Monday, March 19, 2012

The Extent Of Noah's Flood

My guess is that anyone who is in any way familiar with the Bible understands that the account of Noah’s flood entails that the entire Earth was engulfed in the deluge. This is the default position, so familiar that it is even familiar to non-Christians. It has become a part of our culture. One defense of the catastrophic nature of the event is that it appears within all kinds of differing cultures throughout history and around the world. This provides a powerful external (outside the Bible) argument in favor of the biblical story.

The YE view includes the global flood as part of its paradigm. In fact, it demands that the flood be global as a way of both accounting for every major geological feature on the earth (mountains, canyons etc.) and of bearing responsibility for all fossil evidence. This Global Inundation view is primarily based on a single Bible verse: Genesis 7:19 -- "[The waters] rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains (Hebrew: har) under the entire heavens (Hebrew: shamayim) were covered …"

Before I offer an alternate view, let me say that, unlike the YE view that requires adherence to this Global Inundation Model, there is no such monolithic demand for "orthodoxy" among OE supporters. The OE view is certainly consistent with it, but it also allows for evidence from science and from Scripture that goes against the Global Inundation Model. There are several points that seem to buttress the idea that the flood could have been a more localized event. Let me explain ...

There are actually four models for the flood that have been proposed
  • Global Inundation
  • Arabia, Mesopotamia, and Persian Gulf
  • Mesopotamian Plain
  • Black Sea Overflow
Though the last two seem to lack much support, it is important to realize why some have proposed them. The simple answer is that scientific models almost unanimously lack any explanation for not only where the amount of water required to cover the entire Earth could have come from, but where it could have gone. No one that I have ever heard address this problem has offered what I would consider a sufficient explanation. While YE proponents used to invoke some sort of "water canopy" that collapsed from above the earth, they seem to have abandoned that bizarre idea. And while they rightly propose that a majority of the water burst forth from below, I have yet to see a plausible solution for a source vast enough to cover the entire globe.

It is not just scientific doubt about the model that weighs against it. There is also positive evidence that the Global Inundation Model does not hold water (pun intended). The geological record gives us ice cores in northern Greenland and central Antartic as well as sediment cores in New Zealand, that reveal annual layers of deposits of sediment and ice stretching back several hundred thousand years. The age of the layers in these cores is not "assumed," we can count them. Not only that, we can check them against one another by locating global impact events such as the volcanic eruptions of Krakatoa and Vesuvius, along with elliptical variations in the Earth’s orbit. These kinds of events are recorded in the layers and thereby allow us to calibrate them with one another. If there was a global flood, the evidence for such an event would show up in each of these, yet, in those hundreds of thousands of years of calibrated evidence, there is no evidence for it.

That said, scientific skepticism can never be allowed to stand alone. As always, it must be weighed in conjunction with what the Bible has to say about it. In fact, the debate about this topic is not primarily scientific. It is biblical. And, once again, what the Bible has to say is debatable.

First, the Bible gives us ample evidence of "worldwide" events that we know were not global. Examples of this type of hyperbole include:
  • Genesis 41:56-57 (Joseph and Egypt's famine)
  • 1 Kings 4:34, 10:24 (“the whole world” visited Solomon)
  • Acts 2:5 (“Men [were present] from every nation under heaven")
  • Romans 1:8 (“your faith is proclaimed in all the world")
  • Colossians 1:6 (“…as indeed in the whole world is bearing fruit”)
Second, the Hebrew words used in Genesis 7:19 are once again capable of carrying more than one meaning.
har: hill, mountain, hill country, mount
shamayim: heaven, heavens, sky, visible heavens

These obviously support the Global Inundation Model but, when considered from the point of view of Noah, this can also be a description of the hills under the visible sky surrounding the ark being covered by water. In other words, it could be taken to say that the earth was covered "as far as the eye could see." This is especially true given the other biblical passages that touch on the issue. For instance, each of the following are included in passages that refer to God's creation of a world that was originally covered by water (Genesis 1:2) but then separated from the land:
  • Job 38:8-11 -- "[God] shut the sea behind doors… fixed limits for it … [and said] this far you may come and no farther; here is where your proud waves halt.")
  • Psalm 104:9 -- "…[God] set a boundary [the waters] cannot cross; never again will they cover the Earth."
  • 2 Peter 2:5 -- "… [God] brought the flood on its ungodly people …"
Concerning the first two of these, there are a couple of points to bring up. First, YE proponents have dismissed them (Job 38 and Psalm 104) because they are drawn from poetic literature and should not be allowed to override the "reinterpreting the clear meaning" of Genesis 7:19. But no one said these verses should "reinterpret" anything. Those who bring them up are simply offering these verses as part of the body of evidence from Scripture. This is not be a radical idea. The fact that this goes against the YE paradigm is not a reason to dismiss it.

