Bruce Waltke built a national reputation teaching the Old Testament at Reformed Theological Seminary (RTS) for more than 20 years. But in March, when he seemed to challenge evangelicals in a video interview to consider the possibility of evolution or risk being seen as a “cult,” Waltke’s scholarly life exploded.
Seminary administrators asked Waltke to have the video removed from the website of BioLogos, a nonprofit promoting the integration of Christianity and science. Waltke promptly did so, but the video already had kicked up controversy. In early April, the renowned scholar resigned from RTS’s Orlando campus.
Waltke’s video addressed the barriers evangelicals face in considering the possibility of evolution, a process he believes is guided and sustained by God. Waltke said that “if the data is overwhelmingly in favor of evolution, to deny that reality will make us a cult ”¦ some odd group that is not really interacting with the world.”
Terribly sad….
QED. It isn’t often that one has his point demonstrated so clearly and personally. “How dare you say we’ll be perceived as closed-minded and intolerant of alternative views! Get out!”
I’m glad to see how graciously Bruce Walke took being dumped after teaching 20 years at RTS. No recriminating remarks. Even what appears to be a mild Reformed joke about it being… providential.
Alas, super conservative schools that build their reputation on being safely orthodox and stridently against all forms of modernism are highly vulnerable to drops in donations if rumors get started that they’ve gone soft on liberalism. And especially in hard times like these, it’s easy to see why schools like RTS can get paranoid.
But Kendall, come clean. Are you telling us that you once attended Sproul’s school? Even if it was long, long ago, in a galaxy far, far away.
I must admit that I found the celebrated PBS series on evolution a few years ago very well done. And especially, as a Wheaton grad myself, I liked the relatively positive (or at least neutral) treatment given to the moderate Wheaton stance (theistically guided evolution).
David Handy+
I note that the tremendous American evangelical historian George Marsden (at Notre Dame) has come out (in 2006) with a new, greatly revised edition of his classic [b]Fundamentalism and American Culture[/b]. The original book was published in 1980 and gave a lot of attention to the heated controversy over evolution that has been endemic to so much of American fundamentalism and evangelicalism. I haven’t read the new version, but it’s supposed to be equally outstanding and, of course, more up to date.
David Handy+
RTS has pretty clear standards. It appears that Dr. Waltke does not meet those. I’m pleased to see a denomination’s seminary enforce those standards, just as I’m pleased to see the RC’s [sometimes] enforce those standards. I’m not RC theologically — or PCA for that matter — but denominations need to stick with their standards, or formally change those standards before acting “as if” — something that TEC, obviously, has not done.
Aside from the denominational politics, there is of course the content of his assertion. He is right. Evangelicals have painted themselves into a terrible corner and have condemned themselves to ever increasing irrelevance if they cannot look at science objectively. The CC got over the evolution hurdle about 3 generations ago.
I’m sure other readers recognize the problem with the term evolution used generally like this. What does everyone involved mean by “evolution.”
Many use it as a general philosophy to give credence to a Godless universe…everything just evolved w/o any design. In this way, it is really a gap filler to cover all the gaps in such thinking.
Believers in God may use the term but with a different meaning in mind that is congruent with belief in the God of the Bible. A God whose creation is so special that elements of it can evolve to some extent.
I think it is sloppy of this article’s writer to not identify how the parties are defining evolution from their perspectives. It is too often used according to subjective viewpoints.
I think the truth is that there is no evidence at all for inter-species evolution but there is for intra-species evolution. I wonder what RTS teaches about this and what Waltke actually said. It makes a big difference.
Sarah (#5), I agree with you to a degree, but having read many articles on this a month or two back when this story first hit, it seems that Waltke’s views were known for a very long time (he apparently has held it for decades and has not been shy in expressing it previously) before this happened. Most recently, his Old Testament Theology (2007), widely acclaimed by Reformed (and other) Christians, contained his viewpoint. There was no outcry then, nor in the long period beforehand. It was his recent video that created the climate that led to his voluntary resignation.
