be thought of as a long day...anyway... OEC's might want to consider the study done by ICR on narratives in the Bible versus peotic passages. It shows that Genesis 1 is heavily narrative (ie. not poetic but more literal) under a certain quantified examination of the text. http://www.icr.org/article/24/ Close-up view of chart image: http://www.icr.org/i/articles/imp/imp-377b.gifJGuy
August 16, 2006
August
08
Aug
16
16
2006
03:40 PM
3
03
40
PM
PDT
Salvador, "I’m deeply concerned that all the ill-will being generated in the Christian community between the camps is preventing more dispassionate inquiry of the issue. It is extremely difficult, even for a YEC sympathizers like me to dialogue with certain YEC communities because I’d be labeled a heretic." This makes sense--and I can well imagine that it tends to leave a bad taste that reflects negatively on the entire camp. It seems to me it would have been easy for you, under such circumstances, to simply focus on contrary evidence instead of having to agree that such people might actually be right to some degree. "The attitude that OECs are heretics is so strong in the Westminster Presbytery, that if they had their way they’d likely put the rest of the church leadership on church trial for not being YECs and excommunicate them out of office." As much as I think OEC is untenable biblically, treating such people in this way is entirely uncalled-for and reflects a loss of Christian perspective. "I think YEC would get a warmer reception if some of the main institutions were not so abrassive and condemning of their OEC brethren, but rather welcoming and encouraging." Yes. Here, I think is one of the areas where that human frailty you mentioned earlier comes into play. If as a Christian, one believes one's position is supported by the Bible, it's easy to excuse abrasiveness as perhaps something akin to "righteous indignation." After all, Jesus wasn't exactly "nice" when calling the religious leaders hypocrites. Nor were such as Paul or John the Baptist. I can't speak for another's motives, but I see in myself far more of a desire to prove I'm right than to show someone else a better perspective because of my esteem for him or her as a human being. Certainly, it's important to combat ideas that undermine the Bible. Indeed, Scripture commands this. At the same time, Scripture also tells us that without charity, it all amounts to nothing. This is not to deny that charity may well be expressed in words of rebuke; however, unfortunately, it's far more natural for us to "rebuke" without charity. On reasons for skepticism, "It does not make YEC true in and of itself, but I became enormously more distrustful of institutional science after re-examining the data." You're right: such things don't make YEC true. However, the biggest--perhaps the only--reason why YEC isn't simply taken for granted by a lot of Christians is because of the pronouncements of science and, in some cases, the efforts of theologians to accommodate. If we find good reason to distrust these pronouncements--and it seems we have--it makes less and less sense to seek refuge in efforts to harmonize the Bible with science. I appreciate dialoguing with you, Salvador. Rickintp147
August 16, 2006
August
08
Aug
16
16
2006
03:22 PM
3
03
22
PM
PDT
Todd, Thanks for your explanations of your position. From the way you write, I perceive that you have some interesting perspectives. I'm going to try a step that I usually omit in a discussion like this, and attempt to summarize what I understand you to be saying, rather than simply respond. First, you point out that the Jewish leaders so completely failed to understand their own Scriptures that they rejected and murdered their Messiah. If this was possible, how can we be certain we understand the Scriptures ourselves? Also, when the Scriptures speak on matters relating to time, we must remember that, while we ourselves are time-bound, God is not. This accentuates the possibility for misunderstanding on such matters. When Jesus came, he often spoke in parables rather than in literal language when teaching eternal principles. This being the case, is it not possible that he also revealed the creation account in a parable, rather than literally? As for Moses, it seems questionable that he would have been capable of comprehending the age of the cosmos as we have now come to understand it. To accommodate Moses's limitations, God gave him a creation account that he could grasp and communicate to the rest of us. This account should therefore not be taken in a literal sense--except perhaps beyond the mere fact that God is the Creator. I know this doesn't cover all the details you brought out, but does it appear to you to fairly represent what you're saying? Rickintp147
August 16, 2006
August
08
Aug
16
16
2006
02:30 PM
2
02
30
PM
PDT
Rick, Regarding my skepticism, let me share a little experience I had in 2004. I had done a little exploration into the amino-acid racemization states of various fossils made available to the public. I concluded the data may as well have been pulled out the air, including the data published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences by a certain Reiner Protsch. Turns out he did pull the figures out of the air, just as my examination of the differential equations relating to amino-acid racemization indicated. Similar developments occured with thermodynamic profiles of the Earth and other planets, or violations of our basic understandings of celestial mechanics. And I could go on for days. It does not make YEC true in and of itself, but I became enormously more distrustful of institutional science after re-examining the data. Furthermore, watching the inquisitional tactics in institutional science to enforce false orthodoxies, it does not make one's heart exactly warm to everything the orthodoxy has to say. Salvadorscordova
August 16, 2006
August
08
Aug
16
16
2006
11:53 AM
11
11
53
AM
PDT
I’m wondering if it’s partly because of your skepticism that you lean toward YEC.
