I thank Adventist Today for carrying Ervin Taylor's review of Creation, Catastrophe, & Calvary. (1)    My respected scientific colleague has written an insightful, genially toned  review showing a good grasp of the basic theme of the book.  His halo temporarily slips when he thinks the book may have been the "product of an intellectual panic attack" due essentially to the 'pesky scientific data.'   Happily, Taylor characterizes this thought as coming from his cynical side, so he is forgiven.   This response seeks to clarify five essential exegetical/theological points in his review, and to highlight two of those 'pesky scientific data' about which Taylor offered no comment.

First, Creation, Catastrophe, & Calvary is written from the point of view of faith seeking understanding.  The authors do not claim to have all the answers, nor do they suggest that the empirical data discussed rises to the level of demonstration or direct proof.

Second, Taylor correctly pinpoints the core theme of the book which can be illustrated by David Lane's quotation in the book: "If the general theory of evolution and a historical fall of some kind are both historical facts . . . then human death preceded the entrance of sin into the human race, and cannot be its penalty. . . . Theistic evolution . . . destroys the basis of the doctrine of Christ's substitutionary atonement and redemption of sinners" (p. 114).   If the substitutionary death of Christ is true, the fossil record must be accounted for by alternate processes for producing the geologic column not over millions of years, but rapidly, for example, by Godís global flood (2)  subsequent to the sin of Adam.

Taylor does not quarrel with the logic presented above, but questions the need for this core message of the book by noting that the argument is theologically based upon a "'blood atonement' process, ignoring the number of alternative explanations of the Christian salvation motif."   Frankly, other theories of atonement are ignored because, as far as I can determine, they are, in one way or another, all righteousness-by-works schemes rejecting the concept of  the imputed righteousness of Christ as legal fiction.  For this reason they all fall into a category of gospel other than that preached by Paul and taught in the Bible as a whole.(cf. Gal 1:8-9; Rom 4:1-8).   

Third, Taylor questions the claim that the Bible establishes a causal relationship between Adam's sin and animal and human death.  Taylor asks: "What indeed is the 'biblical claim' on this point?  More to the point, is it a 'biblical claim' or a claim developed within a particular fundamentalist-oriented hermeneutic?"  I must, however, ask what is the role of a biblical claim for Taylor?  Elsewhere, he concurs with Gerhard Hasel that the Bible itself claims creation week was composed of seven literal twenty-four-hour days.  However, Taylor indicates it is a leap of faith for us today to regard this biblical claim as actual history. (3) So how does ascertaining the actual biblical claim help us when the claim can be so easily overridden by contemporary interpretations of science?

Fourth, Taylor finds "fascinating" (translation: "incredible") the breadth of meaning derived from Revelation 14:7c.  However, notice the distinctive language used to describe the ground for our worship of God: ". . . worship Him who created heaven, earth, the sea and the fountains of waters" (Rev 14:7c).  This phrase, found in Exodus 20:11 and repeated in Ps 146:6; Acts 4:24; 14:15, is prefaced in Exodus with the cosmogonic words "For in six days the Lord made. . ."  Because the pattern established in this quartet of texts assumes the six-day creation, the same phrase appearing in Revelation 14:7c would also assume the six-day creation.  Of course, this end-time conclusion is extremely significant in light of 21st-century evolutionary theory.

Of equal importance is the final phrase "and the fountains of waters" (Rev 14:7c).   Here the angel breaks radically from the phraseology used in Exodus 20:11, and by David, the believers, and Paul and Barnabas, by replacing the fourth-commandment terminology, "all that in them is," with the surprise phrase  "fountains of waters" in the context of a message of judgment.  The fountains of waters include "the fountains of the deep" (Prov 8:24, 28, 30; Gen 7:ll), and recall a previous time of divine judgment when the fountains of the deep were broken at the global flood. This constitutes a profound encouragement for us to take seriously not only the message about the pre-advent judgment, but the reality of the Genesis flood.  Thus, the phrase "fountains of the waters" may constitute an endorsement by the resurrected Lord of the reality of the global flood.

Fifth, Taylor denies, contra Richard Davidson, that, "'worldwide' would mean the same thing to an ancient Near Eastern writer that it now means to a modern reader." However, Davidson masterfully develops the significance of the treatment by Tikva Frymer-Kensky, a professor at the University of Chicago, and other scholars, regarding the implications of the Hebrew term maíbíl as the undoing of the global creation order of day 2 of creation.

