If you've read 'The Seven Days that Divide the World' by Lennox you might want to follow up with some articles I think are pertinent to the book. They will provide background and needed corrective. I was disappointed that he declined to engage with scholars who defend the young earth position. These articles will provide a YE position on the material discussed in his book.
If you were only going to read one article I would recommend;
Philosophical naturalism and the age of the earth: are they related? - by Terry Mortenson
- an outstanding article.
Quote from above article;
'These old-earth proponents do not understand that the ‘scientific evidence’ for billions of years is really only a naturalistic interpretation of the observed geological and astronomical evidence. Remove the ‘hostile philosophical assumptions’ of naturalism from geology and astronomy, and there is no scientific evidence for millions and billions of years.'
Also;
The Galileo affair: history or heroic hagiography? by Thomas Schirrmacher
Why most scientists believe the world is old - by Russell Humphreys
Age of the earth; 101 evidences for a young age of the earth and the universe - by Don Batten
- this is really a collection of links to more than a hundred articles.
*Untangling Uniformitarianism; Level 1: A Quest for Clarity - by John K. Reed
The long story of long ages - by David Green
Cuvier’s analogy and its consequences: forensics vs testimony as historical evidence - John Reed
Biblical Evidence for the Universality of the Genesis Flood - by Richard M. Davidson
Demythologizing Uniformitarian History - John K. Reed
* An Old Age for the Earth Is the Heart of Evolution - Jonathan F. Henry
Christian Theodicy in Light of Genesis and Modern Science; A Young-Earth Creationist Response to William Dembski - by Terry Mortenson
Evolutionary naturalism: an ancient idea - Jerry Bergman
Geology and the young earth - Tas Walker
Battlegrounds of Natural History: Naturalism - John K. Reed, Emmett L. Williams
Millions of years; the idea's origin and impact on the church - Terry Mortenson [DVD] a version of the lecture can be seen on YouTube
- part 2. is crucial to an understanding of our debate; as M. quotes many OECs, giving the reason they have abandoned what they admit is the plain meaning of Genesis 1. [6.]
Whose god? The theological response to the god-of-the-gaps - by Lael Weinberger
Systematic Theology Texts and the Age of the Earth - by Terry Mortenson
Helpful book reviews;
Science & Christianity: Four Views - Edited by Richard F. Carlson; 2000 - review by Andrew Kulikovsky
Science’s Blind Spot: The Unseen Religion of Scientific Naturalism by Cornelius Hunter; - review by Lael Weinberger
Creation or Evolution: Do We Have to Choose? by Denis Alexander - Review by David Anderson
Science and Faith: Friends or Foes by John Collins - reviewed by Andrew Kulikovsky
* A Response to the Old-Earth Advocacy of Modern Reformation Magazine - John Reed
- The 'Seven Days' (by Lennox) appears to be a rehash of this MR article that Reed is responding to, as the points made in it (published in 2010) he repeats almost verbatim. (I don't know this to be a fact.) I see no reference to this article in the book.
The original article is; PCA Geologists on the Antiquity of the Earth
David Campbell Lyle D. Campbell, Chip Cates, Gregg Davidson, Keith Long, Richard F. Mercer, Kent Ratajeski, Davis A. Young
- Michael Johnson
Notes;
1. The seven days that divide the world - John Lennox [2011]
2. The only reference to young earth creation is to an essay in an edited collection, and it was written not by PHDs in science (e.g. Humphreys, Sarfati, Bergman, etc.) but by two theologians.
(Was Lennox trying to imply that no 'real' scientists accept a young earth position, only theologians?)
3. I think that a part of what we see here (in this conflict between young and old earth models) i that people like Lennox are looking to win the short term battle, while YECs are looking to win the war. (If you'll allow the metaphor.) Lennox feels that if he were to affirm YE creation he would be dismissed with a wave of the hand, and thus have no chance to make a case for Christianity. People like Jonathan Sarfati believe they must present what they feel is the Biblical case, no matter what academics think of it. i.e. they are looking far beyond current squabbles to an ultimate result.
- I'm not in academia so it's (relatively) easy for me to affirm a YE position; and I know that's not the case for people like Lennox, Lane, Zacharias, etc.
4. Oxford Hebrew scholar, Professor James Barr, on the meaning of Genesis
‘… probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that:
creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience
the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story
Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark.’
5. An unnamed person was overheard to say; "this is the book Philip Johnson was smart enough not to write.'' (No comment.)
6. OECs keep telling us that it's consensus science that must dictate what Genesis means; but what if consensus science decided (or decides) that aliens created man upon this planet? (What if we lived in the days of Democritus and consensus science told us we lived in an eternal universe?)
- OECs in great regularity confuse arguments for an old earth with 'evidence' for an old earth. i.e. they confuse the data and interpretations of the data. It's not the data that speak of an old earth, but secular interpretations of that data. (What's baffling is that even philosophers do this.) Data in itself does not speak, but is mute. OECs are making (at least by proxy) the unwarranted and fallacious claim that there is only one possible interpretation of the data, and that is an old earth. (This is akin to looking at economic history and saying the only possible reading is the superiority and necessity of communism.)
7. A great resource for this subject is a Teaching Company course called 'The philosophy of Science' by Jeffrey Kasser. (It's tough sledding for anyone not familiar with the subject, but crucial to understanding our debate.)
8. A problem we see throughout the book is the conflation of Naturalism with science.
Internet follies;
As a complete aside, if you are being annoyed with a browser feature called Easyinline, it can be removed from your computer by getting rid of a program called YonToo. Full information at easyinline.com
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
