"Our supposedly eminent Bible scholars are now going on record to say that we must subordinate the authority of Scripture to the higher and more objective standard of secular science."

His 3rd point is worth its weight in gold!

"Do they think they can restrict the hegemony of science over Scripture to the realm of creation issues? What will science make of the virgin birth, the miracles of Jesus, and the resurrection? The 20th Century gives us the answer. Moreover, do they think they can avoid worldly scorn merely by jettisoning biblical creation, while still holding to even more obnoxious doctrines like substitutionary atonement? The hermeneutics behind theistic evolution are a Trojan horse that, once inside our gates, must cause the entire fortress of Christian belief to fall under the humanistic sword."

Yes, there will always be challenges in harmonizing science and the Bible, and it isn't wrong to ask questions about interpretations. Enns and Waltke, however, reveal a deeper authority issue. They say that they believe in the authority and inerrancy of Scripture, but their stance on this issue reveals that their ultimate authority is really their intellect. We must be careful to maintain a humble scholarship, carefully trying to understand the Bible in light of science and scholarship, but keeping our thinking submissive to the Bible.

The theology of geocentricism/heliocentricism is not analogous to Creationism. For geocentricism/heliocentricism, we are talking about theological inferences based on Scripture as opposed to what is explicitly stated in the OT and confirmed in the NT. Although some of the peripheral points are inferential and debatable, the central issue of the historicity of Adam/Eve, sin in the Garden, etc. are definitely taught in Scripture. No one seems to be questioning this. If Adam/Eve are mythological and allegorical, then we have credibility, authoritative, and inerrancy issues in the writings of Paul and others in the NT.

This is an understatement. It is not a comparison in degree but it is a comparison of different things--apples and oranges.

Oh, come on now. You're speaking of RC theologues who cared more about pleasing the Pope than reconciling Scripture. It's the party line that they followed, not understanding Scripture. The RC's are not known for being sola scriptura.

It's the precursor of Modernity that resulted in the religious Modernism/Liberalism.

This is the same play with the old scenes and lines performed at a different time and place with new actors--call it Modernism/Liberalism. Remember Crawford Toy? I will add that this comes about when we neglect Biblical separation. It's the same old attraction of acceptance and pride. Will we ever learn?

Rick Phillips hits the bullseye. The bottom line is that rational thinking is superior to revelation. In other words, rationalism trumps faith. Although we may shy away from expressing it in these terms, whom are we fooling? This is where the road leads with no exits.

Aaron, you will recall that I have posted frequently in the several months calling for a rejection of Modernity especially in its religious expression of Modernism-Liberalism. Older Fundamentalists and their orthodox allies used Modernism to refute Modernism. In other words, they used the rationalistic methodology of Modernism to answer and refute its questions and attacks. They were successful up to a point in that the tide was turned and Modernism-Liberalism began to decline. Well, the plague has returned in a more virulent secular form.

As one with a scientific background, I have always had reservations about "Scientific Creationism," although I greatly appreciate the work of Morris, Gish, et. al., I fear that we come to depend upon it instead of Scripture. After all, we're using the same scientific methodology in "Scientific Creationism" to refute evolution as the evolutionists use to prove their side. Yet, we make the strong and valid point that both positions are ultimately a matter of presuppositional faith.

Aaron, I am calling for serious and honest answers, not the dismissive pabulum of non-virulent Modernism-Liberalism that we're often fed. However, my call is perhaps too bold for many because it advocates a re-examination of our basic epistemological premises, which are essentially the same as Modernism-Liberalism. It is time to reassess some of our methods. BTW, post-Modernism is not the only alternative as I have suggested before. This moves us out of comfort zone with the pat answers that we have spouted for so long. For too long, we have depended on orthodox or evangelical theologians. Why can't Fundamentalists set the stage and put forth some provocative thinking? Are we scared? Are we too dumb?

Again, at the risk of repetition, this growing problem is becoming more apparent and we appear surprised. The answer is simple. We achieved some progress in establishing Biblical orthodoxy in religious academic circles during the past quarter century but we allowed the seeds of our undoing to remain by the lack of Biblical separation. With our drive to intellectualism (infatuation with an attitude of being intellectual) and inclusiveness, we ought not be surprised at defection in our midst. Oh, it'll be justified in many ways but it's the same old song of long ago. Nuff said. What do you think?

Now, I understand "between the mid-nineteenth century and the mid-twentieth century" to be roughly between 1850 and 1950. If there was no consistently hard line against evolution, what was the Scopes Monkey Trial all about in the 1920's? Even if your theologians failed to make a strong statement, the unwashed masses, who followed the great commoner, William Jennings Bryan, certainly were adamantly opposed to it. I don't care what the so-called scholars say, it is apparent that evolution since it popularization has been strongly resisted by American evangelicals. Furthermore, I don't think that you can relegate this to a few exceptions. Obviously, it was a major popular opinion, certainly not "a rare animal."

My argument goes further. A lot of things were happening with new discoveries shaking up the old order in many areas. The theologians were reluctant to make a strong statement because they were afraid of being contradicted and refuted by new discoveries. They were trying to refute evolution and Modernism-Liberalism with its own methodology. After all, they were academics trained in the methods, worldview, and mindset of Modernity. The Orthodox theologians held the line to the best of their ability and resources. However, with Modernism on the ropes from post-Modernism, we ought to be thinking of a paradigm shift. It's high time that we thought for ourselves.

