RE: [asa] Creationism Conference (The Queen of Sciences)

On Wed, 25 Jun 2008, Dehler, Bernie wrote:

> Gordon Brown said:
> "You seem to accept Ken Ham's claim that he correctly understands Book
> 1."
>
>
>
> I think Ken Ham understands Book 1 like anyone else... the difference is
> he doesn't also consider Book 2 too much when formulating his theology,
> as if it is a "compromise" with science..
>

Ken Ham believes in flood geology. I never heard of flood geology before
the 1960s, and I don't think very many other Christians did either. It
appeared that Genesis indicated that the flood rose, drowned the humans
and land animals, thus accomplishing its stated purpose, and receded,
uncovering what it had covered. It did not strip a leaf off an olive tree,
nor did it change the location of well-known rivers of the Middle East.
The geological theory that Ken Ham advocates was developed by George
McCready Price who was influenced by Seventh Day Adventist founder Ellen
White's claimed vision of the flood. Henry Morris adopted it apparently
because he was bothered by fossil evidence.

>
> Gordon said:
> "Actually many of these science-faith issues were around long before the
> advent of modern science."
>
>
>
> Like what? If you are referring to Augustine's idea of instantaneous
> creation, I think that is only because Augustine is throwing in some
> Book 2 (logic and reason).
>
>
You can find what early church fathers believed about Genesis by going to
a good theological library, perhaps at a seminary, and finding the works
of the early church fathers and looking at their homilies on Genesis. In
City of God Augustine said, "As for these 'days', it is difficult, perhaps
impossible to think--let alone to explain in words--what they mean." He
cited the problem of figuring out what a day was when there was no sun.
Irenaeus apparently thought that the days of Genesis 1 were 1000 years
long. Other authors opined that since the first day in Genesis 1 is
referred to as one day rather than the first day, it must have been a
different kind of day.

>
> Anyone who believes in a local flood has just as many problems as a YEC,
> I think. There's still a problem of where the water came from and how
> it left. I was talking to a leader at a RTB chapter last night and he
> told me the RTB position was that the rain and water for the local flood
> was a miraculous event. If you can flood that local large area for a
> year, seems to me that you'd still have the same problems as a YEC with
> a global flood... and something that major would have "left a mark"
> which I don't think anyone has spotted (just like with a global flood).
> Also RTB thinks all humans were local in that area so they could be
> wiped-out... which sounds unreasonable to me. I'm not familiar with the
> topology of the area, but I also doubt it is sufficiently bowl-shaped
> (on all sides) to contain hundreds of feet of water for a year.
>
>
>
> ...Bernie
>

RTB doesn't speak for everyone who believes in a local flood. There are
several theories. This includes one fairly recently in PSCF by Carol Hill.
Just because all these theories may have problems doesn't prove that no
such theory is possible.

Gordon Brown (ASA member)

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Jun 25 16:57:18 2008