Six Views on the Creation/Evolution Debate

#Jake,

I think you must have skimmed my comment, because I addressed that idea.

Because Gen. 2 talks about the 4 rivers, including “And the name of the third river is the Tigris, which flows east of Assyria. And the fourth river is the Euphrates.” So the land couldn’t have changed significantly during the flood, or those rivers would have been buried under massive layers of rock! They wouldn’t be the same rivers. (At best, our current rivers would be named after the originals–but this passage is using them as reference points! They have to be the same rivers.)[bold added]

I don’t think that explanation is at all compatible with what Genesis actually says. If Genesis just said, “The four rivers were named the Euphrates, the Tigris, etc.”, then it might work, though it would be a stretch. But Genesis is using these rivers as reference points, and talking about where those rivers flow.

When people do that, I think they’re committing the same error that OECs fall into: Accepting interpretations that don’t really fit with the exegesis, in order to save their theory.

* God seems to more than imply 6 days* should read ..It is more than just implied but that God was stating creation was 6 literal 24 hr days. It seems to be a set in stone declaration (no pun intended)

[…] the Creation/Evolution debate is a swamp of options and details without clear channels, a post from Parchment and Pen gives the six basic options in the controversy and what is at stake.  This post might really be […]

Cadis,

I think Gen 1-2 is pretty heavily on the “6 regular solar days” side. But I really don’t understand why people think that Exodus 20:11 adds weight to that. We know that “yom” can mean both “regular day” and “long period of time”, in general. It would make just as much sense in my mind, if it was:

“Six solar-days you shall labor, and do all your work, but the seventh solar-day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God. … For in six day-ages the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day-age.”

In other words, suppose Gen 1-2 had something like this: “The Lord God created the heavens and the earth in seven days. And the first day of creation was many years, as the Lord created the lights of the heavens. And the second day …”

Are you saying that God would have to reword Exodus 20:11, if Genesis 1 read this way?

Yes, #John is the former John C.T.
Sorry for the lack of clarity.

Hmm, it appears that Exodus 20:11 contradicts Genesis 2:4, because Genesis 2:4 unequivocally states, in the clearest literal language, that the entire creation activity took only one day. God said it took only one day, so that would appear to settle the matter.

Regards,
#John

I tend to agree with Cadis that the Exodus 21:11 passage adds weight to Genesis one likely meaning solar days also. Since the Exodus passage equates the six days of work and then the seventh day of rest for mankind with the six days of work and then the seventh day of rest that God did, it seems to me that it is logical to assume that they were all solar days. Reading one as long periods of time and the other as literal twenty four hour days does not seem like a natural reading of this verse at all.

Sorry, I meant Exodus 20:11.

Maybe Jugulum, but he makes the Sabbath holy I think that gives some extra weight to a 24 hr. or the day the Lord rested after his work. The direct correlation between our week and days here in Exo 20:11 to that of creation I think more than implies that we are comparing apples and apples. But I do understand what you are saying.

Jugulum,

I agree, the author of Genesis is using them as reference points; but who is the author of that section of Genesis? If Moses was not the original author of that section, but something more like an editor, then this section could contain the words of the original author, who was referring to reference points that were present in *his* day, not in *Moses’* day.

I don’t know if this is persuasive or not but I have heard this “multiple authors” view expressed before; I don’t know how widely it is held.

I don’t know that the alternative options are especially persuasive either, though:

Option 1: Mesopotamia’s geology didn’t change at all during the flood but everywhere else did.

Option 2: Moses made up the bit about the flood, apparently unaware of the implications of having a geological feature like a river survive the flood intact.

Option 3: The flood was a local flood, so the geology was actually unchanged by the flood — BUT Moses nevertheless got the geography wrong in Gen 2

Option 4: Genesis is poetry

# John,

Thanks for the clarification.

Regarding your comment #55, I don’t think there is a contradiction here. Genesis 1 says in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth and the earth was without form and dark. Then it goes on talking about creating light and naming day and night. And then it says it was the first day. As I understand this verse and the ones following, the heavens and earth were created in one day–the rest of the days were spent in creating what was in the heavens, on the earth and the seas. Notice that in the Exodus verse it talks about the heavens, earth, the sea and all that is in them being made in six days.

The Genesis two verse, is seems to me is just speaking about that first day of creation while the Exodus one is speaking about all six.

