Age of the Earth, Part 3: The Rocks Cry Out

In my previous post, I made my case for why we can and should look to the earth itself in order to come to definitive conclusions about earth history. We are about to do just that, but before we begin to review what I consider to be the most compelling evidence, I'd like to cover a few points.

First, I acknowledge that it is difficult to discuss the age of the earth without considering the age of the universe itself. Furthermore, many people interested in this debate find the astronomical evidence for an ancient universe to sufficiently call Young-Earth Creationism into question. I have studied the evidence for an old universe, including the substantial evidence for the Big Bang, as well as the inference of age given incredibly distant starlight. I find YEC arguments against these evidences inadequate, but I have always been more personally interested and compelled by the geological component of earth history. Whether it's my engineering background or my love of nature, I don't know, but I am genuinely intrigued by the history that lies beneath our feet in the form of geological formations. The fact that we can literally touch and see the evidence ourselves brings the argument down from incomprehensible heights, giving us something tangible for us to observe and discuss. So, I will not be discussing universal evidence, but will be focusing on geology.

Secondly, YEC's have attacked the science of radiometric dating since the inception of their movement. They contend that these dating techniques are unreliable due to built-in, unfounded assumptions. Personally, I consider the principle of radiometric dating to be generally reliable, and I find YEC's assessment of it to be misinformed and narrow. However, radiometric dating is complex and controversial, and it can distract from simpler, more significant evidences for an old earth. Subsequently, I will not be discussing radiometric dating.

And lastly, I find it helpful to distill the debate over earth's geologic formations down to the main claim made by each party. YEC's contend that the vast majority of fossil-bearing layers of rock throughout the earth are the result of the biblical flood of Noah's day. Their opposition (which consists of the general scientific community and yours truly) contends that these rock layers were laid down over extremely long periods of time called ages, just as you would see at your local museum of natural history.

I can't overemphasize how important it is to understand the debate over the age of the earth in these terms. So, let me explore this further:

YEC's believe in a 6-day, 24-hour creation week. From their perspective, ALL of earth history consists of these 6 literal days, plus the time that has passed since then, much of which is recorded in the Bible. As a result, this limits their earth history timescale to between 6,000 and 10,000 years, depending on time elapsed during the Genesis genealogies. Because no one disputes the existence of the geological formations that constitute the earths' crust, which include miles of fossil bearing layers, YEC's necessarily believe that these layers (called strata) were laid down in that same timescale.

Okay, that's simple enough. But, allow me to beat a dying horse. Everyone agrees that 6,000-10,000 years is not nearly enough time for normal processes that we observe today to create the miles-thick, fossil-bearing strata beneath us. Two well-known structures help to illustrate this point. Stonehenge in England and the Great Pyramids at Geza were constructed over 4000 years ago. The landscapes surrounding these structures have remained virtually unchanged for thousands of years (meaning that thousands of feet of distinct rock layers have not formed over the structures, instead, they are still visible on the surface today). So, we can safely assume that landscapes don’t usually change dramatically over several thousand years. However, if you were to travel into the earth below Stonehenge or the Great Pyramids, you would find those same rock layers, complete with fossils and mineral deposits, that we find everywhere else in the world. The question becomes, when and how did these rock layers form?

Because of the time constraint that YEC's place on earth history, they necessarily believe that the vast majority of the fossil-bearing geological strata (including those beneath Stonehenge and the Pyramids) were deposited in a global flood described in Genesis. Additionally, they necessarily believe that Stonehenge and the Great Pyramids (along with every structure on the face of the earth) were built after the global flood, because of all the geological strata that lay beneath them. On the other hand, the scientific community asserts that these strata accumulated over a long period of earth history (billions of years). This is really the crux of the whole debate, and it is extremely important to understand it. I'll lay it out one last time:

• YEC's assert that fossil-bearing geological strata were generally deposited during the year of the flood of Noah. 

• The scientific community asserts that fossil-bearing geological strata were deposited over extremely long periods of time.