Also, the authors of Old Earth Creationism on Trial want to claim that Psalm 104 cannot be referring to the originally created water world, but to the waters of the flood. They defend this idea by invoking Jamieson, Fausset and Brown's, Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible and Dr. John Whitcomb's, The World That Perished, claiming in part that this is the proper hermeneutic to use because "Psalm 104 was written long after the flood." The fact that the entire book of Genesis was written "long after the flood" or that the book of Job was most likely written before Genesis does not seem to have any bearing on the issue.

YE proponent like to refer to alternate views as "local flood" models. This suggests that the extent of the flood was small, not unusual, and therefore not in keeping with the obvious catastrophic nature of the biblical account. But this is a gross mischaracterization of alternate views. No "local flood" proponent believes that the flood was not a massive, one-of-a-kind event. But a more accurate description might be "regional." But this type of flood would be catastrophic and would also include the complete destruction of mankind (except for the 8 members of Noah's family on the Ark). Why do I say that? Because mankind had not yet spread over the entire Earth. In fact, that was part of the problem with man's disobedience.

Concerning the third passage (above: 2 Peter 2:5), we know from Scripture that God’s judgment is always limited to the extent of man's reprobation. Therefore, it would be perfectly within the bounds of interpretation to say that the flood, even if it were regional, would be capable of destroying all humanity  and every living thing that had been affected by human sin. But it also reveals the fact that all animals would not have to be destroyed simply because all animals had not had contact with humanity and were thereby unaffected by sin. There would be no moral reason, for instance, to destroy penguins in Antartica, polar bears in Canada, Chinese pandas, or kangaroos in Australia.

Here, another agonizing problem with the YE paradigm comes to light. YE scholars themselves have estimated the ark could have held about 30,000 pairs of animals. Yet the record shows that since the time of the flood there have been more than 7 million species of animals identified as having lived on the Earth. Today, we still know of about 5 million different species. We also know that God rested from the work of His creating after the 6th creation day. In other words, an unintended consequence of the YE view entails not just evolution, but some kind of hyper-evolution beyond anything Darwin could have ever imagined to account for the number of species of animal we find on the Earth today.

More educated men than I have debated this for a long time. Whether it was a regional or a worldwide flood is still up for debate, but I am prepared to announce that I can state unequivocally here on the True Horizon blog that I know the precise extent of Noah’s Flood. Here it is:

The Flood covered exactly as much of the Earth as it needed to cover to achieve God’s purposes.

That is one thing we know for sure. Again, the OE view does not depend on either model. I only offer these points to demonstrate that there are other ways to understand the flood that are biblically based … even if they do not fit the paradigm we all grew up with.
_________________

Update to this topic ... 

One question that came up during the Q&A to challenge the idea of a regional flood model, was to say a regional flood removes the need for Noah to build an ark. If the flood was only regional, Noah and his family would not have had to spend so many years wasting their time with such an project. They could have just moved out of the area the flood was meant to destroy. I thought it was a good point ... until a friend of mine (Procter and Gamble scientist, Greg Miracle, PhD, who is obviously wiser than me) made the following points (which I will provide here as a quote from an email instead of trying to improve upon):
As for why Noah didn't just move, the basic thoughts I had were: (1) Because his presence among the people over the span of years was a continual witness that increased their eventual culpability at the point that the judgment (flood) came, and, (2) it also aligns with God being merciful and giving the unrepentant every opportunity, over the span of many years, to respond to His warning issued through Noah. 
In many ways this models our own opportunity to respond to the gospel, which is frequently received as an unwelcome/ridiculed message presented to us more or less continually over a period of many years. Just like the flood, which came without warning, so it is with our final breath. We don't know when it will come, but it eventually does. And at that point the opportunity to repent is removed. He who stands firm to the end (Noah, for example in this narrative) will be saved.
Well said, Greg. Thank you. I wish I would have thought of that myself. In the future, however, I will blatantly steal this response and pretend it is my own. :-)



Sunday, March 11, 2012

What Do You Mean By "Perfect?"


