In the second place, geologists wonder how a powerful agent like the Flood described above can deposit sedimentary layers in which great consistency in particular size, color, texture and fossil content can be maintained. How can one layer be distinctive tan limestone that bears fossil corals and other marine organisms, while its upstairs neighbor is a distinctive brown mudstone that contains terrestrial plants?
How can layers that are pure accumulations of salt or gypsum, minerals that are produced by evaporating seawater, occur amid the other layers described? Why are not all these elements mingled into chaotic jumbles? Flood geologists believe that fossil preservation requires rapid burial.
This is true to some extent, but rapid burial need not be applied over the entire stratigraphic record in one geologic instant. The record may be a succession of local instances of burial. Many dense skeletal fossil accumulations, when closely examined, are explainable as natural built-in traps for organic remains or are only localized mass mortality settings.
Research by thousands of biostratigraphers during the past two hundred years has verified that a well-defined order to the fossils occurs through the succession of strata. Contrary to the repeated claims of many contemporary seven-day creationist authors, the ordering of the fossil record is not a fiction born of a desire to prove Darwinism. The record first came to view through the hard labor of many, including numerous Christians, a generation prior to Darwin. Other creationists attempt to explain the ordering of fossils as a result of the preservation of pre-Flood ecological zonation.
How much tweaking can the record accommodate before the model fails? During the nineteenth century, prior to the development of geochronometers such as radiometric dating, geologists became convinced that the record gave abundant proof for the passage of time while the layered rocks were forming, far too much time to be accommodated during a single year-long Flood.
We examine a few select cases exhibiting the passage of time in chapter ten [not part of this series]. Thus we, along with all other mainstream geologists, insist that the overall stratigraphic record overwhelmingly testifies to the passage of long time intervals rather than testifying to the power of a single, short-term planetary catastrophe.
We learned in the previous section that a common YEC claim is false: that the standard picture of fossils in a certain sequence is based on circular reasoning. Because they have put on blinders, young-Earth creationists are unwilling to accept the totality of the available geologic evidence. They are unwilling to abandon their young-Earth, global-Flood hypothesis even when the evidence shows it to be untenable.
They have ignored or distorted a vast body of evidence that is contrary to their preconceived notion of what Earth history must have been like. They have focused only on data that, taken in isolation from geologic contexts, might be seen as favorable to their own theory. They claim continually to argue from the evidence of nature, but they have repeatedly ignored what is inconvenient for them.
Although some of the phenomena of the sedimentary rock record might be interpretable in terms of a great Flood, most of the phenomena to which they appeal are far more satisfactorily explicable in terms of much smaller scale processes than a global catastrophic Flood.
Most important, young-Earth creationists have refused to accept the abundant evidence of glacial deposits, lake deposits, desert deposits, delta deposits, shore deposits, reef deposits and evaporite deposits in the rock record. Young-Earth creationists have refused to face the evidence from metamorphism, the kinetics of mineral formation and heat flow from cooling magmas.
They have tried to make the evidence from radiometric dating say something opposite from what it does say. The attempt to find a way to have the decay constants of radioactive isotopes change in an unbelievably spectacular fashion is a desperate attempt to rescue their view of the world.
To date, all physical evidence pertaining to decay constants indicates the virtual immutability of those constants. Although a tiny fraction of geologic evidence might suggest a global Flood if considered in complete isolation from the wealth of other evidence, the overwhelming totality of evidence argues mightily against a global Deluge.
In the end, the dogged persistence in holding on to a young Earth and a global Deluge has less to do with geology than with other concerns.
Even some young-Earth creationists grant that the evidence at present does not support their view. But if this debate over the age of the Earth is not really about physical evidence, then what is it about? We believe that those who are most firmly committed to young-Earth creationism do so because they are convinced that a divinely inspired, infallible, inerrant Bible demands it.
We admire young-Earth creationists for their total commitment to Scripture, because we are likewise committed. We are one with them in our total commitment to the gospel of Jesus Christ and rejection of the secular humanism of our day. Yet, as we pointed out, a firm commitment to the infallibility and inerrancy of Scripture does not require a Christian to believe the theory of a recent creation to which young-Earth creationists adhere. And certainly the gospel of Jesus Christ does not demand acceptance of a young Earth.