In closing, may I remind you that Crawford Toy was fired from Southern Seminary in the 1800's because he was espousing evolutionary ideas. There were other related teachings as well but the evolutionary teaching was singled out. In fact, I am not sure that he was actually teaching evolution but he suggested at first that it might be true. The whole faculty, including Broadus and Boyce, was opposed to his evolutionary teaching. The story is told that John Broadus stood on the train platform in Greenville, SC as Toy was waiting for the train to Harvard. With his right arm raised, his left arm around Toy's shoulders, and tears running down his cheeks, Broadus said, "Oh, Toy, Toy, I would give this right arm if you were standing where you were standing four years ago."

It was Dr. Jerry Bergman who did the program I referred to in the last post: http://www.ctvn.org/programs-origins-viewshow.asp?id=13

You can view the PowerPoint slides here:
http://www.ctvn.org/origins/pdf/505.pdf

What data are they ignoring. I know of no compelling evidence that has surfaced for evolution. In fact, some evolutionists are finding it less convincing. The change in attitude is the result of an intensive propaganda campaign by the evolutionists and the media to strike back at the creationists. Lot of the furor is caused by the success and inroads made by ID, although I don't ascribe to it myself. It's the laymen, not the scientists, who are being taken in by this. I challenge you to read Dawkin's The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution, which supposedly is the crowning proof of evolution. Then, tell me that evolution has compelling evidence. Dawkins is a hack--he dresses up and trots out the same old worn out arguments in new clothing. It still won't work. He demonstrates similarities (i.e. homology), which no one denies, but he can't connect the pieces. No one has yet proved the homological argument. It is assumed without proof. We're told that genome mapping has proved the relationships but we're very short on specifics. It's much like the optimism in earlier day when the fossil was incomplete and time would complete the record and prove evolution. Not so.

Yup, this is the same road the old Modernist-Liberals trod.

Whoa! This is overstatement or just an outright wrong statement. No one is "abandoning study of the created world to unbelievers and/or painting the issue in terms of a simple case of 'the Bible vs. science.'" The Institute for Creation Research has been trying to deal with this for years. Surely, you know this. And, it is precisely the young-earth scientists that Walkte and company oppose. They supposedly do it on scientific ground but they are not scientists. Doesn't it bother you that Walkte, who is a supposed OT scholar, appeals to supposed scientific arguments instead of OT teachings? Something is wrong here.

Aaron, in another thread, you demand that KJVO advocates provide Scriptural support. Why don't you demand it here? What's the difference? Intellectualism?

Dear RPittman,

Thanks for these important observations. The importance of scientific creationism should always have been [directed at evolutionists] “Look, we’re using your own tools to disprove your theory.” It should never have been “Look, we just used your tools to prove our Bible is true. Hurray! Now we know!”

In swallowing the Modernistic methodology into our apologetic systems, we drank a slow-acting poison, did we not?

I still encounter older believers who are enamored of this thinking in churches today. They would ten times rather hear me explain scientifically why the earth must be young than hear me explain why I believe the Bible must be saying 6 literal days of creation. The science confirms their faith more than the Bible does – revealing their epistemology.

Mike D

The Bible's narrative regarding creation is not meant to be a narrative regarding the earth's history, the solar system's history, the galaxy's or even the entire universe's history, rather it is a narrative about man's history and God's intent and work with respect to man and in part, the concurrent and co-coterminous event of angels (fallen). Now if one subscribes to the interpretation of Genesis where it states:

That this inauguration is one of universal beginning and not that of an era (the human era) then they do present themselves with a context that does not allow for any possible prior physical history of the earth or surrounding universe. And here is an example of a problem such a context presents:

We can view evidence of certain historical events on other planetary bodies that speak of a great cataclysm at some point in the past but a past that Scripture does not speak about in dative terms. Yet we can see the undeniable scars that mark our neighboring planets and beyond. With this in mind the student and the researcher who is considering such findings or evidence are forced to find order or placement for such events in their forensic examination and documentation. If they turned to the Bible for such a placement they would be met with certain limits, by some, regarding the time frame or context within which this could have happened. For those demanding the Bible speaks of the present universe (including the earth) as very young, at the most 25,000 years old and for some as young as 6,000 or 7,000 years old, they would they would be met with an impossibility and inability to reconcile, scientifically, that of which the evidence speaks. Because these planetary markings are not the marks of one or two nuclear bombs, rather they are disruptions in the structure of such bodies so intense and so large that the impacts causing them and its subsequent fallout would have resulted in biological obliteration and a fundamental atmospheric alteration.

Now if a person accepts that the narrative in Scripture, while quite true and intended with literalness, also includes in its interpretation a prior history and that this is not a universal inauguration but that of the human era which is the focus of Genesis, namely man and God's relationship to man with an angelic sub-plot, then you have a context for prior events.

The question is, is such a view justified hermetically? Well there is a debate about that and I personally believe it is. But let me say, simply because we wish the Bible to say what we want it to say, we are not at liberty to go to the Holy Word and interpret in a way that satisfies our intellectual need so we may compensate for places where we don't have immediate answers. And without getting into the exegetical argument seeing that most people are familiar with "became void" vs "was void" and so on, I will appeal to another translation that speaks to this human era context as opposed to a universal beginnings context which is found in Young's literal translation:

Here Young makes a nuanced but noticeable change from "in the beginning" to one of the beginning of an era, namely God preparing the heaven's and earth for a certain event, for a certain context, again namely the human era which. Some might respond, "I don't see Young saying anything about a human era" and you would be right. It isn't based on what he translated but

he translated it. I assert it is translated that way for a reason. That reason being that the text, recognized by Young, was not intended to communicate the universal beginning but a certain kind of beginning which contained in his use of the qualifying prepositional phrase "of God's preparing". It was the beginning of God's preparing the heaven's and the earth for an event and such a context and translation speaks of prior history.
______________________

Even though the above may not fit well into some fundamentalist or conservative evangelical circles it is not without company in other fundamentalist and conservative evangelical circles. It simply is not the most popular and current view but it is one with much more history than you might imagine, dating centuries back to Jewish writings and views. But even its history should not be its validation because history is only that, a reality of somethings existence over a period of time, not its integrity. But it is worth noting such concepts are not novel within the Judeo-Christian community.

