CreationProcessAge Archive

The CreationProcessAge Discussion on Creationism

(Part 1)

The heart of the discerning acquires knowledge;
the ears of the wise seek it out.
— Proverbs 18:15

The man of integrity walks securely,
but he who takes crooked paths will be found out.
— Proverbs 10:9

Would a wise man answer with empty notions
or fill his belly with the hot east wind?
Would he argue with useless words,
with speeches that have no value?
But you even undermine piety
and hinder devotion to God.
Your sin prompts your mouth;
you adopt the tongue of the crafty.
Your own mouth condemns you, not mine;
your own lips testify against you.
Are you the first man ever born?
Were you brought forth before the hills?
Do you listen in on God's council?
Do you limit wisdom to yourself?
What do you know that we do not know?
What insights do you have that we do not have?
— Job 15:2-9 [NIV]

How long will you simple ones love your simple ways?
How long will mockers delight in mockery and fools hate knowledge?
— Proverbs 1:22

If a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into a pit.
— Matthew 15:14

Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed.
— John 3:20

Someone might argue, "If my falsehood enhances God's truthfulness and so increases his glory, why am I still condemned as a sinner?" Why not say — as we are being slanderously reported as saying and as some claim that we say — "Let us do evil that good may result"? Their condemnation is deserved.
— Romans 3:7-8

Part 1

[from email distribution list]

From:
Subject:
Date:

Todd S. Greene
Lamenting Exclusivist Politics and Head-Burying
8/8/00 7:35 AM

Hi, Roderick Bernitt (and everyone else).

I wish to clarify your clarification. ;-)

The information you presented regarding stellar evolution models has little relevance to the issue regarding whether or not the universe is less than 10,000 years old. What we have learned about the universe through science (which simply means careful, iterative procedures by which we try to examine the real world objectively) shows us that the universe has been around far longer than just 6,000 or 10,000 years. This is a factual matter. It is a factual matter because it is known just as clearly as it is known, for example, that the Jovian moon Io has active volcanoes on it - or that the earth revolves around the sun, and not the other way around. Believers need to be just as careful when accepting "secular" science claims to 'know' that the universe is far greater than 10,000 years old as when accepting "secular" science claims to 'know' that the earth revolves around the sun. There is just as much doubt about the former idea as there is about the latter one.

(Believers also need to be careful about accepting ideas based upon interpretations of the Bible. The "traditional" interpretation is still a human tradition that is fallible. Just because we may be discussing the interpretation of biblical texts does not somehow mysteriously obviate this consideration.)

You state that "[s]uch data...can still contain holes and bias areas that could make the arguments much weaker and thus far less reliable." It certainly can. But in a day and age in which we know so clearly that the earth does indeed revolve around the sun and that the universe has been around for a very, very long time, the burden of proof is clearly upon those who claim otherwise to produce the "holes" and "bias areas" that they keep referring to hypothetically. Show us the actual holes. Show us the areas that are actually incorrect due to genuine bias. Much more is needed than rhetorical obfuscation of the facts.

SN1987A is quite real. SN1987A is not an illusion. The sheer observation of SN1987A itself is an observation of an event that occurred approximately 168,000 years in the past. There are literally millions of galaxies in the universe, and every single one of these galaxies except for two (the galaxy SN1987A is in and one other galaxy that is closer) is observed from farther in the past than SN1987A.

In light of the relevant facts from astronomy and geology, AND in light of the fact that the Genesis 1 creation story uses language that is very similar to other creation passages in the Old Testament which are clearly and obviously metaphorical, any Christian who would attempt to make a literalistic interpretation of Genesis 1 a test of fellowship places himself in a rather precarious position. The literalistic interpretation of Genesis 1 is flatly contradicted by the real world; thus, those who advocate this literalistic interpretation are by implication actively discrediting their own doctrine of biblical inerrancy, which is an ironic aspect of this discussion that most of them apparently fail to realize.

(Incidentally, your wording is rhetorically prejudicial: "I would not want to modify the Biblical record based upon such arguments just to conform to modern thinking." Well - guess what - old earth creationists do not want to modify the biblical record at all. What they do is abandon a flawed literalistic interpretation of the creation account. And their motivation is to conform to truth, not to "modern thinking.")

David Mathews is arguing for acceptance of diversity on this issue in the Church Of Christ. He is arguing with some men in the Church Of Christ who have explicitly advocated that this issue is not to be considered a matter of opinion and that it is an issue that should be used to determine who is and who is not a good Christian. They have stated explicitly that (1) they "do not consider them to be mere 'matters of opinion'"; (2) they believe this issue is "a reason for breaking fellowship between brethren"; (3) to believe that the universe and earth are ancient is to believe "false doctrine"; (4) they "will have no part in tolerating it"; and (5) they "deny the allegation that men simply must learn to disagree about such matters" (i.e., tolerate a difference of belief about this).

Yet at least some of these same men, while calling for debate on the issue, are rather reluctant to actually debate those who have responded to their call for debate, thus revealing that their calls for debate are merely rhetorical. (For example, I, myself, wrote to Harry Osborne - one author of the recent "Open Letter" - a number of weeks ago to take him up on his debate challenge and to begin discussing with him the possibility of making arrangements for debate, and Mr. Osborne did not even grant me the courtesy of any reply at all. Stan Cox also received a copy of my email.) Such reluctance indicates to me that their purpose is merely political - simply to try to determine who to exclude - and not for the purpose of actually hashing out the relevant details of the relevant issues.

