I am assuming that your post is in some way, either a response to or prompted by my article on June 4th entitled A Day Is a Day Is a Day of Course. If not, please forgive my unfortunate assumption and therefore my response to your article.
Your title “Is the Day-Age View of Genesis Synonymous with Evolution?” and some of your article’s content seems to make a point that I did not make. To wit, I did not argue that the Day-Age theory was synonymous with evolution. In my second paragraph I state, “In this article, I am only addressing the two perspectives mentioned, and I use the term “evolution” to encompass such approaches that undermine interpreting the days in Genesis as a normal day.” Continue reading →
This is a response to my article published on sbctoday.com, 6/4/14 entitled, A Day Is a Day Is a Day of Course: Unless That Day Challenges Evolution! Part I. I also posted this article on this blog, December 22, 2014. I am sorry about the disconnect. This should have been published sooner. I have a couple more of the responses to this series that I will publish in the next two post.
The blogger wrote:
“My seminary Old Testament prof used to say, The Bible was never meant to be a book of science. For instance, most writers of the Biblical revelation believed the world was flat, and that the sun revolved around the earth. Instead, the Bible is the record of God’s revelation to mankind. There is more truth in the Bible in that reality than we can ever digest, understand, believe, and live. We invite all manner of problems when we try to turn it into a book of science.” Continue reading →
This is the last article in this series, which looks at the strengths of interpreting the word “day” in Genesis chapter 1 as a normal lunar day and answers objections to this normal reading of the text. The first three considered strengths of such a reading and this final article considers some problem verses. Continue reading →
This is the third part of this series of articles, which looks at the strengths of interpreting the word “day” in Genesis chapter 1 as a normal lunar day. The fourth and final article answers objections to this normal reading of the text. As mentioned in a previous post, any evidence or arguments I make that are not relevant to a particular position should not be considered a misrepresentation of the position, but rather my attempt to consider various views that in one way or another view the days as long periods of time. Continue reading →
This is the second part of this series of articles, which looks at the strengths of interpreting the word “day” in Genesis chapter 1 as a normal lunar day. The fourth and final article answers objections to this normal reading of the text. All four parts are numbered consecutively. Continue reading →
Genesis has been a battleground for some time, and today is no different. This is particularly true of Genesis 1-3, which is the account of the creation and the fall. When I first began studying the Scripture, I recognized the importance of the first eleven chapters of Genesis, but in retrospect I did not fully appreciate the magnitude of their significance. As I studied other areas of the Scripture and began learning the breadth and depth of God’s revelation, I saw that without the truthfulness and perspicuity of the first eleven chapters of Genesis, every major theme of Scripture lay in jeopardy.
Probably the most hotly debated issue is whether or not the days of Genesis 1 are lunar days or indefinite periods of time or even actual days that are representative of longer periods of time. In other words, did God create the world in six days (closely approximating our days) or is the simple language of Genesis concealing a deeper esoteric meaning only fully revealed to scientists quite apart from the Scripture? Even some evangelical scientists like Hugh Ross, who describes himself as a “progressive creationist,” still accept certain cosmological theories as fact and seek to interpret Genesis through that prism. Continue reading →
Recently, Randy Presley presented a very helpful paper in the Round Table in Ideology that dealt with scientific thinking. A clear understanding of scientific thinking and the fallacies associated with that is something every Christian needs to know in order to strengthen our own faith and be equipped to help others see God in the world and society. Randy’s paper is a great resource to that end.
The precis can be accessed here, Precis for Scientific Thinking and Fallacies of Scientific Thinking and the full paper can be accessed here, Scientific Thinking and Fallacies in Scientific Thinking.
Astrophysicist Jason Lisle provides another explanation for “the distant starlight problem” in his paperÂ Anisotropic Synchrony Conventionâ€“A Solution to the Distant Starlight Problem Â (see Pt. I for other proposals) He states the problem thusly, “Since light travels a distance of one light year (about 6 trillion miles or 9 trillion kilometers) in one year, it would seem that we should only be able to see objects within a radius of 6,000 light years. Objects beyond that distance should not be visible, since presumably their light has not yet reached us. Yet, paradoxically, we can see galaxies whose distances have been measured to be many billions of light years away.”
Continue reading →
How do those like me who believe in a recent creation and that the days of Genesis chapter one are actual solar (24 hour) days (see my article A Day is A Day) reconcile that with the time scientists say is necessary for starlight to travel to earth?
Astrophysicist John Hartnett succinctly states the difficulty thusly, “The problem is simply that in the time available since creation (about 6,000 years) there has not been enough time for light to get to Earth from even the nearest neighbor galaxies (1.5 to 3 million years travel time at constant speed of light let alone the most distant galaxies (billions of years travel time at constant. How then do we see them and how did Adam see them?” ((http://creation.com/a-new-cosmology-solution-to-the-starlight-travel-time-problem accessed 11/19/11)) Continue reading →
The key for Darwinian evolution is the increase in information and the transmission of such. For example, the information needed for slime to produce more slime only needs to be sufficiently slimy, but the information needed to transition to a sophisticate is indeed astronomic.
“That is, particles-to-people evolution requires changes that increase genetic information (e.g., specifications for manufacturing nerves, muscle, bone, etc.), but all we observe is sorting and, overwhelmingly, loss of information. We are hardpressed to find examples of even ‘micro’ increases in information, although such changes should be frequent if evolution were true. Conversely, we do observe quite ‘macro’ changes that involve no new information, e.g. when a control gene is switched on or off. Interestingly, even high profile evolutionists (e.g. Mayr, Ayala) disagree with the idea that the observed small changes in living things are sufficient to account for the grand scheme of microbes-to-mankind evolution.” ((From http://creation.com/qa#bad_arguments))