Strange Facts and the Age of the Earth: Radiometric Dating and Scripture (part 6)

So far, I've noted some scientific perspectives on radiometric dating. Most scientists and many people believe the procedure has validity. Others question the scientists who use the method according to their bias, as they harmonize evidence that agrees with their assumptions of an old earth, while dismissing a lot of examples of dates that do not agree as mistakes caused by some natural process, etc.

This post is about the views of Scripture (Genesis 1) and how they harmonize with radiometric dating.

1. 7 Day Creationism: This is the oldest view of Christianity and is still held today. This position holds radiometric dating as completely false as a scientific discipline that can tell the age of the earth. Just last week I listened to John MacArthur (pastor of Grace Community) say the earth is about 6000 years old. He didn't immediately offer an explanation of his view on radiometric dating, but he was implicitly saying it offers (in its secular persuasion) no evidence for earth's age. MacArthur was relying only on Scripture. In other places, I have seen he and other 7 Day folks bring forward other objections to the method. In one such instance, MacArthur claimed that the speed of light was slowing down over time centuries. Thus, in old times, the decay of radioactive elements (the "clock" of the method), was faster, giving high ages that are false according to the true age of the earth. Additionally, those who hold this view also give credit for the fossil record to Noah's Flood. Proponents of this view staunchly declare there was no death in the world before sin (Romans 5). With this position, there is no compromise or agreement with mainstream science.





2. Theistic Evolution: This view represents a huge compromise with science on the part of Bible scholars. It assumes evolution and all old earth arguments are valid, and empties Genesis of explicit meaning. It attributes the Creation to God, and the workings of it (through NATURAL processes), but there is no Creation, save maybe the beginning of life. This view picked up steam from the middle of the 19th century on, and eventually resulted in liberal Christianity, which also allowed other sources of authority to dictate the words of the Bible (such as the social Gospel replacing the Biblical Gospel and psychology's terms and methods replacing the "soul care" that earlier generations of Bible believer's taught in regard to sin and righteousness of the believer). The weakness of this view is that makes no distinction between the strength of the scientific evidence for evolution (weak) and that for the old age of the earth (strong). The mainline denominations (Presbyterianism in the PCUSA; Anglicanism in the Episcopal Church USA; The United Methodist Church) have all either boldly or quietly accepted science's claims without reservation (though the Methodists didn't commit their position in paper until last year). Noteworthy in all this is that many proponents of the secular scientific worldview in these denominations did not start with radiometric dating as their problem, rather, it was the evolutionary worldview that started to be popular in 19th century that pushed them. Radiometric dating only strengthened their initial position. The Catholic Church has officially agreed with this position for many years.

3. Day-Age Theory: This theory is essentially the same as the above (#2) in accepting an old earth, except that the theologians who advocate it try to find harmony in the order of creation found in Genesis and that propounded by natural science. The trouble is the orders do not match up (birds before fish in Scripture versus fish before birds in science, for example). This view also does not recognize the difficulties that evolution faces. It is little different than theistic evolution.




4. The Gap Theory: Hailing from the days of the Bible teacher CI Scofield, this view inserts a "gap" between Genesis 1:2 and 1:3 that is supposed to account for all the animals and plants laid out in the earth's foundation that seem not to be part of the main part of the Genesis 1 record (1:3-end of the chapter). These creatures are supposed to be part of a world that fell after the initial creation of God, but before the rest of Genesis 1. This previous creation and fall is attributed by many proponents of this view to God creating a world for Satan (originally a beautiful, great angel) to rule. When Satan fell into sin, the world God gave him was destroyed and he was punished with eternal condemnation (to be executed finally in the Last Judgment). This view is interesting, mainly because it is creative, and possible. It is far from certain however, as it lays on shaky foundations. First, its interpretation of Genesis 1:1-3 is far from conclusive. Second, its "fall of Satan" story has little Scriptural backup. Third, it offers no interpretation of the the fossil record, which seems to show a progression of lifeforms that appear and go extinct throughout the record, from one layer of rock to another (save a few forms, which remain to this day). However, this position is compatible with an old earth as found by radiometric dating and accepts a literal Flood story, but does not lay the fossil burden on the Flood. These factors make it somewhat appealing.



5. Progressive Creationism: This view embraces the Day-Age categorization of God progressively creating life over long ages (per radiometric dating), but does not agree with evolution, because of the theory's weaknesses. However, regarding the Creation of man, many progressive creationists insist on literal historical nature of the account. This position is the best compromise (if one wants a compromise) between Scripture and available scientific data. However, many of the theories proponents do not hold to literal interpretations of certain Scriptures, specifically, the ancient history found in Genesis 1-11. This leads them in the direction of the popular "framework hypothesis" view of Scripture, which is not an origins theory proper, but is instead an explanation of Genesis as a literary description of God's real creative process, given by God to Moses for simplicity. The framework's main features are a focus on God creating all that was and is, and an attention to God's creating of the realms of existence (the land, sky, and sea) and then God filling them (the Sun for the heavens and fish for the waters for instance). This theory is still not well-known as the Day-Age Theory, but it is very interesting nonetheless, and is compatible with aspects of both the Intelligent Design movement and the Young Earth Creationist movement.



(I included the cartoons because so much information in the debate I've been writing about contains mostly rhetoric and a little bit of truth. Many Christians don't want to critically examine good arguments for an old earth and many Christians and others, including scientists don't want to critically examine the evidence for creation and the evidence against evolution.)

Is Obama socialist? Hmmm....

