When the Bible and Science Agree (And When They Don't)

 Lately there has been some teaching and discussion in my church regarding the "agreement between the Bible and science", focused on a few of the places where the Bible seems to be teaching a scientific truth long before this truth was discovered by science. This is certianly interesting, and perhaps helpful to some who struggle with the reliability of the Bible. But what about when science and the Bible don't agree? I would suggest there are at least two reasons why biblical and scientific data might disagree:

1. Our understanding of the scientific data is incorrect.
2. Our understanding of the Biblical data is incorrect.
3. Both 1 and 2.

What bothers me is that option 1 is generally the only acceptable option, at least in the conversations I've had with the pastors and teachers at my church. There seems to be a basic denial of the the fact that the words of the Bible (biblical data) must be interpreted to be understood.

 When I asked my pastor who gave a sermon on this topic what we should do about the cases where science clearly teaches something contrary to "what the Bible teaches", he answered this way:

 "I believe that where they disagree the Bible has it right. It may take science a while to catch up and has from time to time but I go with the Bible." 

 With all due respect, this seems completely crazy to me. The implication that we can't possibly be wrong about our interpretation of the Bible seems arrogant to me. Now, call me a heretic if you wish, but given the obscure nature of the biblical texts, and given equal time and effort studying the data, might we be MORE likely to be correct in our conclusions about scientific data, than about biblical data?

 Is there some mystical force guiding our interpretation of the Bible, and not of science? Some may reply: "Yes! The Holy Spirit!" But if the Holy Spirit is a significant force in guiding Christians in their interpretation of the Bible, then God is intentionally sowing confusion in His church. The reality is that Christianity has an incredibly diverse array of beliefs (all based on biblical interpretation), and they can't all be right.

 “In matters that are so obscure and far beyond our vision, we find in Holy Scripture passages which can be interpreted in very different ways without prejudice to the faith we have received. In such cases, we should not rush in headlong and so firmly take our stand on one side that, if further progress in the search for truth justly undermines this position, we too fall with it.” -Augustine, in De Genesi ad litteram, 415AD. [source]

"If a position is true, every avenue of reflection ought to point in its direction." -Greg Boyd [source]

Paul: A False Prophet?

I'm currently reading N.T. Wright's What Saint Paul Really Said with a couple of friends. One of those friends, Mark, doesn't accept the writings of the Apostle Paul as inspired (for various reasons), and instead views Paul as a false prophet who, if alive today, should be put to death.

As we began to read the book, he brought up these beliefs again, and I thought I would share my response to Mark that I sent during our email discussion: (This begins after a short discussion of Gamaliel's defense of the Apostles in Acts 5)

Incidentally, as I was reading those sections of Acts again, I read Gamaliel's words with a new perspective (no pun intended)... When he defends the apostles in Acts 5, he says:

"Therefore, in the present case I advise you: Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God."

Gamaliel seems to have the same idea of God that I do: If he does exist and he is a personal, non-deist type of God, than he has a stake in the course of history (especially in the development of the Bible). A god that doesn't protect his communication with his people is not a god I can believe in. In case it's not obvious what I'm getting at: I don't think I can believe in a God that allowed the writings of a "false apostle" to be accepted as inspired by the vast majority of his followers. For me, to believe in God is to believe in the God of the Bible as we have it. Not because I trust Paul for any particular reason, but because any god worth believing in should be trustworthy when it comes to "scripture". Gamaliel's statement in Acts 5 takes as it's presupposition the only god I'm prepared to believe in: a god that fights for ideas that are true and suppresses ideas that are not. (Please don't ask me to explain why Islam is so widespread; I can't.)

I know that doesn't address all your specific comments (attacks :) ) on Paul, but I think my comments above make it clear: I don't think a faith in a god that does not include Paul as a true apostle is a faith worth having. I think it is much more likely that God just does not exist. I'm reading this book to make sense of some parts of the Bible that puzzle me, but it is not an option (for the reasons above) to throw out parts in order to salvage consistency. In my mind, the Bible works (somehow) or God does not exist.

In addition to what I said in my email, it's also important to note the words of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount:

"Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them." Matthew 17:15-20

I think that if we look at the "fruit" of the Apostle Paul as seen in the size and character of the Church today, it is almost silly to suggest that Paul is a false prophet.

To me, it seems like the god that Mark believes in is so unconcerned with his people, or so uninvolved in world events, or simply so weak, that it's not worth pursuing any kind of relationship with his God. If God isn't interested in protecting the Bible from false prophets, then would he really be interested in me at all?

The god of liberal Christianity

In my last post, I wrote about what is probably the most difficult issue I have with my faith: The multiple voices in the Bible, and how we (conservative Christians in general) elevate certain passages to supreme status, and reinterpret all conflicting passages, effectively neutering them of their meaning. In particular, the voices of Jesus and Paul stand out in stark contrast, especially when asking the question "What must I do to be saved?".