David Mathews and others should be applauded for meeting, head on, the challenge that the exclusivist attitude of these men presents. It would also be well to bear in mind the distinction that Mathews and others are carefully and consistently making between the issue itself (the ages of the universe and the earth) and the exclusivistic attitude that is being promoted by these men. These are two separate things, and there are many young earth creationists who, like old earth creationists, advocate tolerance rather than exclusivism on this issue. Yet this very distinction is one that the exclusivists themselves frequently attempt to obfuscate. (For example, Daniel H. King, Sr., another "Open Letter" author, wrote the exclusivist words I have quoted above, advocating, by name, that Hill Roberts and Shane Scott should be disfellowshipped and should be treated as false teachers, and then while refusing to actually hash out the details of the relevant issues has the gall to talk about "weak argument and of a lack of Christian virtue" and working to "further understanding between people who differ" and "foster brotherly love or kindness." The Roman god Janus springs to mind.)

The details, the clarifications, are important. Truth cannot contradict truth, and those who imply otherwise would do well to re-examine their presuppositions. It is a truth about the real world that the universe and earth are both quite ancient, just as much a truth of the real world as the revolution of the earth about the sun. The "young earth" of young earth creationism has been disproved just as the earlier geocentrism was disproved. Thus, it should be quite obvious that for young earth creationists this issue, as a "controversy," is NEVER going to go away.

There is no scientific revolution or overthrow about to occur (though I know that many YEC leaders have for at least twenty years been trying to rhetorically mislead you to believe otherwise). The "revolution," if you want to call it that, that is occurring is the one among those who advocate biblical inerrancy, in the current efforts of many to work out the relevant hermeneutical details consistent both with the reality of an ancient universe and ancient earth and with the doctrine of biblical inerrancy (just as the geocentrists of a former age found they had to modify their own hermeneutics). This is the work you should be paying attention to and examining - and trying to contribute to. Such biblical commentators as J. D. Thomas, Batsell Barrett Baxter, John T. Willis, and Shane Scott have already pointed the way. (And don't forget one of the architects of the modern concept of biblical inerrancy, Benjamin Warfield.) I would also highly recommend to you anything written by physicist Howard J. Van Till or geologist Davis A. Young on this issue (who, though they are members of the Christian Reformed Church, are strong advocates of biblical inerrancy). There is also, of course, the ongoing work of Hill Roberts.

(By the way, at the highest level there is no "new hermeneutic." It's the same hermeneutic that's been used for centuries. It's the hermeneutic derived from the doctrine of biblical inerrancy.)

These men are your allies. To spurn the sincere and earnest efforts of these advocates of biblical inerrancy without even bothering to dig into the relevant details, without even bothering to consider that you are wrong about what the truth is, without even understanding the reality around you within which you live (some even proclaiming obstinately that it is perfectly okay to completely ignore the clear evidence of the world around them!), is to abandon truth-seeking. You can't seek the truth about reality by sticking your head in the sand and ignoring what it is. That kind of behavior only demonstrates that you don't respect the truth as much as you think that you do.

Sincerely, and regards,
Todd

P.S.: Should anyone in this current distribution list care to take their own debate challenge seriously, as expressed in both last year's Watchman Magazine (April issue) or this year's "Open Letter", feel free to contact me in regard to making arrangements relevant to that. I will immediately forward to you the preparatory comments I already provided Harry Osborne and Stan Cox with, and then we can proceed from there.

•••• Roderick Bernitt, 8/7/00 12:56 PM ••••
Subject: RE: The Hope Which Conquers Lamentations

David, very interesting comments you make. Normally I do not respond or do a 'reply all' but thought that a point you raised needed some clarification.

You said -

2. Regarding Clarity of Speech: You should not assume that just because a passage has an obvious meaning to you that all other Christians must reach that same conclusion. Even taking the most "obvious" and literal interpretation of the Scriptures the Earth's age is indeterminate. When people attempt to estimate the Earth's age using Biblical genealogies, and they reach a conclusion that the Earth is only thousands of years old, they should still appreciate the difficulty of asserting this conclusion against substantial contradictory evidence found on the Earth and in the Universe.

I concur here about a literal interpretation of Genesis chapters 1-11 and a young Earth age. If believers accept a young Earth (6,000 - 10,000 years old or so), secular science does claim much evidence against such a view. However, believers also need to be careful when accepting secular science claims to 'know' the age of the Earth and the Universe. Such data, even when published by highly accepted scientists can still contain holes and bias areas that could make the arguments much weaker and thus far less reliable. A short example follows in this email (excerpted from a separate message.)

I would not want to modify the Biblical record based upon such arguments just to conform to modern thinking, God bless------Rod

[snip info on stellar evolution models]

[ TOP ]

Part 1

[from email distribution list]

From:
Subject:
Date:

Todd S. Greene
Re: Facts Vs. Theory
8/14/00 6:54 PM

Hi, Dudley.

I am confused. Did you actually read my email? ;-)

You state "Greene equates a scientific method of dating the universe with the discovery that the earth revolves around the sun."

Your statement is totally incorrect. That is not at all what I wrote, and it is a misrepresentation of what I said. I specifically wrote that "What we have learned about the universe through science...shows us that the universe has been around far longer than just 6,000 or 10,000 years. This is a factual matter." I very specifically used the words "that the universe has been around far longer than just 6,000 or 10,000 years," and I meant exactly what I wrote. Do not misrepresent me. My statement, as I wrote it (and not as you misrepresent it) is completely accurate. And I'll say it again, because it bears repeating:

What we have learned about the universe through science shows us that the universe has been around far longer than just 6,000 or 10,000 years. This is a factual matter.

And, Dudley, my statement is not "bold" at all. Indeed, much of it is elementary astronomy. Should you be prepared and willing to dig into the details on these matters, then let's get started. I would begin (and did, in a sense, "begin" in my previous email) with SN1987A in the Large Magellanic Cloud, which represents quite factual astronomical observation. I note here, Dudley, that you completely ignored my reference to SN1987A in my email from which you quoted. Why did you ignore my clear and obvious reference to this?

