From: allenroy (allenroy@peoplepc.com)
Date: Fri Jan 03 2003 - 13:28:48 EST
Facts (jan 2003) from ICR
Sender: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu
Precedence: bulk
Henry Morris has written a defense of his ideas in the "Back to Genesis"
section of the January 2003 Acts and Facts from the Institute for
Creation Research. I agree with him that "the Bible should govern our
interpretation of the geological data." however, I find that I don't
agree with some of the other points he makes. For instance when dealing
with 2 Timothy 3:16 Morris notes (in brackets) "All Scripture [not just
those parts dealing with religious matters, and not just the 'thoughts'
but the actual words written, for that is the very meaning of the word
'Scripture'] is given by inspiration of God [literally 'God-breatherd,'
not the product of human reasoning] ."
I agree with him concerning the idea that the entire Bible is inspired,
not just parts we think deal with religious topics. However, I have
grave reservations with the idea that the individual words are inspired
and that the Bible is not the product of human reasoning. This would
make the writers merely mechanical 'court recorders' mindlessly
scribbling away on blanks of paper. I don't believe that this is what
the Bible means by inspiration. To me, biblical inspiration very much
involves human reasoning as the Holy Spirit moves on the thoughts of
intelligent believers to explain what they know of God. If the very
individual words are so important, why bother with human agents at all?
Why not just hand down His words on golden plates engraved by his own
finger?
Dr. Morris then tries to defend his position that the 2nd Law of
Thermodynamics (2LoT) began with the fall of man. He states, "to assume
that the decay aspects of the entropy law were operating before the
Curse seems to be a tacit admission (perhaps unintentional) that death
was also operating before the Fall, and this clearly contradicts
Scripture (e.g., Romans 5:12; 1 Corinthians 15:21)." I believe that
Morris is mixing apples and oranges here. The Fall involved the
breaking of the Law (1 John 3:4 "sin is the transgression of the law")
which Jesus tells us is the Law of Love (Matt 22:36-39 "love the Lord
thy God with all thy heart"). The results of breaking the law is Death
(Romans 6:23 23 "For the wages of sin is death") As long as an
intelligent being has a loving relationship with God, they will live
forever. When they break that loving relationship with God, they will
die. This has nothing to do with physics.
We are told that everything was created by God-- i.e. nothing can exist
on its own without God. If anything could exist without God's support,
it would be as immortal and unending as He, but we are told it is God
"who only hath immortality" (1 Timothy 6:16). Since nothing else can
exist forever, then it follows that even though God created it, it would
eventually come to an end, unless God continually keeps it from ending.
It seems to me that this is where the 2LoT fits in. The Universe and
all creation functions from the very beginning according to the 2LoT; --
Heat flows to cold, light into darkness, complexity into simplicity. It
has nothing to do with the fall of man except for when mankind chooses
to reject God's love and thereby shut themselves off from God's
sustaining power and they then die and decay according to the ever
present 2LoT.
So, is this a "tacit admission that death was operating before the
Fall?" No. Death can only happen through a personal choice to reject
God love. Since Adam and Eve did not exist before the Creation week,
and they did not choose to reject God before the Creation week, then
their death (and the curse of death on the animals) could not exist
before the Creation week.
Dr. Morris then continues to promote a heavy vapor canopy as the source
of the flood rain waters. Such a source for the flood waters is no
longer modeled in most creationary circles because other, better sources
are easy to be had. Although a comparatively lighter canopy is often
proposed that would modify the weather and environment of the world.
It is true that scientific challenges are not insuperable to models
build upon a Biblical base. However, it is another thing to adopt and
cling to models based on ideas read into the Biblical description which
clearly violate basic scientific principles. I agree with Dr. Morris
that there is nothing wrong with simply believing what God as revealed
in His word, even when we don't yet have a scientific explanation for a
particular problem. As long as we believe what God did reveal and not
what we read into the Word.
Allen Roy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Jan 05 2003 - 02:25:43 EST