In that post, I discussed this post by James McGrath over at the blog Exploring our Matrix. In it, he discusses this problem, stating that his transition to liberal Christianity is a result of just these types of problems. McGrath states:

My own Liberal Christian position is a result of struggling with these sorts of issues. It doesn't seem to me that there is a single voice in the Bible, and we can simply listen to it and do "what the Bible says"... And so whatever it means to be a Christian, it cannot mean "believing the Bible". Because part of the challenge of the Bible itself is that it presents us with conflicting voices, and in doing so forces us away from the easy path of simply picking texts and following them, making us instead recognize that we are part of a 2,000-year-old dialogue that requires us to figure out for ourselves what it means to be a Christian in our own particular time and context.

I tend to agree with McGrath, that the proof-text approach taken by fundamentalist Christianity doesn't do justice to the character of the Bible. Furthermore, I think that anyone that says "I just believe the Bible" doesn't read it very often. Or they don't read it and actually think about what it says. To those who say just that, I would ask (taking McGrath's example): When you read Matthew 28 and Luke 24, do you "believe" that the disciples first saw the resurrected Jesus in Jerusalem, or almost 70 miles away in Galilee?

For McGrath, the solution to the problem was liberal Christianity, the willingness to approach the Bible as one would any other historical document without any preconceived notion of inerrancy or divine inspiration. For liberal Christians, the Bible is seen as a record of man's experiences in interacting with God. It may seem that a similar destination is in store for me, but there is a problem with that: To me, it seems that it is much more likely that God simply does not exist, than for the god of liberal Christianity to be real.

If God does exist, and He is interested in communicating with us (As the Bible, read as a historical and divinely inspired document would suggest) than would He not act to communicate with humankind in some sort of transferable way? Would He not leave more of a mark than just the "experiences" of some people in history? To me it seems more likely that He isn't out there at all.

To be fair, it isn't quite true that the Bible is the only way God has provided for us to know Him. But the god of of liberal Christianity (to me) seems totally fuzzy and unknowable. I think that if these problems end up pushing me to something other than conservative Christianity, it will be to atheism (or more likely agnosticism) than to liberal Christianity.

Jesus didn't really mean that, did He?

So this is my first post in a while... I've kind of been on a break - a reading, writing, thinking break. Sometimes I get a little overwhelmed with things - with ideas - and just have to take a little break. So that's what that was.

So what's important enough to jerk me out of hiding? Well, it was this post by James McGrath over at the blog Exploring our Matrix. [Don't ask what I was doing reading a blog on a "reading break"] In it, McGrath is musing about what it would be like if fundamentalist Christians were to oversee a "final exam" that everyone must take before they were allowed to enter heaven. (He suggests two questions: Would you pass?)

This caught my attention because I recently had to complete a similar "exam": An application to participate in a local ministry contained the question:

If you died today and stood before God, and He ask you “Why should I let you into My heaven?” What would you say? This is not a testimony!

Now, I understand why the application included this question, and don't really have a problem with it. And that's not why I'm writing this post. I'm writing because the rest of McGrath's post hit a nerve. It perfectly describes the problems I'm having with my faith. In a nutshell:

It doesn't seem to me that there is a single voice in the Bible, and we can simply listen to it and do "what the Bible says"... And so whatever it means to be a Christian, it cannot mean "believing the Bible". Because part of the challenge of the Bible itself is that it presents us with conflicting voices, and in doing so forces us away from the easy path of simply picking texts and following them...

Yet this is exactly what "Biblical Christianity" (as it's often called in my context) does: It elevates certain passages to supreme status, and reinterprets all conflicting passages, effectively neutering them of their meaning.

Here's a good example: My pastor once gave a sermon on forgiveness, and at one point discussed Matthew 6:14-15 where Jesus makes the following statement:

[I]f you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.

My pastor gave this as an example of why forgiveness is so important: because "God takes forgiveness seriously." He explained that this verse refers to "relational forgiveness": That our relationship with God is hindered if we do not forgive others.

I was puzzled at this interpretation because there is nothing in the context of Jesus' words that would indicate anything other than the obvious interpretation: That if we do not forgive, God will not forgive our sins. On the contrary, other statements of Jesus indicate that a lack of forgiveness will result in nothing less than hell: In Matthew 18:21-35, the unmerciful servant is sent to be tortured effectively forever for refusing to forgive.

When I questioned my pastor about this, he said that since we know (from Paul's writings) that we are saved by faith alone, we must interpret Jesus' words in light of this knowledge. Therefore, Jesus could not have meant that we will not be forgiven if we do not forgive.

This answer frustrates me to no end. In his post, McGrath addresses my pastor's answer:

[W]hile one might say "Scripture must be interpreted in light of Scripture", it still remains to be asked why one should start with the typical Evangelical prooftexts in Paul and John, and say that the others must be interpreted in light of them, rather than reversing the procedure and saying that the passages that seem to affirm "judgment" being on the basis of faith alone must mean something else.

