Category: Science

posts relating to science

Further Reading on Old Earth Creationism

~ Bob Hayton ~ 7 Comments

Redeeming Science by Vern PoythressMy recent post in response to Justin Taylor’s article explaining Biblical reasons for viewing the six days of creation as not 24-hour periods has received a lot of attention. My Facebook profile doesn’t normally light up so much! And I engaged in some endless blog debates at Sharper Iron, and another site.

I’ve read a lot more on old earth creationism lately, and see the need to continue my studies in this area personally. Justin Taylor recommended a few sources for additional reading, and I wanted to share those here with a couple additions of my own, for the benefit of my readers.

For a simple explanation from a Christian geologist of the evidence for an old earth, this post (and his series, linked at the bottom) are helpful.

My primary reason for holding to an old-earth position is detailed in this article – God speaks through creation and He doesn’t deceive. For additional explanation of how the Bible allows for an old earth, see this post.

For two free e-books from a Reformed persuasion, which model a helpful and careful consideration of this debate, see:

Redeeming Science: A God-Centered Approach by Vern Poythres – ebook (free – PDF) / paperback (Westminster Bookstore)

A Reformed Approach to Science and Scripture by Keith Mathison – ebook (free) / not available in paperback

Justin Taylor also recommends the Presbyterian Church in America’s “Report of the Creation Study Committee”.

A brief booklet by Vern Poythress is also available free in pdf: Christian Interpretations of Genesis 1.

Rejecting Geocentrism: What’s the Real Motivation?

~ Bob Hayton ~ 9 Comments

I feel that the question of the age of the earth has become much more caustic in recent years. This debate has been increasingly polarized with each camp thinking the absolute worst of the other. But how important is such a debate anyway? I would contend that the earth’s age is not all that important as Christians who firmly reject natural evolution are to be found on both sides of that question.

Recently this debate was again brought to our attention through a pair of high profile blog posts. Justin Taylor (Senior VP and Publisher at Crossway), whose blog is hosted by The Gospel Coalition, shared the following post: “Biblical Reasons to Doubt the Creation Days Were 24-Hour Periods.” This post was not well accepted by young earth creationists such as Ken Ham. Ham came out with a strongly worded response: “Rejecting Six Literal Days — What’s the Real Motivation?” Now, never mind that just a couple days prior, Taylor had shared “5 Scientific Problems with Current Theories of Biological and Chemical Evoluion.” Poor guy, he is getting flak from both sides of the creation science debate!

As I read Ham’s title and then his blog post, I first bristled at his willingness to read Taylor’s motives. Is not grappling with the text important, whether or not modern science pulls us one way or another? Here is a sampling of Ham’s reasoning:

I have found over and over again that because of the outside influence from the secular world in regard to an old earth/universe… many… will try to reinterpret the days of creation, or somehow allow for long ages somewhere in Genesis 1… to justify meshing Genesis with what is claimed to be “science.” Of course, when the word science is used in relation to the age of the earth/universe, we are dealing with historical science (beliefs based on fallible assumptions) not observational science (the kind of science that builds technology).

I am prepared to go out on a limb, on the basis of my experience in the biblical creation apologetics ministry and of all I’ve read over the past 40+ years, to say this. When Christian leaders today are rejecting a dogmatic stand on six literal, 24-hour days of creation and a young earth, if you search their writings or question them, you will find that ultimately their thinking is being controlled by the belief in an old earth/universe (billions of years)…. You simply do not get the idea of millions or billions of years from Scripture—it comes from outside of Scripture….

And thus I am saying the age of the earth/universe comes down to an authority issue.

On second thought, Ham might be right. At the root of attempts to re-examine Genesis stands the scientific discovery that the earth is unimaginably old. But ultimatley, we must ask, is it wrong to examine afresh our interpretation of Scripture in light of science? I would argue no, and I believe Ham himself is guilty of the same thing.

I’m talking about geocentrism – the idea that the earth is at the center of the universe. This was the Christian interpretation of the world prior to Copernicus’ revolution. Even the early Reformers did not countenance a rejection of this view. I just shared a review of a Christian scholar from the 1960s who still held to a preference for geocentrism even then. And some conservative Christian professors today still argue for such a view.

Science is clear, and the observations shows that the earth is not the center of the universe, and looking at Scripture in a fresh light, the church came to agree that phenomenological language does not constitute an assertion that the earth actually has 4 corners, and is fixed on pillars, with the sun going on a journey around the immobile earth each day.

Ham tries to quibble over the science behind an old earth by claiming that such science is not observational – but this is to turn science on its head. Much of the science that gives us techonology is not strictly observational, but based on observations which reinforce interpretations based on an examination of the evidence. And there are scientific tests done with carbon-14 and a host of other elements, that all agree. Blind tests with controls. Ham and many dispute the validity of such tests but have yet to come up with alternative tests that consistently (with similar controls) demonstrate a young age for the earth. These tests done by modern science converge with astronomical observations and learnings from astrophysics. At the very least many creation scientists would claim that the earth has an appearance of age. Doesn’t Answers in Genesis spend a lot of time grappling over the question of distant starlight?