A correction:

As I reread Genesis chapter two, I don’t think the argument I made in my last comment regarding “the day” of creation makes any sence. It does seem to be speaking of all of creation, not just the first day. So, it seems there is a contradiction here or a different use of the word day.

Actually, there is most likely a contradiction because the phrase “this is the account of” (Hebrew “toledoth”, which translated everywhere else as “generations of”, but basically means origins or histories) is a set Hebrew phrase. That means that author has provideds going to provide an account of the entire period, which then means that the remainder of the verse is also referring to that period. This literary construction is known as a colophon. The colophons in the Book of Genesis all have a similar form such as “This the book of the generations of Adam” (chp. 5), or “These are the generations of Noah”. After the Hebrew word “toledoth” / “generations” / “account”, there is the name of the person who is signing off this section of the history, and in some cases a list of his descendants then follows. It is important to note that the “generations of” phrase is a conclusion, not an introductory phrase. Hence, verse 4 is looking back at the entire creation period and then uses a time descriptor for that period, calling it a “day”.

Faced with this apparent contradiction, one must then resolve it and the resolution is not immediately apparent if we only look at the verses from 1:1 to 2:4 (v. 2:5 starts a new section). Once we go beyond that section we then are taking into account all the relevant parts of God’s written revelation. This revelation does include Exodus 20:11, but it also includes all the other material as well. When looking at all that material, it is at least just as reasonable to arrive at an interpretation of the days in Genesis as not being 24 hour periods as it is to arrive at the conclusion that they are 24 hour periods.

Indeed, Origen (c. 185-254) was quite cogniscent of the probelm of 24 hour days and did not hold to it. In Contra Celsum (VI: 50-51, 60), he countered Celsus’ complaint that Genesis has some days before the creation of the sun, moon, and stars. Origen replied, “In what we said earlier [in his lost commentary on Genesis] we criticized those who follow the superficial interpretation and say that the creation of the world happened during a period of time six days long . . .” Origen also wrote, “What person of any intelligence would think that there existed a first, second, and third day, and evening and morning, without sun, moon, and stars?” (De Principiis IV, 3, 1).

References to the creation events, such as Exodus 20:11, can be seen as using a summary statement to refer to the entire story (and the proper interpretation of that story), or as an analogical statement. That is, if the Genesis creation story is either a literary framework, or an anological description (God describes his work by way of analogy to Hebrew work days), then the six days of the Hebrew week are established by analogy. That is, the analogical relationship is not one of 24 hour days to 24 hour days, but seven periods to seven periods (where the length of each period is not relevant).

Regards,
#John (formerly John C.T.)

Cheryl,

Right, a different use of “day”. The Hebrew word there, “yom”, is sometimes used for “normal day”, and sometimes for “period of time,” as in “Back in my grandfather’s day…”

And in Gen 1 & 2, we have it switching from one meaning to the other, pretty easily.

That’s partly why I think Ex. 20:11 doesn’t help decide the issue.

I really don’t get the controversy. Why would I take the word of a 2000 year old book written by people who really didn’t even understand the concept of science over the word of scientists?

I find the notion that the Bible is an authoritative source for science, and to a large extent, history to be difficult to understand.

I was reading a recent issue of National Geographic last night where letters to the editor were challenging an article on Herod which stated there is no evidence that he massacred first born children. NatGeo didn’t back down. Because at a certain point absence of evidence is indeed evidence of absence. Or else we’d be finding UFOs, according to some books.

Coincidentally I also gave up on wading through the ginormous amount of detail about Herod written by Josephus, his biographer, and of course there’s no mention of a massacre there.

I don’t deny the Bible is true but all of this hair-splitting is unnecessary when we use our God-given reason rather than a book, that may have been inspired by God and suitable for instruction, but was written by men.

Jugulum,

I still think it is very awkward to read the Exodus twenty verse switching back and forth between the two meanings. It is not only spoken of that way in Ex. 20:11, by the way. The same thing is said regarding the sabbath in at least one other place. Don’t have the reference handy right now.

Another reason I think Genesis one is probably speaking of 24 hour days is the repeated usage of “and the morning and the evening were…”. Do prolonged periods of time designated as a day have an evening and a morning? Unless I am missing something here, it seems to me that to use those terms if they were not referring to literal days would be an almost certain way to lead to a lot of confusion.

I have something sorta like 4 with an allowance of a modified 5 though I guess it can work with a 3. I guess it’s either a 4.5 or a 7?