You make reference to "The observable planetary activity in the universe is a far cry from so-called facts that allegedly 'factually' date the universe at 4.5 billion or so years of age."

What in the world you are talking about? What is the relevance of the "observable planetary activity in the universe" to observable temporal extents in the universe? And, incidentally, as far as I know, with current technology planets can only be, and have been, observed (indirectly outside of our own solar system) out to a few tens of light-years. If there is something specific you have in mind that is relevant to this topic of discussion, then please state what it is.

Additionally, I also have no idea what you are talking about when you refer to dating "the universe at 4.5 billion or so years of age." No astronomer or cosmologist on the planet does that, so what are you talking about?

If you are going to discuss this issue intelligibly, you must dig into the details and acquire at least some basic level of understanding about them. Otherwise, you are merely perpetuating your incorrect perception of them, which is not something a truth-seeker should be doing.

Furthermore, since you are an advocate of making this issue a test of fellowship, it would behoove you to be more careful about getting your facts straight first.

Quite sincerely,
Todd S. Greene

He who speaks the truth gives honest evidence....

— Proverbs 12:17

As I urged you when I was going to Macedonia, remain at Ephesus that you may charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine, nor to occupy themselves with myths and endless genealogies which promote speculations rather than the divine training that is in faith; whereas the aim of our charge is love that issues from a pure heart and a good conscience and sincere faith. Certain persons by swerving from these have wandered away into vain discussion, desiring to be teachers of the law, without understanding either what they are saying or the things about which they make assertions.

— 1 Timothy 1:3-7

The heart of the discerning acquires knowledge;
the ears of the wise seek it out.

— Proverbs 18.15

The heavens are telling the glory of God;
and the firmament proclaims his handiwork.
Day to day pours forth speech,
and night to night declares knowledge.
There is no speech, nor are there words;
their voice is not heard;
yet their voice goes out through all the earth,
and their words to the end of the world.

— Psalm 19.1-4a

Wisdom is good with an inheritance,
an advantage to those who see the sun.
For the protection of wisdom
is like the protection of money;
and the advantage of knowledge
is that wisdom preserves the life of him who has it.
Consider the work of God;
who can make straight what he has made crooked?

— Ecclesiastes 7.11-13

P.S.: I am cc'ing this to three additional people, one trained in astrophysics (Christopher Sharp), one trained in geology (Steve Krogh), and one trained in theoretical chemistry (Tracy P. Hamilton), all of whom are quite capable of discussing details relevant to the topics of the age of the universe and the age of the earth. Please make a note of it. Additionally, if you think it desirable, I offer my services in setting up and maintaining an egroups email discussion list, for the purpose of carrying on this discussion to hash out the details and the issues. I'm thinking that the message archive of such a discussion list should be a public one, but membership (for posting purposes) would be strictly "invite only" and not public. I'm happy to oblige the call for open discussion of this issue.

•••• Dudley Ross Spears, 8/13/00 5:46 AM ••••
Subject: Facts Vs. Theory

Facts and the Age of the Universe

Todd Green wrote, "What we have learned about the universe through science (which simply means careful, iterative procedures by which we try to examine the real world objectively) shows us that the universe has been around far longer than just 6,000 or 10,000 years. This is a factual matter."

Green equates a scientific method of dating the universe with the discovery that the earth revolves around the sun. I believe he has missed a very obvious point. What he says is a "factual matter" is anything but that.

The observable planetary activity in the universe is a far cry from so-called facts that allegedly "factually" date the universe at 4.5 billion or so years of age. The rotational and relational activity of planets in our solar system is governed by discovered laws of gravity, motion, and magnetism. Such laws emerge from observation, experimentation and measurements of the universe as it is. We don't speak of the theory of gravity, but of the law of gravity for obvious reasons.

On the other hand, the origin and age of the universe, among all credible scientists, is purely theoretical — never "factual." A scientific explanation of the origin of the universe or organic life, never rises to the level of fact. It is more accurate to say the scientific explanation of the age of the universe and the origin of life, is a hypothesis, not even a theory. A scientific theory is the result of examination and experimentation with all the available data pertinent in a hypothesis. No geologist, paleontologist, or astronomer that I know would make the bold statement Green made.

Dudley Ross Spears

•••• David Mathews, 8/13/00 7:43 AM ••••
Subject: Re: Facts Vs. Theory

Hello Dudley,

Thanks for your e-mail.

While there may be some doubt about the Earth actually being 4.5 billion years old (as opposed to 4.6 or 4.4 billion years old) there is no doubt about the Earth being older than 10,000 years.

For those who wish to appreciate the scale of these matters: The ice age was ending 10,000 years ago.

Thanks,

David Mathews

•••• Dudley Ross Spears, 8/13/00 8:18 AM ••••
Subject: Re: Facts Vs. Theory

David,

I am confused. Did you read my post? My post refuted Todd Green's assertion that the age of the earth is a matter of fact — that is what he wrote — I denied this. What part of this didn't you comprehend?

Sincerely,

Dudley Ross Spears

[ TOP ]

Part 1

[from email distribution list]

From:
Subject:
Date:

Todd S. Greene
Re: Lamenting Exclusivist Politics and Head-Burying
8/14/00 7:49 PM

Hi, Rod.

Thanks for your response, and thank you for recognizing the distinction I tried to point out clearly. The problem with this issue in the Church of Christ right now is not just controversy over the issue itself (old earth/old universe versus young earth/young universe) dealing with empirical issues and related biblical hermeneutics considerations (in light of the the doctrine of biblical inerrancy), it is also this issue of "exclusivism" where a substantial number of YECs (though not all, by any means) in the Church of Christ advocate removing fellowship from those who reject young earth creationism, based on the YEC issue alone.