And you would think with all that I made my point but I didn't .

Ultimately my point is that it isn't the findings of science that should concern us, per se, but the interpretation and the narrative they attempt to create in light of their findings that deny the narrative of Scripture. And I admire many men who are active in this field that are believers. And mind you, there are believers in this field that are young earth/six day creationists and there are those that are old earth/young humanity creationists (and other as well) where both have come to differing narratives while keeping in tact the integrity of the Genesis account and man's unique creation by God.

However, if we have drawn wrong theological boundaries and have forced ourselves into forms of reconciliation that cannot properly hold weight, we must at times face these realities and instead of acquiescing (waving the white flag) to the narratives of science when such narratives assault our faith because we don't have an immediate or satisfying response (which is where it seems Waltke is headed but maybe not) we have to be willing to re-examine, re-evaluate, and re-order our approach

Aaron, Aaron, Aaron.
Yes, I have conceded to some extent. But, as I said, your example of “grabbing a dog by the ears” (Prov. 26:17) is worlds apart from redefining Genesis based upon a scientific theory. Let me try to define the difference first by refining the distinction of what is meant by the term “science”.

In the sense that you are using it, science is “knowledge attained through study or practice”. It would include the reaction of a dog if I grab its ears, or the fact that blood is pumped through our bodies by the heart. Allowing science to help us understand a passage like Prov. 26:17 based on that kind of knowledge can be legitimate – within limits I will later attempt to define.

The other way we use the term science is "knowledge covering general truths of the operation of general laws, esp. as obtained and tested through scientific method [and] concerned with the physical world." Something passes into the realm of such knowledge via experimentation within the scientific method. During the phases in which a thing is a “hypothesis” or “theory” and has not yet arrived at “law”, it is dangerous to give it the acclaim and respect given to “knowledge” on the scientific level. In some senses, this is a problem for science, since the set of things that are true is larger than the set of things that are provable.

In the case of evolution, there are hurdles in moving it from the “theory” column to the “fact” column. First, it assumes another entire theoretical model “uniformitarianism”, which itself is difficult to prove by experiment. Second, it is actually a meta-theory – a cloud made up of theories of origins in different disciplines (cosmology, biology, geology, etc.). Thus, it becomes hard to disprove. There can be no experimentation, due to time-frames involved. There can be no repeatability, because we don’t have any spare universes to observe (yet). There can be no modern observers, because our time machine isn’t quite working yet. There can certainly not be multiples observers to rule out bias. It has become a theory that “cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fit into it… No one can think of ways to test it” says Paul Ehrlich, himself an evolutionist.

There is a big difference between allowing our interpretations to be influenced by obvious facts based on observation and complex theories that have not yet been proven and that may in fact be unprovable.

A 2nd and related difference arises in that complex patterns can be imagined where they do not exist. Humans are great at this. It happens in all disciplines. I would argue that there is a fundamental difference of level between the science that says “grabbing a dog and yanking his ears is going to be trouble, because I have done it twice, and I got bit both times” and the level of science that talks about hundreds of digs, strata, findings in those strata, and the various interpretive layers build on those findings. Complex versus simple observations are fundamentally different. The more complex, the greater the amount of interpretive connections that had to be made between the different elements.

Even your example of Geocentrism versus Heliocentrism was a complex set of observations that took some time to sink in – but did not begin to approach in complexity the arguments for the meta-theory of evolution across all the disciplines.
It is inherently risky to allow such theoretical observations on such complex issues to guide the interpretive process.

In the case of the dog’s ears, there is minor risk. “Just because he yanked the dogs ears doesn’t mean that’s why the dog was angry. Perhaps he has an unpleasant odor. We need to repeat the experiment using other test subjects, both dogs and humans, in various test conditions.” OK. Sure. But we all understand by common experience that yanking a dog’s ears will be trouble.

In the case of allowing evolutionary theory to sway the meaning of Genesis 1-2, we have an entirely different situation. There is skepticism even among some scientific philosophers that we can ever prove it to the satisfaction of scientists so that it can be called law. Why would we allow it to guide interpretation?

The third difference is in the area of direction.
Imagine that we had a verse of Scripture that says “Blood is pumped through the body”. At some point, a scientific observer (Harvey I believe, Galen having missed it) posits that blood is pumped through the body by heart action. He experiments, and proves this, to the point that it becomes accepted law (as it has). Then, we, as conservative believers, would safely say “The Bible says blood is pumped through the body – doubtless referring to the fact that the heart is actively pumping blood as science has proved.” Most importantly, it would have guided us toward the natural reading of the passage as identified by the laws of hermeneutics.

Now, instead, take Exodus 7:3, where God states His intention to “harden Pharaoh’s heart”. Medical science has identified that a hardening of the heart wall can be a result of disease processes. But if we were then to allow this bit of medical knowledge to guide our interpretation of Exodus 7:3, we might wrongly conclude that God was smiting Pharaoh with a heart condition. In this case, we would have allowed our scientific knowledge to lead us in a direction that contravened the natural reading of the passage as identified by the laws of hermeneutics. We would be in error.

