0142 In chapter 14, Ross discusses Biblical cues to the Earth’s age.

In doing so, he brings the weight of his argument to bear on the Creation Story (Genesis 1-2.3), because that is the anomaly.

0143 The anomaly?

If the Bible started with the Primeval History (Genesis 2.4-11), then the Bible would honestly agree with all the other origin stories of the ancient Near East.  Humans (as far as the early civilizations are concerned) are recent creations.  We, civilized folk, are connected to the first humans by way of genealogies.  We do not recognize the deep reaches of evolutionary time.  Or, maybe, we pay tribute to evolutionary time by saying that the first humans lived for thousands and thousands of years.  Consult the Sumerian king list on that one.

0144 Yes, the Creation Story is the anomaly.  Hugh Ross, familiar with evolutionary science, sees the signification immediately.  Later, after years of research, he now realizes that the Bible is peppered with phrases that signify deep evolutionary time.  He mentions Genesis 49:26, Habbakkuk 3:6, Judges 5:21, and Micah 6.2.  But, the Creation Story is incredible in its recognition.

Why?

The Genesis Creation Story is a sign of the evolutionary record.

0145 Why does Hugh Ross conjure this conclusion, yet appears to be incapable of articulating it clearly?

Ah, remember the late scholastic judgment where the relation says that “grace” and “nature” are distinct and separable?

Recall that, over hundreds of years, this early modern judgment calcifies into two contending parties, one exalting grace_3c and one exalting nature_3c.

And don’t forget, during that last span, science is successfully born in Western Civilization.  So, the exalting nature_3cparty appears ascendant.

0146 What is “reality”?

Truncated material and efficient causalities are the presence underlying term, “reality”.

What is the message of modern material and instrumental “reality”?

The message is that the authorship of the Bible is human, not divine.

0147 Take a look at the term, “inerrancy”, once again..

0148 What does “reality” mean for the party that exalts nature_3c?

Follow the positivist intellect.  “Reality” means that “metaphysics is not permitted”.

0149 Hugh Ross does not agree, because Genesis One looks like a description of the evolutionary record.

If he only had a model for delineating that appearance in a way that scientists might appreciate.

0150 What would a model entail?

First, the Creation Story comports with the first abstraction in natural philosophy.

Say what?

Each Genesis One “day” offers clues to something that looks like Aristotle’s hylomorphe, matter [substance] form.

 Here is a picture of how that might look for the first day of creation.

0151 To me, this touches base with the way that Ross discusses the perspicuity of Scripture in chapter 15.  Biblical perspicuity is like visual acuity.  It’s the ability to see clearly and comprehensibly.  But what does that mean?

If every Biblical verse is an actuality₂, then Biblical perspicuity means that we can understand that actuality₂.  What is understanding?  Understanding applies a normal context₃ and potential₁  to an actuality₂. That is why a category-based nested form appears in the above figure.  This is the inerrant understanding that Ross wants to defend… um… scientifically.

0152 But, what is Ross really doing?

Ross substitutes his own aesthetic judgment for the Positivist’s judgment.

In effect, he is telling all those who exalt nature_3c over grace_3c that their interscope does not define “reality”.

At the same time, he whispers to those who exalt grace_2c over nature_3c that revelation cannot be qualified_1a.

0153 Here is a picture of Ross’s aesthetic judgment, as it starts to diverge from the Positivist’s judgment, while retaining its structure.

A diagram of the Positivist’s judgment may be found in point 0131.

0154 Ross’s aesthetic judgment goes like this.

An aesthetic intellect, embracing both metaphysics and physics (relation, thirdness), brings artistic concordism as an empirio-schematic judgment (what ought to be, secondness) into relation with a dyad, the noumenon of Genesis One and our evolutionary history [cannot be fully objectified by] the phenomena of significant correspondences (what is,firstness).

0155 What is that what is again? 

Here is a dyad that follows the classical Positivist’s judgment’s what is of a noumenon [cannot be objectified as] its phenomena.

0156 Recall, the first abstraction in natural philosophy, Aristotle’s hylomorphe of matter [substance] form, associates to a noumenon, rather than its phenomena.  This is how the positivist intellect excludes metaphysics.  All the metaphysics of natural inquiry goes into the noumenon.  Phenomena are only the observable and measurable facets of the thing itself.

The languages of modern science (relation, thirdness) bring mathematical and mechanical models (what ought to be,secondness) into relation with observations and measurements of phenomena (what is, firstness).

Ross’s conjunction of the Creation Story with the Earth’s evolutionary history is packed with philosophical and theological implications.

These belong to the noumenon.

