“They received the Word with all eagerness examining
the Scriptures daily to see if these things are so.” – Acts 17:11
I
first of all wish to acknowledge my agreement with Ken Ham[i]
on five core matters: 1) the Bible is the inspired Word of God, 2) the degree that
people grasp matters of origins has a bearing on their receptivity to the
Gospel, 3) it is not legitimate to compromise on the core[ii]
meaning of biblical texts including, for the purposes of this paper, matters of
creation, Adam’s fall, and Noah’s flood,[iii]
and consequently 4) that Noah’s flood occurred in accordance with the relevant texts
of Scripture.[iv] 5)
It is for these reasons that I cannot fault Mr. Ham for the spirit of
urgency which clearly drives his message.
Nevertheless, I must now illustrate that his zeal fails to be tempered
with a necessary degree of caution.
Visitors to his website will surely notice his assertion that any deviation
from his young-earth creationist[v]
(YEC) and global-flood[vi]
(GF) views amount to both biblical unfaithfulness and an idolatrous loyalty
to science; both of which he alleges contribute to growing apathy toward the
Gospel of Christ in our day. Indeed, implications
from his views effectively overthrow our trust in knowledge from core scientific
fields. Consequently, the stakes behind the takeaway from his message are far
more massive than is the size of his Ark in Kentucky.[vii] For this reason his agenda demands thorough
scrutiny. Indeed it is my judgment that Mr.
Ham commits serious error on several fundamental fronts; the ramifications
of which not only undermine the veracity of the very Scriptures that we both
embrace; it also thwarts the spread of the Gospel in our society which seeks to
expose as folly, every rational fallacy that he commits.
Obviously, this means that my challenge
to Ham should likewise receive scrutiny.
And indeed, I do encourage readers to undertake that investigation by first
of all asking the question of how the Bible delineates its own authority specifically
in the face of what we today call scientific[viii]
knowledge. YECs for example insist that
whenever scientific data conflicts with a biblical pronouncement, the former
must always yield to the judgment of the latter. In other words, the body of scientific clues which
indicate that creation is billions of years old must defer to the text of Genesis
1 on the age of creation. Yet despite a
propensity for either camp to claim triumph in the apparent clash between
science and religion over the course of time,[ix]
the Bible quells this very tension, and it does so in two distinct ways. Firstly, in contradiction to YEC, Romans
1:18-20 says that the testimony of nature (TN), aka “scientific data,” is NOT a
deceptive conveyor of the cause of nature’s origin. Indeed this very witness is deemed by
Scripture to be so trustworthy, the Bible employs it as one standard (among
others) against which those who reject God will be judged. Woe then to anyone who seeks to undermine the
testimony of nature! Secondly, the Bible
actually exhibits (through employing) this principle by appealing
to evidence from science, history, and rationality as external[x]
indicators that God’s Word is truth (John 17:17).[xi]
To be continued...
To be continued...
[i] The founder and president of the young-earth
creationist think-tank, “Answers in Genesis.”
[ii] In this context I am urging focus on the broad picture
as distinct from minute details.
[iii] I do not resort to compromising Scripture, but instead
seek to harmonize Scripture and science with legitimate hermeneutical methods.
See my essay, “Defusing the Alleged Conflict Between Scientific Fact and the
Text of Genesis 1 Without Compromising Either One,” which together with all my
papers can be found at my website: www.christianityontheoffense.com.
[iv] See my paper, “The Biblical Extent of Noah’s Flood,
Revisited,” at Ibid.
[v]
Young-earth creationists hold that the entire
creation is approximately 8,000 years old.
I argue, by contrast, that the text of Genesis 1 allows for the view
that creation is perhaps billions of years old. ** See my two papers, 16
page “The Biblical Demand to Take Another Look: Ten ‘Compelling’ Exegetical
Reasons the Creation Days are 24-Hour,” and my 1 page summary, “15 Clues in the
Text of Genesis 1 Indicating that Creation is Ancient.”
[vi] By “global” is meant that the entire world was
covered in water rather than a limited area sufficient to drown only its human
population.
[vii] Localized flood proponent astrophysicist Dr. Hugh
Ross, whom Mr. Ham relentlessly attacks, nevertheless states that Noah’s Ark
could easily have been the same size as “Mr. Ham’s Ark.” Hugh Ross. Navigating
Genesis: A Scientist’s Journey through Genesis 1-11. (RTB, 2014),
pp.174-5).
[viii] Although the term “science” (previously known as
natural philosophy) wasn’t coined until 1833 by William Whewell, I choose to
employ the cognates, “science” and “scientific” in the loose sense of an
intentional careful study of the natural order.
[ix] Concerning the Copernican revolution for example, Gary
Ferngren writes, “A principle point of tension in the religious community
centered on various scriptural proof texts that seemed to demand a fixed earth
or a moving sun.” Science & Religion. (John Hopkins, 2002), p.
99.
[x] In other words, evidence that is found outside of the
pages of the Bible.
[xi] I reference over forty examples in Scripture. See my
paper, “The Pervasive Employment of Apologetics in the Bible.” Access at Op.cit.
(3).
[xii] Whether truth is sought in the arenas of science, law,
or with respect to biblical claims, each context abides by this dictum.
No comments:
Post a Comment