Comment on Avondale College Arguing in Favor of Darwinian Evolution? by Bob Helm.
@Randolph Belsky: I am not necessarily convinced that “Yam Suph” refers to the Gulf of Suez (it could not have been the Gulf of Aqaba), but it was a significant body of water. It was certainly not a salt marsh! As the Designer of natural law, God could have suspended the laws of physics to cause the water to part and pile up into walls, but the wording of the account suggests to me that He probably accomplished this through an unusual use of wind. However, regardless of whether He used wind or suspended physical laws, this was a genuine miracle (a very striking event that strengthened faith).
As far as the creation and establishment of the expanse (or atmosphere) on the 2nd day of creation week is concerned, this was direct action on the part of the Creator, and no natural law can account for it. God clearly transcended natural law in this case. He spoke, and it was accomplished!
I don’t know how much water fell from the sky during the flood. It was a significant amount, but probably quite secondary to what came from the fountains of the great deep (Gen 7:11-12). I suspect that the flood was a very unusual natural event that God utilized to accomplish His purpose of cleansing the earth from evil and violence. If that was the case, perhaps it was initiated when a series of asteroid impacts caused runaway subduction of the sea floor and the consequent splitting of an antediluvian super continent. This theory is called “Catastrophic Plate Tectonics” (CPT), and as a theory, it could certainly be wrong. But it does provide a possible scientific mechanism for understanding the entire flood scenario. However, the suggestion that the flood was a natural event that can be studied by science in no way minimizes God’s use of this event. God is the Lord of science, and He often uses nature to accomplish His purposes.
In conclusion, I believe that God’s intervention in the world/universe can transcend natural law, but it can also utilize natural law, and I suspect that both of these factors came into play in the instances you have mentioned.
Table of Contents
Bob Helm Also Commented
Avondale College Arguing in Favor of Darwinian Evolution?
@Mike Manea: Mike, the problem is not a lack of evidence for the creationist model. The problem is the hold that the Lyell/Darwin model has on the scientific community, including all the psychological baggage that goes with it. This is not just a theory; this is a way of viewing all of reality (much like a religion), and for many people, it has great psychological appeal. For this reason, it is naive to think that it can be overthrown in a few years. However, the evidence for the creationist/catastrophist model continues to mount, and those with open minds are willing to at least examine it.
Avondale College Arguing in Favor of Darwinian Evolution?
@Sean Pitman: I think you are correct. Thanks!
Avondale College Arguing in Favor of Darwinian Evolution?
@Ervin Taylor: Can you supply us with your coauthor, as well as the publisher. I would also like to obtain your book and read it. Thanks!
Recent Comments by Bob Helm
Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes
What is wrong with conceding that many claims of scripture can only be accepted on faith?
I fully realize that 21st century scientists cannot perform X rays of Mary’s womb or insert instruments into her womb to determine exactly what took place when the Holy Spirit overshadowed her. Of course, I accept the virgin birth on faith! My point was that we now have examples of virgin births occuring as a result of modern scientific technology, and since science has now produced virgin births in mammals, if God is real, we have an analogy for how He could have done the same thing. @Professor Kent:
Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes
Darwinist is just short for Neo-Darwinist. While the majority of biologists subscribe to Neo-Darwinism, I would contest your statement that Darwinist=biologist. I prefer “Darwinist” to “evolutionist” because the latter is a slippery term. Even creationists believe in micro-evolution.@pauluc:
Science, Methodological Naturalism, and Faith
@Sean Pitman: Sean, it’s interesting and ironic how churches repeatedly try to become more relevant by accepting Darwinism and other forms of liberalism, but in the end, they always die, while churches that maintain their creationist stance and conservative values continue to grow.
Science, Methodological Naturalism, and Faith
@pauluc: I wondered if you would bring up alchemy. Just because Newton was wrong about alchemy, why try to slur him over it? Even though he was a great physicist, he was human, and he did make mistakes!
Science, Methodological Naturalism, and Faith
@Pauluc: Actually, there is one extrabiblical reference to Jesus’ Resurrection. In his “Antiquities of the Jews,” we have this from Flavius Josephus: “When the principal men among us had condemned Him [Jesus] to the cross, those who loved Him at first did not forsake Him. For He appeared to them alive again the third day. . .” This so-called “Testimonium Flavianum” has provoked fierce debate, with critics calling it an interpolation. However, it is written in the style of Josephus and appears in all the extant Greek manuscripts of “The Antiquities of the Jews.”