Nor is the eternal salvation of anyone anywhere ever dependent on acceptance of a young Earth. It is the sacrifice of Jesus Christ that saves us from the wrath to come, not belief in a young Earth. The data of the Bible certainly do not demand that we hold to these views. Christians need to relax and stop being afraid that some scientific evidence will disprove the Bible or undermine Christianity.
We should not be afraid of the evidence that God has put into his world. The only recourse that flood catastrophists have to save their theory is to appeal to a pure miracle and thus eliminate entirely the possibility of historical geology. We think that would be a more honest course of action for young-Earth advocates to take. Young-Earth creationists should cease their efforts to convince the lay Christian public that geology supports a young Earth when it does not do so.
To continue that effort is misguided and is detrimental to the health of the church and the cause of Christ. I recommend those to inquiring minds on every possible occasion. Once the problem of excessive literalism has been removed, many Christians are able to evaluate the science on its own terms, without seeing a theological threat under every rock.
Join us to receive the latest articles, podcasts, videos, and more, and help us show how science and faith work hand in hand.
Excerpts from Davis Young and Ralph F. We gratefully acknowledge their cooperation in bringing this material to our readers. For information on Byron Nelson, see the introduction in Paul Nelson ed. Nelson Editing these excerpts involves removing the odd sentence or two which I indicate by putting [SNIP] at the appropriate point , inserting annotations where warranted [enclosed in square brackets like this] to provide background, and converting footnotes into briefer bracketed phrases or embedded links.
Images from the book have not been reproduced owing to matters related to copyright ; all images in these columns have been chosen by Ted Davis. We who accept Descent should admit that there are some observations that can be explained equally well by Design.
But there are other observations which seem to clearly favor Descent. Mario visits the Neanderthal Museum, and it surprised him. He reflects on the conflict narrative perpetuated by Christians and non-Christians alike. A homeschool mom provides thoughtful feedback on a biology curriculum supplement as someone who holds to a young earth creationist view. Instead of rejecting his faith or turning away from science, Garrett kept digging into science and the Word.
Part Six in the Uniquely Unique mini-series. We take stock of one more distinguishing feature of humans—the image of God. A discussion about the doctrine of creation and a look at a few theologians and how they have influenced the conversations around faith and science. Excerpts from pp. Flood Geology: Catastrophic Noachian Sedimentation excerpts from pp. Price wrote in [O]ur second corollary is that this hypothesis of a world catastrophe deals with the world as a whole , that is, it deals with the world in its planetary aspects; and therefore this catastrophe must have been of an astronomical character, and must have an astronomical cause.
What is BioLogos? Subscribe Now What is BioLogos? Editorial Policy Editing these excerpts involves removing the odd sentence or two which I indicate by putting [SNIP] at the appropriate point , inserting annotations where warranted [enclosed in square brackets like this] to provide background, and converting footnotes into briefer bracketed phrases or embedded links.
A former high school science teacher, Ted studied history and philosophy of science at Indiana University, where his mentor was the late Richard S. Westfall, author of the definitive biography of Isaac Newton. Author of dozens of scholarly articles and essays, Ted is one of few historians who have written extensively about both the Scientific Revolution and modern America. He and his wife Kathy enjoy theater, music, and traveling to new places.
Ralph Stearley Ralph Stearley is a paleontologist with broad interests in the history of life and in biogeography. These believers are not as visible on the Internet, but may be present in your courses. For historic reasons, this particular subset of beliefs has not been the most aggressively popularized Numbers, These students are likely to doubt that fossils are "real" or that they were produced by living organisms similar to modern ones. They do not believe that dinosaurs, trilobites, etc.
Old-Earth Creationists In addition to the Young-Earth Creationists described above, many students are likely to be Old-Earth Creationists, Christians who do not interpret parts of the Bible particularly the early chapters of Genesis literally.
Some of these are mainstream neo-Darwinists. Evolution is part of God's plan, but follows consistent rules which stem from genetics and biochemistry and other causal effects i. Miller, Others believe in an old Earth, but without evolution.
According to these belief systems, God created all living things without the involvement of random but predictable forces like mutation, genetic drift, and natural selection. Some students are willing to accept evolution for all organisms except human beings, arguing that Adam and Eve were divinely created.