To me, the most notable implication is that this conjunction looks a lot like a mimic of the pre-scholastic dyad, grace [inflows] nature.

0157 Another implication of the noumenon?

What is of Ross’s aesthetic judgment ties together the content-level actualities of the interscopes for the party of exalting grace_3c and the party for exalting nature_3c.  The noumenon appears in the following figure as the box composed of dashed red-lines.

0158 Yes, Ross’s aesthetic judgment is clearly crossing red lines.

Or, should I say, “boxing red lines”.

At least, they are dashed.

The question to be asked is, “Is there a label for the single actuality composed of the actualities of these two content-level nested forms?”

0159 Chapter fifteen offers one suggestion from theologians who exalt grace_3c by conceding that they should qualify revelation_1a on the basis that the early stories of Genesis_2a must be associated with the cultural milieu of the civilizations of the ancient Near East_3a.

What is that suggestion?

There can be no single actuality because the scientific concept of the evolutionary record_2a is continually changing.  You know, the positivist intellect (the one forbidding metaphysics)_3a operates of the potential of truth_1a.  Do I have that right?  No, the logos_3a operates on the potential of truth_1a.  The modern intellect who derides metaphysics_3a operates on the potential of… well… the human will_1a, including an insatiable will to know_1a.  So, of course, scientific concepts_2awill change according to the appetites of a will that cannot be satisfied_1a.

So, the suggested label is “Does Not Apply”.

0160 But, how does “Does Not Apply” deal with the following artistic concordist judgment (unfolded into a category-based nested form) for day one?

0161 Surely, in the future, astronomers will figure out more and more about how solar systems form and how a star initiates fusion at its core.  But, I think we can rest easy that they will not discover that stars do not form from interstellar material.

At the same time, I think that the classification of each verse in day one of the Creation Story as an icon, an index or a symbol of the formation of the solar system is only going to get better, more convincing, as well as more incredible, rather than the other way around.

0162 Old hands in the “Science vs. Religion” debate will immediately put Ross’s “moderate” (and what I call “artistic”) concordism in a box labeled “day-age correspondences”.

Everyone knows the game, “To name it is to know it.”

0163 Chapter 16 tries to launch a different name.  Ross discusses “The Historicity of Genesis 1 -11”.  Then, he goes through his version of day-age correspondences.

So, the box is to be labeled, “historicity”.

0164 Exercises in Artistic Concordism by Razie Mah (available at smashwords and other e-book venues) offers a different set of day-age correspondences.

Here is a list.

The correspondences for days five and six do not appear in the above list, Ross and Mah identify the same relevant epochs.  Mah goes so far as to include correspondences between Genesis verses 26 through 31 and human evolutionary history.

The correspondences for days three and four match well.  Ross discusses the epoch corresponding to day four in detail in chapter 17.

0165 The correspondences for days one and two do not match, because (from this examiner’s point of view) Ross has difficulty placing “the observer” near an accretion disk (for day one) or on the surface of a molten planetesimal that becomes the Earth (in day two).  Yeah, in either case, if someone was at the location, that person would die before they could witness anything.  Better to start with a visionary on the Earth when the sky becomes transparent enough to allow a distinction between day and night.

0166 In contrast, the observer, for Mah, may not actually be witnessing the corresponding epochs live (so to speak), but rather through a medium… like a big screen TV…. or the surfaces of the visionary’s occipital lobes.  Just take a look at the text.  God speaks.  Someone besides the angels must be listening.  And, if that someone is a human visionary, then some of the angels might think that God is offering them a raw deal.  Yeah, here is a day-age concordance that can also serve as an introduction to John Milton’s Paradise Lost.

0167 Or, better, this day-age concordance introduces the version of Paradise Lost that would be produced as a totally random permutation when a trillion monkeys type on a trillion typewriters continually for a trillion years.  Of course, the randomly produced version is not quite identical.  Rumors are that the new title is Pair Of Dice Lost.

0168 And, that brings me back to the definition of the titular word, “inerrancy”.

Ross is not rescuing inerrancy with a scientific defense.

No, Ross is exploring a much more significant option.  He is offering new life to the term, “inerrancy”.  The rescue will be different for the Creation Story (Genesis 1-2.3) and for the Primeval History (Genesis 2.4-11).  

0169 Here is a picture.

The application of artistic concordism as an empirio-schematic to the phenomena of day-age correspondences changes the presence  (2) underlying the word, “inerrancy”.

The rescue of the Primeval History will revive the meaning (3) and the message (1) underlying the word.

