“The time has come to move beyond Creation Science”, announces Protestant
pastor and author Tim Martin in Beyond
Creation Science. “How many Christian conservatives would have looked at The Genesis Flood [by John Whitcomb and
Henry Morris] a little more carefully”, he writes, “if they were aware up front
of its Adventist roots?”
And Vatican astronomer Guy Consolmagno (S.J.), quoted as saying
that ‘creationism is a kind of paganism’ - though he denies having said that
exactly, but something akin to it - has answered this question:
The National Academy of
Sciences states that creationism doesn’t belong in the classroom. Do you agree?,
with
That’s what the Catholic Church has been saying all along. After
the law was passed in Kansas [forbidding teaching of evolution in schools], the
only place you could learn about evolution was in a Catholic school.
Creationism isn’t science; it’s theology. And in fact most religious people
aren’t creationists. That’s an incredibly naïve understanding of religion.
Consolmagno’s comments have prompted Michael Fishwick, a writer for the
Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation - a Catholic
lay apostolate promoting creationism - to entitle a response: “Kolbe
Center for the Study of Paganism!?”
And, to the question:
What is ‘creationism’
anyway?
Consolmagno replies:
There
are different flavors to it. In the U.S. context, if it’s “Do you believe God
created the universe?” – I think most Western believers would say yes. But
creationists have a creed that the Bible is literally true; Genesis is a
blow-by-blow description of what God did at the beginning. That’s not how
Genesis was written; it’s a very flawed understanding of how to read the Bible.
It’s
also kind of peculiar, because there are three different creation stories [sic?]
in the Bible, so which is true?
Even more strongly
critical is Tim Martin again (who used to espouse creationism), when he calls
Creation Science “a right-wing form of modernism”:
We live in a world dominated
by materialism and scientism. The reduction of every aspect of life to
“science” has corrupted the soul of Western Civilization. This is one key to
understanding the related popularity of both futurism and Creation Science.
They are both perfectly compatible with the scientistic spirit of the modern
age. In fact, dispensational futurism, at least, is impossible apart from it.
Christians aid this scientistic syncretism through Creation Science methods of
reading Scripture. They do it by reducing even the language of the Bible to the
“scientific.”[1]
Viewed in this light it is not difficult to see that Creation Science ideology
is a right-wing form of modernism. Conrad Hyers puts it this way:
Even if evolution is only a
scientific theory of interpretation posing as scientific fact, as the
[young-earth] creationists argue, [young-earth] creationism is only a religious
theory of biblical interpretation posing as biblical fact. To add to the
problem, it is a religious theory of biblical interpretation which is heavily
influenced by modern scientific, historical, and technological concerns. It is,
therefore, essentially modernistic even though claiming to be truly
conservative.[2]
Catholics (those tending to be of the conservative variety) who
have followed Creationism over the years would be well aware that mainstream
Catholic scholars have shown virtually no interest whatsoever in its teachings,
and that official Catholic documents never seem to support Creation Science.
Why is this so?
Surely Creation Science, teaching a belief in God the Creator of
all things, and vehemently defending the inerrancy of the Sacred Scriptures, ought
to be warmly welcomed by the Church as an invaluable ally.
On the other hand, the God-fearing are not always right in their
estimations, no matter how sincere, and they may need to be corrected. Consider
Our Lord’s constant corrections of good people when using the phrase, “You have
heard it said … but I tell you”. Some traditions, even those of very long
standing, need correcting. The conservative friends of Job had to be awoken
from their dogmatic slumber and traditional views about the Divine and retribution.
So was the case with the Apostles in regard to the blind man (John 9:3).
In more recent times, much of the misalignment of ancient history
with the Bible is due to well-intentioned early archaeologists and historians who
had tried to co-ordinate the era of Abraham with the civilisation of Ur
famously being excavated by Sir Leonard Woolley. This was on the basis of biblical
testimonies (e.g. Genesis 11:31; 15:7) that Abram (Abraham) had been called by
God out of Ur of the Chaldeans (generally associated with the famous city of Ur
in southern Mesopotamia). Thus they applied to the famous Ur III civilisation a
date of commencement of c. 2000 BC, when Abraham lived. This was a disastrous
presumption. And so was the choice by François Champollion of the Libyan
pharaoh Shoshenq I as the biblical pharaoh “Shishak” who sacked king Solomon’s
temple (1
Kings 14:25; 2
Chronicles 12:1-12). Despite the name similarity, this Libyan pharaoh never attacked
Jerusalem (as even those who support this identification will admit). This
supposed biblically-based pillar of Egyptian history, which stands immovable to
this day, has been a disaster for biblical history.