That is correct! The reason I lean toward YEC is the brute facts are beginning to confront Old Earth. In 2000 I was an OEC. But I said, I could accept YEC if: 1. Big Bang disproven 2. Speed of light was much faster in the past (as it would solve the problem of long term radiometric dating and distant starlight in one felt swoop) That was my position prior to reading any of the YEC literature I am especially enthusiastic about today. I would accept YEC if thats what the brute facts indicated it. Then in 2002 some major developments: 1. Many scientists came forward and openly questioned the Big Bang including three scientists from my school, one of them a PhD physcist from MIT, Menas Kafatos, and head of George Mason's Center for Earth and Space Observation Research and chairman of the department of Computational Science. See: www.cosmologystatement.org 2. Paul Davies publishes a finding suggesting the speed of light was much faster in the past in the prestigious scientific journal Nature When that happened, I said to myself, the major hurdles may have been over come, the rest are the details.... However, I'm deeply concerned that all the ill-will being generated in the Christian community between the camps is preventing more dispassionate inquiry of the issue. It is extremely difficult, even for a YEC sympathizers like me to dialogue with certain YEC communities because I'd be labeled a heretic. I wouldn't be exactly welcome by the YECs in the Westminster Presbytery, but I would be in D. James Kennedy's presbytery. This is a very unfortunate situation, and that is why I linked to the letter of concern by my Presbytery. The attitude that OECs are heretics is so strong in the Westminster Presbytery, that if they had their way they'd likely put the rest of the church leadership on church trial for not being YECs and excommunicate them out of office. Thankfully for me, Westminster Presbytery is in the minority in my denomination, and for now I'm safe.... I think YEC would get a warmer reception if some of the main institutions were not so abrassive and condemning of their OEC brethren, but rather welcoming and encouraging. OECs should be hoping the YEC succeed, but at it stands, the ill-will is so strong at times, some of them almost hope the YECs are wrong because of the ill-will that has been sown. In that regard the writings of Walter Brown and Barry Setterfield have been welcome because they throw the character and issues off the table and focus on the physical facts. I highly recommend visiting www.creationscience.com to see an ID-type approach to creation science. It is very much in line, I think with mine and jonnyb's approach. Great to hear from you, Rick. Salvadorscordova
August 16, 2006
August
08
Aug
16
16
2006
11:13 AM
11
11
13
AM
PDT
Salvador, "Even I as someone sympathetic to YEC, who cherishes the faith I have accepted, have a great deal of distrust of theologians as much as scientists or any one else, even myself! The frailty of human nature is something I am too aware of..." I appreciate your affirmation of sympathy to YEC. I also tend at times to be distrustful of the "experts." While I do question my own conclusions and reasoning, I'm afraid my mind is the only one I've got; and if I can't use it effectively, including by interaction with other people, I figure I'm pretty much up the proverbial creek. "For myself, a very simple epistemology of brute facts work for me. If nature tells us she is young, I will be inclined to accept it. Nature will give us clues to what we need to know. Without that hope, there is no science." I agree--though I have a lot more trust for science concerning the present than science concerning the remote past. For one thing, hypotheses about the present can be debugged by testing and observation. With the past, though, one has to make assumptions that probably can't be tested. Therefore, while one can certainly make educated guesses, if there were crucial conditions in history that bore heavily on one's hypothesis, how would one know? Also--unfortunately--we've seen evidence that certain ideas outside of mainstream science have a lot of trouble getting a fair hearing. Caroline Crocker's experience is a prime example of what can happen when someone dares even slightly challenge the status quo on evolution. We saw, too, what happened to Richard Sternberg when he allowed Meyers's article to pass through the peer review system. How, then, would one expect evidence challenging the conventional age of the earth and universe to be promulgated in mainstream venues? Nature may well tell us she is young--but where would we expect to learn of this? "The reason I thought ICR’s version of YEC was distasteful was “the appearance of age” arguments." I don't tend to find "appearance of age" arguments persuasive, either. I don't believe God gave his