I agree with Kendall that this is a very sad situation, even though Waltke quickly found another appointment.
#7 Carolina,
Let’s say that Waltke held to what is likely one extreme of the pro-evolution-evangelical spectrum, in which God made the world, and then programmed evolution to create the diverse forms of life (including man). Now let’s say that Waltke held to the other side of the pro-evolution-evangelical spectrum, in which God created basic life-types (including man), and micro-evolution occurred therein.
If Waltke held to the former, I could imagine a conservative seminary being suspicious. If he held to the latter, dismissing him would have been less defensible.
I always find it fascinating that theologians have a hard time accepting Genesis as is while many SCIENTISTS have no problem at all. One would think that any scientist would be more “pro-evolution” than just about any (especially conservative/evangelical) theologian!!
Ken Hamm, Duane Gish, Henry Morris (all PhD holders) are all “young earth creationists” and a Professor of Old Testament has a problem with it. Amazing!!
For the record, I have degrees in Biology and (all but thesis) in Plant Cell Biology. (From “secular” Universities by the way). And I have NO PROBLEM with “young earth creationism/flood geology”. Whatever animals (and plants) which came off of the ark, are what later diversified (NOT EVOLVED) into the variety we have now. The Bible states that God created “kinds” (not necessarily “species”). For example, I believe that a “dog” came off the ark and then diversified into domestic dogs, foxes, wolves, coyotes etc. Ditto, a “horse” came off and diversified into zebras and horses and donkeys! (To quote that famous expert, Mr. Ed: A horse is a horse, of course of course!!)
Some may call that “micro-evolution” but actually it is just breeding!!
recchip,
Would you mind defining “young earth” in more precise terms? I am of a more cosmological bent and believe that there is no barrier in Genesis to an earth created over 4 billion years ago. I must admit to being less schooled in evolutionary theory, but I have trouble with gradual, random mutations accounting for the wonderful diversity of life we see on God’s good earth originating from some pond scum. That being said, I again find no barrier in Genesis to the existence of fossils that are hundreds of millions of years old.
#11, Daniel.
Young earth means about 6500 years old. (At least under 10,000).
The “millions of years old fossils” are explained by the flood. Due to such a worldwide event, dating before that point is “muddy.”
Now, actually, I have no problem with many years happening between “In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the earth” (which could have been eons ago) and the first day of creation mentioned in Genesis. In other words, once God says, “Let there be light” then 7 (actually 6 due to God resting on the seventh day) days of normal length occured.
In other words, I take the Bible at face value. I feel that if one doubts the text of the creation account, then why not just doubt the resurrection as well?
True enough #7; the term “evolution†is bandied around as if it means merely one thing. It conveys far too many different ideas; and that’s much of the problem! Which makes this story double sad …
For starters, I have found John H Walton, [i]The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate[/i] (IVP Academic, 2009) especially helpful in locating the TEXT of Gen 1. It addresses questions of FUNCTION and completely disregards matters of origin in the first place – which of course is our own culture’s default mind-set. In so doing it creates a fabulous pair of book ends: Gen 1 parallels Rev 21-22, with John 1:14 firmly in the middle. God desires to tabernacle with(in) his world; and does so supremely via Jesus and his Church (so Eph 2:1-22). QED!
The notion of a young earth/universe creation simply is not credible, unless one believes that God is a deceiver. The Andromeda galaxy, the nearest galaxy to the Milky Way, is 2 million light years away. The most distant galaxy we can currently see is 10-12 billion light years away. If the universe were only 10,000 years old (as scientific creationists like Duane Gish and Henry Morris believed), the light from these galaxies would not be scheduled to reach us for some millions or billions of years in the future. Yet we see them.