In the first case, I have allowed science to refine my understanding of a verse based on scientific law, in a direction consistent with hermeneutical law.

In the 2nd case, I have allowed scientific law to alter my understanding of a verse based on scientific law, in a direction inconsistent with hermeneutical law (specifically, I have used “heart” in a way not usually used in Scripture, and in a way inconsistent with the natural reading suggested by the surrounding verses).

I would argue that this is exactly what has happened with the Theologians referenced in the lead article. Despite Alex’s claims to the contrary, I think the most natural reading of Genesis 1 & 2 leads to a conclusion that Genesis’ author is intending to communicate the beginning of all things. Witness, for instance, the fact that the same author (Moses) uses the same terms “Heavens and Earth” in a more definitive sense in Exodus 20:11, indicating that all in the Heavens and the Earth were also made in the same 6 day time frame he referred to earlier. Even a liberal reader who rejects Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch is forced to deal with the fact that an early author or redactor is identifying the meaning of Genesis 1 & 2 to the ancient Jewish mindset.

Allowing evolution to lead me away from the natural hermeneutic of the passage is a distortion of hermeneutics by definition. If I do so, I have imposed a modern understanding of how the universe came into being onto my text.

The fourth difference is in the theological implications.
The dog’s ears observation has no theological implication.
Despite Rome’s tortured arguments to the contrary, geocentrism vs. heliocentrism has not theological implications.
But accepting an evolutionary framework for interpreting Genesis leads to huge theological departures. The creation account, the singular nature of the first couple, the state of mankind prior to the fall, and the state of mankind after the fall, all have connections to theological passages that connect with our doctrines of man, sin, salvation, as well as practical implications for the home and family life – all based on direct references to the account in Genesis. If we accept an evolutionary framework, then Paul and Christ were using MYTHICAL events to shore up their theology. This says some things about inspiration and theology that force us to succumb to theological liberalism in other areas at some point.

Regardless, the theological implications are a guidebook for the way Jewish believers and early Christians viewed the Genesis account. Who are we to say “That’s not the way ancient readers viewed Genesis.”?

In answer to your challenge, Aaron, the theologians condemned in the lead article did cross a line.
They used scientific theory to redefine a passage in a way that the underlying hermeneutics did not support.

Mike D,

I do hope you understand that I, myself, am not arguing for any form of evolutionary narrative from Scripture or science though I hold to an old earth view (young humanity) and share some of the sentiments regarding the ears we must lend to the voice of science as stated by Waltke (without succumbing to its narrative of its findings).

It is good that you're thinking these things through. While you were posting, I was writing my post with similar points. Well, you can read and compare.

The problem, of course, is that it might be at times that it is our theological interpretation which is in error and not the data of science. If we position ourselves where science must always acquiesce because we possess all of the greater certainties when in fact we too engage in the process of interpretation, then we trivialize the contribution that science has for our discovery, interpretive aid and propositional development.

Alex,

Thanks for clarifying your view. I had incorrectly pigeon-holed you, and am now moving you to a different one. I would be interested in discussing this in detail with you sometime. I wonder about Exodus 20's "the heavens and the earth and everything in them" statement and what you do with it.

Mike D

I don't feel there is a need for anything other than recognizing valid textual approaches which I believe fairly includes an interpretation of Genesis and the Bible which takes the view that this is the beginning of the age of humanity and not necessarily the earth itself.

First, I would prefer to be place in no holes on this matter. I have not come to a conclusion myself.

Your Exodus reference should not be dismissed by anyone who entertains the belief that the earth's age is far, far older than humanity's. So you are right in not only citing this one but any other passages that appear to contend with such a view and they must be reconciled. But because I am not necessarily a proponent of such views rather I am a proponent of recognizing its textual validity, I cannot offer you an immediately robust response. But I will say that two points come to mind.

1. The God of ages view. That is, when Moses made this quote he certainly had in mind just what you have in mind, that in six days all God made, that is the heavens and earth, were done in six days. But this making or forming (as Young calls it "preparation") was done so with respect to ages which is reflected in Scripture as a feature of God's program for his creatures and here it is a reference, not to the beginning of all things or a universal creation, rather a reference to the inauguration of the age of humanity. Hence Moses would rightly identify that all things relevant to our human era as recorded in Genesis were made in six days.

The God of ages views stems from the varying ages either explicitly or implicitly referred to in Scripture both on macro and micro scales. There was, previous to man, an age of Angels. Angels not only had their own age but during that time were offered some opportunity for angelic salvation (as we know by the reference to elect Angels, meaning those that accepted God's chosen method of salvation for them which is not described in the Bible but we know it is so, again by the reference to their being elect Angels). As well there is the age of humanity which is the present age and there is an age yet to come where there still will be another age for the earth under the program of "a new heaven and a new earth". And particularly within the age of humanity we see micro-ages regarding God's protocol and plan for humanity and believers.

2. The reconstruction theory. Often called the GAP theory it proposes that Genesis 1:1-2 should have in view an earth that "became" void and then was reconstituted or re-created. And because the emphasis of Genesis was not pre-humanity's history, rather the declaration of God's initiation of the age of humanity, the writer did not write with the kind of force to highlight this distinction, rather his emphasis was the quick move from the general beginning to the initiation of humanity. Therefore what Moses is referring to is the creation of the age of humanity and not the ancient universal inauguration and this creation of the age of humanity would rightly have in view the heavens and the earth.