What is Intelligent Design? These believers include both Young-Earth Creationists, who believe that all organisms were created separately and instantaneously, and certain Old-Earth Creationists, some of whom don't believe in evolution, others of whom are convinced of a form of evolution meticulously decided in advance and driven directly by the will of the Creator. Several specific dates have been endorsed, all clustering around years. The traditional Jewish date since the 12th century for the creation of the world is either 29 March or 22 September BC.
The Byzantine date, based on the Septuagint in which some of the genealogies are different from the Hebrew version , is 1 September BC. Martin Luther calculated BC. By far the most famous date among English-speaking Protestants, however, is the one given by James Ussher, a truly erudite scholar who did things very carefully.
The literal creation week and the instantaneous creation were the two major alternatives for most of Christian history, but more than a few commentators took intermediate positions that I ignore here. I cannot adequately convey the subtlety and diversity of this grand conversation, stretching nearly 2, years, in 2, words. Those who want to dig deeper are urged to consult the references at the end. These go back at least to the Middle Ages and were very common by the 17th century, when Francis Bacon, Johannes Kepler, Galileo Galilei and many others acknowledged multiple sources of truth, using the same terminology.
Concordism in natural history , however, began in the late eighteenth century, in response to the growing sense that the Earth was vastly older than humanity. Concordism in natural history is all about reading Genesis in parallel with geology, in order to get a single, consistent picture. The rest of this column outlines key aspects of concordism in America since the s. I introduced readers to Benjamin Silliman in the first part of this column. Briefly a Congregational minister, he became professor of geology and natural theology at Amherst College, where he also served nine years as president.
His textbook, Elementary Geology , the first to be written by an American geologist, contained a lengthy section devoted to biblical and theological issues that still makes fascinating reading today. One large class of animals, the carnivores, have organs expressly intended for destroying other classes for food.
Indeed, Hitchcock argued, on biblical grounds alone, apart from geology, one might have to allow animal death before the fall. And, unless Adam himself had seen death, how could the threat of death for disobedience have real force? At the same time, Hitchcock still accepted the traditional link between animal death and human sin.
But, he also accepted the fact of animal death before the fall. I said quite a bit about this in above, so here I simply note the historical continuity and invite readers—especially fans of Dembski—to peruse the selection from Hitchcock linked above. Concordism received a powerful boost in the midth century, when Bernard Ramm published The Christian View of Science and Scripture , which I have already introduced to readers. Whitcomb, Jr. One measure of the ongoing importance of Concordism is the fact that Scientific Creationism arose partly in response to it, and YEC leaders continue to devote significant energy to combatting contemporary advocates of Concordism, especially Hugh Ross.
If you get a chance to read it, please let me know what you think. Thus, Concordism remains a viable option for evangelicals today. Join us to receive the latest articles, podcasts, videos, and more, and help us show how science and faith work hand in hand. If your interest in this topic is keen, the need to visit a library will not hold you back! A much shorter work by the same author is readily available here.
Edward B. Keith Miller Eerdmans, , Stump and Alan G. Padgett Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, , William A. Wallace, Appendix 7 in William A. Wallace, ed. Ted Davis offers an overview of five core tenets of Scientific Creationism, discusses conclusions that follow from those assumptions, and presents a short history of modern creationism. Ted Davis presents four core tenets of Intelligent Design, discusses some conclusions that follow from these assumptions, and offers an overview of Intelligent Design's history.
Part Six in the Uniquely Unique mini-series. Over 2, participants took part in the survey, and were asked what best described their view of the origin and development of life:.
In one UK examination board admitted that a biology course due to be introduced that September would encourage schools to consider alternatives to the theory of evolution. Search term:. Read more. This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets CSS enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience.
Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets CSS if you are able to do so. This page has been archived and is no longer updated. Find out more about page archiving. Creationism and intelligent design Last updated Introduction Virtually all religions include an explanation for life on Earth in their scriptures.
Forms of creationism Forms of creationism Creationism teaches that life on Earth is the result of God's creative action, and not the result of blind scientific processes.
Creationism doesn't attempt to explain how God did this: We do not know how God created, what processes He used, for God used processes which are not now operating anywhere in the natural universe. Gish, Evolution? The Fossils Say No! For a thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by Psalm
0コメント