When astronomers observe a nova or supernova, they are observing the explosion of a star. The Hubble telescope has detected a super nova, SN1997ff, that is 10 billion light years from earth. If the universe were created only 10,000 years ago, then, in creating the universe, God would have had to have created the light from an exploding star that appeared to have existed and exploded 10 billion years ago, and yet never actually existed at all.
Radiometric dating (based on the rate of radiocative decary) enables scientists to date the ages of rocks with relative precision. After a century of checking and rechecking, scientists are as confident of the reliability of radiometric dating as of any other field of science. The oldest rocks on earth date to 4 billion years or so. Rocks from the moon and meteorites have been dated at 4.5 billion years.
Ice core drilling is the practice of taking a polar core sample of ice to measure trapped air bubbles from previous time periods. Using ice core drilling, scientists can measure such things as previous oxygen levels, temperature, gas, sea levels. Ice cores show layers of ice going back hundreds of thousands of years.
These are just three examples of unrelated ways of measuring the age of the earth, none of which depends on fossils, and all of which point to an earth, far older than the 10,000 years claimed by creationists.
Again, if the creationists are correct, then God is a deceiver. He created the universe only 10,000 years ago, but for some inexplicable reason, included in this universe stars that were millions and billions of light years away, and yet whose light was already visble on earth. He created a radiocative decay rate in rocks that falsely revealed a date of billions of years. When he created Antarctica, he created it with layers of ice indicating annual freezing going back hundreds of thousands of years, but which had actually never taken place.
One of the reasons that Creation Science fails as science is that it has no predictable results. If Creation Science were correct, we could predict that no star would be vislble that was more than 10,000 light years away. If creation science were correct, we could predict that radiometric rating would predictably show that rocks were 10,000 years old, not billions of years old. If Creation Science were correct, we could predict that ice core drills would at most have 10,000 or so layers.
Conversely, if the universe is old, we could predict that we would be able to see the light from stars that are billions of light years away. If the universe is old, we could predict that radiometric dating would indicate that rocks are old–perhaps billions of years old. If the universe is old, we could predict that ice core drills from the Antarctic would reveal layers and layers of ice going back as long as the Antarctic had been a frozen ice cap–perhaps hundreds of thousands of years. When tested, one scenario’s predictions are confirmed, and the other’s are not.
It is because young earth creationism is scientific irresponsible that there has been a quiet shift among conservative Christian apologists who try to address questions of science in recent decades. The current Intelligent Design school still dismisses the evidence for evolution, and views itself at odds with theistic evolution. At the same time, it acknowledges the evidence for an old universe.
For myself, I find more helpful the work of believing scientists like Owen Gingerich, Francis Collins, and John Polkinghorne, who refer to “intelligent design” with a small “i” and a small “d,” and the school of Scientific Theology associated with Thomas F. Torrance and Alister McGrath that refuses to follow either the scientific creationists or Intelligent Design in seeing a basic hostility between theology and current scientific theory.
The point here is not that some agree or disagree with Waltke. It’s that he was dismissed for essentially saying that Evangelicals need to grapple with science instead of dismissing it out of hand — or else people reallyw ill perceive conservative Christianity as a “check your brain at the door, please” kind of cult religion.
RE: “Again, if the creationists are correct, then God is a deceiver.”
That’s really nonsense and does not follow from your assertions about either light or testing.
I’m not a young earther, but the explanation for the light from the stars is that God created the light “in process” prior to His creation of the sun, moon and stars — a literal reading of Genesis 1 is pretty clear there. People familiar with young earth theory are aware of that explanation, which is quite reasonable. The young earthers understandably assume that God created the light from the stars [i]prior to actually creating the light-producing stars[/i].
RE: “He created a radiocative decay rate in rocks that falsely revealed a date of billions of years.”
That’s a bit like saying “He created cells which look to an average eye like normal cells but which are actually cancer cells.” Surely you can see how odd a claim that is . . . to blame God for the results of our own tests and theories which do not fit accurately His world? That’s like a secularist blaming God for the rape of his daughter: “if you are correct about the authority of God, then He is pernicious and evil.” A false dichotomy.
