The Vital Doctrine of a Global Flood

ICR ^ | April 2009 | John D. Morris, Ph.D.

[GodGunsGuts]

The Vital Doctrine of a Global Flood by John D. Morris, Ph.D.*

Few biblical teachings are as controversial among evangelicals as that of the global nature of Noah's Flood. If Scripture is our guide, however, it could not have been just a local flood covering the Mesopotamian River Valley, as taught by most leading evangelicals today, but must have been worldwide in extent and effect.

For instance, Scripture lists the primary mechanisms for the Flood...

[RegulatorCountry]

I am correct regarding my own opinion, of the opinion of scientists leading to preconceived notions, in your opinion? LOL!

[tacticalogic]

I am correct regarding my own opinion, of the opinion of scientists leading to preconceived notions, in your opinion? LOL!

Indeed. The joke was the premise of wanting to explore the history of the theories.

[RegulatorCountry]

The joke was the premise of wanting to explore the history of the theories.

We are exploring them, tacticalogic. Just not so uncritically as you'd prefer. Are scientists not human, subject to the same vagaries of pride and predjudice, as the rest of humanity? I see it writ large, in a self-serving, centuries long effort to contravene anything remotely supportive of Biblical history. You see it as an unbiased process, in search of "truth where ever it leads." It's certainly led a wide swath away from certain potential truths, though. That's bias.

[tacticalogic]

We are exploring them, tacticalogic. Just not so uncritically as you'd prefer. Are scientists not human, subject to the same vagaries of pride and predjudice, as the rest of humanity? I see it writ large, in a self-serving, centuries long effort to contravene anything remotely supportive of Biblical history. You see it as an unbiased process, in search of "truth where ever it leads." It's certainly led a wide swath away from certain potential truths, though. That's bias.

Bias on which side?

[RegulatorCountry]

Both. I freely admit mine, though. Recall my original suggestion, to backtrack and plug a different set of a priori assumptions.

[tacticalogic]

Both. I freely admit mine, though. Recall my original suggestion, to backtrack and plug a different set of a priori assumptions.

You never said what assumptions you wanted replaced, what assumptions you wanted to replace them with, and why.

With regard to the literal interpretation of Genesis, I see three possible assumptions that can be made before the research is done.

1. It is true.

2. It may or may not be true.

3. It is not true.

Which assumption do you think was made by the scientists and theories we've considered and on what evidence do you submit that is the case?

[RegulatorCountry]

I've seen it many times, even here on FR, I've seen it at work all my life; the scientific consensus has clearly been 3, at least since Darwin's time. There are those who honestly believe that science literally must avoid any potential areas of investigation that would imply an other-than-naturalistic origin for life on Earth.

[tacticalogic]

I've seen it many times, even here on FR, I've seen it at work all my life; the scientific consensus has clearly been 3, at least since Darwin's time.

The problem I have with that statement is that it is impossible for you to have been on FR, and very unlikely that you have been at work since Darwin's time.

There are those who honestly believe that science literally must avoid any potential areas of investigation that would imply an other-than-naturalistic origin for life on Earth.

There are also those who believe that science simply does not have the means to investige the supernatural. As far a life on Earth goes, that is a different question than the age of the Earth.

[RegulatorCountry]

Your comprehension of my sentence leaves a bit to be desired. Proceeding from the near term (here on FR), to midterm (all my life), to long term (since Darwin's time), is a perfectly logical progression.

Now, if we've devolved into juvenile "gotchas" over punctuation and spelling, perhaps it's time to bring our exchange to a close. If not, I'll suggest that science was unhampered prior to the advent of enforced anti-theism. It would be unhampered now.

[tacticalogic]

Perhaps.

There doesn't seen to be any possibility for a determination of unbiased research. If the conclusion of the results of research produce a conclusion that contradicts a literal interpretation of Genesis, that conclusion is held as evidence that there was an a priori assumption that the literal interpretation was not true before the research was conducted.

There doesn't seem to be any way to submit evidence of research being approached with the assumption that the literal interpreation of Genesis may or may not be true, and having the results produce evidence that it is not.