Specific Creative Days, without a reference to how long they are, they are specific Creative Days where God gives a divine creative fiat. These specific Creative Days are separated by Other Normal Days (not knowing how long they are). So each Creative Day (where God speaks) is sequential (there’s only 6) and called DAY and the time frame between can be whatever length.

CMP,

I’ll let the comparison issue go, even though I think its a good one.

You drew a distinction between the reliability of things observed now versus those things that occurred in the past. I really don’t think you can dismiss that evidence so easily, or even call it into question. You may want to look into it more before you do so. There may be a lot more to the scientific method and how it can be used to tell us information than you are giving it credit for.

Jake, Re: #59
Option 3 is the best, although there is no need for Moses to be in error over the earth’s geography. We need to stop thinking things like this, stop being arrogant over our particular level of knowledge versus that of the ancients. To them the world was a lot smaller than it is for us. It encompassed their general region and that place alone because that is all that they knew of.

The flood was a local flood. The writer of Genesis spoke from his perspective, his knowledge of the world, and we have no instance where God attempted to correct this. This is all scriptural.

To help understand the flood we need to understand the ancient’s world. The world to them was a flat disk surrounded by waters all around, with mountains surrounding the outer edges of the disk, making a shape like a bowl, which supported the foundations of heaven. These foundations held up the firmament, spoken of in Genesis 1:6-8, which is where the sun, moon, and stars where placed, and which held back and separated the waters above from the waters below (Genesis 1:7). All this together created a space for the people of the earth to live in. Picture a snow globe, except with all the water on the outside instead of the inside.

If you will remember in Genesis 1:2 the earth started out covered in water. There was no separation of these waters because there didn’t exist yet a firmament to do that. God’s creative activity involved Him forming a in this primordial cosmic ocean a place for humans to live and thrive. This is the whole focus of the creation account! This is all that is good about it! God set up his cosmic temple and made a place for the bearers of His image to inhabit.

Fast forward to the flood and you see God opening up the floodgates of heaven to allow the water that was located above the earth (Genesis 1:7, not rain!) to fall down and return the earth to its original state prior to God’s creative activity.

We must remember all of this when we interpret the flood and the creation account. The moment we allow unrelated modern scientific knowledge to directly influence us, we do violence to scripture and move from exegesis to eisegesis. Don’t even think about the age of the earth when you interpret Genesis, or what a day means, or where evolution and dinosaurs and starlight and global floods and continents and fossils all fit in.

That’s all our stuff. Its none of their stuff. All this meant nothing to them, and the best thing we could ever do in this whole debate is remember that.

#john,

Quoting from your comment above, “Origen also wrote, “What person of any intelligence would think that there existed a first, second, and third day, and evening and morning, without sun, moon, and stars?” (De Principiis IV, 3, 1).

That seems more than a little misleading on Origen’s part. After all, it was said than in the first day God created light, separated light from darkness and called the light day and the darkness night. (How they existed with out the sun, etc. I do not know). However, since there was a day and a night on the first day, why would it be impossible to say that there was an evening and a morning?

As the resident EO on the list, I would recommend the reading of St Basil the Great’s Hexaemeron (Greek for the 6 days of creation). It is a series of sermons on creation given in the 4th century. Here is a link:
http://www.fisheaters.com/hexaemeron.html

Michael, where are you placing the Framework view in these categories? I assume within number 4?

Francis Schaeffer used to say that there will be no final conflict between Scripture and science when all the data is in and God’s special revelation and general revelation are accurately interpreted.

William Lane Craig has an audio on his site that covers some 11 I think it was interpretations of Genesis 1. Pretty interesting.

I don’t know if it was thousands or billions of years, and the only One I know who really knows isn’t talking about it. 🙂

#John, in post#48 you state:
“Finally, Genesis 2:4 states, unequivocally that it only took God a day to do the entire creation sequence”
Then you go on in subsequent posts to say that there is a contradiction in scripture.

NET translation:
Gen. 2:4: This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created–when the Lord God made the earth and the heavens.

You can access this translation (for which Daniel B. Wallace was the New Testament senior editor) at Bible.org , if you would like to check for your yourself. There are also extensive translator’s notes which are printed in the Bible and might also be available at that site as well.

Cadis and cheryl….good points!