Nobody — [i]when it really counts[/i] [not when people are merely flinging around “dates” and “epochs” of kajillion years ago just for kicks]– really trusts the age-testing methods that you mention. They’re crude and rough and human-created “measurements” that are notoriously inaccurate [except, of course, when one is flinging around kajillion year old dates, which nobody can actually test in a lab]. Young earthers are right to look with great suspicion on the rough “tests” that humans have developed for which they have *postulated* approximations of correlation to time.
And I’m no young-earther.
RE: “It’s that he was dismissed for essentially saying that Evangelicals need to grapple with science instead of dismissing it out of hand . . . ”
Mmm — I believe he was dismissed for announcing that if his compadres didn’t consider evolution to be true they could rightly be considered a cult. A nuance there that is a bit different from your assertion.
I’m no apologist for the PCAs or the RCs — both have theology that to my mind is ridiculously wrong. But I [now] highly value denominations that exercise consistent discipline congruent with their own clearly stated beliefs.
Sarah is quite right. I seem to remember that sometime in the past universities called science “natural philosophy,” which would indicate that they viewed it as the study of God’s natural order. It is man who has tried to elevate himself towards God’s status by trying to know so much that God seemingly becomes irrelevant or missing altogether, and science becomes their idol.
Could not the universe, including this planet without biological life, have been created ex nihilo millions or billions of years ago, during which time the Spirit of God hovered or brooded (some say the word suggests a hen brooding over her eggs) over the formless and void waters? And then the 6 X 24 hr. process described in Genesis 1 occurred as described?
[blockquote] I’m not a young earther, but the explanation for the light from the stars is that God created the light “in process†prior to His creation of the sun, moon and stars—a literal reading of Genesis 1 is pretty clear there. [/blockquote]
Did God create the light from an exploding supernova that would have exploded 10 billion years ago, to be observed by the Hubble telescope in 2001 (I believe) when earth itself had only existed 10,000 years? Granted, assuming God is omnipotent, God is able to do anything that does not involve contradiction, but why would he do something like this? It is the equivalent of creating an arrow already in flight, and then creating a bow from which the arrow appeared to have been launched, but wasn’t. It is the equivalent of creating a tree that already has growth rings, although the tree itself had never undergone any growth. It is the equivalent of creating fossils in the ground for animals that never existed. (Some early creationists apparently suggested this.)
Similarly, with the question of radiometric dating. The radioactive decay rate is well known, is testable, and is consistently reliable. Using this method, geologists can test rocks from different layers, correlate those layers with fossils, and come up with consistent dating. If God had created all rocks only 10,000 years ago, why would he create certain rocks in certain strata that consistently indicated a radiocative decay rate pointing to a certain age, and other rocks in other strata indicating a radioactive decay rate consistently reflecting a different age, when in reality all these rocks were the same age (10,000 years) and none of them were even remotely close to the apparent age at which they tested? Why would he create all rocks (including moon rocks) and asteroids so that the radiocative decay rate showed a date topping out at about 4.6 billion years, when, again, these rocks were really only 10,000 years old?
Again, why would God create Antarctica with several hundred ice layers, when Antarctica itself had only existed 10,000 years, so that all ice layers greater than 10,000 indicated a history of freezing that had never happened?
The late Medieval theologian William of Ockham speculated that God could have created the entire universe a second ago, complete with all evidence of its previous history, and artificial memories in our brains, indicating previous lives we had never lived. The science fiction movie Blade Runner postulates a similar imaginery scenario, in which replicants have artificially implanted memories of lives they had never actually lived.
Omnipotence means that (in theory) God could do these things. Theologically, to suggest that God actually does such things violates the basic principle that God’s creation is consistent with his nature, and that creation is orderly. God is not arbitrary, and, as the scholastic dictum states, Grace perfects nature; it does not violate it.