One of the most controversial aspects of the OE/YE debate is the topic of "death before the fall" of Adam and Eve. At the heart of this issue is the answer to the question about what God meant when He declared His creation "very good" in Genesis 1:31. On the YE view, there is no room for interpretation of this phrase. YE proponents insist that the OE view violates the very core of the Christian faith for if there was already death in the world God created, that would negate the very reason that Christ died on the cross.

These are serious issues and they deserve to be answered. I applaud and accept the challenge of the YE side on this because I fully understand their reluctance to accept the obvious OE implication that, if the Earth had been around for a few billion years before Adam and Eve showed up, that would entail a lot of "death before the fall." If the YE view is correct about the meaning of "very good" and the implications of death before the fall, the OE view would necessarily be false. We need to be very clear, and very careful, about how we approach this issue.

In order to do that, I want to first lay out a summary of what the YE position entails. I owe this to Mark Whorton's outstanding book, Peril in Paradise (p. 25-26), a book I would highly recommend to anyone who takes the OE/YE controversy seriously and wants to do a fair assessment of the issues. There are five basic tenets to what Mark calls "The Perfect Paradise Paradigm":
  1. When God declared His finished creation "very good," He meant that it was perfect in every conceivable way.
  2. Eden was the embodiment of the Creator's ideal intent for His creation.
  3. Man's sin thwarted God's plan, shattered His ideal intent, and ruined all of His perfect creation.
  4. God introduced the physical death of man and animals as a punishment for sin.
  5. God instituted the plan of redemption to reverse the effects of Adam's sin and restore all things back to their original intent.
So, with these in mind, I want to look at a few aspects of this (you can read the book if you want to get a full treatment of the issues).

First, let me say that the first point (above) is obviously false. I say this for several reasons …
  • Satan was in the garden
  • The garden contained the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil
  • 1 Corinthians 2:9 tells us that: "No eye has seen, no ear has heard, no mind has conceived what God has prepared for those who love him."
    • Adam and Eve saw and experienced the Garden of Eden.
    • This entails that whatever God has in store for us is better than what Adam and Eve saw, heard, or conceived ...
    • Therefore, the Garden of Eden could not have been "perfect."
  • Adam was always required to tend to the Garden -- the fall did not impose that work on him, it just made it more difficult.
  • The curse on Eve did not originate the pain of childbirth, it increased the pain she would experience.
Folks, these are indicators that the place could not have represented "absolute perfection." Satan, and evil, and pain cannot exist in any place that God says is "perfect." But there is an even more obvious problem with this notion of "very good" -- so obvious, it is hard to imagine why we would even have to talk about it -- and it is this:

"Very Good" does not mean "perfect."

The Hebrew phrase used here is meod tobThis phrase is used elsewhere in various circumstances but Genesis 1:31 is the only place in Scripture where some have interpreted it to mean "absolute perfection." Why would that be?

Because it is being improperly forced to fit the paradigm.

I don't know how else to put it.

Now, it is also obvious that the Garden was a unique and specially protected place that defies our imagination. But the flaw in the Perfect Paradise Paradigm is that it assumes these conditions also existed outside the Garden. But think about that for a second. Why would the Garden need to be specially protected if the whole creation was "perfect?" Secondly, where is the Scriptural evidence to support this idea? The truth is that it is nowhere to be found in the text.

There are several other logical difficulties that stem from this idea ... and they are not trivial. For instance:

Animals cursed by death: The YE view's demand that there was no animal death before the fall stands in part on the notion that God imposed death on them as a result of the fall. But, once again, this idea is foreign to the text. Romans 5:12 tells us specifically that death was imposed on "all men." Animals are never mentioned. [On a side note, it is interesting that, when addressing this issue in their book, Old Earth Creationism on Trial, the authors quote the beginning part of this verse to make their point that "there was absolutely no death before Adam sinned. Romans 5:12 states, 'Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin ...'". Notice that they conveniently leave out the remainder of the verse which states that "... and in this way death came to all men."

