Young earth or old earth: underlying assumptions
posted Friday, August 25, 2006 :: 5:39 AM
Previously: Young earth or old earth: day age theory
Now,
we are approaching the question of the age of the earth from theology
first, and then we will look at it from science. For both theology and
science are truth disciplines, and they should not contradict each
other. This principle of non- contradiction is why so many have worked
so hard to explain how Scripture is consistent with an old age of the
earth; for, they suppose, science has proved age beyond doubt,
therefore theology must be made to support science, in order to remain
viable as truth.
This reasoning behind the day age theory
contains many underlying assumptions, which at first glance might go
unnoticed. As these assumptions, although unspoken, have a great deal
to do with the outcome of the question, we should know what they are.
1.
In equating the truth disciplines of science and theology, the
assumption is that they both carry equal weight in the final outcome of
what is considered ‘true.’ In fact, science can only comment on the
truth of that which can be observed and repeated in the natural world
at the present time. Theology conveys those eternal and absolute truths
in all spheres, including the natural world, as revealed by God the
Creator. They are not equal in weight or authority.
2. The
second assumption is that science has proved age beyond doubt. We will
discover that there is evidence which contradicts this ‘fact.’ When new
evidence contradicts an established fact, that is your first clue that
your truth examination is lacking, therefore, your statements based on
that examination are lacking.
To be continued ...
***
Update: continued in Young earth or old earth: underlying assumptions, part two
|