If YEC's are right, we should see evidence that suggests that these rock layers were laid down during the year of Noah’s flood. If the scientific community is right, we should see evidence that suggests that these rock layers were laid down over an extremely long period of time. It really is that simple. These rocks layers really do hold the answer for us.

Given that this is really what our debate is all about, the task of anyone wishing to discredit YEC is greatly simplified. It is by no means necessary to prove that the earth is billions of years old. It is only necessary to prove that there are geologic features that could not have been created in the past 10,000 years or less.

In my next post, we will finally consider some of these features of the fascinating geological formations under our noses. I invite you to decide whether or not you think they developed according to YEC timescale or not.

James

Age of the Earth, Part 2: A Lesson from History

In Part One of my Age of the Earth series, my goal was to demonstrate that a large majority of even conservative bible scholars do not believe that Genesis definitively teaches one perspective on earth history.  In my opinion, advocates of both Young Earth Creations (YEC) and Old Earth Creationism (OEC) have grossly overstated any scriptural support for their view.  In the process, both camps have twisted and turned scripture in order present the "biblical case" for their particular perspective.

Consider, for a moment, that maybe the opening chapters of the bible are not intended to communicate stringent scientific details of earth history.  There are thousands of discussions on this topic both online and in theological texts, and as I did in Part One, I have no plans to rehash the arguments of learned scholars.  But, it is important to note that virtually all scholars of a myriad of persuasions would agree that the primary concern of Genesis chapters 1 & 2 is to establish who God is in relation to His creation (and us).  When we understand the text in this way, it suddenly becomes clear why the logic breaks down when attempting to marry the six days of the creation week with any one view (literal six day view; progressive creationism; gap theory, etc.).  Instead of exploring individual inconsistencies between views of earth history and various biblical interpretations, I want to take a look at an historical example that sheds welcomed light on this discussion.

Nicolaus Copernicus was a 16th century astronomer who first formulated a comprehensive heliocentric cosmology, suggesting that the Earth revolved around the Sun.  Up until that time, the world held to geocentrism, the view that the earth is at the center of universe. While you and I don't consider heliocentrism controversial, Martin Luther had a different opinion.  In Luther's TableBook (Tischreden), he wrote:

"There is talk of a new astrologer who wants to prove that the earth moves and goes around instead of the sky, the sun, the moon, just as if somebody were moving in a carriage or ship might hold that he was sitting still and at rest while the earth and the trees walked and moved. But that is how things are nowadays: when a man wishes to be clever he must needs invent something special, and the way he does it must needs be the best! The fool wants to turn the whole art of astronomy upside-down. However, as Holy Scripture tells us, so did Joshua bid the sun to stand still and not the earth."

While it's certain that the Church's oppostion to Copernicus has been overstated, the fact remains that his proposition was by no means eagerly accepted.  First of all, heliocentrism is far fram intuitive.  The Sun appears to move as we remain stationary (this is why we still refer to the sun rising/setting, although we know this isn't the case).  Beyond that, the Church appeared to have scripture on its side.  The bible seems to communicate both the mobility of the sun and the stability of the earth quite clearly.  Consider a number of verses (there are many more):

Joshua 10:12-13
Then spoke Joshua to the Lord in the day when the Lord gave the Amorites over to the men of Israel; and he said in the sight of Israel, "Sun, stand thou still at Gibeon, and thou Moon in the valley of Aijalon." And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the nation took vengeance on their enemies. Is this not written in the Book of Jashar? The sun stayed in the midst of heaven, and did not hasten to go down for about a whole day.

Ecclesiastes 1:5
The sun rises and the sun goes down, and hastens to the place where it rises.

1 Chronicles 16:30
tremble before him, all earth; yea, the world stands firm, never to be moved.

Psalms 18:15
Then the channels of the sea were seen, and the foundations of the world were laid bare, at thy rebuke, O Lord, at the blast of the breath of thy nostrils.

