From: Steven M Smith (smsmith@usgs.gov)
Date: Thu Oct 09 2003 - 13:44:24 EDT
Combining posts to include parts relevant to my comments below (hopefully
without misrepresenting anyone's argument) ...
Jay Willingham wrote:
>>> One could hypothesize that Pangea's division began in the time of Peleg
of Genesis 10:25, "Two sons were born to Eber: One was named Peleg, [ 10:25
[Peleg] means [ division ] . ] because in his time the earth was divided;
his brother was named Joktan."<<<
To which Stephen Krogh wrote:
>> Do you have any physical evidence that suggests that the continents
split after pelegs time, and how recent was Pelegs time? If you ignore the
Geology, then sure. But why would you do that? Maybe you need to look for
another event, say, something that happened at a similar time to the day of
Peleg, rather than something that occurred several million years prior. <<
Jay's response:
> I tend to want to date the Bible to try to match the dating of Geology
through the hypothesis that it was common to telescope generations,
omitting some for brevity. This telescoping is in keeping with our Lord's
admonition to not contend over "endless geneologies". A hundred million
years would involve how many generations? <
Stephen Krogh also wrote:
>> What was laid out is very sparse. I believe you are straining the text
to fit an interpretation. No where does it say that the continents split
apart at the days of peleg. It is not necessary. <<
Jay's response
> Yes, it is sparce and I may be straining the text but I feel a need to be
literal in my approach to the Word but not dismissive in my appraoch to the
current scientific thinking and the data that evokes it. In short, I feel
a need to reconcile the two without doing violence to either. That may be
impossible but therefore unneccesary. <
Jay,
I think that this is a commendable attitude (holding fast to the Word but
not being dismissive of current scientific thinking). But I personally
think that your desire to create a concordist reconciliation between
selected Bible verses and Plate Tectonic Theory is unrealistic for several
reasons.
1) Like most geologists, I cannot find any way to compress or telescope all
of the Earth's history, including Plate Tectonics (or continental drift if
you prefer), into the Biblical accounts. But for the sake of argument,
I'll set this objection aside and consider your desired approach.
2) As has been noted in other posts, current science is a fluid medium
where ideas are proposed, argued, provisionally accepted, and sometimes
overturned based on new data ... hopefully asymptotically approaching
reality but never reaching it. There is a danger in tying interpretations
of Bible verses to current geologic theories - when current theories change
then the Bible is often used to defend the discarded science. One only
needs to look at literalist or concordist approaches to geology and
scripture from past centuries to see how silly it appears when Bible verses
are tied to ideas long defunct (e.g. Burnet's _Sacred Theory of the Earth_
1681, Whiston's _A New Theory of the Earth_ 1696, Hugh Miller's _The
Testimony of the Rocks_ 1857). I believe that some modern examples like
Henry Morris' _ The Bible and Modern Science_ (continuously in print under
various titles since 1946) will also fare poorly.
3) Finally, if you insist on tieing Genesis to geologic history, why
correlate the division of the Earth in Peleg's day with the breakup of
Pangea? Why not with the breakup of Rodinia? ... or Pannotia? ... or
Laurasia? ... or Gondwana? Current Plate Tectonic ideas propose a history
of continents something like this (ignoring several smaller assemblies and
breakups and realizing that there are differing proposals on some of the
earlier events): (a) Breakup of the Rodinia supercontinent; (b) Assembly
of the Pannotia supercontinent; (c) Breakup of Pannotia into Gondwana &
Euroamerica; (d) Assembly of the Pangea supercontinent; (e) Breakup of
Pangea into Laurasia & Gondwana; (f) Breakup of Laurasia into N. America &
Eurasia; (g) Breakup of Gondwana into Africa, S. America,
Australo-Antarctica, & India; (h) Breakup of Australo-Antarctica; (i)
Assembly of Indo-Eurasia. (You can see animated models of all these
proposed events at www.scotese.com).
Can we or should we really expect to find Bible verses to reconcile with
each of these major tectonic events? What purpose would it serve? Would
our faith in God or our acceptance of science be strengthened if we had a
one-to-one reconciliation between these proposed tectonic events and
scripture?
Steve
(Please cc: me in any replies)
[Disclaimer: Opinions expressed herein are my own and are not to be
ascribed to my employer]
_____________
Steven M. Smith, Geologist, U.S. Geological Survey
Box 25046, M.S. 973, DFC, Denver, CO 80225
Office: (303)236-1192, Fax: (303)236-3200
Email: smsmith@usgs.gov
-USGS Nat'l Geochem. Database NURE HSSR Web Site-
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1997/ofr-97-0492/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Oct 09 2003 - 13:44:39 EDT