So may it be, likewise, that Creation Science, though a generally
sincere and well-intentioned effort to uphold orthodoxy, truth and religion, might
have quite missed the mark, leading to chaos, and hence needs to be corrected?
That is the view that will be taken here, that it is now time to move beyond
Creation Science, as author Tim Martin has said. That does not mean, however,
that we accept the criticisms of Brother Guy Consolmagno, who may be associated
with Teilhardian-inclined evolutionary-minded colleagues, nor that we espouse
evolution. Creation Science has turned this upside down. And, on this very last
point, we should like to mention a fascinating article produced by the Kolbe
Center and Robert Sungenis, which, if correct, could have explosive
consequences for Catholic thinking. The article is called:
"Evolution More than a Hypothesis" Never Said By Pope John
Paul II
This can be read
at: http://www.catholicintl.com/index.php/catholic/scandals/993-qevolution-more-than-a-hypothesisq-never-said-by-pope-john-paul-ii
and we urge you to read it!
Dismantling
the ‘scientific’ pillars of Creationism
Assuredly, Creation Science is built largely upon the assumption
of a global Flood and its geology, but also to some extent upon a ‘science’ of
a Six Days of Creation. As we shall see, the methodology is artificial because
the approach is entirely ‘Procrustean’, forcing all the data to conform to the a priori concept. It is exactly like the
approach to reality of the highly theoretical physical scientists, many of whom
are not believers.
The concept of a global Flood has arisen from the universal language
of the Flood narratives as read in translation, without a proper
appreciation of the original language, of antiquity, of the Middle East, or of ancient
scribal methods.
Geologist professor Carol A. Hill tells of into what sort of a scientific
bind the global Flood model places its proponents when she writes (“The
Noachian Flood: Universal or Local?” http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/Carol%201.pdf.):
Biblical Evidence
One of the basic
tenants of many biblical literalists (creation scientists) is that Noah’s
Flood was a universal phenomenon—that is, flood waters covered the entire
planet Earth up to at least the height of Mount Ararat, which is ~17,000 feet
(5000 m) in elevation. Corollary to this view is the position held by flood
geologists—that most of the Earth’s sedimentary rocks and fossils were
deposited during the deluge of Noah as described in Genesis 6–8. To explain
this universal flood, flood geologists usually invoke the canopy theory,
which hypothesizes that water was held in an immense atmospheric canopy and
subterranean deep between the time of Creation and Noah’s Flood. Then, at the
time of the Flood, both of these water sources were suddenly released in a
deluge of gigantic, Earth-covering proportions. Along with this catastrophic
hydrologic activity, there was a major geologic change in the crust of the
Earth: modern mountain ranges rose, sea bottoms split open, and continents
drifted apart and canyons were cut with amazing speed. All animals and plants
died and became encased in flood sediments, and then these fossil-bearing
sediments became compacted into sedimentary rock. There are modifications of
the canopy scheme, such as the “ice-lens,” “greenhouse,” “invisible,” and “visible”
canopies … but essentially the canopy theory claims that waters released during
Noah’s Flood caused all (or most) of the sedimentary and geomorphic features we
see today on planet Earth.
[End of quote]
Now,
just because we are going to argue that Creation Science is not genuine science
does not mean that we do not appreciate the great work done by its many
contributors over the years, nor do we reject all of its conclusions. It has
turned evolutionary geology on its head. Just as we do not accept many of the
conclusions of conventional science, even though we sometimes find that
scientists have better interpreted biblical hermeneutics, re Genesis, than have
some of the Christians. In the past we have written in regard to this anomalous
situation:
… there sometimes occurs the ironical – even humorous – situation
whereby agnostic scientists will occasionally call for a more enlightened
exegetical approach to Genesis than do the upholders of the biblical tradition;
whereas the latter will at times arrive at a more accurate interpretation of
the scientific data than do their scientific opponents.
Professor
Hill now tells of the scientific bind for those who uphold a global Flood:
Scientific Evidence
Geologic Evidence
No geologic evidence whatsoever exists for a universal flood, flood
geology, or the canopy theory. Modern geologists, hydrologists,
paleontologists, and geophysicists know exactly how the different types of
sedimentary rock form, how fossils form and what they represent, and how fast
the continents are moving apart (their rates can be measured by satellite).