Psalms 104:5
Thou didst set the earth on its foundations, so that it should never be shaken.

Job 9:6
who shakes the earth from its place, and its pillars tremble.

1 Samuel 2:8
He raises up the poor from the dust; he lifts the needy from the ash heap, to make them sit with princes and inherit a seat of honor. For the pillars of the earth are the Lord's, and on them he has set the world.

As Luther noted in his quote, it is quite difficult to understand the account of the sun standing still in Joshua 10 from a heliocentric viewpoint.  Furthermore, there are many verses which speak of the immobility of the earth on its foundations or pillars.  In this era of modern astronomy, we understand these verses to be figurative or simply speaking from a human perspective.  However, it cannot be denied that, if we were to use the bible as our primary source in an astronomical debate, geocentrism would be the clear winner.

I don't mean to insult anyone's intelligence, but it's so very important to let this sink in.  Why don't we hear pastors or theologians demand that we "let the bible speak plainly" on the issue of heliocentrism?  Why don't we have well-funded organizations established for the sole purpose of upholding geocentrism, the clear biblical view?  It is NOT because theologians suddenly decided to interpret the many geocentric passages as figurative based on careful hermeneutics.  Rather, it is because science has conclusively proven heliocentrism.  As a result, the Church revisited these passages and altered its interpretation.

You see, the bible is not the best source for developing a correct view of astronomy.  Though it may speak of the earth, sun, moon, and stars, we cannot attain a detailed or accurate understanding of astronomy from scripture.  Instead, we must look to the earth, sun, moon, and stars to establish our astronomical views.  I would hope you agree that this approach is in no way unbiblical.

Let me pause briefly to acknowledge that the YEC movement resents any comparison between their view and geocentrism.  They've written their fare share of rebuttals to this accusation.  I admit that the issues are more complex, both in terms of science and scripture, but it is an extremely helpful lesson from history.  And, my intention is not to compare YEC with geocentrism.  Instead, I want to apply the principle the Church learned about astronomy to the debate over earth history.

That principle is this:  If the bible does not intend to be authoritative about a certain subject, it is advisable to rely upon extra-biblical sources to come to conclusions about that subject.  In some cases, we may even be forced to reinterpret scripture as it relates to a particular subject if the extra-biblical sources are irrefutable.  Every reasonable Christian agrees that this principle applies to astronomy.  I contend that it applies to earth history, also.  In order to develop an accurate perspective of earth history, we must look at the amazingly detailed history the earth has provided us.  And that's surprisingly easy.  It's right under our nose.

In my next post, I will begin to present what I feel to be the most straightforward and conclusive evidence concerning the age of the earth.  It is my opinion that any unbiased reader will see that the evidence is overwhelming and incontrovertible. 

James

Age of the Earth, Part 1: A Young-Earth Bible?

In Tim Chaffney and Jason Lisle's book, Old-Earth Creationsm on Trial, the authors say,

"Actually, the debate between old-earth creationists and young-earth creationists is not really about the age of the earth and universe. Primarily, it comes down to biblical authority. Did God really do what He said He did in Genesis 1? If it took Him billions of years to create everything, then He could have easily and clearly stated that in His Word."

The intended implications are quite clear.  Chaffney and Lisle are making two significant claims:

1.  The Bible clearly teaches a recent creation.
2.  Those who disagree with the first point are challenging biblical authority.

According to these authors and other voices within the YEC movement, the case of young-earth vs. old-earth is closed.  I whole-heartedly agree, although I am deeply convinced that the verdict falls in favor of an ancient earth.  In my next series of posts, I will outline why I believe the earth is undoubtedly old, and why Christians can and should embrace an old-earth view without reservation.

Many discussions of this issue center on the Genesis text.  There is much that has been said about the genre of that ancient Hebrew tome, the nature of the word yom, the events of the first 6 days, etc.  In this post, I will not attempt to demonstrate why I am convinced that the Bible does not insist upon a young earth, nor am I the most qualified person to do so. Thankfully, it has already been done thoroughly and effectively by many respected (and conservative) Bible scholars.  Very simply, the question I would like to raise is, "Does the Bible really clearly teach a young earth?"