@ Greg, Re: #68, I am all for taking the author’s worldview and intent into account when we try to understand what a particular book is communicating. Thus, I have no problem, for example, with considering Matthew’s account of the Resurrection to be a stylized gloss that is not primarily concerned with a chronological, play-by-play account of the exact details of that event. However, I am very uncomfortable with a position that requires that we should consider a writing Inspired that an author intended to communicate something that he believed to be factual but that in reality was false. I don’t see how God can inspire a false history or how that makes the book in question any different than the historical accounts of other contemporaneous peoples. I don’t think that’s a particularly arrogant position. The author interrupts his narrative to specifically call attention to the fact that there are four rivers, two of which are the Tigris and the Euphrates, that shared a common source — but this is simply not the case, and it will not do to say “well, it was true for him”. I think that does much more violence to Scripture, personally.

And that notwithstanding, the age of the universe problems go beyond reconciling scientific observation with Scripture; as I discussed in comment 14, there are worldview implications that must be considered.

What about the belief that Adam and Eve were monkey’s until they ate the forbidden fruit and as punishment God made them human. Hoo hoo ha haaaaa!

Susan, you are correct to notice that the NET Bible does not use “day”. However, the word “yom” (Strong’s number 3117) occurs in the Hebrew text of Genesis 2:4. That is why some translations (ESV, NASB, RSV) use the word “day” in their translations. The fact that yom is not always to be translated as “day” and so implying a 24 hour or solar day, is evidenced / proved by the fact that the NET translation uses “when” instead of “day” to indicate the period of time when God did the creating (i.e., the entire creation period).

In regard to Cherylu’s point, as noted by me above, by Origen, and others over the last few thousand years: if there is no sun, there is no solar day and thus no way of telling how long (in hours or solar time) the day lasted or how long the night lasted. My point in quoting Origin was not that I believe him to be correct, but to note that 1800 years ago Biblical commentators and teachers were aware of the problem and believed that it was within the range of acceptable Christian belief to answer that some of the days were not solar days or 24 hour days.

In addition to the problems with CMP’s description of the various views, I would add that his description makes it appear as if all are valid and available interpretations. That is like saying that the swoon theory, the body theft theory, and the hallucination theory are all just as factually and historically possible as the resurrection theory of Jesus disappearance from the tomb. But a number of recent books (mainly by evangelical authors) have made it clear that some of those explanations are completely untenable as historical theories. So also with theories of the age of the earth and the interpretation of Genesis. Yes, it is true that those theories (and others not described) have been put forward as potential explanations. It is not true, however, that all are equally tenable or acceptable explanations or that one can merely lean into any one of them. There is not, for example, even one smidgeon of supporting evidence for the relative time theory and it is a completely discredited speculation. There is also not any scientific evidence at all for a young earth, and so it’s potential support lies exclusively in the fact that “yom” is most frequently used in extent (ancient) written Hebrew to refer to a 24 hour period. It is, nevertheless, an acceptable and orthodox approach to hold that if the Bible demands it (e.g., successive 24 hour days) then one must stick to it until scientific understanding changes.

But one must ask, “why?” when that translation (successive 24 hour days) is not demanded by the Biblical text. “Why?” when alternate explanations have been acceptable to Christian teachers for over 1800 years. If (1) these other, non-24 hour day, interpretations are orthodox interpretations, and legitimate interpretations using valid hermeneutic methods, and allow one to hold to an inerrant Bible, and (2) our understanding of God’s creation keeps confirming [continued]

. . . and (2) our understanding of God’s creation keeps confirming ever more strongly a multi-billion year old universe and earth, then why not hold to one of the orthodox interpretations that is consistent with God’s natural revelation? To continue to hold to a YEC 24 hour interpretation in the face of God’s natural revelation and in face of equally orthodox interpretations is to create an unnecessary and very damaging stumbling block both to Christians and to non-believers.

Regards
#John

You can’t read the story of the wedding at Cana and make sweeping conclusions about Jesus’s view of the use / condoning of large quantities of alcohol at weddings. That wasn’t the point of the story. That’s not the question being answered.

Are you really so sure that the questions being answered in Genesis 1 have anything to do with the age of the universe and the duration of the creation period?

I consider myself very conservative theologically, but I have to put myself nearer to #5 with a literal ANE Adam and Eve.