They also know how flood deposits form and the geomorphic consequences of flooding.
….
Flood Geology. In addition to a lack of any real geological evidence for flood
geology,
there are also no biblical verses that support this hypothesis. The
whole construct of flood geology is based on the original assumption that
the Noachian Flood was universal and covered the whole Earth. Since the Flood
was supposedly worldwide, then there must be evidence in the geologic record
left by it. Since the only massive sediments on Earth are those tied up in
sedimentary rocks, and because these rocks often contain fossils, this must be
the “all flesh” (Gen. 7:21) record left by Noah’s Flood. And since sedimentary
rock can be found on some of the highest peaks in the world (including Everest,
the highest), then these mountains must have formed during and after the Flood.
The “leaps of logic” build one on top of another until finally, as the result
of this cataclysmic event, almost all of the geomorphic and tectonic features present
on the planet Earth (e.g., canyons, caves, mountains, continents) are
attributed by flood geologists to the Noachian Flood.
Does the Bible actually say anything about mountains rising during the
Flood? No, but it does say that mountains and hills were in place before the
Flood (Gen. 7:19, 8:4). Does the Bible say anything about sedimentary rock,
fossils, or drifting continents? Not
one word. All of these things are read into the Bible from a
centuries-past interpretation of it. Most important from a literalist perspective,
it can be shown from the Bible (Gen. 2:10–14; Gen. 6:14) that the four rivers of
Eden flowed over, and cut into, sedimentary rock strata; that the pre-Flood
landscape was a modern one (similar to the present-day landscape; that is,
overlying sedimentary rock); and that the bitumen (pitch) used by Noah to caulk
the ark was derived from hydrocarbon-rich sedimentary rock. …. Therefore,
sedimentary rock must have existed before the Flood.
The Bible itself never claims that all of the sedimentary rock on Earth formed
at the time of the Noachian Flood— only flood geologists make this claim.
[End of quote]
We, like Tim Martin, had once favoured the notion of a global Flood but
then (fairly recently) dropped the idea. Our own point of departure from this
model occurred when we came to search for the location of Paradise and realised
that the ancient world of Adam and Eve, the world of Genesis 2, was structured
around the four rivers Pishon, Gihon, Tigris and Euphrates; rivers that editor
Moses connected with real locations in his own day (e.g. Kush and Ashur) (and
still active more than a millennium later, in Sirach’s day, Ecclesiasticus
24:25-27). In other words, there was a continuity between the antediluvian and
post-diluvian worlds, contrary to global floodists, who posit a Flood so
massive that no trace whatsoever of the former world could have remained.
Along with this was an archaeology in Mesopotamia that revealed a
Cain-ite world, destroyed by a great flood, and then a recommencement of that
world. For a full explanation of all this, see our
THE
CHRONOLOGY OF THE ALPHA AND THE OMEGA
The biblical evidence for the basic ‘shell’, at least, of the Adamic
world still being with us even today has devastating effects for global
floodism. This, so well explained by Carol Hill (though we reject her location
for Eden), effectively sounds the death knell to creationist geology:
The Garden of Eden: A Modern Landscape
In this paper, I try to apply the findings of modern geology to Gen.
2:10-14. I deduce from the evidence that the four rivers of Eden--the Pishon,
the Gihon, the Hiddekel [Tigris], and the Euphrates--were real rivers which
existed on a modern landscape before Noah's flood. …. Oil-drilling in southern Iraq confirms that
six miles of sedimentary rock exist below the biblical site for the Garden of
Eden. This same sedimentary rock is the source of bitumen at Hit, a site which
may have supplied Noah with pitch for constructing the ark. The question is
asked: How could pre-flood Eden have been located over six miles of sedimentary
rock supposedly formed during Noah's flood?
….
Implications for Flood Geology
So far in
this paper, I have argued that the Bible locates the Garden of Eden at the
confluence of the four rivers of ancient Mesopotamia. The Bible correctly identifies
the Pishon River as draining the land of Havilah (Arabia), from whence came
gold, bdellium, and onyx stone. The Bible also correctly identifies the
Euphrates and Tigris, both of which are modern rivers which drain approximately
the same area of Mesopotamia as they did in ancient times. The Gihon …. not
positively identified [AMAIC: we do not
accept Hill’s location of this river in Iran, it was clearly in Ethiopia, Kush]
is probably the Karun (and/or Karkheh), which "encompasses" (winds
around) the whole land of Cush (western Iran). Thus, the Bible locates the
Garden of Eden …. on a modern landscape similar to that which exists … today.