So, in essence, there are two arguments going on, related and yet distinct, and this tends to make the discussion even more "polarizing" than usual, as I'm sure you can imagine, and a bit more complicated.

One of the problems that is occurring is that such "exclusivists" tend to play the politics of calling for open discussion on the issue, while at the same time condemning anyone who would disagree with them. Thus, they show by this, and by other things they do (such as calling for debate but not responding to those, like myself, who respond to their invitation) that they seem far more interested in the politics of "exclusion" than in genuinely discussing the issue. Which is a shame. So in trying to actually discuss the issue itself, you have to also try to carefully work around this terrible "exclusivist" attitude.

Regards,
Todd S. Greene

•••• Roderick Bernitt, 8/14/00 8:48 AM ••••
Todd, you said [David Mathews is arguing for acceptance of diversity on this issue in the Church Of Christ. He is arguing with some men in the Church Of Christ who have explicitly advocated that this issue is not to be considered a matter of opinion and that it is an issue that should be used to determine who is and who is not a good Christian.]

Todd, I am not a Church of Christ member or attend this denomination (I believe it is a denomination). If the Church of Christ is divided over the issue of a young vs. old Earth doctrine in the Bible and folks are using it to define who is or is not a 'good' Christian, I think this is an issue that needs settling within that group. However, I concur that this should not be a litmus test for believers and fellowship issues.---Rod

[ TOP ]

Part 1

[from email distribution list]

From:
Subject:
Date:

Todd S. Greene
Still Lamenting Exclusivist Politics and Head-Burying
8/15/00 9:49 AM

Hi, Dudley.

In my 8/8/00 email "Lamenting Exclusivist Politics and Head-Burying" I said what I said, and I meant what I said. Everyone here has a copy, and they can read it for themselves.

For one such as you who believes that he understands the relevant considerations (epistemological, biblical, and empirical) of this issue so clearly that he must make this issue a test of fellowship, it should give you (and your exclusivist colleagues, perhaps) pause to realize that you misperceive such an obvious logical point. And then you make sarcastic comments based on your misperception.

Since you are failing to understand this obvious logical point that I made, let me try explaining it to you differently. Perhaps you will understand this obvious logical point this time around.

Old earth creationists don't have to know anything "factual" regarding the origin of the universe or the earth. Since your claim (the young earth creationist position) is that the universe and earth cannot have existed longer than, say, 10,000 years, all someone has to do in order to show, factually, that your claim is false is to present facts about the real world that show that the universe and earth have been around substantially longer than the YEC claim. Thus, to show with factual information that the universe must have been around at least, say, 238 million years is all that needs to be shown. Whether the origin of the universe occurred 10 billion years ago, or 20 billion years ago, is thus irrelevant. That would be like saying that I can't tell whether or not the traffic light 100 feet in front of me is green, yellow, or red, simply because I don't even know for sure whether or not the intersection twenty miles down the road has a traffic light or not.

In my 8/8/00 email, after making this point, I wrote:

By the stellar explosion named SN1987A alone, we know that the universe has been around for at least about 168,000 years.

I hope this obvious logical point is clear to you now: It is a fact that the universe and the earth are far, far older than merely 6,000 or 10,000 years. SN1987A provides just one example (though it happens to be a very good, interesting, and clear-cut example). And this is factual, without making any claims at all regarding the total age of either the universe or the earth.

I see your comments about quitting discussion of the issue. So I make this claim here, for all to see, Dudley: You who preach the attitude of exclusion on this issue do so even though you demonstrate by your own discussion that, when it comes down to the nitty-gritty of dealing with the details of the relevant considerations of the issues, you do not understand the details of this issue over which you advocate exclusion. Non-YEC Christians (and many YECs, for that matter) do not advocate that this issue should be a test of fellowship. You, on the other hand, have done so explicitly, as one of the people involved with the "Open Letter." It would just seem to me that you would only be an exclusivist on this issue if you understood this thing so incredibly well that you clearly knew that you could not be mistaken. And yet we have observed right here that you have difficulty perceiving even a simple, basic, logical point. It's not even an argument, Dudley. It's simply a logical proposition stated ("It is factual that the universe has been around a lot longer than just 10,000 years." and "SN1987A is one example of this.") which we would have to dig into the details on in order to become an argument. Are you incapable of digging into the details of this issue? If you are, then what makes you think you have the right to advocate exclusion over an issue you don't even understand very well?

And I have to say that I find it highly amusing that you with your exclusivist colleagues call for debate and open discussion, but when anyone tries to dig into the details of considerations (epistemological, biblical, or empirical) relevant to the issue, you and your exclusivist colleagues run away. Could it have something to do with the weakness of your "argument"? I claim that it does. And yet even though your "arguments" cannot stand up to the light of day, you feel perfectly comfortable in continuing to advocate exclusion.

Dudley, I have to tell you quite honestly: I smell a rat.

But if you want to quit this discussion, by all means do so. Rest assured that I, for one, will make a note of this fact, both now and in the future.

Incidentally, Dudley, in order to "run me over" with an argument, you'll have to put the key in the ignition and start the engine first. ;-)

Quite sincerely,
Todd S. Greene

•••• Dudley Ross Spears, 8/15/00 7:11 AM ••••
Subject: Re: Facts Vs. Theory

To David and Todd,

Fellows, I've got to quit this. David agreed with me and disagreed with me on the same point in one sentence! That indicates this is getting nowhere. Things are factual when they are demonstrably provable. Science has developed several theories about the age of the universe, but never a fact. Even Steve Rudd is irritated that I've used a little dab of bandwidth on this point. So, I intend to quit you both. There are scientific laws and scientific theories, but never the twain shall be the same.