creation a misleading appearance. I also don't believe he gave the Scriptures "misleading appearance." The difference is, while we can all read the Bible for ourselves, most of us must rely on someone else to tell us things pertaining to the age of the earth and universe. Since the current thinking is that both are billions of years old, it should probably be assumed that evidence to the contrary wouldn't be deemed "good science" and that the public would be unlikely to hear about it through public channels. "Setterfield’s hypothesis, if true would mean all the laws of physics will point to that genealology. Theologically this would be a great development, and would be higly symbolic, however, it’s my nature to be reserved and skeptical." I'm not familiar with Setterfield's hypothesis, though I believe I've read that it has to do with the speed of light and represents an effort to explain distant starlight in a manner consistent with YEC. He may or may not be right, and he's also not the only vendor in the marketplace. I'm wondering if it's partly because of your skepticism that you lean toward YEC. Rickintp147
August 15, 2006
August
08
Aug
15
15
2006
10:38 PM
10
10
38
PM
PDT
In the second paragraph of my last post, I wrote "God, however, is not bound by time and space. He does not recall the past, he exists in it; he does not foresee the future, he exists in it. For eternal spirits in the material world, we touch eternity each present moment, for it is there free." It should've ended "for it is there our eternal free will acts and chooses."todd
August 15, 2006
August
08
Aug
15
15
2006
09:11 PM
9
09
11
PM
PDT
Rick, What I'm trying to say is that the Gospel accounts confirm that revealed events suffer eternal to time-bound translation misunderstandings. If the coming King revealed by God through his prophets was not what the leaders of the chosen people of the One True God envisioned - so much so that they sought and killed their own Messiah, how can we be so certain the English translation of ancient Hebrew can convey the context of the times in which Moses lived in the creation account? If God is a person, then God has a point of view. If God is eternal, he is literally timeless. If we look at our existence along space-time, it is linear. No man is immune from the onward march of time and space. We must travel through it until we exit through death's door. God, however, is not bound by time and space. He does not recall the past, he exists in it; he does not foresee the future, he exists in it. For eternal spirits in the material world, we touch eternity each present moment, for it is there free. I believe our spirits are equipped to perceive eternal reality, if we take time and look up from it. But I digress. The lens by which we all perceive reality is shaped upon our genetic foundation by the application of our sentience across the time of our lives. This is true for me and was true for Moses and Isaiah, Daniel, Jeremiah and every other man of God. We cannot underestimate how wholly time and culture shape our perceptions and we cannot forget this is true for all men in all times. The Gospel account of the One who fulfilled prophesy, clearly knowing eternal reality and choosing to explain such in parables. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. If Jesus, when he was in time among men, knew the fullness of eternal reality and spoke of eternal principles in parables - to confound the proud and make them understandable to common folk - and if that same Jesus was instrumental in making all things, why must the creation story be literal? Suppose the YEC take on the eternal revelation to time bound Moses is as dead wrong as the Pharisees take on the eternal revelation of the coming Messiah and the age of the earth and cosmos is as large as the current scientific consensus believes it to be. Did Moses have the tools to grasp such ages? Could he conceptualize BILLIONS of years? If God showed him an enlarged view of the microscopic world, would Moses know what he was seeing, or would what he saw be shaped by the reality he knew? The same is true in reverse - if God showed him a creation spanning many billions of years and the vastness of the universe, would Moses be able to grok what he was seeing? Moreover, would God allow his misunderstanding to confound the theologically wise, the same as he did with Messianic prophesies? I had a pastor who used to preach "If you want to know what God is doing, look what God has done". Well, when he was among us, he spoke in parables to illuminate eternal principles, why would any account revealed though men of the Torah be any different? regards, Toddtodd
August 15, 2006
August
08
Aug
15
15
2006
08:56 PM
8
08
56
PM
PDT
We should be asking on what basis scriptural exegesis would lead to a conclusion that the six days were NOT literal.