This hebrew lesson from a friend eased my conscience about Eden, local floods, and other tensions (in fairness, he could be wrong and I wouldn’t know it):
In Hebrew
“Earth” is the same word as “Land”
“Man” is sometimes “ish” and sometimes “Adam.” Our English bibles treat them as synonyms. The Hebrew might not have meant to.
“Mountain” is the same word as “Hill” or “Hill Country”
“All” is often limited in scope
“Mist” or “Fountains of the deep” might be used in related languages to refer to “tidal-based irrigation systems”

EricW writes:

So I’m asking: Can one really find support from Einstein for position 3 being a real-world possibility? I.e., would Einstein say that scenario 3 is a real possibility for a creation model, given the world and life as we know it?

Relativity makes my head hurt, but after some digging, I think it can theoretically fit into the physics of relativity. I was surprised by that.

The non-constant nature of time only works on differing frames of reference. One observer based on Earth may see a story taking billions of years according to his clock, while another observer in a different frame of reference may see the same story taking six days according to his clock. Both clocks are true to their frame of reference. If the second observer were near an utterly massive body or moving away from the Earth at very near light speed, that scale of difference would be possible according the time dilation equations. (Specifically regarding your big Earth objection, it’s the second observer that would have to be near the utterly massive body, not the observer on Earth.)

So the third position would hold that the opening of Genesis was written from a frame of reference not on the Earth where this creation account really did take six days. It should be possible to calculate potential frames of reference that would match the gravitational/inertial difference required, but that’s beyond my grip on relativity to do intelligently. I believe the contention is that the second frame of reference would be placed near the big bang where there’s a lot of mass in one place, and expansion away from it. From the start of creation, as it were.

jugulum Careful saying that what happened thousands or billions of years ago is neither observable nor testable.

Things that happened in the past are not directly observable. Neither is the interior of the earth–but we can use indirect means to make measurements of things we can’t observe directly. (Of course, the more indirect we get, the easier it is to make mistakes of interpretation.) And then there’s astronomy–when we’re looking at distant light, we are looking into the past, pretty directly. (Of course, with astronomy, we can’t set up arbitrary experiments. Our observations are limited to what the sky gives us.)

I think Patton is correct here. You are stating that 2 different things are indirect, but they are indirect in fundamentally different ways. The interior of the earth is theoretically testable, repeatably testable, we just lack the technology currently. But historical claims are not testable in this way. They happened and we try to recreate the event. Even recent events can be like this, for example forensics. We look at things in the present and infer the story of the underlying event.

Thus eyewitness testimony is relevant for the historical type. We could infer the number of sunspots in 1537 based on current patterns, but finding a reliable note from someone who counted them at the time would be more useful. Likewise someone who witnessed a crime is valid evidence.

Whereas interior of the earth questions are not testimonial like this. And if they were we can check by repeating the experiment.

It isn’t that something is infered, it is rather that something happened once in the past, it doesn’t happen repeatedly.

You are partially right about starlight, but not fully. That is because we are looking at information carried on the starlight. But this tells us something happened, it does not tell us when something happened, that is inferred by assumptions. Those assumptions may seem reasonable, though as with everything in physics, all assumptions must be questioned. Relativity would be a good example of where our assumptions have been incorrect.

You are however correct to state that appearance of age in starlight is different from a created tree or person. Supernovas happened, they are not false information buried in the light by God.

The mention of “day” in genesis 2:4 is of little consequence, and I suspect that john knows this and is throwing it in for controversy. The Hebrew word for “day” is known to have a range of meanings, similar in some ways to the English word “day.” Creationists do not claim that genesis 2:4 means a literal day, they know it doesn’t as well as anyone else.

The reason for the insistence on day meaning ~24 hour period, ie. a single rotation in Genesis 1 is entirely context. The word is identified with a number and with the term “evening and morning,” both of which would imply a 24 hour day by themselves, even more so when used together. There are even other meanings in Genesis 1. Verse 5 has the word “day” clearing meaning “daytime.”

The fact is that the YEC view is fully consistent with the text.

Now one may argue that due to other hermeneutical considerations (either textual or extrabiblical philosophy), that Genesis 1 means other than a literal 6 days. What one cannot do however is claim that Genesis 1 does not or cannot textually mean 6 days.

To continue to hold to a YEC 24 hour interpretation in the face of God’s natural revelation and in face of equally orthodox interpretations is to create an unnecessary and very damaging stumbling block both to Christians and to non-believers.