YEC organizations such as Answers in Genesis (AiG) have been incredibly successful in convincing millions of Christians that the Bible clearly teaches a YEC perspective. The core of their argument centers around the assertion that the only faithful interpretation of Genesis 1 is that the days of the creation week are 24-hour days. On the AiG website, Terry Mortenson writes:

"The Bible clearly teaches that God created in six literal, 24-hour days a few thousand years ago. The context of Genesis 1 clearly shows that the days of creation were literal days."

While the YEC movement has gained the support of many laypeople within the church, their well-funded websites and museums haven't influenced nearly as high of a percentage of respected Bible teachers. If you have a study Bible at home that you picked up from your local Christian bookstore, it will likely say something like this in the notes under Genesis 1 (the following is taken from my ESV study Bible, a highly recommended Bible):

By a simple reading of Genesis, these days must be described as days in the life of God, but how his days relate to human days is more difficult to determine.

Reading in that same Bible in a section called "Genesis and Science", the authors state:

Faithful interpreters have offered arguments for taking the creation week of Genesis 1 as a regular week with ordinary days; or as God's workdays, analogous to a human workweek; or as a literary device to portray the creation week as if it were a workweek, but without concern for temporal sequence. None of these views requires denying that Genesis 1 is historical.

Additionally, in nearly every well-known systematic theology book used by the Evangelical church, you will see this same apprehension in insisting that Genesis 1 has one clear interpretation in regard to the nature of the creation week. Even if they have a strong opinion, virtually all old testament scholars will tell you that the first chapter of Genesis is obscure and unique.

The International Council on Inerrancy, a conservative council committed to the affirmation of biblical inerrancy, addressed the issue of the age of the earth and universe at its second summit. After a long deliberation and the presentation of several papers, all of the theologians and Old Testament scholars present concluded that inerrancy requires belief in creation but not 24-hour creation days.

Anyone who is convinced that the Bible conclusively teaches one clear perspective of earth history would be wise to heed the words of St. Augustine, who said in reference to Genesis:

“In matters that are so obscure and far beyond our vision, we find in the Holy Scripture passages which can be interpreted in very different ways without prejudice to the faith we have received. In such cases, we should not rush in headlong and so firmly take our stand on one side that, if further progress in the search for truth justly undermines this position, we too fall with it.”

The preceding commentary should suffice to prove that we should approach the debate concerning the nature of the creation week with a certain amount of openness and flexibility.  But, I'll push things further by listing a collection of Christian leaders who have either advocated an old-earth interpretation of the Bible, or who agree that the Bible can allow for an old-earth interpretation (a portion of this list was pulled from a very insightful blog on similar issues, GeoChristian):

• C.S. Lewis (philosopher/apologist)
• Francis Schaeffer (philosopher/apologist)
• Charles Spurgeon (19th century preacher)
• William Lane Craig (philosopher/apologist)
• Chuck Colson (author)
• Lee Strobel (apologist/author)
• J.P. Moreland (philospher/apologist)
• Norman Geisler (philosopher/apologist)
• Gleason Archer (professor of OT at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School)
• Walter Kaiser (professor of OT at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary)
• Charles Hodge (theologian, mid-1800s)
• B.B. Warfield (theologian in late 1800s, strong defender of Biblical Christianity)
• C.I. Scofield (Dallas Theological Seminary, Scofield Study Bible author)
• St. Augustine (church father/theologian)
• B.B. Warfield (professor of theology at Princeton Seminary from 1887 to 1921)
• James Orr (Baptist minister, lecturer and author)
• John Piper (Reformed pastor and author)
• Timothy Keller (Reformed pastor and author)
• William Jennings Bryan (famous opponent of Darwinsim)
• James Montgomery Boice (Reformed thelogian)

It would be a difficult task for any YEC to convince me that the people on this list were liberal compromisers who don't take the Word of God seriously.  Quite to the contrary, this is a list of leaders who, despite their divergent opinions on a number of secondary issues of faith, are/were thoroughly committed to a Biblical worldview.