Rick, Even I as someone sympathetic to YEC, who cherishes the faith I have accepted, have a great deal of distrust of theologians as much as scientists or any one else, even myself! The frailty of human nature is something I am too aware of.... For myself, a very simple epistemology of brute facts work for me. If nature tells us she is young, I will be inclined to accept it. Nature will give us clues to what we need to know. Without that hope, there is no science. The reason I thought ICR's version of YEC was distasteful was "the appearance of age" arguments. When they found evidence of youth, they accepted it, but if it looked old, they said it was only appearances. This sort of cherry picking of data is not honoring to the YEC thesis. I believe it is very possible that Nature will be found to scream in a way that affirms the genealogy of Luke 3 if we allow free-open dispassionate, theology-free inquiry. That is the approach of Walter Brown and Barry Setterfield by and large, and myself as well. If indeed Setterfield is right, it is beautiful symbol that the most glorious truth of the Christian faith, its central character, was affirmed by all the laws of physics, especially those laws tied to the nature of light. Setterfield's hypothesis, if true would mean all the laws of physics will point to that genealology. Theologically this would be a great development, and would be higly symbolic, however, it's my nature to be reserved and skeptical. Salvadorscordova
August 15, 2006
August
08
Aug
15
15
2006
11:44 AM
11
11
44
AM
PDT
Todd, "Forgive and correct me if I recall scripture incorrectly, but did Christ ask his followers to eat of his flesh and drink of his blood? Was he being literal?" Yes, he did tell his followers to do this; and no, obviously he wasn't literally suggesting that anyone physically ingest his flesh and blood. But let me ask you something: have you ever thought about this example and considered what indications there might be in context (John 6, I think), and in things Jesus said elsewhere, that would indicate what he did mean? Do you think anyone could reasonably suggest, from the Bible alone, that Jesus meant these words of his to be understood in a physical sense? "If he is the Word and creation came through him, then why not be open to a revelation of Genesis to Moses in the same vein?" Because there is nothing in the Creation account to indicate that the days of creation were not of ordinary length. Genesis 1:5 defines what a "day" means by saying, "there was evening, and there was morning--one day." This definition is entirely plausible, being essentially consistent with what we understand as the ordinary meaning of the word. Moreover, God himself, speaking in a straightforward context, reiterated that "in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and everything in them" (Exodus 20:11). "Did Moses possess the tools with his Egyptian education to grasp time in billions of years? Could it be that the lens by which Moses viewed reality was affected by his life and education up to the point at which God revealed his creation to him in the Tent of Meeting? Did Moses, or anyone reading scripture have the technology to measure red shifts, thereby expanding their view of what is possible?" Not sure what the point is with this. Education and technology have nothing to do with whether Moses could have received what God told him and written it down. Unlike modern scientists, Moses wasn't looking into the past and trying to draw inferences based on various assumptions. Rather, he was simply reporting. The account in Genesis 1 may have been passed down from Adam. God's statement in Exodus 20:11 is something Moses received firsthand. "The Pharisees and Scribes combed prophesies of the Messiah, expecting a physical king and missing the prophetic spiritual King. Indeed, they executed He who threatened the image they had crafted." You are right. Even Jesus's own disciples didn't understand. In the end, however, the fact that they had misunderstood the Scriptures didn't quench their love for him. "It is my belief that the YEC crowd (all of whom are my brothers and sisters in Christ) make this same error when insisting on a literal six day creation." And, of course, you are entitled to your belief. On the other hand, is it possible that those who reject the literal creation account are doing so not because of anything in the Bible but because they think science precludes it? To be consistent, then, why not reject the account of the virgin birth of Jesus? Why not reject the resurrection of Jesus as unscientific? We should be asking on what basis scriptural exegesis would lead to a conclusion that the six days were NOT literal. The points you have made seem to me rather too broad: you seem basically to be saying that, "because x is figurative, or because y was misunderstood, perhaps z is also not to be understood in its apparent sense." But doesn't this suggest that we can never be certain we're understanding something in the Bible unless