Carnivores: According to the YE Perfect Paradise, there could not have been carnivorous behavior before the fall. All those animals that we recognize as carnivores now, must have only been herbivorous before. The claim is that they simply changed their "behavior" by "degenerating" into herbivores after the fall. "Carnivorous digestive systems are fundamentally distinct from herbivore systems ... herbivores are able to digest cellulose that forms the cell walls of plant while carnivores are not ... carnivores can survive without a stomach. Herbivores cannot. Carnivores can survive without microorganisms, Herbivores cannot. Carnivores can survive without plant food. Herbivores cannot." A carnivore like a lion is a finely-tuned eating machine that depends on specific instinct, musculature, anatomical makeup, physiology and biochemical makeup. These are fundamentally different animals than the creatures that would have existed prior to the fall under the YE paradise formula.

Defense Mechanisms: Creatures like the bombardier beetle have always been favorites of creationists (of all stripes) because of the incredible design they exhibit in their ability to defend themselves. But why would such a creature need to defend itself before the fall if there was no death or violence to threaten them? Did a porcupine not have quills? Did a skunk not spray? Did sea urchins not have spines? Did snakes not have venom and fangs? The list of preposterous suggestions can go on and on.

Immune Systems: According to the YE paradigm, there would be no need for immunity because there was nothing to that could threaten living things with death through disease. Yet, these are sophisticated systems that work within the physiological makeup and energy resources of the body in an integrated way.

Extreme Habitats: There are countless examples of organisms of all kinds that are specially adapted to the environments in which they live. Not only so, but these are parts of larger eco-systems that are also specially designed to support their inhabitants and the food chains they support. In a non-threatening, perfect paradise, this makes absolutely no sense.

There are more examples and these are fatal flaws for the YE/Perfect Paradise Paradigm -- but they are not the most troubling. To me, the most harmful part of the paradigm is the implication it gives regarding the character of God, His sovereignty, and His omniscience.

This view implies that God created what He thought was the perfect world for humanity to enjoy, but His intent was undermined by free will humans who shattered what God had set up and thereby forced Him to institute a new plan of redemption to restore the creation to the way He actually intended it to be. Notice that in this scenario, man has thwarted God's intended purpose for the creation.

I don't think so.

The OE view adheres to what can be called The Perfect Purpose Paradigm. On this view, even as we accept the special status of the Garden of Eden, we also recognize that its very existence as a protected habitat implies that the much greater area outside it infers that their was a reason it needed to be protected. The incredibly integrated design we see in nature today was not the result of some enormous reaction on God's part to completely alter His original creation. Instead, in His perfect omniscience and foreknowledge, He designed the world this way, knowing exactly how He would use it to serve His purposes. Where the YE view insists that suffering and evil defy God's purpose and are only the undesirable result of man's sin, the OE view recognizes that suffering and evil are only here for a little while (as compared to eternity) and lead to accomplishing God's eternal purpose. This is the model we see throughout the Bible in the lives of Job, Moses, Pharaoh, Abraham, Isaac, Joseph, the nation of Israel, Paul and, yes, even Jesus.

Under the Perfect Purpose Paradigm, God's labeling the creation "very good" is a value judgment that should be seen in light of an end which is much greater than our enjoyment of this life alone. Instead, it was meant to employ His image bearers to conquer darkness/evil and thereby achieve our real purpose: to glorify Him forever. In this light, God's plan of redemption is not a Plan 'B' that was instituted in reaction to our unforeseen rebellion. Instead it was the plan from before the beginning of time. Suffering and evil are here for a little while but serve only to lead us to a part of accomplishing the eternal purpose that God has always intended. If we insist on putting something perfect on it, "very good" means "perfectly suited to the purpose for which God intended it."

Ironically, the YE claim that the OE view negates the reason for Jesus' sacrificial death is turned on its head. If a "perfect" Eden was the chief end of the creation, there would be no need for a Redeemer. On the OE view, the chief end for all of us is yet to be seen New Heavens and a New Earth. That is a paradigm to live for.