These are only two of several responses that exist to your question. Again, I am not here as a proponent of any thing other than the validity of certain textual approaches. I do recognize problems in all of the various interpretations. However, I am not satisfied with my own discoveries and enlightenment at this point to speak with the kind of certainty that would place me in any specific school.

Alex, the Pigeon-hole thing was a joke, just so you know. Should have emoticoned it.

The reconstruction theory has been around for a very long time, so I won't respond to it. The pro and con debate process is mapped out like an intricate dance known to all.

But your first suggestion or possibility leaves me thinking. If I were to take this view seriously, I would want to find some verses that suggest it to counterbalance Exodus 20:11. Otherwise, I feel forced to take the plain sense of Exodus 20:11 as a commentary on Genesis 1 & 2 and feel no pressure INTERNAL to Biblical hermeneutics to consider it. And if you've read my earlier posts, you know how resistant I would be to accepting an external scientific theory as a basis for throwing out the plain sense of a passage.

Now, you could trot out some "ages" verses from Biblical poetry, but I'd rather see something outside of Biblical poetry as a proof, for reasons that should be obvious. Furthermore, the way "ages" is used in Scripture is a rich study in and of itself, and leaves the issue quite open. Of course, I may be walking down a path you have no intention of going down here.

Aaron, my answers are probably going to sound a little smug but I don't intend to be smirky.

It's really quite simple. We are familiar with the history of how men of a bygone era struggled with the same issues in somewhat similar circumstances and time revealed their end. It's not hard to make the comparison. If you want it to sound scientific, call it pattern-matching or call it a statistical prediction. But, Aaron, remember that you and I play by different rules. You're asking for a scientific proof but with me it is an art.

Aaron, isn't it obvious that the idea doesn't work. It's very simple. If scientific observations are consistently used to correct theological interpretations, then you must deny every miracle in Scripture because they are scientifically impossible. That's the reason that some old timers tried to explain miracles by some unseen natural phenomenon in face of the assault of Modernism-Liberalism. If you say that scientific observations will be used selectively, then how are you going to make the selections because you have no benchmark to compare the theological-scientific discrepancy? It's not a good idea.

What road is this? It's the same road of Modernity or Modernist epistemology that you are travelling. Until you abandon the defunct Modernist epistemology, you will always have tension between your theological understanding and natural phenomenon. Read Bauder and adopt his terminology and ideas if you like although I prefer simpler, descriptive language to technical philosophical jargon. Plain speech has less baggage with twists,turns, and nuances. I'm not sure that Bauder is fully ready to give up his Modernist methodology but at least he seems to understand some of the soft spots.

I don't. Why do I need to know their thoughts to see the direction that they're travelling and where their expressed ides lead? I'm not really sure that even Waltke, Enns, or Longman could accurately map out their own thought processes. Many times, those who consider themselves intellectuals do not arrive at their positions through pure logic and ratiocination. Oh, I'm sure that they have developed a rationale to support their views but that is not to say this is how they arrived where they are. These guys are human, thus they are influenced by their emotions, their friends and colleagues, their desire for acceptance and praise, etc. I consider this an immaterial and irrelevant question. They're clearly on a road away from orthodoxy and Biblical fidelity.

Is it a foregone conclusion that they'll end in some revived form of modified Modernism-Liberalism? No, but at this point the likelihood seems probable.

I have yet to say a young earth view is not acceptable to me though I admit clearly my position leans toward an old earth/young humanity. I simply cannot attend to every single doctrinal consideration to the same degree and on this point my exploration and discovery is not satisfactory enough for any conclusive position, but from what I have studied my lean in the direction of an old earth/young humanity is due to the strength of both biblical and empirical causes.

I am surprised to learn that you are only familiar with old earth positions based on scientific models and not biblical arguments which are somewhat numerous, and the arguments to which I am referring are not theistic evolutionary arguments (though they abound also) but old earth/young humanity creation arguments.

Thanks and I appreciate the clarification. I personally do not have a problem with extra-Biblical data being a motivating factor with respect to biblical propositions if the propositions themselves are based in an orthodox hermeneutic. But if the motivating factor is also the constructive or narrative factor, that is that it alters orthodox textual approaches, then I certainly agree with you that a wrong turn has been made. And at times with some teachers this is the case but with others it is not.

I don't feel you are trying to trap me in a corner since I have been clear I am not conclusive myself and am confident you accept this and that I am advocating the validity of others views and not necessarily those views themselves.

When you ask about substantiating an antiquity for the underlying age of the earth, I am not sure if you are asking me can I substantiate it with biblical arguments or scientific arguments? My guess is you mean biblical since the scientific arguments abound or am I missing the question altogether?

Correct! I'm asking for a Biblical argument that would indicate the earth's antiquity without first being suggested by external data. To clarify, I am asking for something suggesting that the earth may be very old rather than just allowing the the possibility. Whereas I understand yom can mean either a literal 24-hour day or a period of time, I think the meaning is clarified by the context. I found the following web site to be an interesting attempt to textually establish the Genesis days as periods of time. Several times the author slips and mentions that "science tells us that these events took much more than 24 hours." This, I believe, is the real reason for his argument. However, he does try to establish periods of time from the Biblical text. I really don't find this convincing because too much depends upon a favored interpretation and stretching of the text. The approach, IMHO, is rather naive and simplistic. I would be interested in your view.

I'm curious how the lack of observation of something proves that thing to be impossible. That goes contrary to any true science I'm aware of.

