The problem here is not "theology in general" but a particular
theological presupposition - one which many OECs and TEs hold in common
with YECs. But the YECs can deal with it more convincingly, and thus
"they" are winning.
That presupposition is that, in order to be true, the early
chapters of Genesis must be accounts of past events as they really
happened.
Many OECs and TEs hold that view and are able to interpret the
historical events supposedly narrated in Genesis 1-11 in ways consistent
with an old earth, big bang, biological evolution &c. BUT - the YECs
can do this better because, first they can claim to uphold THE
traditional Christian view of the history of creation. Perhaps more
importantly, their description is more straightforward and simple. No
need to make days long periods of time, give forced interpretations of
the creation of the sun on the fourth day, make "kinds" phyla, localize
the flood in Mesopotamia or the Mediterranean &c. A day is a day, kinds
can be pretty much like species, the flood really covered the whole
earth, &c. Given the assumption that Gen.1-11 must be _some_ type of
historical narrative, the YEC type is much more convincing to the man or
women in the street.
Ah, but it doesn't agree with the facts of geology &c! No - but
now we aren't talking about the Bible or theology, we are talking about
fossils, about which the man or woman in the street knows very little.
& for most of them this doesn't matter BECAUSE THE YECS HAVE ALREADY
WON THE BATTLE OF THEOLOGICAL PLAUSIBILITY. So the fossils can be
shoehorned into a 10^4 year time frame, perhaps with some help from
apparent age.
"They" will keep winning until "we" see that we don't need to
make the basic assumption that Gen.1-11 must be accurate scientific &
historical records in order to be true. They are true, and they do
talk about the real world, but they are not those kinds of literature.
Glenn & I have gone around a couple of times on this & I don't
want just to replay the arguments. At this point I'm simply pointing
out that this type of moderate concordism just doesn't work, if "work"
means to convince lots of people. Those who insist on using it will
lose the PR battle. I have said on this thread that numerical success
should not be our primary criterion, and I can appreciate the nobility
of being killed where you stand at some intellectual Thermopylae. But
go into it with your eyes open.
George L. Murphy
gmurphy@imperium.net
http://www.imperium.net/~gmurphy