Six Miles
of Sedimentary Rock Below Eden
This
interpretation of the Garden of Eden as existing on a modern landscape presents
a major conflict between what the Bible says and what flood geologists say.67 The reason is this: there are six
miles of sedimentary rock beneath the Garden of Eden/Persian Gulf.
How could Eden, which existed in pre-flood times, be located over
six miles of sedimentary rock supposedly deposited during Noah's flood?
What flood geologists are implying is that the Garden of Eden existed on a
Precambrian crystalline basement and then Noah's flood came and covered up the
Garden of Eden with six miles of sedimentary rock. But this is not what the
Bible says. It says that Eden was located where the four rivers confluenced on
a modern landscape. It says that the Garden of Eden was located on top of
six miles of sedimentary rock, and thus this sedimentary rock must have existed
in pre-flood times.
[The
Bible] says that the Garden of Eden was located on top of six miles
of sedimentary rock, and thus this sedimentary rock must have existed
in pre-flood times.
of sedimentary rock, and thus this sedimentary rock must have existed
in pre-flood times.
The fact
that six miles of sedimentary rock exist beneath the Persian Gulf area is well
known by geologists, since this area has been extensively drilled for oil, down
to the Precambrian basement. The fact that the Persian Gulf is located in an
area of oil recovery is equally as evident to the layperson who, in 1991,
witnessed on television the numerous oil fires set off in Kuwait during the
Gulf War. The six miles of sedimentary rock below the Garden of Eden area
include Tertiary, Cretaceous, Jurassic, Triassic, and Paleozoic rock up to a
depth of about 32,000 feet before the Precambrian basement is encountered.68
….
[End of quote]
Whilst we
would definitely agree with Hill and Martin that the biblical Flood was local
rather than global, our own view, unlike theirs, is that it was not confined
just to the region of Mesopotamia, where Hill has the confluence of the four
Genesis rivers (in the Persian Gulf), but that it extended right through at
least the Fertile Crescent, from Mesopotamia, through Palestine, to Egypt/Ethiopia
– where we believe the Gihon river ran. According to Hill, this could not have
been the case, because the Flood did not reach even unto Jericho (let alone
Egypt and Ethiopia). Thus she writes (The Noachian Flood):
Archaeological Evidence
There is also no archaeological evidence for a universal flood. No flood
deposits correlative with those in Mesopotamia have been found in Egypt, Syria,
or Palestine, let alone in other parts of the world more distant from the
Middle East. Archaeological mounds in Syria and Palestine (such as Jericho),
which exhibit fairly continuous occupation since at least 4500 BC, show no
signs of a great flood. ….
That the Flood did not extend even to the land of Israel is alluded to
in Ezek. 22:24: “a land [Israel] … nor rained upon in the day of
indignation [day of God’s judgment by the Flood].” ….
[End of quote]
How Local Was the
Local Flood?
Is she right here? And, if the biblical Flood was not global, then how
far did it extend?
Professor Hill has optimistically made Ezekiel 22:24 above indicate that
the Noachic Flood did not extend even to the land of Israel. Whether it did or
not, the prophet Ezekiel in this passage is saying nothing of the sort. Far
from the prophet’s words being meant to be a blessing, insofar as Israel was
saved from a catastrophe, Ezekiel is foretelling (like Amos and others) that
the blessing of rain will be withheld from Israel “in the day of indignation”,
because of its sin; this being a terrible blow to an agricultural people.
Now it is our conviction that the Flood extended right across the entire
Fertile Crescent, the world of the four rivers of Genesis 2. This is the only
world that the Bible has given us up to Genesis 6-8, and so it must be “the
world that then was” of St. Peter (2 Peter 3:6), that was destroyed by the
Flood. So our local model is far vaster than are the typical local models. How
else to explain that Jerusalem was once under the ocean? (“Diggings"
(December 1994, Vol. 10, No. 12), "Why Hezekiah's Tunnel Has the
Bends" (p.5):
….
A geologist may have the answer … an Israeli geologist, Dan Gill, has done some research on the matter and has come up with some very plausible explanations.
