Sarfati,
Jonathan. Refuting compromise: a
biblical and scientific refutation of "progressive creationism"
(billions of years) as popularized by astronomer Hugh Ross.
The
book contains its own summary on pages 389-395.
Below is a summary with special comments. [TBE= Terry's comments.]
Introduction
Overview
of the point of view of Hugh Ross and the organization supporting Jonathan
Sarfati's publications--Answers in Genesis (p. 15)
The
book takes issue with Dr. Ross's writings (p.16)
The
biblical basis of rebuking false teaching (p. 20): biblical word plays,
challenge-riposte (like a counter punch)
Dispelling
the idea of non- confrontation (p. 22).
Sarfati maintains that confrontation of error and heresy is biblical.
Conclusion:
it is necessary to refute non-Biblical positions (p. 25)
[TBE.
Unfortunately at times Sarfati engages in unnecessary personal attacks which
are neither scholarly in approach nor particularly charitable. See inflammatory
comments: "bonsai cedar" (p. 16), "biological nonsense"
(p.30), "bait and switch" (p. 42).
This runs counter to Sarfati's critique of Ross's derogatory treatment
of Ussher (p. 128-129).]
10
Major differences between calendar-day creationists and day-age creationists
(p.30).
10
major similarities (p.33)
Chapter 1
The
authority of scripture vs. the authority of science (p. 35).
The
authority of Jesus' teaching hinges on the authority of scripture (p.36).
The
Bible asserts God's inspiration in the original writings (p. 36).
The
orthodox Christian position asserts the authority of scripture (p.37).
Perpiscuity
(common sense understanding) of Scripture means that ordinary people can
understand it (p. 37). The meaning of
the scripture is also based upon an understanding of biblical cultures (p.40).
Ross
asserts that facts of nature are the 67th book of scripture (p. 41). Sarfati notes that either the Bible or the
facts of nature will be a dominant framework for understanding--not both. Their basic axioms (revelation of God vs.
materialism) are not compatible
(p.41-47).
Magisterial
(judging) vs. ministerial (serving) roles of science. Sarfati asserts that reason should be
subservient to Scripture (p.48).
Examples
of scientists and academics who advocate the ministerial approach of science
(p. 52-55).
Examples
of scientists and academics who advocate the magisterial approach of science
(p. 55-58).
Discussion
of general revelation (limited information about God through the physical
world) and special revelation (revealed in Bible and Jesus) (p. 59-63).
Science
grew out of creationist theology (p.63)
Chapter 2
Semantic
explanation of "day" in Genesis 1.
The
plain sense indicates a period of roughly 24
hours (p.68).
Examination
of alternative readings of "day:"
1)
Multiple meanings of "day" in English (p. 69).
2)
Gen. 2:4 (p.70). Here "day" refers to all six days of creation
3)
Gen. 2:17 (p.71). Here "day"
has the meaning of "when" or "at the time."
Support
for day of 24 hour duration:
1)
Fourth Commandment: Ex. 20_8-11 and 31:17 (p. 72). States six days of creation.
2)
Cardinal numbers and "day."(p. 73-78). In other passages in the Bible cardinal
numbers (first, second....) when applied to days always refer to 24-hour
periods.
3)
Days and nights of Christ in the tomb (p.79).
Also interpreted literally, although with the Jewish understanding that
partial periods equal a "day."
[TBE but this is a different language--Greek!]
4)
Evening and morning (p.81). In other passages in the Bible these terms refer to
day and night of a 24-hour period.
Other
objections
1)
The seventh day continuing (p. 82). A
reference to "rest" in Hebrews 4.
Sarfati notes that God's original creative work has ceased.
2)
There were days and nights before the sun was created (p. 84). References are made to God being the light of
day during the first three days of creation.
3)
2 Pet. 3:8 day like a thousand years (p.86).
Sarfati answers that this is a simile, or comparison, not a statement of
fact such as a day equals or is a thousand years.
4)
Too little time for tasks in 6th day (p.88) such as naming animals and the
creation of Eve. Sarfati claims that
Adam named no more than 2,500 kinds of animals (not fish, insects, etc.). This could be accomplished in 4 hours.
5)
Translation of "at last" and "generation." (p.90-91). [TBE: The text here is very unclear. I don't have a clue what he is trying to
refute.]
6)
Gen. 2:19 contradiction of timeline.
This is a discussion of the apparent contradiction in the text that the
animals were created after Adam.
Other
views of Genesis
1)
Poetic structure (p. 94). An argument
that Genesis 1 should be interpreted poetically, that is not with a sequential
time line.
2)
Polemic against paganism (p. 96). an
argument that Genesis was written to refute paganism, that is, it came after
other pagan creation accounts and is not really meant as an accurate statement
of facts.
Sarfati
forwards the orthodox view that Moses was editor of Genesis.
Evidence
of tablets (p. 97-98) [TBE This is taken from P.J. Wiseman's book Ancient Records and the structure of Genesis. I highly recommend this book.]
Sarfati
asserts God's providence in the creation of the Genesis account.
3)
Gap Theory--millions of years between Gen. 1:1 and 1:2 (p.101).
Sarfati
notes the Gap Theory failure in these areas:
1)
Rejection of global flood
2)
Postulates fall of Satan and death in world declared as "very good."
3)
Contradicts Ex. 20:8-11. Creation of all
in six days.
