Douglas Kelley, author of Creation and Change (Mentor). This was the book that snagged RC for the creationist camp.

John Byl, author of God and Cosmos–mathematician, astronomer, philosopher, and elder in a Reformed church.

Finally, be sure to visit http://www.reformation.edu, where you can savor not only the provocative writings of Philip Stott, but some of the creationist and geocentric classics, written by such Reformed thinks as Walter Van de Kamp.

God give you joy in the journey!

Interestingly, the 19th century interferometer experiments conducted by Michelson and Morley confirmed the geocentric and geostationary view. Their device was skillfully arranged to use beams of light to determine whether or not the Earth moves through the ether. The “null result” floored the entire scientific establishment for 25 years, since it showed not only that the Earth is not moving, but that the Earth is the one still point around which the celestial sphere revolves (guess who does the revolving).

Einstein erected the entire edifice of Relativity Theory in order to avoid what everyone knew was the simplest, most natural solution: geocentricity. For more on this dire development, see Russell Arndt: Geocentricity, Relativity, and the Big Bang.

Elsewhere in this exchange I have mentioned some of the observational evidence favorable to geocentricity, evidence that forced modern Copernicans to invent the fabulously non-sensical Cosmological Principle (see above).

The best short biblical case for geocentricity is found in Thomas Strouse’s little book, He Maketh His Sun to Rise.

The best short historical and scientific case is found in Philip Stott’s Vital Questions.

The best in-depth study is found in Galileo Was Wrong, by Robert Sungenis and Robert Bennett.

But the only way to know anything for sure, Elliott, is to pray your head off and try with all your heart to determine what the Bible REALLY says on the matter.

May He bless you as you do!

d

Science is not an objective endeavor. It is driven by pre-theoretical commitments and philosophies. There is NO WAY that anyone can hear what the rocks say, apart from it is already being said in their hearts.

If “Intelligent” and “design” do not, by their very meaning, imply a “being” of some kind that did the designing and had an intelligence, then what does it imply? Christopher Hitchens has done a good job of blowing this kind of show-and-hide the cards thing wide open. The point is: just say it – God made the heavens and the earth, so it has glory and wisdom in it!! Quit pretending like it is some kind of hidden thing. Be frank.

On the contrary, I do speak the Word of God to the unbeliever, because this is God’s means of doing His work. But I don’t try and convince them that the watch they found on the beach was made by someone— they already know this. They just suppress the truth in unrighteousness.

ID doesn’t strengthen me. It is a nuisance because it denies one cardinal truth of the faith: men are fallen and are blind. The only men who it helps are those who need something more than the Word of God to show them the way.

Science as a discipline needs to move on to actual discovery, or reevaluate the meaning and end of the endeavor – it seems like the whole reason for professional science escapes the Creationist guys, and gets boiled down to proofs. How about a jet-pack, anti-gravity boots, a flying saucer, a car that runs on water, new crop-management tools, a bigger strawberry, a cure for cancer, etc. etc. etc.

good brother, I can see we won’t convince each other! Thank you for your interaction nonetheless. I’ll check out your book sometime. Blessings to you.

Gavin

As for the historical context of Genesis. 1, I can’t find a trace of covenant theology in it. What I do find is a much needed revelation of the origin of the universe, and a crucial declaration that when God created it, he created it good.

Thereafter I find an account of the Fall, of how Adam wrecked everything. Shortly after that, I begin to see God entering into covenant with a chosen people, based on faith in the Last Adam who was yet to come. So again, you cannot be loyal to the gospel without being loyal to its cosmological setting: Creation and Fall.

We do agree, however, that it’s a big problem to think that on the fourth day God catapulted the Earth into orbit around the sun. My solution is follow the Scriptures by asserting that he didn’t, but that he catapulted the sun, moon, and stars in orbit around the Earth.

Now, Gavin, where will you get your solution: from the Bible or from (the latest speculation of) science? :)

Blessings,
D

D

ID does not presume that a soul can be saved by a mere argument. Where did you get this idea from? Some ID’ers are not even theists!

I am not denying that the grace of God is required for a sinner to accept where God-given reason leads. Even if the argument is airtight, without the grace of God the unbeliever will twist it and reject it. But does that mean we should not make the arguments?

On this reasoning it seems you would not preach the gospel or say any truth to any unbeliever because the natural man *cannot* receive it. But regeneration usually comes *though* us speaking words. God sometimes invests our words with power to change hearts.

I agree you do not need have to understand ID to believe in the design of nature. But to many this is a confirmation and reinforcing of a truth we already knew from Scripture. We can’t help that – it stands to reason that if God designed the world then signs of this design will show up all over the place.

You ask: “why can’t Christian scientists get on with their research without having to use it for the sole purpose of proving something to the unbeliever?” ID strengthens the saints (like Apollos’ vigorous debate with the Jews greatly encouraged the believers there) so I am glad they make it known. And if some non-believers can be woken up to the truth that God does exist then that is one step in the right direction. Not the whole way, but an important first step. Would you rather we not bother?

A final note, I do not believe logic and truth can be contrary, Scripture validates both. The reason unbelievers can make seemingly good arguments is that although the logic is good the premises are faulty. Or in the case of Dawkins not even the logic is good. You cannot have correct logic acting on true premises and end up with a conclusion contrary to Scripture.

Regards

I found it to be a very fair, very interesting, and eye opening treatment of the subject. Rather than the usual rant against evolution this is putting a positive model in its place.

It seems creation scientists are making progress with many of the questions raised above.

Just found that the author has a blog: http://thenewcreationism.wordpress.com/

Who’s the “Protector of the Principality of Pretribulatia”?
Edward Irving? John Darby? C. I. Scofield? Tim LaHaye? Someone else?
Media figure Joe Ortiz knows the answer. It’s in his “End Times Passover” blog. The one dated Dec. 29, 2009.
If you’re Calvinist, you’re predestined to see his blog. If you’re Arminian, you can choose to see it.
It will be too late to find out the answer to the above trivia question if the rapture happens!

the fact (very different versions of) young earth creationism were standard in pre-modern theology is not, for me, conclusive; after all, geocentrism was also the prevalent view until (legitimate) scientific advances over-turned it. I’m sure you would dissent if I asserted that geocentrism is not a matter of exegesis, but a matter of epistemological authority, on the basis of Psalm 104:5: “he set the earth on its foundations, so that it should never be moved.” This issue just isn’t that simple.

You seem suspicious of knowledge yielded by the modern thought. Modernity has yielded many problems, to be sure, but it has also resulted in many advances in scientific knowledge that we all benefit from, such as medicine, cars, cell phones, etc. We must be wary of the danger of being unnecessarily anti-scientific.

I wouldn’t say Genesis 1 is obscure, but I would say it requires sensitive exegesis in light of (1) its quasi-poetic genre, (2) its historical context, as the front-end of a book explaining the covenant identity of God’s people to them just before entering the promised land. In my view, the LAST thing on the author’s mind is whether the universe is 5,000 old, and if you read that way, you run into all kinds of problems (like the earth being catapulted into orbit at the creation of the sun).

But I don’t expect to convince you! Just throwing in my two cents on this issue.

Blessings,

Gavin