Much of this has been covered in our review of Richard Dawkins’s book. However, there is some that hasn’t been dealt with. I get concerned at the beginning when we hear what God would probably do. This is a concept that always concerns me. It’s the man saying “If God did this, he would do it this way. God didn’t do it this way. Therefore, he does not exist.” This is something seen in some evolutionary arguments with “A creator would not design it this way.”
Now Loftus believes in the Big Bang apparently. We agree. I believe in it also. I just simply ask what is the cause of the Big Bang. I find it fascinating to here “Maybe this created matter” or “Maybe that created matter.” It seems anything is done to avoid intelligence and reason behind the universe. (I actually find hearing multiverses being postulated quite confirming of my faith.)
I agree with Loftus on the age of the Earth and how astronomy is rooted in Christianity in the sense that there is the belief in laws of nature in an orderly universe. I say this with all due respect to my YEC friends. I have several of them and this is an area I just choose to not debate on because it’s not worth dividing over. I’m more interested in dealing with the common enemy of naturalistic evolution. I won’t comment on any arguments against the YEC interpretation in the book though unless they bear some relevancy to the atheist/theist debate.
The main objection Loftus brings up is day four with the sun being made after the plants. This is nothing new though. Aquinas knew about this in the past as I’m sure did the earlier commentators. This could be one reason Augustine even argued for an instantaneous creation. However, I would refer the reader to the work of Gleason L. Archer on Genesis 1. A good reference is a book called “The Genesis Debate.” Archer is one of the leading commentators in Hebrew and argues that the word used for made is in a tense that indicates that it had been made prior. I am not an expert on Hebrew, so I urge the reader to track down those who are as I do.
I would also point out the mention of the second account of creation. Loftus sadly holds to the JEPD theory. That will most likely be covered later on, but I find it amazing that later commentators noticed “contradictions” in the accounts that Jews did not notice for centuries nor did Christians. Genesis 1 is more general. Genesis 2 is specific focusing on the garden and preparing the reader of the fall in Genesis 3.
Now are there similarities between Genesis and other creation accounts? Yes. The differences are what matters though and Loftus’s source of Paul Copan is entirely correct. I would definitely urge the reader to pick up a copy of “That’s Just Your Interpretation” by Paul Copan. (Copan’s books are quite excellent.)
Tomorrow, we shall look at primeval history and science.
Support Deeper Waters on Patreon!