A geologist may have the answer … an Israeli geologist, Dan Gill, has done some research on the matter and has come up with some very plausible explanations.
Dan identifies two types of rock in the tunnel area -- limestone
and dolomite. The former is fairly soft and porous, the latter comparatively
hard. It is rather interesting that this limestone consists of about 30%
fragments of fossil shells and some coral, which means that Jerusalem, which is
now about 700 metres above sea level, must have been beneath the ocean at some
time in the past.
[End of quote]
And so apparently was the entire Giza plateau in Egypt once under Flood:
Report
from Mr Sherif El Morsi
Preface
…. for the last 20 years now I have also been collecting evidence
of sea erosion due to deep water saturation on the Giza plateau. My own theory
(already published in France in 2007) is that the last Great Flood … came up the Giza plateau, and that the Ancient
Egyptians with their incomparable skills adapted the plateau from the beginning
in order to protect their population and their science beneath it....
This is not surprising when one considers the enormity in size of the
ancient Nile (Ur Nil), as told by C.
Pellegrino (Return
to Sodom and Gomorrah, Bard, 1998, p. 47):
Under the Nile itself are remnants of a deep valley to rival the Grand
Canyon. River silts began covering it up as soon as the Gibraltar dam broke
open and the Atlantic spilled in, but oil geologists drilling through thousands
of feet of mud have located the solid bedrock of the Nile Canyon’s floor. It
lies nearly two miles beneath the city of Cairo.
For a brief time, for perhaps two or three thousand years [sic] …
the [ancient] Nile poured over a cliff forty times higher than Niagara, but
within a half million years [sic], at a rate of inches per day, it had chewed
back the bare limestone, slashing the Earth from Cairo to Aswan. The river ran
east of Karnak in those days; the slash bypassed Karnak’s limestone fields,
left them intact for stonecutting beings, who were then only a distant
potential in dryopithecine descent.
[End of quote]
Pellegrino’s reference to “the Gibraltar dam [breaking] open and the
Atlantic spill[ing] in” refers to the very same incident that caused the Black
Sea Flood that William Ryan and Walter Pitman have equated with the
biblical Flood, though dating it to c. 5600 BC (Noah's Flood: The New Scientific
Discoveries About The Event That Changed History, New
York: Simon & Schuster, 1998).
Now it is most interesting (particularly for Catholic readers)
that German mystic Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich has focussed upon the Black
Sea region as being one of the hotspots of evil at the time of the Flood. Thus
we wrote in “Alpha and Omega”:
Interestingly, with regard
to [the] correlation of the Black Sea Flood with the Genesis one (despite the
supposed significant time difference) … Catherine Emmerich had claimed that
very wicked people had lived in the Black Sea region prior to the Flood and
were there destroyed by it. Here is part of her fascinating account of it:
One of
Cain's descendants was Thubalcain [Tubal-cain], the originator of numerous
arts, and the father of the giants. I have frequently seen that, when the
angels fell, a certain number had a moment of repentance and did not in consequence
fall as low as the others. Later on, these fallen spirits took up their abode
on a high, desolate, and wholly inaccessible mountain whose site at the time of
the Deluge became a sea, the Black Sea, I think. They were permitted to
exercise their evil influence upon men in proportion as the latter strayed
further from God. ….
I saw Cain's
descendants becoming more and more godless and sensual. They settled further
and further up that mountain ridge where were the fallen spirits. Those spirits
took possession of many of the women, ruled them completely, and taught them all sorts of seductive arts. Their children were
very large. They possessed a quickness, an aptitude for everything, and they
gave themselves up entirely to the wicked spirits as their instruments. And so
arose on this mountain and spread far around, a wicked race which by violence
and seduction sought to entangle Seth's posterity likewise in their own corrupt
ways. Then God declared to Noe [Noah] His intention to send the Deluge. During
the building of the ark, Noe had to suffer terribly from those people. ….
[End of
quote]
So the Black Sea region will definitely need to be included in our
antediluvian geography.
What about the
Universal Language of the Flood Narratives?
Both Professor Hill and Timothy Martin discuss this issue in detail as
have we in our:
Just
How 'Global' Was the Great Genesis Flood?
According to Hill (The Noachian Flood):
Universal Language of Gen. 6–8
The best argument, biblically speaking, for a worldwide flood is the
“universal” language used in Gen. 6–8, and this is no doubt the main reason why
people in centuries past have believed that Genesis was talking about the planet
Earth, and why this traditional interpretation has continued to the present
day.