0170 Chapter 17 discusses recent scientific corroboration for Ross’s correspondences for days four (and three) of the Creation Story.  This chapter is signature for Hugh Ross and the Reasons To Believe Team.  

Here I am concerned about day four.

0171 I proceed by walking though several lessons that come out of this examination.

0172 Ross employs a variation of the Positivist’s judgment.  He subscribes to the rule of the positivist intellect that metaphysics must not be allowed in scientific descriptions.  Ross is a scientist.  In this respect, he might be placed in the exalting nature_3c camp.

Ross does not subscribe to the proposition that the all plain-speaking explanations must be couched in a scientific disciplinary language.  The reason is simple.  Ross is Christian.  So, scientific explanations cannot account for every thing, especially when that “thing” is purely relational, such as Ross’s belief that Jesus is the Messiah.  Ross intuitively senses that nature is a sign of God.  So, modern gossips (who call themselves “thought leaders”) place Ross in the exalting grace_3c camp.

0173 Here is a picture of Ross’s aesthetic judgment for this application of day four.

0174 Relation (thirdness) brings what ought to be (secondness) into relation with what is (firstness).

For the Positivist’s judgment, a positivist intellect (relation, thirdness) brings the empirio-schematic judgment (what ought to be, secondness) into relation with the dyad, a noumenon [cannot be objectified as] its phenomena (what is,firstness).

For Ross’s aesthetic judgment, an aesthetic intellect (relation, thirdness) brings artistic concordism as an empirio-schematic judgment (what ought to be, secondness, see point 0121) into relation with the dyad of Genesis day four and the period of Earth’s history dating from around 2000 to 540 million years ago [cannot be objectified by] perceived correspondences.

0175 Let me take a closer look at that what is.

0176 The noumenon is a dyad consisting of a day:age pairing.

0177 The day is four.  The Genesis text says (more or less), “And God said, ‘Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens (for various reasons)’. And it was so. God made the sun, moon and stars and set them in the firmament (for more reasons).  God declares day four good.  That is it.”

Yeah, that is a mess of a synopsis of sacred text.

0178 The corresponding epoch is (more or less) a chemical transformation of the Earth’s atmosphere due to the exposure of continental rock and the production of oxygen by photosynthesis.  Continental rock is exposed by 2,500Myr (millions of years ago).  The weathering of continental rock influences the composition of the atmosphere.  Photosynthetic life is at least as old as continental rock.  Oxygen gas is a byproduct of photosynthesis.  As oxygen builds up in the atmosphere, the types of life described in day 5 flourish as microscopic creatures, then macroscopic creatures until the so-called “Cambrian Explosion”.

Yeah, that is a mess of a synopsis of chapter 17 of Ross’s book.

0179 The good Book and Ross’s chapter are much more evocative and prescient.

My aim is only to establish the plausibility that there are correspondences and those correspondences may be regarded as phenomena that the empirio-schematic judgment of artistic concordism can observe and weigh.

0180 Here is a picture of the empirio-schematic judgment of artistic concordism unfolded into a category-based nested form.

0181 To me, this line of thinking corresponds to the Greek style of argument.  The task is to identify the best icons, indexes and symbols.

The actuality₂ in the above figure is the model that Ross is aiming to articulate, but cannot, because he is unfamiliar with the disciplinary language of semiotics₃.

I suppose that I may label Ross’s normal context₃ and actuality₂ as “intuitive” and “Gestalt-like”.

Following to the Greek style of argument, I say, “Ross’s model is not as cogent as Peirce’s sign typology, although he does offer a method in chapter 20.  And, methods are not so different from models.”

0182 Does Ross’s method of identifying and testing correspondences work?

Yes, but classifying correspondences as icons, indexes and symbols works even better.

Here is my list of classifications for various correspondences for day four.

A sign-vehicle (SV) stands for its sign-object (SO) in regards to a sign-interpretant (SI).

This list implies that Genesis day four (SV) stands for the evolutionary epoch where the Earth’s atmosphere is transformed from carbon-rich to oxygen-rich (SO), on the basis of Peirce’s natural sign typology.

But, I wonder, can Peirce’s sign-typology be considered a sign-interpretant (SI)?

Or is the sign-interpretant (SI) the Gestalt-like and intuitive recognitions going on in the mind of someone who is both a Christian and a scientist?

0183 That is not the only issue.

Ross’s “moderate”… er… “artistic” concordism binds the content-level actualities for exalting grace_3c and for exalting nature_3c into a single actuality, designated by the dashed red box in the following figure.

0184 Surely, the intersection of the two content-level nested forms can be labeled.

Plus, that label has something to do with with the term, “inerrancy”.

The presumption is that both the Bible and the evolutionary sciences are inerrant.