So if I am convinced that natural revelation points to a young earth (which I am), then I am free to also hold to a YEC reading of Scripture?

While I strongly think that Genesis 1 means that only a YEC interpretation is viable, that is my view now. What convinced me however was just as much (and possibly more so) is the science.

bethyada, what you stated in post 82 is what I agreed with earlier. Belief in seven 24 hour days is consistent with the text, but not demanded by the text in Genesis 1. I’m not throwing Genesis 2:4 in merely for controversy, and I do think it is relevant–which is a position consistent with many who have written on this topic.

However, the fact remains that there is zero science supporting a young earth. There are (unsupported) speculations by YEC’s, but a speculation is not a proof or a factual support. There are critiques by YEC’s of various dating methods, but none of those critiques are sufficient to overturn the methods as a whole and either have sufficient responses or would merely shave a few hundred million years off the estimated age.

The lid on the coffin, and the nails in the coffin, and the burying of the coffin in the ground, is light. There is no scientific answer to that brute fact. The only response of a YEC is to indicate that light was created in transit with false information by God to give an appearance of age. Not only is there no scientific support for such a speculation (obviously), but there is no biblical support for it either. In fact, there is biblical support against such a view: the Bible states that God cannot lie.

Furthemore, and I think this has great significance, God associates light very closely with himself. I’m not saying that light is part of God in a panentheistic sense, but that it is not likely that God would associate himself so closely with light and then embed false information in it.

For any teacher of the Bible to even indicate that YEC is still a valid interpretation open to Christians is, to say the least, not warranted.

The very fact that senior, well respected, evangelical scholars who believe in an inerrant Bible can disagree on the interpretation of Genesis, and can continue that disagreement for hundreds of years, indicates that not one of the interpretations is a slam dunk and incontrovertible.

Moreover, seven 24 hour creation days is not linked only to YEC, one can believe in 7/24 and still believe in an old earth.

YEC is not an option open to Christians, but it is also not relevant to salvation or to fellowship.

Please note that I am not name calling, or indicating that YEC’s are not Christian, etc. I am simply stating that they are incontrovertibly wrong, and that they should therefore drop that belief. Many Christians come to belief in YEC because they were taught it as children, or taught it by a trusted Christian, or did not know other options were available. Once they become aware of the other options, and the nature, meaning and significance of light, they then have the responsibility to choose one of the options that are open to Christians.

Regards,
#John

Christians are in the position of having two sources of information about origins: The Bible, claiming to be a divine revelation, and science, claiming to read evidence in the natural world. These two sources attempt to explain two different sets of data. Genesis addresses the knowledge and beliefs of a particular ancient people about the world they were living in. Science takes into account our much deeper and wider knowledge about the world. I wouldn’t expect the same explanations to satisfy both parties. For instance, the very first verse of Genesis, consistent with the local view, talks of ‘the heavens and the earth’ as if they are two different realms, while we understand the heavens to include the earth. If we were still receiving divine revelations today, those revelations would have to take our views into account. God does not use science that is beyond what we already know.

Trying to reconcile the two sources produces mental contortions like the ones outlined in Michael’s six views, none of which are very satisfactory in my view. Nor is it even essential to harmonize the two. On earth Jesus believed the Genesis account of origins as did the people of His time. He did not have to teach them anything new along that line. He was teaching the way of life to a world where the need for new life was evident all around. How the world got into that mess was not important to that message.

And now what do we do with these two witnesses if we cannot easily make them consistent with each other? I believe we understand each in its own context. God used ancient beliefs, whether true or false, and likewise God can use modern beliefs. God works with us not to instruct us on the origin and history of nature but on right living with each other and with all nature.

CMP,

Regarding the poll. You have 1 YEC position, 5 OE positions, 1 none of the above, and 1 not decided yet.

This breaks down to 38% YEC, 45% OE, 10% not decided, and 7% none of the above.

I know that I am an undecided, but am definitely in the OE camp, just not sure where I fit. Those who are none of the above probably do not hold to a YEC position.

Whichever way you look at it, YEC is definitely a minority position among your readers, even if it is the most popular.

P.S. It would be interested to do a followup poll that would break down Evangelicals versus non-Evangelicals on the issue.

bethyada,

Can you tell us more of what it was in the science that convinced you to believe a young earth position? I guess I am specifically wondering if you know how or if what has been said about the information received in light is interpreted differently by scientists reaching this conclusion.