No, Aaron, I won't. As I have pointed out, which you fail to acknowledge, we are thinking and debating from different paradigms. Would you agree? It seems that you refuse to allow my assertion that I reject Modernity/Modernism/Liberalism as a system of thought much as one would reject Christianity as a system. It does not mean there is no overlap or concurrence. Because I am observing from a different frame of reference, your differences are unimportant to me. (Please understand this is not a slam against you. It is simply I can see no importance from my vantage point.) To make your point, you must enter my world and persuade me or convince me to accept your world.

If so, then the concepts of goodness, right and wrong, loyalty, love, etc. are not "real" in the sense of real reality. They are only emotional and imaginative creations that are ultimately reducible to chemistry and neural patterns in the brain. This definition is lacking in some key areas such as what is knowledge, how do we know, what is knowable, etc. Also, Modernist methodology, which is not defined, is relevant to our discussion.

I have no argument except for the brevity and generality. I'm sure this is satisfying as a personal understanding but it lacks in scope for a worldview. Too many pertinent issues, such as the limitations of rationalism, are not defined. If we say that rationalism is valid (as used in statistics) for the observable, verifiable, and replicable things, then perhaps we are getting somewhere.

Well, you've summed this pretty neatly. Now, what are you going to do about it? This puts Modernism in the judge's chair--it determines what is theologically valid.

This is where we part company. Aaron, it appears that you are saying that Modernism (i.e. naturalistic-rationalism), which you variously call science, is a legitimate methodology except we as humans make mistakes in its use. Thus, it is sometimes wrong when it goes against "Scripture and sound theology." I DISAGREE! Modernism is a misbegotten system that is illegitimately used in theological discussions. There are some very good reasons why it is invalid and inappropriate. In theology, the subject matter does not meet the requirements of observable, replicable, and verifiable. Because we are speaking of the "supernatural" (i.e. something that is beyond the scope of natural phenomenon), it cannot be brought under the control of naturalistic-rationalism. Naturalistic-rationalism (i.e. Modernism) as a system has no validity or weight in theological discussions. When we impart a legitimacy to its use in theology, we have allowed the camel's nose in the tent. This is not to say that we don't use experience, reason, etc. in theological matters.

As for knowing and certitude, it depends on how you are using the word. Given the past course of the drive into Modernism of a hundred years or so ago, I can reach a reasoned conclusion. If that's knowing, then I know.

Aaron, I wish you would address the specific points that I raised in this and other posts. I've given specific assertions that I would like to hear you say "Yes, that's right" or "No, that's wrong because................" Otherwise, restating generalities goes nowhere.

Mike is right. We are using science in many different ways. If we're speaking of a philosophy of science, then it is out of the depth of this discussion. My personal views run toward the ideas suggested by Karl Popper or Thomas Kuhn. For this discussion, I have been using "science" and the "scientific method" interchangeably. It is the methodology of naturalistic-rationalism (Modernism). It works reasonably well with natural phenomenon in determining what works and what does not. That's all. It does not in any sense give us a final reality. It is an abysmal failure in the humanities and religion because it is being forced upon subjects for which it is not suited.

However, Modernism and science are related in that Modernism is founded on a belief in science and/or the scientific method. In its most virulent form, it is called scientism. It is much more benign for most folks. Now, I did NOT say that you "equate[d] Modernism with science" meaning that they are synonymous. My implied point was that you were using the term loosely in a related way, which is greatly different from being synonymous. You did, however, relate them and they are related. Modern science or the scientific method is the methodology of choice for Modernism. Aaron, I'm sorry but I really don't understand your "distinction between 'science as an activity' and 'science as a body of ideas.'" It's beyond me.

My bottom line is that science or the scientific method is not a valid means of solving theological difficulties because it has no verifiable, replicable, and observable (preferably measurable) data. What is your benchmark? What more of an answer addressing the issue can you ask? You now have my answer and reasons. Tell where I went wrong.

Mike, you are precisely correct. The scientific method works in natural phenomenon because there is the self-correcting reality check--wrong ideas don't work. Likely, more time is spent in finding what does not work than what works. There is no benchmark for theology except Scripture. Much bad theology, even heresy, is passed along without correction. Just look around at all the unBiblical nonsense that is taught in the name of Christianity.

Yes, that's what I'm saying. Lack of experimental evidence may lead to a strong theory, but does not constitute proof. It was drilled into me in science classes, by both believing and unbelieving teachers. It was always expressed as "Science cannot prove things like 'There are no ...'" and similar formulations. Yes, the fact that other than what happened to Moses and the Israelites, humans haven't observed water dividing and leaving a dry strip of land in the fashion described, would definitely lead us to believe that it doesn't normally (naturally?) happen. However, that lack of observation does not prove it could not happen.

For example, you have probably read about the particle collider in Switzerland. Physicists hope to explain more of the forces behind the atom and physics at the quantum level. They even expect to find something like the so-called "God-particle," otherwise known as the Higgs boson. But others have speculated that they might find something else. There are lots of theories, but without *observation* they are simply speculating as to what might be there. That is a drastic oversimplification, but is more or less equivalent to the press releases from CERN. Lack of observation of this Higgs boson does not mean it exists or doesn't exist. That's why billions was spent to enable observation.

I think that what we forget is that for God, miracles are not really miraculous. For an all-powerful God, nothing is really "supernatural," just natural. The miracles observed during Bible times are outside of what *we* call natural, because they don't operate according to laws we currently understand (and since we are finite, maybe are not capable of understanding in our current state). The miracle where the earth stopped rotation ("the sun stood still"), or even better, the one where the sun went backwards an hour, is far outside anything we have observed about motions of bodies in space. But we simply have no ground for saying that such an event couldn't happen, simply because we haven't observed it. It may be "unlikely" from a scientific point of view, but even scientists would admit, even if reluctantly, that it does not constitute "proof."