we have the benefit of unambiguous independent corroboration? How would we know, for example, that we can look forward to an eternal, blissful existence? Our scientific knowledge about things at the beginning is of a different sort than our biblical knowledge. While science has a deservedly great reputation as a tool for enabling us to understand how our world works, through observation and experimentation, we can only make inferences regarding unrepeatable events that no one was there to observe; and we have no way of verifying the accuracy of those inferences. The knowledge in the Bible is not in the nature of scientific research but of historical record. Its reliability doesn't depend on the validity of assumption-based inference but on credibility of testimony. Rickintp147
August 15, 2006
August
08
Aug
15
15
2006
10:19 AM
10
10
19
AM
PDT
To the YECers who insist upon a belief in the literalism of scripture: Forgive and correct me if I recall scripture incorrectly, but did Christ ask his followers to eat of his flesh and drink of his blood? Was he being literal? When he says that he only says what his Father is saying and also says he speaks in parables to confound the wise - and if he is the Word and creation came through him, then why not be open to a revelation of Genesis to Moses in the same vein? Did Moses possess the tools with his Egyptian education to grasp time in billions of years? Could it be that the lens by which Moses viewed reality was affected by his life and education up to the point at which God revealed his creation to him in the Tent of Meeting? Did Moses, or anyone reading scripture have the technology to measure red shifts, thereby expanding their view of what is possible? Suppose Moses had telescopes back at Ramses U and scientific observation to that point had detected the vastness and expansion of the universe, deducing space by which light takes billions of years to traverse. Suppose also that Egyptian geologists had deduced a vast age for the earth and the general view at the time was expanded from the hundreds and thousands of years scope to the millions and billions of years scope. When God then showed him creation, do you think his description might have been different? The Pharisees and Scribes combed prophesies of the Messiah, expecting a physical king and missing the prophetic spiritual King. Indeed, they executed He who threatened the image they had crafted. It is my belief that the YEC crowd (all of whom are my brothers and sisters in Christ) make this same error when insisting on a literal six day creation. Holy Scripture is replete with figurative illustrations. We perceive eternal reality dimly because our entire view is shaped by beginnings and endings, which imply time. Our physical minds are limited by a time shaped view, which is why Pharoah saw seven thin cows consume seven fat cows, why the prophesied king was in fact lowly and mistaken as a heretic and why it is an error to make book on a creation in six 24 hour days. regards, Toddtodd
August 14, 2006
August
08
Aug
14
14
2006
09:24 PM
9
09
24
PM
PDT
Mats, "If God wanted us to know that creation took billion of years, he could have used the sand on the beach, or the stars in heaven, for us realize it. But He didn’t." Excellent point...I hadn't thought of that. It would be nice if any OEC could answer my original question. Perhaps they are letting their "scientific evidence" guide their exegesis scripture rather than the other way around. Saxesaxe17
August 14, 2006
August
08
Aug
14
14
2006
08:35 PM
8
08
35
PM
PDT
bFast, According to you, both Genesis and now Hosea are long periods. Therefore, I'll challenge you to re-write both of them to indicate 24-hour periods. In other words, you would do well to respond to my initial question. I look forward to your response. Thanks, Saxesaxe17
August 14, 2006
August
08
Aug
14
14
2006
08:25 PM
8
08
25
PM
PDT
Mats, "By this same logic, we can assume that evolution is atheism desguised as science, since the overwhelming majority of people preaching Darwinism are atheists." This is what I hear from the press headlines, but it would help to see that supported by some sort of demographic data. The only data I can think of are a small number of surveys that show that about one-half of the US population accepts the literal biblical account of creation. However, the question(s) that were asked were fairly broad, and as far as I know, we don't know about the religious tendencies of the respondents. Let's not forget, in my understanding some if not many of the ID proponents are not biblical literalists, either. If anybody has the info on the surveys, could you please give their URLs?ofro
August 14, 2006
August
08
Aug
14
14
2006
01:18 PM
1
01
18
PM
PDT
Ofo,
Could it be that the ID arguments appear in prominent pulpits because the pastors perceive it not as theology-free but as intrinsically religious, more specifically Christian-religious? In that case I can understand why the NCSE is trying to keep it out of public schools.