In Gen. 6–8, “earth” (eretz or adâmâh) is used forty-two
times, “all” (kol or kowl) is used twenty times, “every” (also kowl
in Hebrew) is used twenty-three times, and “under heaven” (literally,
“under the sky”) …. is used two times.
Earth. The Hebrew for “earth” used in Gen. 6–8 (and in Gen. 2:5–6) is eretz
(‘erets) or adâmâh, both of which terms literally mean
“earth, ground, land, dirt, soil, or country.” …. In no way can “earth” be
taken to mean the planet Earth, as in Noah’s time and place, people (including
the Genesis writer …) had no concept of Earth as a planet and thus had no word
for it. …. The biblical account must be interpreted within the narrow limit of
what was known about the world in that time, … not what is known about
the world today. Biblical context also makes it clear that “earth” does not necessarily
mean the whole Earth. For example, the face of the ground, as used in
Gen. 7:23 and Gen. 8:8 in place of “earth,” does not imply the planet Earth.
“Land” is a better translation than “earth” for the Hebrew eretz because
it extends to the “face of the ground” we can see around us; that is, what is
within our horizon….. It also can refer to a specific stretch of land in a
local geographic or political sense. For example, when Zech. 5:6 says “all
the earth,” it is literally talking about Palestine—a tract of land or
country, not the whole planet Earth. …. The clincher to the word “earth”
meaning ground or land (and not the planet Earth) is Gen. 1:10: God called
the dry land earth (eretz). If God defined “earth” as “dry
land,” then so should we. ….
[End of quote]
The great Pentecost
event as recorded in Acts 2 of the New Testament provides us with a wonderful
example of how differently the ancient Middle Eastern scribes thought by
comparison with today’s logical Western man. “Every nation under heaven” is
said to have been assembled in Jerusalem to hear the Apostles from Galilee
proclaiming the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, in this thrilling bouleversement of the Babel incident.
All of these foreigners could understand the Apostles despite their differences
in language. Universal language is used here, as in the Flood narratives. Taken
on its own, we would expect “every nation under heaven” to include antipodeans
as well, and peoples of deepest Africa and the Americas, and South East Asia, and
Australia. But that is not what the text tells us:
5 Now
there were staying in Jerusalem God-fearing Jews from every nation under
heaven. 6 When they heard this sound, a
crowd came together in bewilderment, because each one heard their own language
being spoken. 7 Utterly amazed, they asked:
“Aren’t all these who are speaking Galileans? 8 Then
how is it that each of us hears them in our native language? 9 Parthians, Medes and Elamites; residents of
Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia,[b] 10 Phrygia
and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya near Cyrene; visitors from Rome
11 (both Jews and converts to Judaism); Cretans and
Arabs—we hear them declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues!”
Here are mentioned only such nations as fall largely within our (AMAIC)
geography of the world of Adam and Noah, and not of the vast global world that
we know today. And yet the author of Acts 2 can consider this as representing “every
nation under heaven”. We would not say that today. This fact alone should perhaps
jolt proponents of Creation Science out of their customary tendency to read the
Bible in a surface fashion, in translation, employing a modern mentality that
approaches the Bible with an a priori agenda.
If the Flood Was Local, Why Did Not Noah Go Elsewhere?
In “Just
How 'Global' Was the Great Genesis Flood?” we have dealt with this objection and many others that are thrown up by
defenders of a global Flood. We have suggested that, with the distinctive topography
and formation of the antediluvian world, perhaps also encircled by the Tethys Sea
(for which there is apparently scientific evidence) - the Oceanus (Okeanos) of
the ancients - it was impossible for Noah and his family to have gone
elsewhere.
The Ark was the
only refuge to salvation.
But Tim Martin,
who, like professor Hill, has embraced a much more limited Flood model - with
people who were not even on the Ark, and living elsewhere, also surviving (and
both writers rejecting a ‘young earth’ view of things) - offers an argument
that has Noah entering the Ark out of
theological necessity:
Why would God need to tell Noah to build an ark
when Noah could have walked out of the region affected by the flood? Rather
than presenting a problem for the regional flood view, this question exposes
how Creation Science’s plain literal priority in reading the account entirely
misses the biblical emphasis of the account. God planned the events to picture
salvation by grace through faith. There is a spiritual need for the ark,
because the ark is a picture of Christ in the midst of God’s judgment. What
Creation Scientists often miss in their zeal to defend a plain literal reading
is the story of Noah’s ark is not about the geological history of planet earth.