Yes, I do see, but what has been proven is that only for the individuals on which it has been tested has the juice failed to prevent allergies. It could work on some on which it hasn't been tested, for reasons like differences in DNA, etc. You haven't proven that it doesn't work, you've just shown it to be unlikely to work in most cases. Now, I freely admit that this is "good enough" evidence for how we operate in "immanent reality," as we do not have time or resources to go beyond sample testing in most cases. But it still doesn't add up to "proof."

I agree that scripture can say that "science may not claim A" and be correct since revelation makes the rules in our worldview. However, too many things even in our natural world have been shown to work after having been declared impossible for me to take *any* stand based on *lack of evidence*, let alone one that goes against scripture.

Why should we be surprised? This trend among the "conservative evangelicals" has been going on for sometime. It may have been largely unnoticed because they talk about creation but what they're really talking about is theistic evolution. If you listen carefully, this is exactly what Dr. Douglas Stuart, an Old Testament professor at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, teaches in his online Old Testament Survey class for RBC (Radio Bible Class) Ministries. Furthermore, Westminster Theological Seminary is promoting a book by one of their NT professors, Vern Poythress, titled Redeeming Science (2006). A careful perusal of the book will show that Dr. Poythress believes an "analogical day theory" regarding the six days of creation and essentially accepts theistic evolution. He plainly states that Genesis 1 "harmonizes with theistic evolution (p. 255)." With the seminary promoting the book, what can we conclude about Westminster?

BTW, I was surprised that no one responded to my post #67. Either this is true or not. One can easily verify or dispute my factual assertions. If they stand, why are we not concerned? Does anyone care? Is it not obvious where this segment of evangelical scholarship is headed. This scenario has already been played. Modernism-Liberalism took root and grew in orthodox academia beginning with evolutionary teachings and rationalistic methods of interpretation in the name of scholarship. The same apathy was seen the major denominations and schools that fell to Liberalism-Modernism. They said, "Oh, they're all right. They are good men and great scholars." The lack of Biblical separation cost many casualties in the battle.

It boggles my mind that some, who are quick to call the KJVO crowd heretics, are less than enthusiastic in confronting what is an apparent trend in returning toward what we fought so hard in Modernism-Liberalism. Such is the cyclic nature of history, I suppose. We are becoming more like what we once opposed.

Yes, Aaron, but isn't this the pattern of being dangerously lulled into sleep. The error of Modernism-Liberalism infected American seminaries when the best and brightest students came back from European seminaries with the seeds of evolutionary thought, naturalistic rationalism, and Higher Criticism. At first, there were only a few teaching in our denominational seminaries. Then, it was pervasive as the heresy grew with only a few professors defending orthodoxy as whole generations of unbelieving preachers were graduated. Now, our Fundamentalist graduates from our colleges are going to these big-name evangelical seminaries where these guys teach. Will their minds become the fertile fields where the ideas are planted? You tell me.

You are correct in noting the differences. Waltke, Enns, Longman, Stuart, and Poythress hold differing versions but there is strong commonality in the essence of their beliefs. It is their openness to theistic evolution, a willingness to choose allegorical over literal readings, and the primacy of scholarship in the interpretation of Scripture.

These guys chose their words carefully so that their views are somewhat obscured. This has always been the case of controversial theology when a position is at stake. Waltke, I think, miscalculated what would be tolerated. For the most part, heresy charges are very difficult to prove (remember the Briggs case). Also, seminaries have a tradition of circling the wagons and defending their own (e.g. Shepherd case).

Well, we do know that Poythress is comfortable with evolutionary thinking, even if it is the theistic kind. This much got Crawford Toy sacked. No, we don't know a man's thoughts fully and we most certainly cannot absolutely predict where he will end. However, we can discern some direction by what he says. If we agonize endlessly over trajectories and relationships, the concept of Biblical separation is drawn out into meaninglessness. When heresy is discerned, Biblical separation is quick (Titus 3:10). The question is whether we can recommend young men going to seminary at Westminster or Knox or Gordon-Conwell where they may sit under these teachers, be influenced, and accept these ideas? What do you think?

Charlie, you are precisely correct. Thanks for pointing this out. We must, however, interpret Warfield, A.A. Hodge, and Orr in their times. These men were hard pressed to intellectually defend the faith in face of rampaging naturalistic rationalism and the supposed irrefutable evolutionary Darwinism. They were reluctant to take positions that would later be exposed as ridiculous. They didn't know where this thing was going and they were trying salvage the major doctrines. They were swept away and overwhelmed by the invincibleness of science. They had to make compromises to maintain their credibility in rational debate. IMHO, they did the best that they could with what they had at their disposal but that doesn't leave us dependent on them today. Furthermore,IMHO, it is not an argument in favor making the same compromises today. We have a much clearer picture knowing the limitations and foibles of science.

Charlie, as you know, the aforementioned gentlemen were not Fundamentalists--they were orthodox theologians whose schools and denominations were eventually overtaken by Modernism-Liberalism. Perhaps their compromise with evolutionary thinking contributed to the demise of the thing they were so arduous in defending--orthodox doctrine. IMHO, evolution and Scripture are irreconcilable. If one is true, then the other is not. They are antithetical. Once the path of reconciliation of Scripture with evolution is pursued, its end is invariably a quagmire of doctrinal contradictions and doubt.