Todd thinks I misrepresented him. He says he only said we learn from science that the earth is much older then 6-10 thousand years. Dumb me, I thought he was saying this was factual, but maybe he wasn't. How old the earth is doesn't concern me. My point (and this is my last effort to make it) is simply that it is wrong to say this is factual knowledge. Neither Todd nor David know, as a matter of fact, how old the earth is, or how young it is, for that matter. Nor do I, nor do I care, nor does any scientist, living or dead. By the scientific method of discovery, it is not possible to prove anything factual about the origin of either the earth or its inhabitants.

I apologize to Todd for what he says is a misrepresentation. I thought he was saying that we have factual knowledge that the earth is much older than 6 - 10K years in the same way we have factual knowledge of the earth's orbit of the sun. I guess I am apologizing for quoting all of what Todd wrote. He quoted himself up to a point, then stopped.

After saying it is a fact that the earth is older than 6-10K years he added, "This is a factual matter. It is a factual matter because it is known just as clearly as it is known, for example, that the Jovian moon Io has active volcanoes on it - or that the earth revolves around the sun, and not the other way around."

So, in order to not misrepresent anyone, and since it seems to David and Todd that facts are theory, but facts are not theory, it is a good time for me to do something else along the line of these studies. I will just excuse myself. Don't think it hasn't been fun, it hasn't!<g>

In good humor, let me urge both Todd and David to be sure to get out of the way of anything you see coming your way. It could be an argument. I wouldn't want either of you to get run over.

Sincerely,
Dudley Ross Spears

[ TOP ]

Part 1

[from email distribution list]

From:
Subject:
Date:

Todd S. Greene
Exploring the Possibility of a Discussion
8/15/00 6:26 PM

Hi, Harry Osborne.

Your "Open Letter" regarding "The Creation Account & Florida College" in Watchman Magazine has come to my attention through David Mathews. From this, I looked further at the WM April 1999 issue from last year that you were also involved with. In that issue (in "An Introduction: What Is The Issue?") you commented that "...propositions have been suggested for a written discussion to be carried in Watchman Magazine in a serial form." You further stated that you are willing to affirm the proposition that "The Scriptures teach that the creation account of Genesis is correctly interpreted as involving six literal, consecutive days to be fully accomplished." In the "Open Letter" is the statement that "Those of us who have signed this open letter stand ready to discuss these matters in a public forum."

Of course, it is clear that from the two different perspectives there is actually a critical disagreement, even, about what constitutes critical disagreement. You state (as co-signer - and co-author, perhaps?) in the "Open Letter":

These issues are serious and involve foundational principles regarding our faith. We do not consider them to be mere "matters of opinion."

On the other hand, old earth creationists do not believe that this issue constitutes a "foundational principle" of faith and that your personal belief regarding the ages of the universe and the earth are about as equivalently consequential to your faith as your personal belief about whether or not there are active volcanoes on the Jovian moon Io. So for you the issue is

The Bible teaches that both the animate and inanimate creation were fully accomplished in six literal, consecutive days.

and you are willing and ready to make this matter a "test of fellowship." On the other hand, to old earth creationists this really is a matter of opinion which they believe quite firmly should not be made a "test of fellowship." In other words, there is no old earth creationist proclaiming that you must believe that the earth is ancient in order to be "a good Christian, pleasing to God." For old earth creationists it is definitely NOT the issue that:

The Bible teaches that we should advocate or tolerate an interpretation of the Creation account which affirms the inanimate creation is the result of a series of changes over billions of years beginning with the Big Bang and resulting in a physical world able to sustain life.

For old earth creationists the issue is that the Bible does not have the purpose nor the intention of teaching history or science, that anything learned about history or science is incidental, and that to interpret the Bible literalistically in such a manner as to impose on it the purpose and intention of teaching history or science is to use a fallible humanly-devised biblical hermeneutic about which, yes, there is room for differences of opinion. By the way, I would claim that BOTH of the propositions stated above are false.

I am prepared to engage this discussion. I believe I have a decent understanding of the relevant issues, and I believe both that I can articulate, clarify, and defend the old earth creationism perspective and that I can demonstrate many fallacies involved in the position of young earth creationism. (Incidentally, in the interest of "full disclosure," I acknowledge here that I myself am not an old earth creationist.) Moreover, that the universe and the earth are very ancient are facts about the real world, and I understand some of the reasons that justify stating that these are facts and am prepared to explain these in detail, and am furthermore prepared to counter many of the "scientific creationist" arguments that have been discredited but that are still being promoted by many young earth creationists to this day. I am prepared to actively participate in such a discussion and/or serve as an editorial coordinator and assistant to discussion participants who are both presenting the details of how we know the universe and the earth are ancient and explaining why the Bible does not "teach" young earth creationism.

One point I would wish to clarify that I see as an immediate, fundamental, and critical point of disagreement between our perspectives, and that is relevant, I think, with regard to exploring the possibility of engaging in a formal discussion. In your article last April, you wrote:

Though scientific data and its interpretation regarding the earth's age is involved in this issue, it is not the focus nor will it be. The fundamental issue is the correct interpretation of the Bible record regarding creation. If the Bible must be understood by correct means of interpretation to affirm that the heavens and earth and all thing therein were created in six literal, consecutive days, that is the truth regardless of the present interpretation of scientific data according to current theory.

With regard to biblical hermeneutics in general, there are two different perspectives (yours appears to follow item 1):

1.	The Bible can properly be and must be interpreted without regard to any extra-biblical considerations whatsoever. Interpreted in this manner, objective examination of the real world is completely irrelevant to biblical hermeneutics.