It is about the gospel of Jesus Christ.
In God’s plan it was important, as a picture of
Christ, that Noah enter the ark as an “incarnation” of the gospel, resting in
Jesus Christ for salvation. Noah was figuratively “in Christ” while he was “in
the ark.” God has a plan whenever he gives his servant a mission, whether it is
Noah, Abraham, Ezekiel, or Hosea. Any speculation that wanders from the
redemptive purposes of God has lost touch with the biblical emphasis. Once we
understand the redemptive purpose God has revealed, the answer to this question
is clear. To tell Noah to hike over there where he would be safe from God’s
judgment is to teach that man must get up and save himself by his own two feet.
We ought to focus on the example of faithful obedience Noah sets rather than
speculate on how God would have acted if the flood had been a localized event.
[End of quote]
Our own view,
however, is that, whilst Lot was told by angels to flee Sodom and Gomorrah
(Genesis 19:15) because he could, Noah was told to build an Ark because there
would be no other place of escape for him.
To conclude positively
on Creation Science, we turn again to Tim Martin (op. cit., pp. 66-67):
The Creation Science movement was a result of sincere Christians
desiring to defend the credibility of the Bible in the face of modern
skepticism and unbelief. That motive is one that should be evident in all
Christians who name Jesus Christ as Lord of all and wish to see the Kingdom of
God expand in our day. The problem in this case is not the sincerity or
spiritual goals of those within the movement. Nor is the problem their
dedication to the cause. The problem is that the movement has backfired on its
proponents.
Reading the Bible according to the methods of Creation Science
ideology will convince those who read the Bible carefully of the fallibility of the Bible. It leads logical people
to unbelief and ultimately to atheism.
And, on the Six Days of Genesis 1, which is not basically a
scientific account of Creation, Martin has this to say (pp. 122-):
The creation of the universe is obviously a historical event, as
is the creation of Adam and Eve. They are real, historical humans who were
created innocent, yet they sinned and broke the covenant relationship between
God and man. While this is perfectly compatible with apocalyptic, it is equally
clear that a plain, historical record is simply not the purpose of the creation
account. That it all happened according to the wisdom and benevolence of God is
the point. How it all happened in scientific detail and physical phenomena is
not in the priority of apocalyptic communication … Put simply, the apocalypse of creation is about worship and covenant
relationship, not science. Understood this way, it is just as relevant to
God’s people today as it was in Moses’ day as Israel was leaving Egypt with all
its pantheistic idolatry of the creation … We are so used to reading Genesis in
terms of the intramural origins debate among Christians or the
creation-evolution debate that we have totally missed the reality that the
apocalypse of creation is a powerful unveiling of the meaning, essence and goal
of covenant life between God and man … Christians desperately need to change
their focus from the supposed scientific implications of creation and instead
feed off the apocalyptic vision of creation which demands covenant faithfulness
in all aspects of life and dimension of God’s world.
[End of quote]
According to our “Book of Origins” article (see below), the
account of the Six Days of Genesis was composed in ancient book (i.e. a series
of tablets) format. We accept the view of Sts. Augustine, Albert the Great and Thomas
Aquinas that the Six Days is, not essentially a narrative of God’s work of
creation, but rather a revelation of that work already effected.
And, as Martin rightly observes, the document is about worship and covenant relationship, not science.
A
Concluding Note
The problem with the imposition upon the Bible of
a sophisticated but unscientific ‘science’, as is done by Creationism, is that
genuine scientists will be put off the Bible altogether, not wanting to believe a book that supposedly demands conformity to a pseudo
science. Scientists and sceptics laugh loudly at the notion of an ancient Ark
filled with all of the world’s animals (perhaps even including dinosaurs), and
riding out a global Flood. And so they should. Whilst this can be hurtful to
many conservative Bible believers, it is in fact a nonsensical exegesis that
needs to be discarded. Therefore we would agree with Tim Martin that “the time
has come to move beyond Creation Science”.
AMAIC’s Origins Series
Tracing the Hand of Moses In Genesis
Book of Origins
The Location of Paradise
Rivers of Paradise Now Clinched?
Just How 'Global' Was the
Great Genesis Flood?
No comments:
Post a Comment