A Response to Jim Mason’s Defense of Young Earth Creationism in Premier Christianity Magazine
August 17, 2021 | JONATHAN MCLATCHIE
https://jonathanmclatchie.com/a-response-to-jim-masons-defense-of-young-earth-creationism-in-premier-christianity-magazine/
This brings me to the first problem I have with this article. The issue of disagreement is not, and never has been, whether young earth creationism is the “plain reading” of the early chapters of Genesis. It unquestionably is. The more pertinent question is whether the “plain reading” always ought to be the reading that one prefers when interpreting Biblical texts, particularly when the plain reading puts the text into conflict with overwhelming scientific data. The sun revolving around the earth is the most face-value interpretation of some Biblical texts (particularly Joshua 10:1-15, in which God is said to have miraculously caused the sun to stand still in the sky while Joshua fought the Amorites). Since we now know that the sun does not move in relation to the earth but rather the earth revolves around the sun, we interpret this and similar texts (which talk about the sun rising and setting, e.g. Ps 113:3) phenomenologically, even though this is not the most face-value interpretation.
Two points.
The issue of disagreement is not, and never has been, whether young earth creationism is the “plain reading” of the early chapters of Genesis. It unquestionably is.
Thank you.
Since we now know that the sun does not move in relation to the earth but rather the earth revolves around the sun, ...
Do we?
In my "scientific epistemology" sense impressions are always prima facie evidence for what it looks like. Now, prima facie can be overturned, by reasons more momentuous than the sense impression in question, but which are also based on sense impressions and
those taken at face value.
Now, the more momentuous reason usually given to prove Heliocentrism nearly invariably is, not that God's taste would consider spirograph patterns too ugly and only heliocentrism provides perfect circles (the reason given by Copernicus), but that the Sun is far superior in mass, so an orbital mechanics based on only inertia and gravitation would involve Sun and Earth revolving around a barycentre inside the Sun.
Now, the question here is why would God simply
putting Earth in its place or turning the universe around Earth each day, or putting an angel in charge of making the Sun orbit around Earth along the Zodiacal plane be impossible or so implausible as to make Heliocentrism preferrable?
I have time and again come across these answers:
- God doesn't exist (or you have to prove God before you use Him as an explanation)
- angels don't exist (or you have to prove angels before you use them as explanations).
I don't think these are either Christian answers nor even very well phrased ones in science. You have to prove X before you can use X as an explanation - wait, what if an explanation is invisible? There are some explanations that are proven by observation before you use them as explanations where they are not actually observed. This is not the case for the atom nucleus (if there is such a thing) and it is also not the case for God or for angels. It is not the case for gravitation - the nature of which is apparently being disputed again, after Aristotelians gave way to Newtonians, and Newtonians to Einsteinians. In any proof of such things, the actual proof for the unseen thing is what seen things it can explain.
Romans 1:[18] For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and injustice of those men that detain the truth of God in injustice: [19] Because that which is known of God is manifest in them. For God hath manifested it unto them. [20] For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable.
Sounds to me like St. Paul is arguing God by a "first mover argument" related to Geocentric cosmology.
The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.
From "corpus" of
Sum of Theology : First Part : Question 2. The existence of God : Article 3. Whether God exists?
https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm#article3
It is a bit clumsy when translated "motion" since "motus" means both "motion" and "change" and if you want to be specific it is "motion" you say "motus localis" ("change of place") - it is meant to apply to
every type of change, including the burning of wood, obviously, but also including motion, and in Geocentrism, you obviously have shells moving each other inwards, towards earth. This means, there are a limited number of moved movers, and beyond that a first mover. Like St. Paul said.
Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Vigil of Sts Peter and Paul
28.VI.2022
PS: Since Jonathan McLatchie considers an Old Earth feasible, when does he place Adam? If he places Adam 40 000 years ago, Genesis 3 is not history, since not transmittible faithfully over such long time with no writing, and if he places Adam 7500 or 7200 or 6000 years ago, what about the men that seem to have lived before that? Where they not true humans? Or was Adam NOT the first true human?
PPS, while I hold to "strong inerrancy" I do not hold to dictation theory of inspiration, except for passages where dictation is indicated by the text (God spoke to Moses and said). I do
not think strong inerrancy in the Bible presupposes dictation any more than Papal infallibility does.