Why is this all so important? Because someone who insists that the Bible clearly teaches a YEC perspective needs to understand that they are in disharmony with a vast number of men and women who have devoted their lives to the study and teaching of Scripture. It is one thing to have a strong opinion or a well-reasoned position on the matter. It is entirely different to insist that your interpretation is the ONLY possible interpretation.

At this point, the YEC may say that I'm committing the subjectivist fallacy known as appeal to majority. First of all, it's worth noting that YEC's often accuse opponents of appealling to the majority, because they often find themselves opposed to the majority. However, in this case, I'm using the majority to point out the complexity of an issue. If the vast majority considers something to be unclear, then it is unclear by definition.

Note that I am not necessarily taking issue with the YEC interpretation of Genesis 1. Rather, I am opposed to their ruthless insistence that their interpretation is the only possible correct interpretation. Their unwillingness to consider that the creation account might possess a little mystery and obscurity frightens me.

If you're a church-going Christian, you've likely been to a Bible study or heard a sermon where the teacher was teaching through a difficult passage of Scripture. How would it strike you if that teacher got to a passage and said something along these lines?

Ladies and gentlemen, this is a difficult passage of Scripture. Historically, scholars have been divided on the correct interpretation of these verses. Bible-believing and Bible-loving men and women have come to different conclusions, but I am about to give you the only correct interpretation of this passage. The context is clear to me, and I am about to tell you exactly what the writer (and God) intended with these words.

Unless you have a high propensity to fall under the spell of cult-leaders, a few red flags would go up. You'd probably be more comfortable with the teacher saying something like "this is a difficult passage, and I do have an opinion, but there are many Christians with other opinions, too."

After considering what we've covered thus far, I would hope that most reasonable readers would agree that insisting  "the Bible clearly teaches that God created in six literal, 24-hour days a few thousand years ago" is unnecessary and misguided.  If you're interested in exploring this particular issue (the Biblical case for an old-earth or openness to an old-earth), the folks over at Reasons to Believe have put together an amazing collection of important theologians/philosophers/pastors/teachers/authors and their own words about the subject.  Check the page out here.  If you're willing to take the time to read through it, it should only affirm what I have been trying to communicate throughout this post.

The Bible does not definitively teach a time-table of earth history.  Insisting upon this requires unsubstantiated claims about Scripture at best and an abuse of Scripture at worst.  So, we must return to the assertion made by Chaffney and Lisle.  Is the age of the earth really a question of biblical authority?  Since the Bible does not speak about the age of the earth authoritatively, the answer is no.  In order to come to definitive conclusions about earth history, we must consult additional sources of truth.  

James

Age of the Earth, Introduction: It's Just the Lies of Satan

Over the course of my next series of posts, I will be discussing the question of the age of the earth.  My intention is to outline the process of how I came to think about this issue as I currently do, both to have an intact personal record of my thoughts, as well as to have a comprehensive essay for those I interact with about this question.  Additionally (and probably most importantly), I'm interested in bringing my children up in truth, and I want to teach them to approach issues of faith and science with honesty, integrity, and rationality.

A friend of mine is attending a Bible study for moms.  During a recent meeting, the question of the age of the earth arose.  Every woman quickly and passionately expressed their views.  They were all Young-Earth Creationists (YEC's), and anyone who was not was obviously wrong.

One woman asked, "Why would any Christian believe that the earth was millions of years old?"  Another responded, "It's just the lies of Satan.  They're believing the lies of Satan."

As you might imagine, my friend (who is not a YEC), remained tight-lipped.  This didn't seem like the type of environment where a civil discussion about the age of the earth could take place, unless that meant everyone agreeing with one another and demonizing the opposition (a pattern of conversation that happens all too often among like-minded people).  It is precisely this sentiment, that anyone who suggests that the earth may be older than 10,000 years is opening the door to the Devil himself,  that has served as one of my primary motivations for researching this subject and addressing it in this blog.