By this same logic, we can assume that evolution is atheism desguised as science, since the overwhelming majority of people preaching Darwinism are atheists. Therefore, both Darwinism and ID should be ruled out of public schools, bkz both have religious implications.Mats
August 14, 2006
August
08
Aug
14
14
2006
08:00 AM
8
08
00
AM
PDT
Sal, AIG, ICR, CMI have no problem with ID as a scientific theory. That is why they us and abuse ID material bkz ID material is backed by state of the art science. Where Creationists disagree with IDers is that some of IDers want YECers to "keep the Bible out of it". In this point with disagree. One point of disagreement doesn't anul the many common grounds, IMO. There might be other points, but this one is too serious for YECers. God blessMats
August 14, 2006
August
08
Aug
14
14
2006
07:58 AM
7
07
58
AM
PDT
ofro: I think you are arguing against yourself. Could it be that the ID arguments appear in prominent pulpits because the pastors perceive it not as theology-free but as intrinsically religious, more specifically Christian-religious? In that case I can understand why the NCSE is trying to keep it out of public schools.
welcome ofro, First of all many Christians do not want full blown ID in the public schools at this time for a very practical reason: We don't trust liberal NEA teachers to give it fair shot anyway. My point was that the NCSE said ID was fabricated to get creationism in the public schools. But first, there are two flavors of ID: 1. Pandas and People definition ( similar to theology-free creation science definition) 2. Modern information theoretic definition (see DI, ARN, IDEA, IDnet for statements) The NCSE has equivocated the t2o meanings. #1 has not been used in ages. #2 has a life independent of any push to get ID in public schools. It is the kind of theology-free ID that appears in college classes and increasingly in Sunday School and Pulpits and even within creationist organizations. This news report was a good example of a religious program (Coral Ridge) that presented ID in a very non-religious manner.
I think you are arguing against yourself.
I'm trying to convice IDers that they should continue efforts to reach creationists. They have been reluctant to because of the "unsavory association" it brings. The Dover school board was a colossal example of stupidity. It was the Dover School board's creationists who fueled the disaster ID must now suffer. In contrast, Coral Ridge is a promising example of how to productively get ID in the hands of creationists. Ironically, despite their protestations against modern ID, AiG and ICR have reluctantly promoted some key pro-ID materials. These are promising developments. It is my hope the next generation of creationists will be more embracing of ID than the current generation.scordova
August 14, 2006
August
08
Aug
14
14
2006
07:32 AM
7
07
32
AM
PDT
Hey Sal.
The weapon of the Design argument is now being placed in the hands of pastors and in the hands of Protestant and Catholic congregations.
Perhaps you mean the weapons of the MODERN design arguements, given the fact that Christians (and non-Christians) have been using design arguements for centuries (Paley, for example).
They are becoming equipped to effectively combat materialist philosophy.
Christians had already been fighting materliastic philosophy for decades. Why do you think that the American population is skeptical of Darwinism? Like I said previously, 1) ID came to a people already prepared against Darwinian nonsence, but ID brought with it more brilliant weapons to the already powerful arsenal Darwin skeptics had. 2) The work of many creationist organizations is behind the majority of people's skepticism against Darwinian mythology. Seems to me that *some* (not all) ID proponents (and 2 lawyers) want to push aside YECers when Darwinists are looking, but then they want to "hug" YECers when it comes to public suport, in whatever way that suport might come. God blessMats
August 14, 2006
August
08
Aug
14
14
2006
05:48 AM
5
05
48
AM
PDT
Saxe, Good questions. I often ask that too. If God had created in six days, how would He have to put it in Scripture, besides the way that it's already there? If God wanted us to know that creation took billion of years, he could have used the sand on the beach, or the stars in heaven, for us realize it. But He didn't.Mats
August 14, 2006
August
08
Aug
14
14
2006
05:31 AM
5
05
31
AM
PDT
Hey BarryA. Allow me to answer to your questions.
