[After positing that the "covenant creation" view is built upon the foundation of his characterization
of a particular epistemology which he equates with empiricism] However, what this does demonstrate is that Covenant Creationism is a house built on sand. It fails at its very foundation.
I will let Tim and Jeff answer for whether or not Jason has rightly defined their foundation. It's certainly not the way I read them, but they are the ones to answer these direct charges against them. And I have another point to make here.
NCMI has contributed to this discussion as well. Ward and I, and two of our partners, Brian and Shannon, have all contributed in various ways to our joint presentation of a covenantal framework for Genesis creation through various articles and podcasts.
And what Jason has named as the "foundation" for "Covenant Creation" is not our
foundation at all. Every article
we've written dealing either directly or indirectly with Genesis, all three podcasts in our Garden Scene
series, as well as the multiple podcasts in our Heavenly Visions of the Prophets
series which deal with this subject (since Genesis creation so closely parallels the language of OT prophecy)--all of these present and support our framework for Genesis creation by comparing Scripture with Scripture.
Our foundation for "covenant creation" is the analogy of Scripture.
Not once have we argued one way or the other--either for or against--the importance of empirical observation in the context of proving our framework for reading Genesis. Not once have we used "science" to support our exegesis. Those are separate discussions and they are not insignificant. However, the fact that we haven't even gone there in the course of many hours discussing our view of Genesis refutes the notion that either "empiricism" or "science" are foundational to our framework. We have indeed presented our foundation, the rock
upon which our house is built, and it is the testimony
of Scripture itself.