Rejecting a young earth is not necessarily a matter of authority. The Scripture has authority, we all agree. The question is what does the text actually say. To go back to Taylor’s post, this really is an interpretational issue. There are clues in the text that today’s widespread Christian interpretation about the age of the earth may be in error. This would be similar to the widespread views of Christians in the 1600s being wrong about the position of the earth. Is it wrong to look anew at our interpretations and the Ancient Near Eastern evidence of Genesis 1-3 being of a particular genre. Could not some of the arguments Taylor offers be an honest grappling with the text in light of the influence of science and history.

Bending on our interpretation, reexamining the evidence — these actions do not prove one is abandoning biblical authority and embracing natural evolutionary science. Taylor himself gives us 5 reasons to doubt the current state of evolutionary theory. Instead these actions are incumbent on faithful Christian leaders. We need to make sure our interpretation is firmly grounded in the text. A lot is at stake in getting this right. Let’s make sure we die on the proper hill.

Some have examined the evidence afresh and have come away with a stronger position for a young earth. Don’t look at those who disagree with you and criticize them for examining the evidence too. We all are trying to grapple with science and our interpretation of Scripture. Where we disagree, lets do so charitably and with recognition that this isn’t an authority issue. Both sides uphold the authority of the text. We are all trying to make sure our interpretation is sound.

Classic Look at an Old Book: “Space Age Science” by Edward F. Hills

~ Bob Hayton ~ 1 Comment

Space Age Science by Edward F HillsEdward F. Hills is best known for his 1956 book The King James Version Defended: A Christian View of the New Testament Manuscripts (Christian Research Press). Assessments of Hills’ legacy are offered by both King James Only advocates (here and here), and critics (here). All agree that Hills was unique in being the only defender of the King James that had studied in the field of textual criticism, a ThD from Harvard, no less.

It was actually by reading Hills’ work, that I first began to doubt the tenets of King James onlyism, since he is honest with the evidence and admits to a few errors in the Textus Receptus. Hills also espouses a more Calvinistic bent in his theology than I had been exposed to up to that time, but what most made me pause in my reading of Hills, was his unabashed acceptance of geocentrism. He is not the only King James proponent to hold to geocentrism (the idea that the sun and planets rotate around the earth), see this article by Dr. Thomas Strouse.

With this wariness in my mind, I was intriguted when I found a copy of another smaller title written by Edward Hills: Space Age Science (Christian Research Press, 1964). In this title it appears he backs off of his geocentric views, somewhat – but later editions of his more well known work do not clarify matters.

Here is a brief review of this book, which I recently read with interest, particularly in light of the modern debates over science and the Bible.

This book displays an interesting perspective on science and faith, from the early 1960s. Hills does a good job explaining Einstein’s theories, but his critiques and biblical application don’t stand on much. He doesn’t cite authorities backing up his claims.

At first glance, it appears that in this book, Hills backs away from geocentrism (the view that the earth is stationary and the planets rotate around it). He makes the interesting observation that according to Einstein, Ptolemaic theory (stationary earth) and Copernican theory (stationary sun) are interchangeable and both equally true depending on your perspective. But then he clearly distances himself from a geocentric view:

“When we consider what the Scriptures say concerning the movements of the heavenly bodies, we see that they by no means teach the Ptolemaic theory” (p. 55). He goes on to quote Ps. 19:6 as showing the sun moves on its circuit. And points out the context of Ps. 93:1 a verse taken to prove geocentrism. He points out that God “hangeth the earth upon nothing” (Job 26:7) and says “The astronomy of the Bible is not earth-centered but God-centered” (p. 55).

After doing some searching, I did find that this contradicts what Hills states in his book The King James Version Defended. There (in the 4th edition, 1984, pg. 7) he states that he thinks it likely that Tycho Brahe’s theory (the predecessor of Copernicus) that the earth rotates on its axis and the sun and planets rotate around the earth is “probably correct.” It appears his conclusions in this volume (Space Age Science) are tentative and underplayed.

Another intriguing element of this book was his concession that God’s initial creation may have been just “mere energy out of which matter was later constituted” (p. 71). But then he disavows the deep time involved in modern astrophysics: “No billion years were required for the light of even the farthest star to reach our earth’s atmosphere, for God’s almighty power was able to bring it there in an instant of time” (p. 73). He even suggests that this may be what is intimated by the fact that God “set” the great lights in the firmament (p. 73).