Karl Marx was a complex figure. Communism and Socialism are associated with him. The idea at the heart of his and Engel's Manifesto is simple though. Basically, Marx decried the advantage of property ownership and the inequality it produces in the world economy. Those who own property, and especially lots of property (the "means of production) are set to control all those who work under them. Therefore, he believed that all property (real estate, factories, businesses, etc.) should be public property. Property ownership results in a ruling class over a Capitalist society (with capital meaning property, basically). Marx and Engels say in the Manifesto of Capitalism:

"It has agglomerated population, centralised the means of production, and has concentrated property in a few hands."

See for all citations from here on: (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/manifest.pdf)

The idea here is a ruling class that has by chance of history inherited the power to rule industry and all of life. The "economy" is regarded as belonging to them. Marx and Engels would say the Dow Jones Average or the Fortune 500 belong to this class. Those at the top of these structures control everything in life: the condition of the workplace, the government, the church, and the family. The individual capitalist (or bourgeois) as he calls them, may fall and be replaced by another, but the class remains distinct as a ruling entity over all other members of society (the proletariet).

Marx and Engels go on to say that these capitalist folks will be overthrown by a new spirit: "A spectre is haunting Europe — the spectre of communism." This spirit will motivate, over time, all members of the proletariet to produce a classless society in the future, called communism, in which property rights are destroyed, everything is owned by everybody, and there is no bourgeois. Marx mentions societies will "prepare" themselves for this, unwittingly, as industry grows.

The Communist governments of Russia and China, Cuba and Korea wanted the change to communism immediately. These revolutionary government's leaders relied on the following logic from the Manifesto:

"If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organise itself as a class, if, by means
of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class."

(I know this passage is controversial, as those who used it for revolutionary purposes did not abolish their own power.)

What resulted was a world-wide blood bath, as these small groups of leaders gained a following and created violent revolution throughout the world, changing the face of the nations in a century. These leaders remained in control, and no classless society ever emerged in these nations (see George Orwell's "Animal Farm").

So now, we have two things: The Manifesto's view of capitalism and its view of communism. What about socialism? How does the Manifesto regard it? And is President Obama a socialist? Here is a quote from the Manifesto regarding a socialist position that sounds like our president:

"A second, and more practical, but less systematic, form of this Socialism sought to depreciate every revolutionary movement in the eyes of the working class by showing that no mere political reform, but only a change in the material conditions of existence, in economical relations, could be of any advantage to them. By changes in the material conditions of existence, this form of Socialism, however, by no means understands abolition of the bourgeois relations of production, an abolition that can be affected only by a revolution, but administrative reforms, based on the continued existence of these relations; reforms, therefore, that in no respect affect the relations between capital and labour, but, at the best, lessen the cost, and simplify the administrative work, of bourgeois government."

Plain English: One form of socialism is a mechanism of the ruling class to suppress true Communist revolution by giving the working class "stuff."

Does that sound like Obama? It does doesn't it? I think Obama is socialist in his views of the economy according to the Manifesto.

What does the Manifesto say the purpose of such socialism is? To stave off revolutionary tendencies of the working class through gifts.

I am no Communist. I am not a socialist either. Nor do embrace the capitalist system when the working person is squeezed as much as they can be by those who control property, but based on Marx--I don't think Obama is just trying to help "the least of these," but craftily is also helping the greatest. For those of you who hate George Bush, know that the motivations of these two men are not that disparate, or separated. They both help the lesser of society in some way to serve the greater, if not only for their own benefit, then for the benefit of themselves and others of their class.

The greatest difference between them is: Who is going to take care of you better? Business or big government? Where should the power lie heaviest? After all, Bush was an oil man and Obama is a constitutional law professor (a lawyer--read government) from Harvard.

Who will really take care of you better though? God. Yes, there is one power, one government, one Kingdom, and one King that all will bow to. So if your a Christian, remember that your Savior is not legislating in Washington. Nor is he test-drilling for oil in the sands of Arabia. He is in Heaven, and He will take care of us--our Lord Jesus Christ is our hope, not the petty powers of this world.

More on Obama's eligibility and birth certificate

Seems this Obama eligibility issue is still stewing. See the following link:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=90574

Let me say something though.

At this point, I almost wish it wasn't an issue. Yes I did say that.

Here is why...my first inclination is that it would be a huge mess for our country. Who knows the outcome? Obama's quick string of decisions and actions would be called into question. Can you imagine the stimulus package being voided because he signed it? I'm not saying this is possible or probable...maybe the government would find a easy solution to the mess that would cause, but maybe not. Then think of this: Joe Biden President. (At least I think that's the course of action the government would take, but I don't know constitutional law). Not only that, imagine the fall-out among young people, blacks, and other groups. At very least, the huge disappointment would be felt far and wide. Perhaps something worse would happen.

Yet, there are other things to think about.

Do we have a Constitution or not? Does it mean something or not? Does public opinion or law rule the land? Or, as many of us are feeling, do many of the politicians in Washington do what is best in their own eyes?

I was disappointed yet again today as Obama made known his desire to repeal some of the Bush administration's legislative actions to protect medical professionals who cannot recommend abortion with a clear conscience. His nomination of pro-abortion Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius to head the Department of Health and Human Services further shows his campaign positions were sincere regarding his support of abortion on demand rights. I vehemently disagree with the President on these issues.

Yet, they are not the reason I think his eligibility issue is important. It is because he must comply with federal law just like any other candidate. And it's just a birth certificate. Why in the world is Hawaii's government holding it back from public view? This whole issue is so strange, and could be solved so simply. Perhaps we shall see if there is more to it than talk.