Tuesday, March 6, 2012

What A Difference A Yôm Makes

One of the central features of the Old Earth-Young Earth debate is the meaning of the word that has been translated as "day" in the Genesis creation account. So, when approaching this issue, it is important to first be clear about what the word even means ... and that, like many other questions of Biblical interpretation, begins with the realization that we are used to dealing with English, which contains many times more words than the Hebrew language, which only contains a few thousand. This means that Hebrew nouns almost all have multiple meanings. The word for "day" is no different.

The Definition(s) of "day"

There are several definitions of the word "day":
1. A partial day
2. The daylight hours
3. A calendar, or solar, day
4. a working day, a day's journey
5. days, lifetime (plural)
6. year
7. a definitive time, a period of time with a beginning and an end
8. any temporal reference

There is no separate word for epoch or era as we have in English. If you wanted to talk about an epoch or era, you would use the word yôm (see: definition #7). Though the word ôlam could be used to describe something like "a long time," it is an indefinite word that would constitute something like saying "once upon a time" or "a time long, long ago."

The point is that when an OE creationist says that the "days" of Genesis 1 can be "long periods of time," she is in fact using a literal definition of the word yôm! Likewise, when YE defenders attempt to claim the spiritual/Scriptural high ground by insisting that only they accept a clear, literal interpretation of the text, this is simply not the case. All the OE view says is that it is perfectly acceptable to interpret the word “day” as a long period of time – an interpretation that is actually used in exactly that way in several other places in Scripture. As an OE proponent, I too accept a clear, literal interpretation of the text. I just happen to think the days in question are specified periods of time which God used to perform his creative acts.

And it just happens that the interpretation I defend also takes into account the clear reality of God's General Revelation through nature about the age of the universe.

There are several things to consider here … each of which support the OE view

First, three of these definitions of "day" are used in the Genesis creation account itself. The most common is definition #2, "the daylight hours," which, incidentally, is not the definition most YEs defend as being literal and clear in the creation account (they usually insist on definition # 3 above).

Second, how does the "literalist" YE proponent interpret the use of yôm in the following:
Genesis 2:4: "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens ..." This is quite obviously a summary of the creation account that looks back at God’s creative work and summarizes the entire creation week with … you guessed it … yôm. Here, the entire week is referred to as a "day."
Genesis 2:17: "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." How does the "literalist" YE defender deal with this? Adam did not die during the 24-hour period after he ate the fruit of the tree. In fact, he didn't die until over 900 years later!
What kind of "day" are you talking about?

Another point that YE folks claim is that the Sun, Moon and stars were not created until Day 4. So, if this is the case, just how are we to understand those who insist that these days were "normal calendar days as we experience them now" if there was no Sun to mark and define the first three days? How would we know when the days started and finished? The explanation we are given is this:
Where did the light come from? We are not told, but Genesis 1:3 certainly indicates it was light created to provide day and night until God made the sun on Day 4 to rule the day He had made. Revelation 21:23 tells us that one day the sun will not be needed, because the glory of God will light the heavenly city. (Ken Ham, editor, The New Answers Book, p. 102)
But notice that this is really no explanation at all. All it really is is a perfect example of how YE folks read the text into their paradigm instead of reading what the words actually say. No OE creationist claims there was no light prior to creation day 4. That's not the question. The question is how are the solar/calendar days counted? If these are normal days as YE folks demand, there would have to be a way to mark them. God's providing light in the same way He will in the new heaven and new earth of Revelation does nothing to mark the days. In fact, Revelation 22:5 specifically states that "there will be no more night" in the new heaven and earth, so the attempt to compare God's light in the new creation to the "regular days" of Genesis 1 is completely unfounded.

In addition to this, there is absolutely no plausible scientific explanation for the completely catastrophic event that would have occurred if the Sun, moon and stars, suddenly and out of nowhere, popped into existence beside and already existing Earth. This is not to say that God could not have done such a thing if He wanted to. That's not the issue. Of course He could have. The question is whether or not there is any evidence that He did so.

In the end, the YE paradigm is just as deficient in its explanation of Scripture as it is of nature.

Instead of putting forth these kinds of "just-so stories," the OE view offers a completely different take that is a perfectly consistent and straightforward explanation for this apparent conundrum -- one that pays attention to the actual meanings of the Hebrew words involved in this passage and is also compatible with the real world record of nature.