A God who created a universe that, when consistently tested, revealed a history of billions of years, but, which, in actuality was only 10,000 years old, would indeed be a deceiver. He would be creating a universe that appeared to have order, but which actuality did not follow the laws with which he appeared to have created it. If God creates light from supernovas that never existed, radiocative decay rates that have no basis in reality, and ice layers that correspond to no actual annual freezing, then God’s creation itself cannot be trusted, and we have no basis to believe that God might not do something equally bizarre tomorrow. Perhaps water will begin flowing uphill, or boil at 32 degrees F and freeze at 212 degrees, objects can be in two places at the same time, or we can simply suspend the law of non-contradiction.
Theologically, this will not fly. It is to turn theology into an irrational discipline in which any possibility is admitted, no matter how bizarre, as along as it prevents our prior commitments from being challenged.
[blockquote]Nobody—when it really counts [not when people are merely flinging around “dates†and “epochs†of kajillion years ago just for kicks]—really trusts the age-testing methods that you mention.[/blockquote]
Yes, they really do trust them. The reason they trust them is that they are consistently reliable and predictable. The radiocative decay rate of elements like potassium-40, rubidium-87, uranium-238, and uranium-235, is wel known, has been checked and double checked in laboratories countless times. Scientists do not simply guess. Dates are subject to scutiny from multiple labs, and inconsistencies are cross-tested, until resolved. Different labs routinely return the same dates for the same data. But even if there were wildly different dates for different tests (which there are not), what is consistent is that the decay rates consistently show dates in the millions and billions of years (not thousands). The young earth hypothesis is not even close.
Again, as I wrote above, predictability is an essential matter of a reliable scientific method. If the young earth hypothesis were correct, there should be consistent predictable confirming results. To the contrary, myriads of actual tests in unrelated fields (astronomy, geology, ice core testing) consistently produce results indicating that the earth is old. It is as if the young earthers believed in a God who says to himself, “I am going to create a world that is really young, but just to test the faith of my followers, I am going to build into it all kinds of indications that it is not just old, but really old. so that no matter how often people test to confirm the kind of world I have created, the tests will mislead.” What kind of a God is that?
Interested readers should note that several PCA scientists agree with Dr. Witt that God would be a deceiver if the earth is younger than all evidence indicates. Their arguments are found in the latest issue of Modern Reformation magazine.
I think one way to look at this is to look at the assumptions reasoning depends on. For instance, radiocarbon dating relies on the idea that radioactive materials decay at a standard rate. This cannot be determined over thousands or millions of years, however, because no one has lived that long. Another assumption from star red shifts is that the universe has always been expanding. But again no one was around two thousand years ago to measure red shifts. Suppose the universe expands and contrasts over eeons like a beating heart. We would have no way to be aware of that or to develop theories of why it occurred. Therefore while science may inform and help with predictions, in the end it is all a theory. We know from Quaantum Physics and Einstein that all sorts of funky things affect Newton’s Laws. All I am pleading for open mindedness toward all forms of thinking regarding the earth and life upon it, because most evolutionary extrapolations are based on assumptions projected over extremely long periods of time, and that sort of thinking cannot be scientifically proven with absolute assurance.
I am intrigued …! I fancied most commentators on this blog were more or less Evangelical, with therefore a devotion towards the [i]text[/i] of Holy Writ; may be I am wrong … For all the arguments from my first post @ # 13 try to discuss what they think to be good/bad science. Nothing wrong with that of course! And as one who has done more than a little science at one stage, I too might engage in that discussion. Yet my theological mind, which also engages with hermeneutical issues across both disciplines, of theology and of science (I am in fact a real follower of TFT and AEMcG at this point, to come clean), requires me first of all to address the TEXT. That’s one issue I fancy Bruce Waltke himself tried/tries to do.
