Dick Fischer on taking Genesis literally

I occasionally comment on articles in Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, the periodical of the American Scientific Affiliation. The journal is published quarterly, and articles are posted on-line, free for anyone, about 18 months later. (Warning -- the server is a little slow sometimes)

Dick Fischer has an article, "Young-Earth Creationism: A Literal Mistake," (in .PDF format) wherein he claims, with scriptural evidence, that it is not necessary to take the days of Genesis 1 as literal 24-hour periods. He also presents scriptural evidence that the earth is more than a few thousand years old. He argues, again from scripture, that the flood was not universal, and that there were some survivors besides Noah's family. In sum, he claims that Young-Earth Creationism, while claiming to take scripture literally, actually misinterprets it seriously. Furthermore, by arguing that the Bible teaches a cosmology that is radically at odds with the best scientific evidence, Young-Earth Creationism casts doubt on the validity of the most important claims of scripture, about sin and its cure.

I'll just mention one of Fischer's arguments, and, I suspect, not the best one. Numbers 13:33 apparently refers to descendants of the Nephilim of Genesis 6:4, as being in existence long after the flood. How is this possible, if the flood really destroyed all living things except those in the ark? Anyone interested in the rest of Fischer's claims should read the article.

Note added March 16, 2010. The above claim is weak enough that I should not have mentioned it. The NIV Reference Bible suggests that the spies sent out by Moses were deliberately exaggerating the size of the people that they saw, so that it is quite possible that these were not Nephilim at all, and that possibility must be considered. Fischer didn't, probably because he didn't think of it. There are other claims in the Fischer article that seem more substantial.

I'm not a Bible scholar, but it appears to me that Fischer presents some arguments that need to be examined by anyone who takes a serious interest in origins. I have not read some of these arguments before. The response to this article must have been interesting. (It's not on-line yet.)

The article is several pages long, with documentation, but is clear and understandable.

Thanks for reading.