Whew!! The volume of responses to this article certainly attests to the intense interest in it. I didn’t have time to read all of them, so perhaps what I am going to say has already been said …

A critical point that is very often completely missed in this debate is that THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION IS AN ATTEMPT TO EXPLAIN HOW THE WORLD CAME INTO BEING APART FROM A CREATOR (i.e. God). In fact, it is not difficult to see that this is the theory’s raison d’etre (reason for existence). The theory, in other words, blatantly advocates atheism. Consequently, ANY theory that in any way condones evolution – and aside from YEC, ALL of the theories you present definitely do this – lends support, either directly or indirectly, to this blasphemous idea.

Proof for the above contention can be found in any textbook that promotes the theory of evolution – which includes, of course, virtually every science textbook found in our nation’s public schools.
NONE of these books seriously acknowledges the possibility that God was involved in the evolution of the world, much less of living creatures. Furthermore, virtually none of them mention a single word about the Genesis Flood, as either a worldwide or local event.

None of the comments I read here indicate that the authors recognize this fundamental truth about the theory of evolution. From a Christian perspective, however, this truth should be the STARTING POINT in any debate about this matter! Failure to recognize it plays right into the hands of the Father of Lies.

John,

You wrote: “However, the fact remains that there is zero science supporting a young earth. There are (unsupported) speculations by YEC’s, but a speculation is not a proof or a factual support. There are critiques by YEC’s of various dating methods, but none of those critiques are sufficient to overturn the methods as a whole and either have sufficient responses or would merely shave a few hundred million years off the estimated age.

The lid on the coffin, and the nails in the coffin, and the burying of the coffin in the ground, is light. There is no scientific answer to that brute fact. The only response of a YEC is to indicate that light was created in transit with false information by God to give an appearance of age. Not only is there no scientific support for such a speculation (obviously), but there is no biblical support for it either. In fact, there is biblical support against such a view: the Bible states that God cannot lie. ”

Have you read (for example) the RATE (Radio Isotopes and the Age of the Earth) project technical reports?

Are you familiar with Mary Schweitzer’s findings of soft tissues, branching vessels, cell like structures, etc in T-Rex bones?

Or are you just trusting to the judgment of others?

Since you mentioned “proof”, what proof of a 4.5 billion year old earth can you present?

Since you seem to believe in the current consensus views, can you even explain how a single star was formed?

Hmm, rereading my post 84 and it lacks flow.

I believe that it is not responsible for Christians to believe in or to teach YEC because the Bible does not explicitly and conclusively address the age of the earth. The Bible does not demand that one believe in either an old earth or a young earth, nor does it exclude either belief. In addition, hundreds and hundreds of years of interpretation have left this question open. Well respected church fathers, and theologians, and teachers, and scholars, including believers in an inerrant Bible, have found it possible to believe in either a young or old earth when interpreting the Bible alone (i.e., without reference to natural revelation). No one interpretation can claim to be so persuasive that it is the only reasonable one to hold.

God’s natural revelation informs us that the world and the universe is billions of years old (just as His natural revelation informs us on how fire works, how gravity works, how nuclear explosions work, etc.). The more we learn about light and about natural processes, the more it is confirmed that the universe and the earth are billions of years old. There is no scientific issue that raises any questions about that. This is unlike, for example, the time when Newtonian physics was being questioned and then relativity and quantum physics were developed. There was at the end of the 19th century phenomena (e.g., black bodies) and questions, etc., that required answering. Answering these questions led to Einsteinian and then Quantum physics. It is important to note, though, that the earlier physics (e.g., Newtonian) were not thrown out and are still valid; they just don’t explain all phenomena.

That is extremely unlike the science of rock formation, radioactive decay, and light. In those sciences, the more we learn the more our conclusions regarding dating are confirmed and there are no unexplained phenomena or questions that have the potential to overturn what we have learned and concluded.

If the Bible clearly had God revealing, “The earth is 10,000 years old”, then we would have to accept that and wait for science to catch up. But that is not the case.

Christians should therefore be explicit about the fact that the Bible does not demand or exclude a particular age for the earth, and be explicit about the fact that they can accept whatever science finds for the age of the Earth. Christians should also be explicit about being able to accept, and in fact accepting, the results of investigation of God’s natural revelation. That is, accept the fact that the world is old and tell new and nonChristians that that is consistent with the Bible. It is unwise and irresponsible to do otherwise.

