Hugh Ross and a Shotgun
A brilliant thought (I think) from shotgun over at the AV forum:
I’m currently reading Gary North’s commentary on Genesis, “The Dominion Covenant.” It is probably one of the most enlightening books I’ve ever read, especially in terms of economics.
Anyway, I ran across some ideas that might serve to savage any and all attempts to intertwine the Genesis account with modern theories of evolution. (Gary North doesn’t apply these conclusions in this way. This speculation is all Shotgun.)
Gary North says this:
Under covenantal dominion, cursed nature’s restraints are progressively lifted. (Pg. 84)
He claims earlier that the “Earth was never designed to be autonomous.”
It seems to me that those who would posit long periods of time before man arose (as man) are implying that the Earth (and nature without man) has some sort of autonomous purpose apart from man. Implicit then, in systems like those of Hugh Ross, is the assumption of an autonomous sphere of sovereignty allocated to nature.
This cannot be true since there is no neutrality. In seeking to critique theistic evolutionary models, then, we should be on the lookout for any implications of an autonomous wilderness.
February 1st, 2011 at 11:20 am
Mike,
I have some friends who are advocates (or leaning towards, anyway) a sort of gap theory between Gen. 1:1 and 1:2. Their issue is the starlight “problem.” Do you think that that theory can be a sort of “autonomous wilderness” view?
February 1st, 2011 at 11:34 am
What starlight problem?
http://www.bullartistry.com.au/wp/2009/04/08/a-simple-answer-to-the-problem-of-distant-starlight/
In Genesis 1, God is laying down the pattern for everything that follows. It’s empty and void, then it’s formed and filled. No gap necessary.
February 1st, 2011 at 12:04 pm
Thanks.
February 2nd, 2011 at 12:36 pm
If you look in the right area – there is no such thing as a “starlight problem” …
http://www.setterfield.org/GSRsetterfieldsimplified.html
February 4th, 2011 at 2:30 pm
Phillip, thanks for that link! Tons of fascinating articles there!
February 4th, 2011 at 5:16 pm
Yes, thanks Phillip — very interesting!