Re: A reaction to ID

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ted Davis" <tdavis@messiah.edu>
To: <asa@calvin.edu>; <dickfischer@earthlink.net>; <gmurphy@raex.com>;
<michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>
Cc: <Tony.Ortega@pitch.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2005 2:59 AM
Subject: Re: A reaction to ID

> Michael Roberts wrote:
>> I have long reckoned that the most important issue was the vast age of
>> the
>> earth and universe and that evolution is a secondary issue.
>
> George Murphy commented:
> \..........................
> I can't see that at all. The age of the earth & universe is a minor
> theological issue, at least once you get past the notion that early
> Genesis
> is a notebook of scientific observations. Evolution, & especially human
> evolution, raises very important questions about theological anthropology.
>
> Ted replies:
> I understand George's point, and the third sentence is surely true.
> However
> I also agree with Michael's point, even more than I agree w/George's. In
> my
> essay in Keith Miller's volume, "Perspectives on an Evolving Creation," I
> do
> a few times point out that death before the fall is *the crucial*
> theological issue for YECs, it is that issue that accounts for the YE part
> of their position. It is absolutely not "a minor theological issue" for
> them. It isn't driven by their commitment to seeing science in Genesis as
> much as it is by their commitment to a certain view of the character of
> God,
> the view that utterly rejects George's view about the theology of the
> cross.
>
> One can (like Harry Rimmer) be a biblical literalist and accept death
> before
> the fall; Rimmer was a gap theory advocate. One can (like Hugh Ross)
> *claim* to be a biblical literalist (in the sense that an "eon" is one of
> the meanings of the Hebrew word "yom") and accept long creation days and
> death before the fall. But one can't be a YEC and accept death before the
> fall--that's like being an atheist and believing in God.

Ted -
    I see your point & was perhaps too hasty in my earlier post. However -

1) Yes, YECs can't accept death before the fall. But that isn't the
question - which is, how important in itself is the Y of YEC? Is there any
reason to insist on it if an ancient earth doesn't entail death before the
fall - & specifically, death which scripture rules out?

2) As you point out, there are ways of having an old earth without pre-fall
death - gap theory e.g. For that matter, I don't think it would take much
exegetical trickery to have days before #4 be billions of year periods since
there was no sun to mark time. Thus one could have an old universe & earth
without the problem of animal death before the fall. (How to work out plant
death between days 3 & 4 is left as an exercise for the student :))

3) There is nothing in scripture that explicitly makes the deaths of
non-human animals a result of human sin. (Admittedly Wisdom 1:13-14 might
be cited but virtually no YECs consider that canonical.) In fact, in the
eastern church there are suggestions that even humans would have been
subject to death as a purely biological phenomeonon if they had not sinned.

4) I think that one reason some people insist so strongly on a young earth
is that it makes significant evolution impossible. If the earth is only ~
10^4 yr old then there just wasn't time for evolution to occur & any
putative evidence for evolution must be spurious.

Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
Received on Tue Mar 1 11:49:13 2005