4)
Issue of grammatical connection between Gen. 1:1 and succeeding verses. There is no break--it is like interruption a
long sentence. [TBE: Gen 1:1 to Gen 2:1
is actually one long sentence in the Hebrew!]
5)
Other grammatical considerations including a discussion of
"replenish."
Chapter 3
History
of Interpretation of Gen. 1-11
Ross
claims that a majority of those who wrote on Gen. 1-11 rejected 24-hour periods
for "days" (p. 108) or were less than confident in their support of
the idea (p. 109).
This
chapter is a refutation of that claim.
Most orthodox Christian writers prior to the 20th century understand
"day" as a 24-hour period. It
is difficult to find much support for Ross's claim.
Chapter 4
There
are conflicts between uniformatarian/evolutionary views of the order of
creation and the order in the Bible.
Ross
contends that these views can be reconciled.
Sarfati states they cannot be
reconciled.
The
chart on p. 141 lays out the principal differences. The Biblical order of creation places the
earth before the sun and stars and disease and death after the creation of
man. [TBE Only a non-literal
interpretation of the Genesis account can allow for a reconciliation.]
Chapter 5
Big
Bang theory
Assumptions
of the theory
1)
Gravitational attraction of all matter.
2)
Cosmological principle: Universe has no edge, big bang occurred throughout all
space.
(p.
147)
Sarfati
states that the second assumption is completely philosophical. (148)
Problem
with second assumption:
1)
red shift supports central position of earth (p.148). The theory contends that the earth should not
be central, in fact no point should be central to the big bang.
Another
assumption--naturalism (p. 149)
Examination
of evidence (p. 149)
Problem
with verified predictions (p. 149-151)
Cosmic
expansion (p. 151)
Steady
state (p. 153)
Cosmic
Background radiation (p. 154)
Light
element abundances (p. 155)
Problems
with big bang theory
1)
Red shift point to earth as the center (p.158)
2)
Rotating Cosmos seems to indicate earth as the center.
3)
Horizon problem: distribution of heat and light not possible given the
distances (p. 157-159)
4)
Missing antimatter (p. 158)
5)
Galaxy formation--big bang does not account for this (p. 181)
6)
Star formation--missing population III stars (p. 164, also see p.346-350)
7)
Collapse of gas clouds
Problems
with theories of solar system formation (p.168-179)
The
Kalam argument (p. 179) and arguments for a creation of the universe without
God (p. 180-185).
Alternate
Cosmologies
1)
Ekpyrotic model based on a catastrophe in multiple dimensions
2)
Multiverse--parallel universes (p. 187)
Problem
with distant starlight
1)
Light created in transit would suggest that God is a deceiver. (p. 189)
Possible
solutions to the problem of distant starlight
1)
Time dilation (time precedes at differing rates) (p. 190)
2)
White hole relativistic cosmology (p. 190-192)
Chapter 6
[TBE
This chapter has one of the strongest theological arguments against the day-age
theory that I have read.]
The
meaning of creation being "very good."
For
Ross this means that everything was perfect for what it was intended, but there
was still sickness and death. (p. 195)
For
Sarfati this means that there was no death or disease.
Evidence
for supporting that very good meant without sin and death before the fall of
Adam (p. 198):
1)
Sin nature acquired after Adam's sin (Rom. 5:12ff)
2)
We now are unable to sin, Adam was able to not sin (
3)
Writings by Calvin, Wesley, and others (p. 198-200)
4)
Death caused by sin (
5)
Adam's sin brought a curse to all (p. 200-201, 202) Gen. 3:19
6)
Death is the last enemy (p. 201)
7)
Whole creation subjected to death (Rom. 8:20-22), p. 205)
8)
Vegetarian diet in the garden (p. 206)
Issues
raised by Ross (p. 209-211)
1)
Plant death
2)
Cell death
Sarfati
allows for plant death (TBE animals and Adam and Eve ate plants).
The
chapter ends with further comments on the issues of death and suffering. Some
of these discussions run parallel to A
Case for Christ.
Chapter 7
A
case is made for differentiating the biblical word "kind"
(progenitors of all species) from the word "species" (a group of
physically related animals that cannot interbreed with other groups).
Genetic
Information or DNA (p. 227)
Sarfati
argues that natural selection does not add information, rather the genetic information
is resorted or mutated (p. 227-230)
Discussion
of criteria for "kind' (p. 230-234)
Sarfati
states that rapid speciation is predicted by the Bible (p. 235-236)
Examples
and methods of speciation (p. 237)
Chapter 8
Evidence
for global flood given by Sarfati
1)
Use of "all" and "every" in biblical account (p. 241)
2)
Localized flood would not require an ark, preservation of animals and birds (p.
243).
3)
Past authors support universal flood (p. 244)
4)
The Bible rejects uniformitarian (conditions in the world have always been the
same) argument (2. Pet. 3:3-7) (p.247)
Ross's
position denies global flood but believes in 'universal" flood (p. 251).
Ross contends that "all" doesn't mean every instance or person:
1)
Rom. 3:23 doesn't apply to Jesus
2)
Luke 2:1 is a census not for all the world, just
3)
There is a boundary to God's wrath (p. 252)
Scientific
Evidence for Flood
1)
Huge sandstone deposits (p. 257). Tree trucks imbedded in multiple sandstone
layers (p. 258).
2)
Plate Tectonics--catastrophic movement (p. 260)
Discussion
of Noah's ark (p. 270-278)
Discussion
of various other objections.