Overall this is a fascinating insight into a Christian scholar trying to grapple with modern science from a believing point of view. I don’t think his qualifications from a scientific background fit him well for writing this book, and I don’t follow him in all his positions; but his attempt to apply the Bible and asses modern scientific developments is laudable.

Pick up a copy of this book at any of the following online retailers: Amazon.com, Bible Baptist Bookstore.

About “Classic Look at an Old Book” posts: These posts are short-form book reviews of older Christian books. Many of these works are not widely available or in print today.

“Discovering the City of Sodom” by Steven Collins and Latayne Scott

~ Bob Hayton ~ 2 Comments

Discovering the City of Sodom by Steven Collins and Latayne ScottBook Details:
  • Authors: Steven Collins and Latayne Scott
  • Category: Biblical Archeology
  • Book Publisher: Howard Books (2013)
  • Format: audiobook
  • Page Count: 352
  • Audio Length: 9.2 hours
  • Audio Publisher: Mission Audio / Christian Audio
  • Read by: Sean Runnette
  • ISBN#: 9781610457057
  • List Price: $24.98
  • Rating: Must Read

Review:
Any book with the title Discovering the City of Sodom: The Fascinating, True Account of the Discovery of the Old Testament’s Most Infamous City promises to be a sensational read. But a book about discovering the biblical city of Sodom must surely be just another crackpot’s wild theory, right? Wrong. Dr. Steven Collins is a veteran archaeologist and he has plenty to say against the crackpots and misguided adventurers whose escapades in the Middle East pose as archaeological discoveries. And while his claim that Sodom has been found is controversial, he does his best not to be overly sensational and claim more than the evidence warrants. Collins is not without his skeptics, but the case he builds, I believe, is painstakingly thorough, and in the end convincing.

I listened to an audio version of this book, read by Sean Runnette, available at ChristianAudio.com. And even without pictures and maps, I was enthralled by the tale. Collins, with the help of co-writer Latayne Scott, a professional writer, uses a variety of literary techniques to make a nearly decade-long project of digging holes in the sand sound interesting and engaging. He walks us through a day in a typical dig, describing the personality types and theological motives (or lack thereof) that people bring to such an undertaking. He uses flashback and personal anecdote, and then puts on his teacher’s hat as he assembles facts about archaeology, dating, and the history of the Levant (the archaeological term for Palestine).

I was struck by Collins’ faith, and how he is unashamed to use the Bible as a source alongside other ancient Near Eastern texts, in his scientific method. And with the Bible being the sole historical record of the city of Sodom, Collins surveys in detail the various aspects of the Biblical record and applies that to his research. His attention to the text with its many geographical details, ultimately is what convinces me that Tall el Hammam in modern-day Jordan, is the site of the biblical Sodom.

Collins makes a convincing argument that Sodom and its sister city Gomorrah was located on the Kikkar, a plain near the Jordan river just to the north of the Dead Sea. And while he doesn’t find mysterious sulfur balls of the kind that lead to wild tales of supposed discovery, he does find an area bereft of any human civilization for 700 years after a sudden fiery end to what was a prominent culture.

There are problems and puzzling sides to his story, however. He defends a date which will not fit with an early date for the Exodus. Anyone familiar with OT evangelical theology should know that the question of dating the Exodus is not as simple as it may seem. Collins dates the fall of Sodom to around 1650 B.C. Now with some work, his date could fit with a late date for the Exodus, as accepted by many scholars. However his own advocacy of a middle date for the Exodus, based on historical synchronisms with the text makes the problem even thornier for Collins himself. In the context of his grappling with the chronology of his finds, he makes what I believe is an important observation. And in this particular case, I believe he may well be right.

Geography trumps chronology when you’re dealing with the ancient Near East and the Bible. That’s because there are a lot of variations in Near Eastern chronologies–with high, middle, and low versions that can vary thirty to fifty years at given points…. By comparison, geography is quite static. With few exceptions, it doesn’t move around…. Again, we begin with the text, and that’s how, using all the geographical markers in the story of Abraham, you invariably find Sodom located in the Kikkar of the Jordan, because that’s what Abraham and Lot saw when they were dividing the land between them. (pg. 130)

He goes on to argue for honorific or symbolic numbers when it comes to the age of the patriarchs, but he also presents alternative views which could reconcile the dating with his find. He argues in the end that we cannot take the Bible “only literally” but must read it “authentically.”

Whether one agrees with his take on biblical chronology or not, you will have to grapple with the impressive geographical evidence that Collins marshals from the text. It is clear that he respects and listens to the Bible’s text, and this very fact makes him a target of liberal scholars for his audacity to believe the Bible’s record could be true. By the end of the book it is clear that Collins isn’t out to make friends but to pursue the truth, and he believes his work has provided concrete evidence bolstering the belief that the Bible’s account of the destruction of Sodom is grounded in historical truth.