2.	There are aspects of the Bible that cannot properly be interpreted unless one takes extra-biblical considerations into account. Interpreted in this manner, objective examination of the real world can be and many times is very relevant to biblical hermeneutics.

With regard to the topic of creationism specifically, and relevant to the concept of biblical inerrancy, there are actually four distinct approaches to this:

A.	Only young earth (and young universe) creationism is consistent with biblical inerrancy.

B.	Old earth creationism (aka, progressive creationism) is consistent with biblical inerrancy.

C.	The Bible is inspired by God, but the doctrine of biblical inerrancy in reference to the idea that each and every word in the Bible represents God's own direct communication to humans is not correct. (We can call this the "liberal" view of biblical inspiration.)

D.	The Bible is not inspired by God. (This would be the view of all non-Jews and non-Christians.)

For purposes of any discussion, I would be writing about, explaining, and clarifying perspective 2 and approach B. Thus, in the context of such a discussion, while I would write within the context of agreeing with your position that the "fundamental issue is the correct interpretation of the Bible record regarding creation" I would be writing in complete disagreement with the idea that "the Bible must be understood by correct means of interpretation to affirm that the heavens and earth and all thing therein were created in six literal, consecutive days, that is the truth regardless of the present interpretation of scientific data" because I would be pointing out, with examples, that it is impossible for you to understand the Bible "by correct means of interpretation" if you refuse to accept the direct implications of what the real world really is - which can only be checked by objective examination. In other words, if you really believe that you have nothing to fear from the truth, then you can't just arbitrarily dismiss the real world that we objectively observe today, because the real world that exists today does, indeed, constitute a part of truth, and to deny what the real world is is to deny truth.

Please understand that I have not written this to say I won't discuss this particular point, or that you must accept my viewpoint on this. I'm merely stating this to clarify my viewpoint for you, in light of what you had written last year in Watchman Magazine. I'm simply telling you explicitly that I believe and advocate quite certainly that those who would seek the truth must take into account and consider the implications of what has been learned about the real world by objective examination. To deny reality is to deny truth. Therefore, as you can imagine, it's a little hard for me to hear people say in one breath "We have nothing to fear from the truth" and then in the next breath say "We know and proclaim what we believe is the truth and we advocate it firmly and adamantly as the truth in exclusion to tolerating or accepting any difference of opinion regardless of what the objective data shows us about the real world, therefore we won't focus on any of those details" without my wondering how such a position is defensible in any way.

Earlier this year, Chad Seaton (a preacher in the Church Of Christ) and I had made arrangements for an actual, formal debate, rather than a discussion (though, personally, I prefer a "looser" discussion format). Chad Seaton's proposition for affirmation was very similar to yours here. Unfortunately, Chad never published his first affirmation in the debate. I thought that was a shame, because, in the interest of truth- seeking, and in my opinion, this particular topic needs special focus. Based on what I have studied and perceived as the truth of reality, young earth creationism is a wrong religious creed on a par with the wrong religious creed of geocentrism from a former age. As you write, on this topic there must be "avenues of open study between those of differing views."

Sincerely,
Todd S. Greene

He who speaks the truth gives honest evidence....

— Proverbs 12:17

The heart of the discerning acquires knowledge;
the ears of the wise seek it out.

— Proverbs 18.15

[ TOP ]

Part 1

[from email distribution list]

From:
Subject:
Date:

Todd S. Greene
Re: Exploring the Possibility of a Discussion
8/18/00 7:42 AM

Hi, Harry.

You write, "Why are you addressing propositions given to those addressed in the Open Letter?"

Why not? Just as one example, it is a fact that the universe has been around far longer than just 6,000, or 10,000, or even 40,000 years. Thus, those who reject this are rejecting a truth about the real world, just like a person who denied that Pluto existed would be rejecting a truth about the real world. I would be the first to say, "Who cares?" except for the fact that in many cases those who reject the fact that the universe is ancient try to use the matter as a religious creed by which to draw a line and say, "If you believe the universe is ancient, you aren't a good Christian because you are rejecting God's Word on this." Besides the "line-drawing," they typically promote believing in a young earth/young universe as a matter of truth, to which I just have to say, "Yes, okay, it is the truth that the universe and earth are ancient, so which part of the truth do you have problem with?"

Truth cannot contradict truth, and if you believe in biblical inerrancy (I don't, by the way), then in light of the truth that the universe is ancient (as proved empirically) it is high time to start working on modifying your biblical interpretation.

It is not just the "Open Letter" that I am responding to. It is the relevant issues. I also examined, and mentioned, the April 1999 issue of The Watchman e-zine that you were involved with.

You state:

The Open Letter clearly points out our objection is not centered on the age of the earth. The objection raised is to an interpretation of the creation account in a manner which facilitates the developement of the physical earth from the supposed Big Bang. Your post seeks to put the focus on the age of the earth despite the expressed statements of the Open Letter. Your effort to shift the focus of the discussion does not suggest you have a clear grasp of the points raised in the letter, or else, you are unwilling to discuss them as raised.

Do you not know the words of the document that you authored? You say that you have problems with various points taught by Hill Roberts. One of them you list (point number 3 in the "Open Letter") is:

3. Brother Roberts claims that a 12 to 16 billion year old universe and a 4.6 billion year old earth are consistent with Genesis 1 when viewed in light of "alternate interpretations." In fact, he suggests that those ages may well change in the years ahead so that they are even greater still. Yet, this timetable...is said to be harmonious with the Bible.[2]

In footnote 2 that you point to, the very thing you cite from Roberts is this:

When the contextual hermeneutic approach is consistently applied to all the body of revelation concerning creation (written and natural), some alternative interpretations require investigation. It has been shown by many dating techniques from geology, astronomy and physics that the view that 'the earth was formed as it is today in only a few days a few thousand years ago' is at least an area where there is no obvious agreement between most of the scientific data and the young earth interpretation. The natural data supporting these dating results are the 'other authoritative information' revealed by God which could lead one to ask if a different interpretation of Genesis would fit the sum of the data better. The long age view is based on physical properties of nature such as ongoing geological change, astronomical distances and processes, and decay properties of radioisotopes.

