SOME
LOGICAL PROBLEMS WITH THE THESIS OF APPARENT AGE
Martin LaBar,
Charman
Div. of Nat. Sci. and Math.
Central Wesleyan College
Central, South Carolina
1) In the last paragraph (Thomas H. Leith December, 1965, page 119) 1 fail to follow the transition from "logically unknowable" to "logical impossibility" as given by Dr. Leith: "We have already seen that the truth or falsity of the statement is logically unknowable if based upon any study of the facts on which it bears . . . Consequently the entire statement is a logical impossibility . . . " I agree that the fact of an apparent age not equal to actual age would be logically unknowable, but I fail to see how this makes it logically impossible to state that such a thing is true. I also grant Leith's recognition of such a thesis as an untenable hypothesis, on the grounds that no scientific evidence for or against it could be obtained, (barring observation of earth's creation by some outside entity) as correct. But just because an hypothesis is untenable for lack of evidence does not make it incorrect. As far as I know, I am justified in the sight of God, and though I am living on this "hypothesis", I would not even attempt to prove it.
2) On page 121, Whitcomb and Morris, authors of The Genesis Flood, are misunderstood, in my opinion. Leith's statement that "now we have a thesis [of Whitcomb and Morris] wherein the earth, which had this initial apparent old age, suffers catastrophic change in its appearance and processes so as to destroy (presumably) much of even this apparent built-in age." If I read Whitcomb and Morris correctly, a main theme was that the Flood added to the apparent age of the earth because of greatly increased sedimentation rates during this time.
3) 1 would like to take issue with a sentence in the last paragraph of Leith's article: "And, thirdly, one wonders why deity should be so malevolent . . . as to fool us on such interesting matters as much of the history of past events and the possible ages of many things, especially when it is the sort of delusion from which we poor mortals cannot escape!" Peter 3: 4-8 MTV) seems to say that "in the last days" men "willingly are ignorant of" such maters. as the flood. This is not due to any malevolence of "deity", but deliberate ignorance or misinterpretation of the facts. I do not wish to say that Dr. Leith, or anyone else, is doing this, but it is at least logically possible!
The passage goes on to say that "one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." I don't claim to know all that this means, about time.