I have been interested in this debate for over a decade.  I have read many books, papers, and articles that address the issue of the age of the earth, including many from YEC's.  During this process, I don't recall any conversations with Satan.  Even so, my research has all pointed me to one conclusion that I cannot escape.  The earth is old.  Very old.  We're not even talking millions.  We're talking billions of years.

Depending on your perspective, you'll have a number of responses to my conclusion.  You might say, "I have read just as much as you, and I've come to the inescapable conclusion that the earth is young."  You might say, "I don't care."  Or, you may agree with me. 

First, let me address the YEC.  I don't like to categorize people, but it can be helpful in certain circumstances, so please forgive me.  Generally speaking, I have met two kinds of YEC's.  The first is a staunch Young Earther, probably a lot like the ladies from my friend's Bible study.  They are overwhelmingly convinced that the Bible clearly teaches that the earth is no older than 6,000-10,000 years old.  They are fans of organizations like Answers in Genesis (AiG) and may have even been to the Creation Museum (or they would like to go).  For the most part, these folks are friendly, intelligent, committed Christians.  However, I doubt that anything that I am going to write will cause them to consider changing their position, even for a second.  From what I have experienced, the staunch YEC has an amazingly proficient filter for opposing viewpoints.  They have the uncanny ability to recognize a dissenting view and file it away as "liberal, dangerous, Satanic, etc."  If this position describes you, I give you permission to label this blog as liberal (or better yet, Satanic) and move on.  However, if you're feeling a bit squirrely, I invite you to consider, just for a moment, that there may be more to this issue than you have assumed.  If you're willing to do that, read on.

The second kind of YEC I've met is what I like to call the "Safe" YEC.  I think this person represents the majority of conservative Evangelicals.  I don't have Barna Group statistics to back that up, but my experience tells me that the average conservative Christian feels that the YEC position is more conservative and generally a safer view to subscribe to if one plans to maintain their Christian faith in today's culture.  These folks have usually adopted the YEC view because their pastor, Bible study leader, a speaker at a conference, or just a smart Christian once told them that the Bible clearly teaches the YEC view and that modern scientists are close-minded naturalists with an anti-Christian agenda.  Furthermore, they've been told that there is ample scientific evidence for a young earth.  They may have even visited the AiG website, and since those arguments seem sound and scientific, they find no reason to adopt another position.  This view describes me for the majority of my life.  Some safe YEC's have gone a little deeper and have done a fair amount of reading about the age of the earth, and they've discovered that there are good arguments for both the young and old earth positions.  They've concluded that they can't really come to a conclusion based on the scientific evidence, and the YEC view seems to be more in line with what the Bible teaches.  So, they kind of default to the YEC view.  You might say that they are a YEC because they know that they are supposed to be one, and they're under the impression that there are very good reasons to be one.    If this view describes you, I encourage you to keep reading.

Now, you may not care about this matter at all.  You've witnessed heated debates between Christians over this subject, and you don't like the division it causes.  You've never been terribly interested in science, and you're not sure what all the fuss it about.  You feel that this debate is secondary, or even tertiary, to the Gospel, so we shouldn't waste so much time with it.  While I agree with you that these issues are not at the core of the Christian faith, I do strongly contend that they are important.  The staunch YEC would agree with me that this issue is important, but for an entirely different reason.  He would say that the question of the age of the earth is intimately tied to the Gospel itself, and that believing anything other than the YEC view destroys the very foundation of Christ's message.  While I don't agree with that, I would say that the question of the age of the earth is intimately tied to issues of honesty and integrity, Christian education, effective Christian witness, and Christian thought.  I submit that the YEC movement has effectively and negatively influenced each of these aspects within Christendom, and that's why I find it so important to address this topic.

