I agree. I just wonder about attempts like this to harmonize science with Biblical faith. One of the Bio Logos site's articles on the flood clearly subscribes to the "local flood" theory, but I do not feel the language of the Scriptural text can justify a local-only flood when we are told that all men had corrupted themselves, and God was sorry he made man (every human being). The flood was a judgement on all flesh. All the earth's civilization consequently would have had to come from Noah's 3 sons. Egypt is called the "land of Ham" (one of Noah's sons) in the Bible, and also we get Semite from the name "Shem" (shemite) another son of Noah, and Jepheth is thought to have fathered the Greeks, and I might venture a guess also of the Indo-European races as well as China. But a local flood theory doesn't seem to encompass judgement on all men. Only if we postulate that men had not spread across the earth much prior to the flood could that work. I don't know, I'm open to interpretation on that one. But the issue between science and faith on this one is that it is inconcievable to science that a global flood is even possible.
However my initial curiosity/concern with this topic was that recently I was put on the spot by one of my Sociology professors after I told him that I rejected evolution as a useful paradigm for understanding man's history. He was shocked & I was persistent. We did have a civil discourse but we disagreed on some points. He brought up the topic of the skeleton "Lucy" and asked me what value I thought it had for understanding man. I conceded a point of its contribution to understanding ancient dietary habits (although I flaked when he mentioned "posture" as well). I complained about the holes and long time gaps in the geological and fossil records, although he avowed and insited it had no such holes. Then I somehow managed to get him to pull the discussion up closer to more "modern" times by discussing the flood, and I mentioned how almost every major ancient civilization has a flood story that was a major global memory. He actually seemed to take the stance that it was perhaps a local flood (though "over the mountain peaks" was obviously not in his idea of such a flood) and that every culture then spread out afterward and told their story. To a degree that is consistant with the Noah story, but I'm still nto sure about that.
Anyway, it was that conversation which kinda put me on edge about discussing scientific origins of the world and how much as a Christian I should concede to the view of an ancient earth and species (including the effects of evolution). I tried to be agreeable where possible but I wouldn't waver on creation or the flood.
Any comments on that? I'm not wholly opposed to having my views on some of these things changed a bit. It just has to square with Scripture, that's all.
God Bless,
~Josh