I fully understand that one of the concepts you object to is that "the universe is a product of a relatively slow evolutionary process of natural, uniformitarian change, albeit guided by divine providence" because you believe that "There is a vast difference between that view and the Bible's affirmation of instantaneous creation by the command of God," but if you genuinely have no problem with the idea that the universe and earth are billions of years old, then why don't you just come right out and state that explicitly for everyone?

Here, let me ask you the simple question, and then you can just answer "Yes" or "No" and clear this up:

Do you, Harry Osborne, believe that the idea that the universe and the earth are billions of years old is okay for a Christian to believe? Do you believe that the idea that the universe and the earth are billions of years old can be consistent with your belief in biblical inerrancy -- that there is a valid biblical hermeneutic by which biblical interpretations are made that are consistent with an ancient universe and ancient earth?

Indeed, I could claim that it is you who are trying to shift the issue away from one of the distinct weaknesses of your entire argument.

But, by the way, if your dispute with Hill Roberts is not over the ages of the universe and the earth, but only over the idea that natural processes change things over time, and that this is something which contradicts the Bible, and that you should disfellowhip people over this, then this certainly does not make your argument any stronger.

You ask me, "After so seeking to focus this matter on the age of the earth, you then say that you are not an old earth creationist. If so, then why do you want to discuss it?"

Please don't misunderstand me. I fully accept the idea that the universe is ancient, just like I fully accept the idea that there are seven continents, and that the earth revolves around the sun (instead of the other way around). All I meant by that is in reference to the common spectrum of [young earth creationist / old earth creationist (aka, progressive evolutionist) / theistic evolutionist / skeptic], I'm not an "old earth creationist," though I agree that the universe and earth are ancient.

This matter should be discussed for the simple reason that anyone who advocates that the universe and earth are merely 10,000 years old, or so, and advocate this as "a matter of truth" desperately need to dig into the details, and those who know better need to point out the errors of these "young earthers."

For example, let's assume, for the sake of argument, that you really have no problem with the idea that the universe and earth are billions of years old. Then by this alone, without even looking at the biblical text, we know that the Genesis account of creation is metaphorical, and you have absolutely no case of any kind against what Hill Roberts or Shane Scott teach, since you are doing nothing more than disputing the interpretation of metaphor. Golly, we might as well claim that meteorology is an "evil science" because it deals with natural processes instead of the hand of God opening heaven's chambers.

Sincerely,
Todd S. Greene

•••• Harry Osborne, 8/16/00 12:33 PM ••••
Todd,

I just received your post, but am away on a meeting and will not return until next week. Had a chance to check e-mail today, but probably will not until returning home. Just a couple of points for you to clarify in the meantime.

1. Why are you addressing propositions given to those addressed in the Open Letter?

2. The Open Letter clearly points out our objection is not centered on the age of the earth. The objection raised is to an interpretation of the creation account in a manner which facilitates the developement of the physical earth from the supposed Big Bang. Your post seeks to put the focus on the age of the earth despite the expressed statements of the Open Letter. Your effort to shift the focus of the discussion does not suggest you have a clear grasp of the points raised in the letter, or else, you are unwilling to discuss them as raised.

3. After so seeking to focus this matter on the age of the earth, you then say that you are not an old earth creationist. If so, then why do you want to discuss it?

Thanks for your post.

Brotherly,
Harry Osborne

[ TOP ]

Part 1

[from email distribution list]

From:
Subject:
Date:

Todd S. Greene
Re: Facts Vs. Theory
8/22/00 8:36 AM

Hi, Rod.

I don't want this to sound antagonistic. I'm honestly asking you, "What is the point you are trying to make?"

I must mention the obvious. Regardless of a tentative, conjectured orbital history of the Large Magellanic Cloud, the fact remains that the LMC has been around for quite a long time. The mere fact that we simply observe the LMC is proof that it has been around for at least 168,000 years (in the case of considering the example of SN1987A). If by "recent origin" you are speaking in astronomical terms of, say, conjecturing that the LMC is a remnant of some previous interaction that occurred 180 million years ago (or 60 million years ago), then I'm prepared to dig into the data. (Of course, then there is the further obvious point that the LMC is a remnant of something else from even further in the past.) But if by "recent origin" you are trying to claim that the LMC originated 10,000 years ago, well, golly, "it just ain't so." SN1987A is sitting there staring at us.

Further, you state: "This could be good evidence for a recent origin that contradicts the 4.6 billion years old earth and 180+ million years of plate tectonics for Pangea." Please explain how in the world one is even related to the other. Why would you make such a statement?

Regards,
Todd

•••• Roderick Bernitt, 8/22/00 8:01 AM ••••
Subject: RE: Facts Vs. Theory

David and FYI for others on this list. I went and doubled checked some parameters for the LMC and its possible orbital history last night. If you can read a rich text format file (not quite 2 pages, short and sweet), you can see my notes. It partially answers my questions from yesterday. I would encourage other believers to check out the facts and data very carefully before accepting many claims made by the evolution establishment today in support of vast spans of time measurement, thanks and BTW----Rod

[ TOP ]

Part 1

[from email distribution list]

From:
Subject:
Date:

Todd S. Greene
Re: Facts Vs. Theory
8/22/00 9:07 AM

Hi, Rod.

