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.)
No comments:
Post a Comment