Finally, you may have already concluded that the earth is old.  For you, I hope that you will find my thoughts a valuable addition to the materials you've already read.

I believe that the earth is old, and it's not because I'm a sucker for Satan's lies.  He is indeed a good liar, the master of deception, and all of us are vulnerable to his schemes.  But if Satan was attempting to get me to believe that the earth is old, he would be doing something a bit out of character:  he'd be telling the truth.

Stay tuned...

James

About the Name

The potentially pretentious name of this blog has a back story. In researching a number of science/faith issues, I've adopted a particular frame of mind which is best summed up by this statement:

If believing the truth about one thing leads me to uncertainty about another, so be it. I would rather be uncertainly right than certainly wrong.

I've found that many people of my faith (Evangelical Christian) seem to employ a different approach, best captured by this:

I cannot accept something as true if it will lead me to uncertainty about things of which I am certain. So, regardless of how true that something may seem, I know that it can't be true (so it isn't).

I call this the argument from implication, and I've been discouraged by how often I hear it. One of my goals in this blog is to explore issues without first considering the implications, but rather considering evidence, or simply being honest.

I expect to fail. I expect to be wrong. But that's precisely why I'm dispensing my ramblings in this forum.

James

-- Posted from my iPhone

From Rumblings to Ramblings

Years ago, a heard a speaker say, "You can tell how self-centered a person is by counting how many times they say 'I' when they talk or write." That has always made me feel uncomfortable when writing.  I guess I'm just self-absorbed (there I go again).  Let me warn you, I'm about to say I a lot.  Honestly, I think that speaker was a bit unfair.  But wherever he is, I wish I could tell him that I have never forgotten that (I just used I three times in one sentence).

I've always had a compulsion to write.  I attempted to write my Chronicles of Narnia at age 12.  I don't remember many details other than the oddball team of travelers I had assembled and their journey through a kingdom filled with manicured lawns and extremely fat cattle with unusually short legs.  Oh, and a really big canyon.  I quit writing when they got to the really big canyon.

Over the past 15 years, I've found myself suddenly writing treatises on issues of faith and science.  These have almost exclusively consisted of partially completed documents stuck on my hard drive.  I've rarely shared them with anyone, and I've never really felt an obligation to bring them to completion.  This blog is my latest attempt at that.

In addition to wanting to introduce a catalyst for my writing, I think it's only healthy to discuss my thoughts in community.  As I've shared all the things that run through my mind related to my faith with my wife, she has told me, "You need to talk with someone about this."  I hope that this blog will invite the occasional reader to critique, agree, disagree, encourage, etc.

As each year passes, I find myself thinking things that are controversial in the circles in which I run.  I was raised in an Evangelical Christian home, and throughout my life, that faith has become my own.  As an adult, my Christian faith has been the single most defining aspect of my life.  But I, like a lot of Christians, have found myself asking tough questions about faith, and I've been dissatisfied with a good deal of what I've heard from today's Christian voices.  A fair amount of the issues I hope to discuss here will be related to those specific topics that I find myself coming back to over and over.  I don't expect to say anything terribly original, but the process of regurgitating my thoughts in this medium has to be at least therapeutic, and at most encouraging to other people walking a similar path through life.

For a few reasons I won't go into, I'm going to be blogging more or less anonymously.  I want to be able to be totally honest about the ideas that I entertain, and I want to post without hesitation or fear of complicating relationships with friends or family.

Thanks for checking it out.

James

Obligatory Toilet Post

I'm breaking the seal on this blog with a bathroom post. IPhones are wonderful.

Upon informing my lovely wife of my new blog and its title, she promptly rolled her eyes. I told her that my other potential title was Arrogant Douchebag, which she preferred.

Here's to hoping this site avoids the natural pressures which inevitably lead to the extinction of the vast majority of blogs. Funny how it's almost become cliche to reference the frequency of posts, or even better yet, the liklihood of a blog surviving infancy.

To bed.

James

-- Posted from my iPhone