As it turns out, the Hebrew word translated "made" in Genesis 1:16 ("God 'made' two great lights ...") is the word 'asah. This is not the same word that is used to describe God's "creating" (Hebrew: bara) in Genesis 1:1 (the heavens and the earth), 1:21 (the 'soulish' creatures, nephesh), and 1:27 (man). Each of these instances refers to the creation of something -- which did not exist before -- out of nothing. Asah, on the other hand means "to fashion" and is also placed in a tense that connotes a past, completed action. Additionally, the phrase used in verses 14 and 15 ("let the lights be...") is yet another Hebrew word, haya. This, combined with the past completed action of asah, makes it completely within the bounds of interpretation to say that the sun, moon and stars were already created during day one of the creation account, but did not become visible to an Earth-bound observer until the atmosphere had thinned enough to "let the lights be seen" and "give their light upon the Earth."

When you take this interpretation and compare it to the record of how the Earth was formed, the comparison is astonishingly accurate. The scientific data reveals that the Earth began with a thick, opaque atmosphere that gradually, through the combined actions of the brightening Sun and maturing vegetation, thinned from opaque, to translucent, and finally into the transparent atmosphere we have today -- exactly in line with the Scriptural interpretation above.

Are we just capitulating to science?

YE folks like to claim that this idea that the universe is old did not even exist until modern science began insisting on it in the last century or so. Even if this were so, it has no bearing on the facts. All it would mean was that our enhanced understanding of nature allowed us to clarify the meaning of Scripture just as it did with the "fixed and immovable Earth" and the belief of Augustine mentioned in my earlier post. But  the truth is that this is not a new interpretation that has been made up only to appease modern scientific theories. Ancient thinkers also had questions about the "clear meaning" of the days of Genesis:
  • Philo (10 BC-50 AD) believed that Genesis had more to do with principles of order and arrangement than with the length of time involved.
  • Justin Martyr (103-165) and Irenaeus (late 2nd century AD) were early church fathers who both suggested that the days may have been long epochs.
  • Clement of Alexandria (150-215 AD), like Philo, believed that creation could not take place in time at all since "time was born along with things which exist." He understood the days to communicate the priority of created things, not their timing.
  • Origen (185-254 AD) thought it was unreasonable to suggest that the first three days could have been counted without the moon and stars which weren’t created until the 4th day.
  • Augustine (354-430 AD) thought that what was plainly obvious was that we could not know, or explain in words, what the "days" meant but that "at least we know that [the Genesis day] is different from the ordinary day with which we are familiar."
One of these days is not like the others

One point that those who hold the YE paradigm often skip over is this: Each of the days of Genesis ends with the phrase, "and there was evening and there was morning the x day." But what about the 7th day? The phrase is not there. And there is a perfectly logical explanation for this found within the OE view. It is the idea that the 7th "day" has not ended yet! We are still living in it. There are actually two lines of evidence that support this view.

Scripture mentions this notion in Hebrews 4:1-11 when it speaks of our being able to "enter God’s rest." The implication is that God’s rest began after He completed His creative work on the 6th day and continues to the present. Science also confirms this idea. Since mankind came on the scene, no new species have appeared in the fossil record. We have only discovered animals that have gone extinct. In other words, a study of nature through science once again confirms the Scriptural idea that God is "resting from the work of His creating."

Uncannily consistent

While the OE interpretation of the 4th and 7th days is uncannily consistent between the record of nature and the record of Scripture, the similarities do not stop there. In just the last five years, newly discovered evidence reveals even further alignment between the two. Studies in plate tectonics show that continental land masses emerged above the original water world a little over halfway between when the Earth formed and the present day ... just as the Scripture says that God separated the earth and sea during creation day 3.

Another conundrum has always been that Scripture claims God created plants prior to animals while the scientific record seemed to deny this. As it turns out plants, which have no bones to fossilize, are extremely difficult to uncover in the record of nature. That is until just last year when researchers discovered evidence of plants dated to nearly 600 million years ago -- a time just prior to the first recorded emergence of animal life on Earth during the so-called Cambrian Explosion which occurred about 540 million years ago.

While YE proponents continue to defend unsupportable models (both Scripturally and scientifically) of the reality of the world we live in, the OE view continues to present a perfectly logical, acceptable and astonishingly accurate compatibility between the two. I find it hard to comprehend why any creationist would continue to deny and demean that obvious compatibility.
Enhanced by Zemanta