Regards,
#John

Latte Links (5/28)…

1.  “On Victimization as Racism” by Collin Brendemuehl
It comes in multiple forms. It comes on all sorts of colors (pun not intended). And sometimes it hides against the wallpaper and is difficult to discern. But it is there and it haunts hum……

‘God’s day is like a thousand years’

The reason scripture brings in this literal but inexact statement is directly related to the genesis account.

‘On that day you will die’

Adam lived a little longer than 24hrs if I remember rightly.

@ #John, the difficulty with that is that one is forced to either select Michael’s Option 6 above (theistic evolution), or else one is simply cherry-picking those parts of “the results of investigation of God’s natural revelation” that one happens to like. I do agree with you, however, that it’s not the age that’s important, it’s the sequencing — what caused what? As I pointed out in comment 14, the question is whether death and suffering predate or postdate the fall of Man. Option 6 actually requires going further even than saying that death is hard-wired into creation: it directly implies that God uses death as a crucial tool in His creative process. There is perhaps a Scriptural case to be made for such a view but in my limited experience, advocates of this position tend to spill relatively too much ink belittling those benighted YEC bumpkins and relatively too little ink engaging some of the philosophical implications that their view entails.

#John,

If you have told us which of CMP’s options you believe to be correct, if any, I don’t remember–and I simply don’t have the time to go back through this whole thread to find out! Would you please enlighten, or re-enlighten me?

Adam and Eve are historically factual.

Use the grammatical-historical method of hermeneutics.

In the beginning God…

Rayner,

Christians are in the position of having two sources of information about origins: The Bible, claiming to be a divine revelation, and science, claiming to read evidence in the natural world.

I wouldn’t put the parallel between the Bible and science. Science is based on the interpretation & exploration of physical data. The data is the parallel. Science is the parallel of exegesis.

So, exegesis is to the Bible as science is to the physical world.

Um, I’m not really committed. I grew up being taught the 7/24 view, but not dogmatically, but which I mean it was the only view taught but it wasn’t a big issue that it is in some areas. I read stuff coming out of Moody. In college I went to a debate where some guy named Duane Gish (I think) presented the creationist side and thoroughly embarrassed himself. In Bible college I learned about different potential views on Genesis c. 1, but I wasn’t convinced enough to come to a firm decision. I’d read one article and be convinced one way, and then read the next and be convinced the other way. And, in the circles I hung with it never really came up as a discussion point, so I never had to explain or defend any of the views.

It wasn’t really until I started learning about intelligent design and the apparently insurmountable problems within Darwininian evolution that I started thinking more seriously also about the age of the earth. It didn’t take long to figure out that the science of age was nowhere near the state of indecision, argumentation, and flux that the science of evolution is in. I realized that for all the relevant purposes, the science of age was settled and not going to change in any way that would affect the age of the earth (once you get past a few thousand years, one can’t really call onesself a YEC).

I have always enjoyed languages, and made them up as a kid and learnt them at university, including Greek and Hebrew, and I got a four year degree in linguistics. So issues of intepretation have also always intrigued me.

In my reading, I realized that the seven day belief could be held apart from the age belief. So that puts me squarely in the camp of . . . . any view but a young earth. What’s the old expression? Is one pre-Trib, post-Trib, mid-Trib, or . . . pan-Trib? I’m pan-Trib—-I think it will all pan out in the end. Same with creation. It will all pan out.

In the mean time, I’m impressed by, but not convinced to the point of espousing it, Ross Hughes old earth creation viewpoint (sort of a day age thing, I think). But I’m more convinced by either an analogical view or literary framework view of Genesis 1:1 to 2:4. But not convinced to the point of certainty or dismissing other views. I certainly see a lot of merit in the 24 hour day view (for at least days 4, 5, and 6). I’m not convinced that the days are immediately subsequent to each other. i could even go for the gap theory, though I wouldn’t base it on the interpretation of the words in the first verse (I’m not convinced that interpretation of the Hebrew is correct), but I could see the gap(s) coming anywhere from the start to the end of the passage (1:1 to 2:4).

[cont.]

Jugulum: “So, exegesis is to the Bible as science is to the physical world.

Use the grammatical-historical hermeneutic for sound exegesis.

Be appropriately cautious of higher-criticism methodology when exegeting.

Adam and Eve are factual persons.