#22 sigh. I hear your plea for open mindedness but the only way that the universe could be 10,000 years old or less if it is all a big lie. The Milky Way galaxy where we live is 100,000 light years across. It is not just the light that takes 100,000 years to cross the galaxy it is also the gravity which holds it together. Andromeda, the nearest spiral galaxy is 2,500,000 light years away.
If all of science is a theory then you can’t use science to argue for the legitimacy of a young earth theory. All you can say is “God said it and that’s good enough for me.” but you won’t win over many scientists or their students.
Art at #23 wrote:
“I am intrigued …! I fancied most commentators on this blog were more or less Evangelical, with therefore a devotion towards the text of Holy Writ; may be I am wrong … ”
Not really. Most of the blog has been taken up by three very long posts by William Witt, which most of us couldn’t be bothered responding to. I doubt that he has appropriate qualifications, and if he does, he is debating them on the wrong blog.
Suffice to say that there are a large number of scientists with both graduate and higher degrees who believe in young earth creation, and they clearly do not find the arguments of William Witt, John A etc compelling.
I personally am undecided about the age of the earth – there are a number of ways to read Genesis. However, the theory of evolution that I was taught in school I have always found laughable – not worth wasting time over.
A couple of interesting perspectives on this from the wikipedia article on “observable universe” – those who pour scorn on others’ views should take note:
* Apparently according to most accepted versions of the Big Bang Theory, the universe is about 14 Billion Years old, however the distance to the most distant observable stars is about 47 billion light years, i.e. observable distance in light years does *not* equate to age of the universe in years;
* There are theories that the real universe is larger than the observable universe, however there are also theories that the real universe is *smaller* than the observable universe: “In this case, what we take to be very distant galaxies may actually be duplicate images of nearby galaxies, formed by light that has circumnavigated the Universe.” Note that these are not “creationist” theories.
I suggest it would be a good idea to leave topics like this to people who regularly deal with the physics of it all. For myself, I am yet to see any convincing evidence that the Scriptures are wrong, however I am not always sure precisely what the Scriptures mean!
“however I am not always sure precisely what the Scriptures mean!” Amen to that Michael A! Which is why I have found the likes of Wiseman, Westermann and now Walton in their
‘readings’ of the text rather helpful: that what we assume and what the ancients meant are often very different …
Michael A is correct. I am no scientist, but a theologian. I do know enough science to understand that a light year is the amount of time it takes for light to travel a year, and that if an object is millions of light years away, the light from that object does not arrive in 10,000 years. I do know enough about science to understand the basic notion that every year Antarctica freezes over, and (just like the way that trees grow annual tree rings) the annual freezing produces a new ice layer. I understand that if an ice core drill records several hundred thousand layers, this does not mean that Antartica froze over several hundred thousand times in the last 10,000 years.
And while I confess that I rely on the word of experts to explain to me the mechanics of radiometric dating, I do understand something of what it means for isotopes to break down over a period of time, and that this can be measured. I do not believe that God plays dice with the universe, so if scientists who are established experts in the field do the measurements, and consistently come up with readings of millions or billions of years, I have no more reason to doubt them than I doubt what they tell me about how the microprocessor of my laptop works.
At the same time, people like Owen Gingerich, Francis Collins, and John Polkinghorne (whom I mentioned above) are qualified scientists (and also believing Christians). Alister McGrath is a theologian who got his first Ph.D. in molecular biophysics, and Thomas F. Torrance (another theologian) devoted the later part of his life to the study of the relation between science and theology. I do not believe that these men are frauds or idiots.
Also, as I pointed out above, the current Intelligent Design school (with which I have some disagreement) came into being because Christians who knew something about the science recognized that while there is good evidence that the universe is designed (theistic evolutionists like Gingerich, Polkinghorne, etc. would agree), but that the creationist notion of a young earth simply will not fit the data.