I never meant to say “always” leave the Bible out of it, as Matts seems to believe. But the Bible itself says for everything there is a season and a time for every purpose under heaven.
And it is true, however that in no way implies that there is a moment in life when we don't need God's Guidance.
There is a time to speak [including a time to speak about the Bible], and a time to remain silent [including a time to remain silent about the Bible].
Name me one moment when talking about Creation when a Christian has to "remain silent about the Bible".
If the specific revelation is the only reliable source of information about creation, why does God say he will hold men accountable solely on the basis of general revelation in Romans 1? Is God unjustly holding men accountable for rejecting unreliable information?
Creation reveals that there is a God, but it doesn't say who He is, why HE created, when HE created, and how HE created. If you notice the usage of the words in Rom 1 you will see that those passages are meant against those who say that there is no God. to those, God says "How can you not believe that I am here? Who do you think made all this?" Isaiah 40:26 JPS: Lift up your eyes on high, and see: who hath created these? The revelation of nature, despite being a very powerful one (thus the reason why atheists can't let go of Darwinism), isn't enough. The revelation of Nature condemns men, it doesn't bring them a saving knowledge of the Creator God. You don't look at creation and say "Well, clearly all this was created by the Lord Jesus Christ". WHen you look at creation what you say is "Whoa! There must be a Very Powerful Creator!" God blessMats
August 14, 2006
August
08
Aug
14
14
2006
05:25 AM
5
05
25
AM
PDT
scordova: "The NCSE would have us believe that ID was created to invade public schools. If so, why is then why is the theology-free science of ID argument appearing in prominent pulpits?" I think you are arguing against yourself. Could it be that the ID arguments appear in prominent pulpits because the pastors perceive it not as theology-free but as intrinsically religious, more specifically Christian-religious? In that case I can understand why the NCSE is trying to keep it out of public schools.ofro
August 14, 2006
August
08
Aug
14
14
2006
04:37 AM
4
04
37
AM
PDT
Kennedy's sermon made several references to Jastrow and the Design argument. What is on the internet cuts out 30 minutes of Kennedy's sermon. I got a little chocked up hearing it. There were some minor technical inaccuracies, but it was materially correct. The NCSE would have us believe that ID was created to invade public schools. If so, why is then why is the theology-free science of ID argument appearing in prominent pulpits? The weapon of the Design argument is now being placed in the hands of pastors and in the hands of Protestant and Catholic congregations. They are becoming equipped to effectively combat materialist philosophy. The picture of what is happening is illustrated by : Weapon Retention Failure PS Thanks to everyone who have participated on this thread, and for those who watched the program. PPS Kairos, did you like Sanford's book?scordova
August 13, 2006
August
08
Aug
13
13
2006
10:40 PM
10
10
40
PM
PDT
Salvador, You were shocked before at the books at ICR [Walt Browns, Privileged Planet, Unlcoking the Mysteries of Life..etc..]. But hold onto your britches, here is an even more "scandolous" bit of media found there than all of those combined :) http://www.icr.org/store/index.php?main_page=pubs_product_book_info&products_id=2450 - Maybe ICR is slicker than all have thought to give them credit.JGuy
August 13, 2006
August
08
Aug
13
13
2006
12:11 PM
12
12
11
PM
PDT
Sal Congratulations on a clear concise statement in your interview. I endorse you call for all to avoid accusing others are "compromising". Such accusations appear to be ad hominem attacks and should not be used here at Uncommon Descent. Focus on common goals, purposes and methods.DLH
August 13, 2006
August
08
Aug
13
13
2006
10:39 AM
10
10
39
AM
PDT
Saxe:
On a side note, it is interesting that “day” in Hebrew is never associated with a long period of time when an ordinal adjective (i.e. the sixth day) is associated with it.
Please consider the following passage. Hosea 6:2
After two days he will revive us; on the third day he will restore us, that we may live in his presence.
This Hosea prophesy is normally interpreted as "not 24 hour" periods, though the same word for day is used as in Genesis 1. Yet another example of YEC presenting questionable "facts" as gospel truth.bFast
August 13, 2006
August
08
Aug
13
13
2006
07:43 AM
7
07
43
AM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply