Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
23 of 27 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
A New Look at an Old Earth, June 26, 2000
Don Stoner earned a B.S. in physics, was involved with the development of the optical disc, and holds two U.S. patents. His grandfather, Peter W. Stoner, was the author of Science Speaks (Van Kampen Press, 1952; Moody Press, 1963 and 1969). It is relevant to compare Don's book with his grandfather's. The elder Stoner apologized to fellow Christians on behalf of scientists. He acknowledged that the Bible had been under attack from the natural sciences, but he showed that more recent findings (especially in astronomy) tended to agree with biblical teachings about the universe. Therefore, science was not the enemy of faith, as many had suspected. In contrast, the younger Stoner is calling his fellow Christians to apologize to scientists. Since science properly understood cannot conflict with the Bible rightly interpreted, religious people must stop treating scientists as enemies.In the foreword, Hugh Ross emphasizes both the reality of a science-religion conflict and the need to end it. Young-earth creationism, says Ross, has been a stumbling block for believers and nonbelievers. It has brought divisions among Christians; it has made secular society more skeptical of the church; and it has provided ammunition for those who seek to delete all biblical references from public education. I appreciate Stoner's call to humility in Chapter 1, which is entitled "Judging Ourselves First." He reminds us that we often remember biblical details incorrectly. Worse, we cannot always be sure what Bible words meant in the original languages. For example, the Hebrew terms rendered "day" and "die" in Genesis 2:16-17 could each be taken several different ways. The most literal interpretation, that Eve would drop dead the day she ate the fruit, is contradicted by subsequent verses. Stoner would resolve this dilemma by translating yom as "era" (thus, Eve's sin ushered in an era of human mortality). I do not share his interpretation of Genesis 2; nevertheless, I admire his apt illustration of the difficulties of translating Hebrew and the potential pitfalls of strict literalism. Stoner concludes that young-earth adherents need to reevaluate their interpretation of Scripture. He urges them to get rid of faulty assumptions and wrong attitudes: "...it is difficult for those who are not scientifically educated to tell the difference between scientific truth and error ... Juicy claims about how some Ph.D. has misread the facts are circulated from Christian to Christian just like gossip ... Unfortunately, we might never bother to find out if any of these stories are true ... we have been mocking educated men and, what is worse, we have done it from a position of ignorance." I recommend A New Look at an Old Earth for anyone who takes the Bible seriously and wants to understand what it says about the cosmos. Perhaps you do not need to be convinced that the earth is old, but all of us need to hear Stoner's plea for humility. Buy a copy for your church's library; discuss it in your adult Sunday school class. Please share this book gently in Christian love with any brothers and sisters who still adhere to young-earth views. The reviewer is Professor of Chemistry at Mount Vernon Nazarene College in Mount Vernon, OH 43050. This review was originally published in Perspectives on Science and the Christian Faith, 52: 66-67 (March 2000). Copyrighted 2000 by the American Scientific Affiliation. Posted with permission of ASA.
|
|
|
10 of 11 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
A Hard Position From Which to Speak. Graciously done., October 25, 2005
Don Stoner is pretty much damned if he does and damned if he doesn't, advocate an Old Earth Creationist position. On the one hand, he faces empirical data that demonstrates clearly the age of the universe. He actually focuses on the scientific evidence and shows quite clearly using the data obtained from quasars and pulsars and the resultant red-shifting demonstrated in the light spectrums that unless one accepts the implausable possibility that the speed of light has not always been constant, the universe is Billions of years old. He then makes a compelling argument that if Scripture is to be taken as true it cannot be at odds with the truth of the creation itself.
Here's where Stoner (and all Old Earth Creationists) finds himself in the cross-hairs. The vast majority of scientists would find his arguments as basic foundational information and accept his science without necessarily seeing the need to accept his theology. At the opposite end the Young Earth Creationists, whom Stoner appears to be targeting, are so committed to their interpretation of Scripture they will reject his arguments de facto without the benefit of a great deal of thought going in to their rejection because their position is based in faith and they cannot accept anything that is counter to their espoused presuppositions. Witness other critiques of this book which pretty much deal with Scripture and ignore the strongest physical facts presented.
All this aside Stoner does a commendable job keeping the tone and tenor of his argument on the high road. He attempts to demonstrate to Young Earth Creationists how their positions in fact drive scientists and independent thinkers away because they see Christianity itself tied to what in effect is intellectual suicide. Stoner goes to great lengths to argue that the issue isn't Scripture itself; the issue is one's interpretation of that Scripture. There's room, even in Christianity for saying to some issues, "I don't know." "This is how understand it, but it is possible I am wrong." By making Young Earth Creationism tantamount to the Scripture itself, Young Earth Creationists repeat the mistakes of their intellectual ancestors who impuned Gallileo and espoused a flat earth based on much the same arguments.
Stoner does an admirable job. Unfortunately for him (or more to the point, unfortunately for many Christians) he is going to be met with indifference and unpopularity from both sides. Hang on though. Time showed Galileo right. Time may well just demonstrated Stoner's position to be right, or at least closer to right than the popular Young Earth Creationist movement, once they get past their unwillingness to accept that their position while scripturally based, is not the equivilent of Scripture itself.
Take a look objectively at both the facts AND the scripture with a willingness to listen and learn. Whether either side changes their mind, Stoner has done an admirable job, with a difficult subject and handled it with intellectual and Scriptural integrity and graciousness.
We all can learn a lot from that.
|
|
|
14 of 18 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Old Earth does not equal evolution, August 5, 1999
By A Customer
For years, I held on to the YE position. I read Gish, Morris, Ian Taylor and a few others. As a YE, I equated an OE with evolution. An OE was a compromise in my mind. With that view in mind, I decided to read the book with much skepticism. Upon completion of the book, I walked away a believer of an OE!! Don uses an illustration that I feel needs mentioning. He demonstrates that God's Creation and His Word are revelations of Himself to us. Theology is the interpretation of God's Word. Science is the interpretation of God's Creation. Since both of them, Creation and the Bible, are created by Him a contradiction CANNOT occur. If there is one, we need to re-evaluate our interpretation, whether it is theological or scientific. As a Christian, I believe I had to re-evaluate my interpretation of the Bible. Just as Christians had to re-evaluate their stance about geocentricism, we must do the same with the age of the universe. There is too much evidence pointing towards an OE. I argued YE tooth and nail with my secular friends. In retrospect, I am embarassed I even used them. Don sheds light on YE arguments and explains how they are deficient. As a YE at the time, I stood in amazement that all of the scientists, geologists, anthropologists, astronomers, and etc. could be wrong about the earth (ie rock dating and fossils) and the universe. The earth, according to the Bible (my interpretation), was created in six 24 hour days. Don gives an alternative explanation for creation which I found enlightening (He does NOT support theistic evolution!!). He also explains how science uses carbon dating, potassium argon, and other methods of dating for rocks and bones in a way anybody can understand. This book is a must read for every Christian. As Christians we are to make disciples of every tongue and tribe. I sincerely believe that God was patient during His creation just as He is patient and long suffering with us. Let us not make the age of rocks the stumbling block for future disciples, but the Eternal ROCK we love to worship named Jesus Christ.
|
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|
by David Snoke
by J. Ligon Duncan III
by Roger E. Olson