Turning now to the 'pesky scientific data,' we find that it can cut both ways.  According to Holmes Rolston III, the geologic column shows that the general theory of evolution is filled with "predation, parasitism, selfishness, randomness, blindness, disaster, indifference, waste, struggle, suffering, death" (p.28).  How is the goodness of God impacted were he to create by an evolutionary process involving millions of years of predation, etc.?  If Christians accept the suffering- and death-filled macro- evolutionary process as God's chosen way to produce new life-forms, then that 'pesky scientific data' clearly imply a God with a demonic face unworthy of worship.  This particular theodical difficulty constitutes one of the most important issues urgently needing discussion within the Adventist community.

A second set of freshly discovered scientific data discussed in Creation, Catastrophe, & Calvary indicates the need to revise evolution's conventional regional, basinal depositional model of the Paleozoic portion of the geologic column in North America.  The data does not prove a global flood, but is presented as an illustration of the need to widen regional forms of catastrophism.   'Pesky' field data published by Elaine Kennedy, R. Kablano, and A. V. Chadwick, (4)  indicate convincingly that in the Paleozoic area studied, the Tapeats may have formed in water as deep as 840 feet (p. 117) rather than in shallow water as per the conventional view.   This scientific discovery becomes additionally interesting in relation to the research by Arthur Chadwick noted below.

From his database of more than half a million 'pesky' measured paleocurrent directions at 15,615  localities in the North American Continent, Chadwick infers that throughout the Paleozoic, sediments of  all types and depositional environments moved persistently west and southwest across the North American Continent in mega continent-wide trends (p. 122). (5)  Considered in light of the deep-water depositional activity associated with the Paleozoic Tapeats Sandstone, the paleocurrent data suggest the image of a moving sea.  This points for the first time beyond regional, basinal boundaries to some form of aquatic catastrophe of continent-wide dimensions.  In this instance, the 'pesky scientific data' is not inconsistent with what might be expected from an aquatic catastrophe on the scale indicated in Scripture.

In conclusion, the current Adventist Christian community needs to heed the call by Fritz Guy for community-wide dialogue. (6) Theological and philosophical concerns needing attention include issues such as the  relations between macroevolution and the goodness of God, the gospel, the Sabbath, the Fall, hermeneutics, worldview, open theism, and whether Satan is a real being or an allegory or parable.   Scientifically, we need to address challenges such as the extent and content of earth history, varves, ice core readings, glaciation, the earthís magnetic reversals, radiometric dating, an adequate flood model(s), and so on.  If we intentionally avoid such discussion we will repeat the Anglican intentional avoidance of the theological issues of Darwinís theory of evolution documented by Gregory Elder. (7) This means that all the theological implications as well as all the scientific challenges need to be placed on the table for thorough, meaningful, respectful discussion pursued , if possible, to some form of consensus.  Creation, Catastrophe, and Calvary provides one small step toward this goal.

Notes

1   The full publication and complete title information regarding the book is as follows: John T. Baldwin, ed., Creation, Catastrophe, & Calvary: Why a Global Flood Is Vital to the Doctrine of Atonement (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 2000).

2   For purposes of proper nomenclature in speaking of the flood, the Bible indicates that Noah did not send the Flood, God did.  Although it takes a bit of nerve to do so, scholars and theologians would well serve discussions about the Flood by referring to the event by its biblically implied name, "God's Flood," rather than by calling it "Noah's Flood."  The latter name continues to invite ridicule, whereas, referring to the flood as "God's Flood" might invoke more respect for the event which it highly deserves.

3   R. Ervin Taylor, "Re: Hasel: The Days of Creation in Genesis 1: Literal Days or Figurative Periods/Epochs of Time?" Origins 21:2 (1994): 63.

4  See their article entitled, "A Reassessment of the Shallow Water Depositional Model for the Tapeats Sandstone, Grand Canyon, Arizona: Evidence for Deep Water Deposition,"  Geological Society of America Abstracts With Programs 28, No. 7 (1996): A-407

5  See his article called, "Megatrends in North American Paleocurrents,"  Society of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists Meeting Abstracts 8 (1993): 58,

6   Fritz Guy, Thinking Theologically (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 1999), pp. 159-160.

7  On this see Gregory Elder, Chronic Vigor: Darwin, Anglicans, Catholics, and the Development of a Doctrine of Providential Evolution (Lanham: University Press of America, 1996).