Scientific Creationism is a very small group of fundamentalist scientists and theologians whose views on a young earth are accepted by no scientists outside their circle, including scientists who are believing Christians, whether theistic evolutionists or Intelligent Design advocates. I am not using “fundamentalist” disparagingly, but descriptively. Henry Morris, the founder, was a Baptist who started his own church, and borrowed his ideas on creation science from a Seventh Day Adventist. He had no background whatsoever in theology or biblical exegesis, and his scientific training was in water hydraulics, not astronomy, geology, or paleontology.
The question of biblical exegesis of the creation accounts in Genesis 1 has to do with the genre of the texts. Genesis 1 is a theological account of the divine origin of creation. In contrast to the polytheistic accounts of world origins that were prevalent throughout the Middle East, Genesis 1 affirms that the world was created by the One God who delivered Israel from slavery in Egypt and made his covenant with them at Mt. Sinai. The universe is not the creation of multiple gods, nor is it (as so often in polytheistic accounts) created from pre-existing materials. It is not (as so often in polytheistic accounts) the result of a struggle between the gods. The world is good because God created it (in contrast to dualism or Platonism). Because God created the seasons, he can be counted on to produce crops without the need for orgiastic fertility rites.
What Genesis 1 is not is a scientific account (in the modern sense) of the origin of the universe. Such an account would not have been understood by its readers (since modern science did not exist at that time), nor was it ever interpreted as such until modern times. A quick read of the interpretation of Genesis in fathers like Origen or Augustine will reveal that their concerns were not with scientific accuracy.
There has been a lot of helpful work by biblical scholars in recent years in interpreting in its Middle Eastern and canonical context–including people like Waltke. Young earth creationism is not only bad science; it is also bad exegesis.
[blockquote][A]ccording to most accepted versions of the Big Bang Theory, the universe is about 14 Billion Years old, however the distance to the most distant observable stars is about 47 billion light years, i.e. observable distance in light years does *not* equate to age of the universe in years;[/blockquote]
This [url=http://www.everyjoe.com/articles/how-can-we-see-galaxies-47-billion-light-years-away-when-the-universe-is-only-13-billion-years-old-191/]article[/url] explains why this can be. Because the universe has been expanding since the Big Bang, the size of the universe is greater than the time that it takes for light to expand across the universe. This is no help, however, for young earth creationism. The time it takes to observe something is still the time it takes for the light to reach the observer. If an object is 1 billion light years away or 13 billion light years or 47 billion light years, the light from that object will still not reach the observer in 10,000 years.
Thank you Dr Witt for parading once more a key pair of my own guides/teachers, TFT and AEMcG. Their work is [i]most[/i] significant to this discussion. I’d go as far as saying, to omit their contribution is dereliction! Four final things on this thread before I sign off. One: I have read a fair bit of Morris’s and others’ stuff down the years, so do have more than a vague idea of their stance – only to reject it. Two, as I said earlier, the likes now of Walton does [i]not[/i] ‘read’ Gen 1 as exactly an “account of the divine origin of creation†– even if much of what you do say in the rest of that para I’d readily agree with. So I’d agree whole-heartedly that exegetical engagement with the text in context is EXACTLY the task of the theologian, even while, as theologians, we might differ somewhat. Three, the phrase “know thyself†applies especially to how we all have our default mind-sets and their questions that seem too ‘obvious’, so that when we simply dump these over such ancient texts as Gen 1, we will always struggle ‘to get it’. But struggle we must; for those early fathers Dr WW mentions knew full well the reading of Scripture was NOT easy! Fourth and last, if Walton is correct, I’d emphasise especially again the delightful “canonical†(Dr WW’s word) nature of the cosmic temple raison d’etre of Gen 1, that ties in with both the close of the canon thus forming a pair of book-ends and the absolute high point of the canon of Scripture: the Word became flesh and tabernacled among us and we beheld his glory, that of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. I don’t think questions of the created order get any richer than that, as the Orthodox notion of [i]theopoiesis[/i] declares!