As for Poythress and Waltke, they simply harbor the seeds of destruction. Evolutionary concepts make a good portion of the OT allegorical at best. Poythress (I don't know about Waltke) holds some sort of framework view of Genesis 1 similar to Walton. N.T. Wright, whom I immensely dislike, holds a parallel view. If we accept these views, it changes the OT to literary myth, although not necessarily untrue, as opposed to a literal, historical reading. If so, our hermeneutic is altered. It naturally destroys any reasonable belief in the historicity of Adam and Eve as two individuals. The existence and events surrounding their offspring is wiped out as well. Thus, Scripture that reads as actual events peopled by real persons is reduced to myth with allegorical pretensions. If creation is myth/allegory, where does myth/allegory end and time-space history begin? Was Noah real? What about the world-wide flood? Theological concepts in harmatology and soteriology are founded in what we now suppose to be mythical. This opens the door to questioning whether other Scriptural teachings such as heaven, hell, resurrection, etc. are also mythical/allegorical. After all, Jesus and the Apostles treat the OT events and people as real. Were they practicing duplicity to accommodate their teaching to the belief of the times? Or, perhaps Christ and the Apostles were mistaken or limited in their knowledge. Oops, now there are those nasty questions of inspiration, inerrancy, and infallibility. It's back to the future with Modernism-Liberalism reincarnated.

Well, I don't think that my post either said or implied "lumping and dumping." At least that's not what I intended. How to do Biblical separation properly is another whole topic. IMHO, it is a methodical, stepwise process but we don't have the time or space to begin that discussion here.

Good observations. Your list is interesting. I did not see BJS. Also, many of our young men are going to TMS although it is not strictly in the Fundamentalist circle.

With a lot of young guys are looking for schools with high profiles and academic credentials acceptable to a secular world, it's a hard choice between "safe schools" and "dangerous schools" that provide acceptance to a larger world. In a liberal environment, no one, including myself, is immune to the influence. Everyone, regardless of his maturity and spiritual development, is at risk for infection. We are all susceptible to the peer pressure and influence. Even Barnabas was moved from his own steadfastness by the Jews (Galatians 2:13). Dare we be overconfident in our own ability to resist?

The problem is a false dichotomy that theistic evolutionists make. I am confident that Enns, Waltke, Longman, Stuart, Poythress, et. al. would all profess a belief in Scripture and its veracity. The contradiction comes when they show an openness to biological evolution and reject the social Darwinism (I'm using Darwinism synonymous with evolutionary concepts in general, not just strictly Darwinian concepts). The social Darwinism, which is rooted in naturalism, is antithetical to Biblical Christianity. Now, I am not speaking simply of the naive "social Darwinism" of the late 19th century that justified predatory capitalism and a host of other atrocities, but this is the social Darwinism that is foundational to the current secular "social construct." The problem is that biological evolution and social Darwinism are part of the same "social construct," or paradigm if you please, and they are inseparable. One presupposes the other. Like Warfield, Hodge, Orr, et. al., these men are struggling to reconcile things that are essentially different. Their conflict is spawned by their own "social construct" of rationalism, although it is rationalism based on the Scriptures. The concept of "social construct" or paradigm is loosely similar, although more pervasive and fundamental, to the idea of Weltanschauung, or world-view that Christians are so fond of invoking. It comes as a whole and is not amendable to eclecticism. Thus, theistic evolution is no position at all, but it is a fence-straddling position that can only be held temporarily until one is nudged to one side or the other. Theistic evolution is a contradictory position of two antithetical parts and can be maintained only as long as one is willing to accept rationalizations that keep it together.

Roland,

I actually agree with many ideas in your post. I concur that, in general, Reformed theologians prefer to be in conversation with scholarship in all fields. I think this is a good thing most of the time, as it allows them to benefit from general revelation and to avoid bizarre and parochial ideas that have dominated many of the more fideistic sects (SDA, Church of Christ, Landmark Baptists, etc.). However, I also concur that this does indeed lead them into tensions, where there are apparent contradictions between a certain reading of Scripture and an interpretation of science. At this point, there is going to be a divergence within the Reformed community, because Reformed denominations are currently straddling two epistemologies. The first is Scottish Common Sense Realism, which originated in Scotland and dominated old Princeton. SCSR takes a relatively straightforward approach to the problem of knowledge, placing great faith in inductive reasoning and the scientific method. The second is (for lack of a better word) Van Tillianism, which derives from Dutch theologians such as Herman Bavinck and Abraham Kuyper, is something of a Christianized Kantianism. This second approach stresses more the "antithesis" between Christian and non-Christian thought, and is perhaps more able to do a consistent worldview critique.

I don't believe that the origins question is actually split neatly along those epistemological lines, since Poythress is probably more of a Van Tillian, but it's clear how such an ambiguity within the Reformed community could lead to an atmosphere in which improperly eclectic positions may emerge. Both the epistemological reflections of Reformed scholars and the status of evolution (its several forms) in the scientific community are in flux, so the next few decades may bring some more clarity to the issue. I don't think that there is anything in Reformed theology itself that pushes people toward one side or the other. My seminary was entirely 6/24 creation, and one of the popular old Reformed theologians, Wilhelmus a'Brakel, actually argued for geocentrism on the basis of Scriptural authority. So, I think it's more accurate to say that Reformed theology allows a wide range of approaches to the relationship between general and special revelation. Also, though I am aware of the alleged Western vs. Eastern views of knowledge contrast, I think it's mostly bunk and almost entirely irrelevant to intellectual history. It's characteristic of 19th century liberal historiography to claim the centraldogma or key position from which an entire thinker or family of thinkers derives, and I think that their speculation has been taken over by some conservatives who do not really understand the issues.