geocreationism.com

When I first started the Geocreationism blog, I already had a theory for many of the Genesis 1 events… and I have posted on most of it.  Not much of my theory has changed thankfully, though further study has caused some adjusting here and there.  Admittedly, I have never been certain on how to account for the Great Flood, but that hasn’t stopped me from posting through Day 5.  I must say however that Day 6 is another matter, because unlocking the time, place, and scope of the flood can impact the believed time frame of Adam’s existence, not to mention ones understanding of Abram’s genealogy back to Noah and then Adam, as well as other critical events recorded or implied in Genesis.

Now, my current theory about Adam (which I will detail below) is fairly straight forward, assuming a recent and localized flood.  The science however is a bit less certain.  For example, assume a recent global flood and one must explain why the fossil record for mankind never meets with an abrupt end; assume that the flood is local however, and you must now identify where the local flood took place and when, and why it was recorded in a manner implying to many that the flood was global.  To date, I see no answer that I am comfortable representing as my own.

One solution I have read, proposed by Glenn Morton in the mid 90s, is that the flood is far in the past (5.5 mya to be exact).  Though it would answer several scriptural peculiarities for me (which I would like to skip discussing for now), it appears to break a seemingly short, recent, continuous genealogy recorded from Adam to Noah, and continuing through to Abram.  Morton points out that Luke 3:36 adds a name to the genealogy, Cailan, demonstrating the genealogy of Genesis 11 to be incomplete.  However, replace the word “father” with “ancestor”, and it still doesn’t explain why the ages given are so specific.  Another problem is that while the Homo genus arguably goes back to 5.5 million years, the species Homo Sapien only goes back 200,000 years, if that.

The most immediate problem for me personally is not so much in choosing a position.  Anyone can choose a position.  My problem is defending it as reasonable.  Notice that I did not say “prove”.  Every theory I have found so far has critics who will explain why it is impossible.  Given that I have no plans to get science degrees in Biology, Physics, or Geology, I must be satisfied with defending my position as merely reasonable… but doing that first requires me to define what “reasonable” means.

The most enlightening Old Earth discussions that I have found on the Great Flood are between people who are both theologically and scientifically minded.  They have respectable science degrees with which to explain why lay theories in general fall short in their arguments.  For example, Christian Geologists understand the fossil record and the behavior of mineral and rock deposits so well that they have trouble taking it seriously when non-geologist Christians try to tell them the entire fossil record was laid down in a year (the duration of the Great Flood).  Christian biologists understand DNA so well, that they can point at the random flipping of chromosomes to prove that the first man could not possibly be only 10,000 years ago.  Christian archaeologists understand dating methods so well, that they can explain the conditions under which dating methods are reliable and conditions under which they are not, negating the Creation Scientist’s argument that dating methods in general are unreliable. 

Being a computer science graduate myself, I think like a scientist and so have an appreciation for their thinking and approach, though my chosen field of technical study hardly qualifies me as an expert on anything other than computers.  Still, I can read studies, read their critical reviews, and then determine for myself who has made the more rational and convincing case in light of current evidence; by and large I find that the Old Earth scientists make much more convincing cases for the scientific evidence available than Young Earth scientists do.  It would be like me realizing a computer program has an elusive line of code overwriting another (such programs crash horribly), and having a theologian tell me that computers only crash because the concept of them is horribly flawed.  I may not know which line of code has to be fixed yet, but I’ve done this enough that to know a “memory leak” (as they are called in the trade) when I see it.  Now, non-computer people may have no idea what a memory leak is, and that’s my point.  You trust my explanation because it explains what you see; the alternative explanation is dismissive, and this brings me to one of my rules for determining truth for areas in which I am not expert: theories that explain evidence are more convincing than theories that dismiss it.

Another criterion for determining a reasonable theory is in regards to how it treats scripture.  I believe the message of scripture to be inerrant, but it is not always clear what that message is.  Furthermore, the writers often have incorrect preconceptions that sneak into what they write, such as Moses’ likely belief that the firmament was a solid dome in which the sun, moon, and stars were literally embedded on Day 4.  His science was clearly off, but the history he was trying to explain is accurate.  This suggests another guideline: one must distinguish between the preconceived notions of a given biblical writer (especially when such notions are demonstrably wrong, such as a solid firmament) and the divinely inspired message what he wrote.  This is a slippery slope to be sure, which I am afraid cannot be entirely avoided.  Having found within the scriptures one historical truth couched in scientific inaccuracy already (Day 4 most likely assumes a solid firmament), there are surely others, and the flood to me seems a likely candidate.

Now as I indicated above, I do have a theory for Adam, Noah, and the flood, which I am not yet settled upon: I believe that the appearance of mankind in connection with Day 6 took place somewhere between 150 and 250 mya, but that Adam himself wasn’t created until 10,000 years ago (give or take).  The flood then occurred some later, but was local in scope.  The part of my theory that I have not read anywhere else is that I believe Adam was born physically, after Day 7 and without a spirit, and was then given a spirit by God.  Alternatively, mankind already had spirits, but Adam was the first one to ever know God, hence being given new life in Genesis 2, much as we experience regeneration in the Holy Spirit after repenting of our sins and accepting Christ as our savior.  I will be exploring these more in the future on the blog, as well as the science that must be reckoned with somehow, so stay tuned.

This entry was posted on Wednesday, December 26th, 2007 at 7:37 am and is filed under The Science, Creationism, Evolution, The Flood. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.