Re: In defense of Paul Seely

I will respond to only a few things here, and plan no further comments on
this thread. If Mr Holding wants to respond, I'll let him have the last
word.

I have snipped everything that I am not responding to.

Ted

****

I can live with a YEC or an OEC but default to YEC for my referrals
when people ask me questions. <BIG SNIP>

Ted: This is consistent with all of my points--indeed, it strongly confirms
the overall point that he sounds an awful lot like a YEC, whether or not he
holds that view. My instincts were in this case an accurate guide.

****

>>>>(5) Holding flatly denies that there are two creation accounts,
despite the radical break one finds in Hebrew between the two
accounts (yes, that's what they

Sorry, this just told me I'm dealing with a non-expert willing to
speak beyond his competence (I looked him up -- professor of the
history of science, eh? Sorry, I use Biblical scholars for my view).
I've given detailed arguments against this
<http://www.tektonics.org/jedp/creationtwo.html>http://www.tektonics.org/jedp/creationtwo.html

and they'd be the same if I was a foaming at the mouth
materialist-evolutionist. If he's not impressed he can show up at
TWeb and challenge me to a debate.

Ted: So neither of us is a biblical scholar, and both of us need to rely on
those who are. The ones I know best, including my pastor (who has a
doctorate in Old Testament and teaches a course on Genesis here at Messiah)
and those who teach Hebrew Bible at Messiah, are convinced that there are in
fact two creation stories in Genesis. I understand that Mr Holding
discounts the JEPD school of interpretation, and he may have interpreted my
comments as an implicit endorsement of all the various ideas associated with
that school; certainly it would have been a natural inference on his part.
I do not myself necessarily agree with all of the ideas usually associated
with the JEPD school, however it is obvious that the "first" creation story
(ie, the hexameron) uses one word for God ("Elohim," a plural noun) and the
"second" creation story (ie, the garden of Eden) uses another word for God
("JHWH," the singular name for God that devout Jews will not utter). Anyone
who knows anything about Genesis knows this, of course, including Mr
Holding.

This is *minimally* the basis for saying that there are two creation
stories, and IMO (here I agree with a very large number of biblical
scholars) it is a very strong basis for the claim. I don't have time to
cite a pile of them, but I'm sure Mr Holding knows that I could. I'll cite
just one of the best, Bernhard W Anderson, quoting his article on "The Earth
is the Lord's: An Essay on the Biblical Doctrine of Creation,"
Interpretation: A Journal of Bible and Theology 9 (Jan 1955): 3-20. I am
using the revised version (I don't have the original in hand) published in R
Mushat Frey, "Is God a Creationist?" (1983), quoting p. 178:

"Our method of study will involve, of course, special attention to the
accounts [Ted: note the plural noun here] found in the first two chapters of
Genesis. Literary criticism has singled out two creation stories [Ted: it
is clear in context that Anderson agrees with this view]: one (2:4b-25)
found in the Old Epic (Yahwistic or J) narrative which was written in the
time of the United Monarchy about 950 BC, and the other (1:1-24a) belonging
to the so-called Priestley Writing (P) which is dated in the post-exilic
period about 500 BC." etc.

As I said above, I don't necessarily endorse all the standard conclusions
of this approach, but I see no good reasons to question the conclusion that
there are in fact two different creation stories in Genesis. There are on
the list others who know biblical scholarship far better than I do--and far
better than Mr Holding does (as I say, neither of us is an expert, we both
have to rely on experts). I will let them enter into this if they wish. My
comments here are sufficient to answer Mr Holding's sarcastic point, "Sorry,
I use Biblical scholars for my view," as if I do not. Indeed, Mr Holding, I
suspect that others might say that the bulk of biblical scholarship (ie, the
experts) would in fact agree with me on this one.

Finally, as for TWeb, I spent a couple of months there a year or two ago,
engaging some YECs and some atheists on certain issues (different issues for
those two groups), but found the return not worth the investment of time.
This is not an issue I can debate from my own expertise--and it is not an
issue that Mr Holding can debate from his own expertise, either--so I see no
point in challenging him there or anywhere else on this issue. I see a
point only in defending what I have already written here.

***

>>>> I do sense that Holding might perhaps be in this category, in
which case (IMO) he might well have a faith crisis if he looks
further into the details of the science.

If he's in the mood for a fun project, maybe he can explain to me 1)
how many mutational steps were involved in any given major transition
(eg, from scale to feather, if that's still an explanation these
days); 2) what "natural selection" advantage each step had that led
to its preservation. Every time I ask this of a full materialist all
I get is an extended "huh?" If I had a default position after a
debunking of YEC I'd be what I'd call an old-earth periodic special
creationist.

Ted: The sentence Mr Holding responds to here is obviously about the
earth's age, not at all about evolution. Here is the entire paragraph, once
again:

< I have begun to encounter a fairly large number of "agnostics" on this
issue of the earth's age, including at least one with a doctorate in
biology
or biophysics. Eveyone I could name (but won't) in this category is an ID
supporter--how convenient, given the "big tent" that ID is. With Michael
Roberts, I am convinced that it's the historical sciences that present the
biggest challenge to ID, and that esp geology presents challanges to their
public posture about avoiding claims about the earth's age. IN EVERY
SINGLE
CASE that I could name here, the "agnostic" individual realizes that the
scientific evidence for great age is very strong, but that theological
considerations (esp theodicy but also fears about the "materialism"
associated with evolution) prevent them from clearly accepting the
conclusion that the evidence leads most naturally to. I do sometimes
chide
them, using the ID mantra, "follow the evidence wherever it leads." I do
sense that Holding might perhaps be in this category, in which case (IMO)
he
might well have a faith crisis if he looks further into the details of the
science. But I speculate more than I have above, and I'll cease.>

Let me spell out the point of this paragraph more succinctly, since it was
apparently missed. If Mr Holding wants to maintain an agnostic position on
the earth's age, with perhaps leanings toward the YEC view (my inferential
reading of his position has been precisely confirmed by his response), then
I am concerned that he might have a crisis of faith if he were to look more
closely at the scientific evidence relevant to the age of the earth and
universe. I have several friends -- among them Ron Numbers, a distinguished
historian of science -- who have found this to be so. Glenn Morton has
spoken effusively and eloquently often about his own experience, which Mr
Holding may well be familiar with from his involvement with Theology Web.

Thus, Mr Holding's response concerning mutations and natural selection is
irrelevant to the part of my post that he linked it with. It counts as an
explanation of his position on those matters, but not as a response to my
comments about the danger of having a faith crisis if one puts too much
faith in a recent creation. I decline Mr Holding's invitation to pursue a
"fun project," since it is not relevant to the point I actually made.

My best wishes to you, Mr Holding. Apologetics is very important work. If
there are any ways in which I might be helpful to you in carrying it out,
please do let me know (off list) what those might be.

Ted
Received on Wed Jun 7 14:43:12 2006