Let me state my "criticism" another way. Let me throw out the idea that the LMC (or whatever it is a remnant of) NEVER orbited the Milky Way at all. I'll totally disregard all of the information used to conjecture an orbit. Then GIVEN no orbit at all, how does not having orbited the Milky Way have anything to do with claiming that SN1987A did not really occur about 168,000 years ago? GIVEN no orbit at all, how does not having orbited the Milky Way have anything to do with geological information regarding Pangea?

My criticism is that we can quibble about tentative models of orbital (or non-orbital) histories of the LMC for the rest of our lives, but this has nothing to do with the clear information by which we know that, for example, the stellar explosion SN1987A occurred about 168,000 years ago, and we currently observe the Andromeda galaxy as it existed about 2.2 million years ago, and these are just galaxies in the Local Group (which is only thirty-some-odd galaxies). All of the other millions of galaxies in the universe are more distant, and thus observed from more distant times in the past. It is a fact that the universe has been around far longer than just 10,000 years. In the context of discussing this, I couldn't care less about the LMC's conjectured orbital history of the Milky Way, because it has no relevance.

I'll be very honest in telling you that the whole argument over LMC's proposed orbit of the Milky Way seems like a smokescreen to me, because I simply do not see its relevance. Please show me otherwise.

Sincerely, and regards,
Todd

•••• Roderick Bernitt, 8/22/00 9:40 AM ••••
Subject: RE: Facts Vs. Theory

I would prefer that the questions I raised about Dark Matter and LMC escape velocity be answered first. Claims to trace back a long orbital history here look biased.

[ TOP ]

Part 1

CreationProcessAge Archive: 1 of 374

From: Todd S. Greene
Date: Mon Aug 28, 2000 2:45 am
Subject: Distance Estimation and Cepheid magnitudes

Hi, everyone.

A few years ago, NASA launched the Hipparcos satellite, whose primary
mission was to get better parallax measurements of Cepheid variable
stars that were within its instrumentation limit (out to a few hundred
light years). The goal was to use these more precise parallax
measurements to determine more distances to Cepheids within the parallax
limit and then use this to recalibrate the distance estimates based on
using luminosity/magnitude measurements of Cepheids beyond this parallax
limit.

The work of studying and measuring Cepheids has been going on for about
80 years (see "Great Debate" Lesson Plan for Undergraduates at
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/htmltest/gifcity/cs_lplan.html and 1923:
Hubble Discovers Cepheid Variables in Andromeda Galaxy at
http://astro.ph.unimelb.edu.au/~mdrinkwa/lectures/gens4001/debate3.html).
The results from Hipparcos revealed (by giving more accurate parallax-
based distances to these Cepheids) that previous distance estimates
using Cepheid magnitudes (which had been calibrated on less precise
parallax measurements) were actually too short by about 10%. In other
words, if a galaxy had previously been estimated, based on magnitude
measurements of Cepheids in that galaxy, to be about 50 million light-
years away, then based on the Hipparcos recalibration that galaxy is
really closer to about 55 million light-years away. Please note that it
is not the magnitude measurements of the Cepheids that changed - it is
that the better parallax measurements from Hipparcos gave astronomers a
more precise value (a recalibration) to use for calculating distances
based on Cepheid magnitude measurements.

At http://plabpc.csustan.edu/astro/VirtualAstronomyLab/Cepheid2/, you
can work through a Cepheid measurement exercise for yourself to get an
idea of what exactly it is that astronomers are doing when they make
such measurements and use them for distance estimation purposes. (Follow
the arrows.)

Here are some relevant links full of specific details regarding this
particular topic (Cepheid magnitudes used for distance estimation, and
the Hipparcos mission):

   A good overview of the Hipparcos satellite observations (Sky &
   Telescope)
      http://www.skypub.com/store/msa/turon.html

   More detailed information about the Hipparcos mission
      http://astro.estec.esa.nl/Hipparcos/further_more.html

   Determining the Extragalactic Distance Scale (using Cepheids)
      http://annie.astro.nwu.edu/labs/m100/

   The Hubble Space Telescope Key Project on the Extragalactic Distance
   Scale
      http://www.ipac.caltech.edu/H0kp/H0KeyProj.html

   Cepheid Variables as Cosmic Yardsticks
      http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/science/mysteries_l1/cepheid.html

   Cepheid Variables in M100
      http://oposite.stsci.edu/pubinfo/pr/94/49.html

We are talking about aspects of the real world. It is the truth that the
universe is ancient, due to the fact that astronomers literally observe
the universe' ancient past. Because of this, those who wish to adhere to
the doctrine of biblical inerrancy have the responsibility to work on
their biblical hermeneutics in order to bring biblical interpretation
into correspondence, in some manner, with the way the real world really
is.

Hundreds of years ago, Augustine wrote in *De Genesi ad litteram libri
duodecim* (The Literal Meaning of Genesis, translated by J. H. Taylor,
Ancient Christian Writers, Newman Press, 1982, volume 41; Book 1 Chapter
19 Paragraph 39):

     Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the
     earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world,
     about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size
     and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the
     sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about
     the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this
     knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and
     experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for
     an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning
     of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we
     should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing
     situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a
     Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much
     that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people
     outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held
     such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose
     salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are
     criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a
     Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well
     and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our
     books, how are they going to believe those books in matters
     concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal
     life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages
     are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves
     have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless
     and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold
     trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are
     caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are
     taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of
     our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish
     and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon
     Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many
     passages which they think support their position, although
     "they understand neither what they say nor the things about
     which they make assertion." [1 Timothy 1.7]

Regards,
Todd S. Greene

[ TOP ]