The Bible is potentiated by revelation.

Science is potentiated by truth.

That is how Ross thinks about it.

So, this intersection is going to… um… shall I say… “confound” current potentialities_1a… er… “expectations”_1a.

0186 Chapter 17 is Hugh Ross at his best.  This examination adds value by framing his search for ways to articulate his mission in terms of semiotics.  Also, this examination reaches the same conclusion as Ross in regards to a rescued presence underlying the definition of the word “inerrancy”.

Here is a picture.

0187 The normal context of definition₃ brings the actuality of the word, “inerrancy”₂, into relation with the potential of a presence₁.

What is that presence?

The presence of Peirce’s natural signs, that is of icons, indexes and symbols.

0188 The Christian inquirer, such as Hugh Ross, who is also a scientist, may classify verses in Genesis 1:14-19 as icons, indexes and symbols of one particular epoch, the period between around 2 to 0.6 billions of years ago, when the atmosphere of the Earth goes from carbon-rich and oxygen-poor (hazy, translucent, at times, almost opaque) to oxygen-rich and carbon-poor (clear, transparent, and full of clouds).

Or, as Razie Mah (semiotician) puts it in the second section of Exercises in Artistic Concordism, Genesis One is a sign of the evolutionary record.

0189 This presents a question to those who exalt nature_3c by extolling the positivist intellect_3a and the power_1a of scientific research_2a.  How does one explain the causality inherent in signs, as well as other triadic relations, in terms of truncated material and efficient causalities?

The answer is, “Oh, maybe, with a large research grant we can come up with the proper mix of drugs that will take care of the issue.”

Yeah, the human will_1a is not necessarily the truth_1a.  The not-metaphysical intellect_3a is not a logos_3a.

0190 The question still stands.

What gives Ross and Mah the ability to classify the correspondences between the Genesis text for each day and features of the relevant evolutionary epoch as icons, indexes or symbols?

0190 This also presents a question to those who exalt grace_3c and say that ancient Near Eastern civilizations_3anecessitate that we qualify the potential of what can be revealed_1a by the text of Genesis 1-11_2a.  How does one explain that one particular ancient origin story (Genesis 1-2.3) signifies the evolutionary record in terms of Peirce’s natural-sign typology, when using a very specific permutation of the Positivist’s judgment and artistic concordism as the empirio-schematic?

The answer is, “Oh, it must be a coincidence.”

Indeed.

0191 The challenges of these questions are real.  With Ross’s “moderate” concordism, which this examination repackages as “artistic” concordism”, the content levels of the two exaltations are entangled with a discovery.  Genesis One is a sign of the evolutionary record.

The implications of this content-level intersection reverberate to the higher levels of each interscope, drawing their actualities into similar boxes.

For example, here is a picture of a juxtaposition of the situation levels.

How are we going to cope with the single actuality implied by the dotted box without drugs or coincidences?

Surely, whatever Hugh Ross and the team at Reasons to Believe are doing belongs within this box.

However, our current modern world holds many ideologies that function to keep this box empty.

It seems that one can have either one actuality_2b or the other_2b.

It is as if everyone accepts that one’s personal relation with God_2b and one’s specialized employment_2b are two distinct and separable real elements.

0191 In chapter 20, Ross discusses the benefits of a model approach.  But, I wonder.  Does he actually propose a model?

I mean, at the start of the chapter he offers a definition of a scientific model and proposes that theologians use models as well.  His description of the term, “model”, matches the use of the same term in the empirio-schematic judgment.  Disciplinary language (relation, thirdness) brings mathematical and mechanical models (what ought to be, secondness) into relation with observations and measurements of phenomena (what is, firstness).

0192 Here is a picture for artistic concordism for the Creation Story of Genesis and the evolutionary record.

0193 To me, this examination offers an insight into what Ross is trying to articulate, but cannot, because he has not been introduced to the disciplinary languages of triadic relations.

Over the years, Ross has developed a list of questions that are essential to ask of any viable model for creation and evolution.  These questions apply to the adoption of variations of the Positivist’s and empirio-schematic judgments in the face of the fact that the positivist intellect’s rule is not adequate.  One cannot say, “Metaphysics is not allowed”, without the very words shifting their meanings, presences and messages in order to wriggle out of captivity.

0194 Doesn’t this language game remind the inquirer of the story of the seduction of Eve by the hand-less serpent?

It’s almost as if the command, “Metaphysics is not allowed.”, echoes the command, “Do not eat of the fruit of the tree in the center of the garden, lest you die.”

Is this a game that has been played since the start of our current Lebenswelt?