Collins explains why others have not looked for Sodom in this locale. It is chiefly due to theories that Sodom was under the Dead Sea or to be found on its southern shores. Ultimately these theories were based less on evidence than on unsubstantiated educated guesses from earlier and still renowned biblical archaeologists. Further data has contradicted the assumption that Sodom was in the barren wasteland of the southern Dead Sea – which was never (during the time of the Biblical Sodom) an Edenic paradise that was to woo Lot to pitch his tent there. And the fact that the Dead Sea is at its lowest depth in the last four thousand years, argues against the idea that the cities are to be found in its depths.

The book ends with the most exciting find of all: pottery shards that are superheated to glass on one side, yet are perfectly normal pottery on the other. The conclusion of experts is that the shards were super heated and then cooled far too rapidly than would be expected by any typical human furnace or heating method known in ancient times. Extensive, independent research compares this to molten sand left over after nuclear experiments and the green glass found in the desert at times due to meteoric events. The best physical explanation is a meteor that burned up in the atmosphere leaving no crater, but still sending a fireball to earth (as in a documented case in Sieberia in the early 1900s). This may very well be concrete proof that the story of Sodom’s fiery demise as recounted in the Bible is true.

Collins hesitates to say more than what science can affirm, but he holds the biblical record to be true by faith. Along the way he presents an excellent example of how to hold true to Scripture and yet still seek to pursue a path of valid scientific inquiry.

The book reads well–mystery and history interwoven with the science of archaeology. It will interest amateur archaeologists and bible geeks, as well as history buffs. It can be understood by high schoolers as well and may spark an interest in biblical archaeology in younger readers.

The audio quality on the ChristianAudio.com recording was superb. Downloading the book in any format is a breeze. And the narrator does an excellent job keeping the story fresh and alive, rather than dull and boring. And kudos to him for pronouncing all the difficult words with ease. A simple search at Amazon will supply many of the charts and maps that are missing in the audio book experience. I am sure you’ll find the audio book as much fun as the hardback version. Of course, like me, you may be enticed to purchase both versions after listening to the audio reading of the book.

Author Info:
Dr. Steven Collins is Executive Curator of the Museum of Archaeology and Biblical History, Dean of the College of Archaeology and Biblical History at Trinity Southwest University, and Visiting Professor of Archaeology at Veritas Evangelical Seminary.

Dr. Latayne C. Scott is the author of fourteen published books, including The Mormon Mirage.

Resources:
  • Dictionary entry on Sodom written by Dr. Collins
  • The Tall el Hammam excavation website

Where to Buy:
  • ChristianAudio.com
  • Amazon.com

Review:
Disclaimer: This book was provided by ChristianAudio.com. The reviewer was under no obligation to offer a positive review.

How Important is the Old Earth vs. New Earth Debate?

~ Bob Hayton ~ 21 Comments

Justin Taylor recently posted a video clip from the 2012 Ligonier Conference. The clip was a portion of a panel discussion on how Christians should understand the age of the earth.

The full discussion on this question, available on video here, starts at 42:09 on the video and lasts through 75:40 (the end). It is mostly R.C. Sproul Sr., Stephen Meyer (a Christian scientist and author who subscribes to Intelligent Design), and Del Tackett (known for Focus on the Family’s The Truth Project), although Michael Horton and R.C. Sproul Jr. also make some brief comments.

I appreciated both R.C. Sproul Sr. and Stephen Meyer’s emphasis that this debate should be intramural and congenial. Good people can disagree on this issue and still mutually affirm the inerrancy of Scripture and stand against the materialistic drive of this age.

Taylor went on to quote from and point us to a report from the 2000 PCA report on the question of differing interpretations of the days of Creation. That report carefully defines terms, explains most of the various positions which aim to remain true to the text, and evaluates each view helpfully. A historical review of the position of the Church on the days of creation is also provided. The PCA concludes that this issue shouldn’t divide their church and aims to show that people holding to the various views can have unity in standing for Biblical supernaturalism when it comes to creation, and against a naturalistic worldview. I recommend you check out that paper.

In recent years, this debate has become more and more caustic. And some of the participants have moved farther and farther afield from the Bible’s account of creation. Peter Enns has gone so far as to deny the existence of Adam, and the historicity of the Exodus and much, much more! That being said, although a slippery slope does exist, the Church has always had varying positions on this issue. Holding to supernatural creation is more important than holding to a young earth or literal 24 hour days. There are many exegetical reasons offered against the young earth view, and some of them, in my mind, are convincing. But as Stephen Meyer points out in the panel’s discussion, the Church has to be careful not to get sidetracked into an intramural debate over the days of Creation instead of confronting head-on the new atheists denials of the existence of God and the Bible’s supernatural claims.

I expect my readers hold a variety of positions on this issue as well, so drop a comment and we can discuss this further. Just how important is the age of the earth when it comes to defending the Bible’s claims that God created the world?