The title of a new book by geologist John K. Reed is ‘Rocks Aren’t Clocks’ (Creation Book Publishers, Powder Springs, GA, 2013). In it he probes the assumptions behind geologic time and the current Christian contradiction between acceptance of secular ‘history’, (as supposedly established in the rocks for billions and millions of years), and the unwillingness to see the worldview behind it. This secular ‘history’ is the basis for evolution. The two: 1) billions and millions of years in a supposed prehistory before man, and 2) evolution, are inextricably linked. Evolution needs the billions and millions of years to make it work, and without it would never have gotten off the ground. Enthusiastic Christians opposed to evolution (a good thing) are reluctant to criticize an old earth and the billions and millions of years that mark its progress (a bad thing). It is inconsistent because the two both come out of the same secular worldview of ‘naturalism’.
Dr. Reed explains that the geologic timescale, its underlying conceptual structure, and the framework of the billions and millions of years are antithetical to Biblical history. He calls for a rejection of both deep time and its framework.
The book is not about radiometric dating. What is important to remember, Dr. Reed says, is that ‘the concept that rocks could be used to assemble a chronology for a vast prehistory was entrenched long before radiometric dating was introduced. Because it was developed prior to radiometric dating both historically and logically, the timescale itself demands our attention, if for no other reason than if radiometric techniques were abandoned, the timescale would still stand’. ‘Therefore’, he continues, ‘this book focuses on the original edifice of antibiblical history, the geologic timescale’.
So, what’s wrong with the geologic timescale? For 1) one, its almost universal, unquestioned acceptance by nearly everyone. If it’s a good idea that leads to truth, then that’s a great thing, but if false, then our minds are chained to a bad idea that leads to further dead ends and falsehoods. 2) Two, the name itself implies a definite view of the past, Dr. Reed says, a view that exalts science. An exalted science, and a view that this science will be the eventual victor over oppression by religion, is nothing less than idolatry; a worship of the creature, or created thing, instead of the Creator (Rom. 1:23). To exalt science as the one and only arbiter of truth (positivism), is exchanging the glory due our incorruptible God, for the corruptible ideas of man. Then 3) three, the geologic timescale is an idea with theological implications. The timescale assumes that God is absent from history. ‘That perspective’, Dr. Reed says, ‘is quite different from orthodox Christianity’s belief in a God who is intimately involved in history from the very beginning’.
What I hope then to do, mis hijas, in my next series of posts, is to further outline what I’m learning from Dr. Reed’s ‘Rocks Aren’t Clocks; because how we understand the past profoundly affects the present.
Dear ol’ Dad
Vaya con Dios mis hijas