[Mark] Noll uses a logically fallacious argument to suggest that “If the consensus of modern scientists, who devote their lives to looking at the data of the physical world, is that humans have existed on the planet for a very long time, it is foolish for Biblical interpreters to say that ‘the Bible teaches’ the recent creation of human beings.” (p. 207).
One wonders, if Noll also believes that it is foolish for interpreters to say the Bible teaches a virgin birth without IVF technology and bodily resurrection from the dead, since the consensus of scientists who devote their lives to looking at the natural world, is that these are impossible!
My two cents
I think the second paragraph raises an excellent point for Christians who seek to subscribe to Old-Earth Creationism.
Put another way, if Christians reject the historicity of young earth (on account of prevailing scientific knowledge), then using that same logic, they must also reject Christ’s resurrection from the dead. While atheists are consistent on this, sadly it seems that some Christians are not; they will accept one but not the other, which is a cognitive sleight-of-hand. (Theodosius Dobzhansky this means you!)
I hope I can be surrounded by Christians who are consistent (i.e. that take both a young earth and the Resurrection as true). If it’s one or the other, that’s an inconsistency of faith, or as Jesus put it, “O ye of little faith”.
Andrew Kulikovsky, your webpage mentioned how someone (commenting on your page) vehemently disagreed with your review, but I vehemently agree with you!
Kulikovsky, A.S. (n.d.). Mark Noll’s Scandalous Criticisms of Creation Science. Available: http://hermeneutics.kulikovskyonline.net/hermeneutics/nollrev.htm. Last accessed 23rd Mar 2012.