jlay wrote:Byblos, I certainly understand that, as I've wrestled those positions for a good part of my Christian adult life. And the problem as I see it (and it's simply my opinion) is that what you state is actually the problem. It presumes to resolve contradictions, and harmonize the Bible to the natural world. (what I would call man's wisdom.) I understand that. Oddly this is exactly the same driving force behind Ham whether you want to admit it or not. Just two ends to the same stick. I could even say something very similar if ST had said, 'I've finally resolved to be a literal 6 day, 6,000 year creationist.' Either way, some authority outside the scripture is pressuring.
The thing is, neither has to drive the other. Many assume that the problem is reconciling the Bible with Science and the fact is that it's not a matter of reconciling the Bible with science. The Bible is a a source and science is an interpretation of nature. What many miss, I believe, is that the Bible is already in harmony with nature. Both find their source in God. Christians far too often claim they're elevating the Bible when in fact they're mistaking the Bible for Theology. The Bible and Theology are not necessarily the same thing. Theology can and should change when there is good reason for it to change. Theology adjusting is not the same thing as denying the Bible.
Science changes pretty easily because it's designed to adjust and move with increased information. Theology changes much more slowly, and that's understandable because information in this realm itself is more static, however Natural Theology is a legitimate source and when it adjusts it's perfectly in line to compare it with Theology drawn from revelation. It's also perfectly in line to recognize that revealed truth was revealed in a culture and scientific context that was different than today and not attempt to fit it into a mold it was never intended to fill.
In the end, as has been expressed here by many, it seems to come down to a personal preference on the part of someone as to what they are most comfortable embracing for a reason that comes within themselves. Ken Ham has made it very clear that he sees his Theology and the Bible as effectively the same thing. Anything that threatens his theology, threatens the Bible and there's no middle ground. He's willing to to write off science and attempt to retrofit it to his predetermined understanding and if it requires standing on his head to say that black is white, then he will do so and make that a virtue because it validates his theology which is in his approach the same thing as the Bible.
In fairness the same thing can happen in other directions. Theistic evolution just tends to take science as the authority in terms of the natural and then separates the Bible as authoritative in spiritual matters with those things in the natural world that it speaks of being reduced to mythology or incomplete attributions of cause with no real explanation as to the "how." Not all theistic evolutionists however do this in the sense that science is their ultimate authority and too, not all Young Earth Creationists are as dogmatic and unyielding as Ken Ham.
I tend to see OEC as a more reasonable middle than YEC or TE, and yet that may simply be self-serving from my own perspective. I don't think so, of course, but then if I'm not willing to concede that possibility than I err in the same possible manner that I point to on the opposite ends of the spectrum my interpretation is creating.
Dogmatism is the comfortable intellectual framework of self-righteousness. Self-righteousness is more decadent than the worst sexual sin. ~ Dan Allender
