Does this capture some of what you want to say?
BioLogos Irony (YEC/OEC) - #69 by r_speir and the next few posts?
It seems to me that this is a completely ad hoc argument where you are trying to fit a particular interpretation of Scripture into modern Cosmology. Like, ‘it’s technically possible you guys.’ Maybe it is, I don’t know. I haven’t looked too deeply into your ideas, but one explanation for one aspect of one subject does nothing for science and isn’t the type of thinking that leads to much progress.
And it’s not that a young universe presents problems for a BioLogos point of view. It presents problems for the fields of…
- astrophysics (despite what you claim)
- cosmology
- nuclear physics
- electromagnetism
- fluid mechanics
- heat transfer
- materials science
- botany
- evolution
- genetics
- geology
- plate tectonics
- stratigraphy
- paleontology
- meteorology
- archaeology
- etc.
When all of these fields and methods of knowing/observation work just fine without some (again ad hoc) explanation that’s technically maybe possible but does nothing useful for anyone or makes no unique predictions (i.e. like Jason Lisle’s technically possible ASC model). What should we do? At best it would have to be a pseudo-scientific claim that cannot be tested/falsified and does nothing for the existing body of scientific knowledge.
But I will say, I do applaud your efforts to integrate your interpretation of Genesis 1 with modern science; it’s definitely more elegant than many other attempts especially in that it requires the ability to comprehend some of the most complex mathematics in the world.