I agree with McGrath. I would go one step further and ask: (as I have elsewhere) if God did become man, and that man is Jesus Christ, can't we expect Him to know what He is talking about?

I have more to say about this, but I'll put that in another post.

11. Dealing with Genesis

This is the 11th in a series of posts describing my transition from young earth creationist to theistic evolutionist. In the first post, I described how Alan Roxburgh's 5-phase description of paradigm change describes this transition well, and I have been using his framework to shape this discussion. See the introduction for a list of all the posts in this series.

If you have been following this description of how I became a theistic evolutionist, you probably can see why it was necessary for me to come to a conclusion (even if it was tentative) about the meaning of Genesis: I had been indoctrinated as a child with the belief that Genesis was God's way of communicating to us the process by which he created the universe. This belief was now gone, but the first few chapters of Genesis still required explanation.

I have found it very difficult to write this post. (This is one of the reasons why it has been such a long time between the last post and this one.) It is difficult to write for two reasons. The first reason is that the results are quite inconsequential (in a scientific sense). Although one can glean great insight into the thinking of the original authors and audience of Genesis, the conclusion that the Genesis accounts are not scientific leaves us with a purely theological message.

The second reason this post is difficult for me to write is that there is such a wealth of contextual information about Genesis 1-11 that any attempt to summarize it feels inadequate. Others have done so with great success, and it is not worthwhile for me to repeat their efforts.

For these reasons, I am going to be quite brief in my description of how I dealt with the creation accounts. I'll start by pointing out what I see to be the most significant aspect of Genesis 1-2, the observation that there are actually two creation stories. Next I will briefly discuss these stories' relationship within the context of the ancient near east. I'll end this post by describing some of my conclusions, however tentative.

About My Motive

One note: I will not try to hide my motive. As I have described in previous posts, I had determined that science was correct in its determination of the age of creation, and this was in conflict with my childhood beliefs. Seeing problems with the way young earth creationists read the Bible, my mind was fertile ground for a new system of belief (and method of biblical interpretation) that allowed the coexistence of biblical and scientific knowledge. It is only in retrospect that I have analyzed these new beliefs, and in doing so have gained confidence that they are correct.

Interpretation and Humility

One final thought before I begin: When faced with the seeming conflict between Genesis and science, it is often said (by young earth creationists) that “I just choose to believe the Bible”. I appreciate the sentiment of this statement, but let me expand that statement a bit, so it is plain what it really means. Choosing to believe the earth is young (because that's what the Bible says), despite all the evidence to the contrary, is in a very real way making the following statement:

“I am so confident that my interpretation of Genesis is correct that am willing to disregard the conclusions of every major scientific discipline. I am sure that this ancient text was meant to communicate scientific and historical information, and as a result, I am willing to throw out the observations scientists (many of them Christians themselves) have made about this world.”

I suspect that anyone who, in reference to creation, says something like “I just believe the Bible” or “That's just what the Bible says” is not considering the fact that every word or idea taken from the Bible must be interpreted. We have an interpreted Bible. It seems to me that this should bring an incredible amount of humility to any discussion about what the Bible “says”.

The Biblical Creation Accounts

One of the most revealing aspects of the first two chapters of Genesis is that they contain what is almost certainly two different creation accounts. If you haven't noticed this before, read them yourself: Genesis 1:1 to 2:3 and Genesis 2:4-25. Below is a summary of each. Please keep in mind that my purpose for discussing this is not to present an irreconcilable “problem” with the Bible that forces us to seek alternate interpretations of Genesis. My purpose is simply to show that there are good reasons to suspect that the authors of the creation stories were concerned not with history, but with theology.

Creation Story #1: Genesis 1:1 to 2:3

The first creation story is highly structured and great emphasis is placed on the order of creation. In the beginning, there is nothing. God speaks the universe into existence with a series of commands, i.e. “let there be light.” Gods creative activity takes place over six days. In the first three days, God does a lot of “separating”, and the result of this separating is several “containers” (or structures) which are ready-made for his creatures. The structures created on the first three days are:

Day 1: Day / Night
Day 2: Sky / Sea
Day 3: Dry Land

On days 4-6, God fills these structures with creatures. Notice the parallels with days 1-3: The structures are filled in the same order they are created:

Day 4: Sun /Moon & Stars
Day 5: Birds / Fish
Day 6: Animals & Man

This first creation story ends with the seventh day of the creation week, where God “rests” from the work of creation.

Creation Story #2: Genesis 2:4-25

The second creation story is less structured: First the author describes the creation of Adam, followed by God's planting of the Garden of Eden. In contrast to the first story, the focus is on Adam. God commands Adam not to eat of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, and then decides that Adam needs a helper/companion. To solve this problem, God creates “all the animals of the field and all the birds of the air” but none are suitable to be Adam's helper. Then God creates a woman, Eve, from Adam's rib, and what follows is the familiar story about Adam, Eve, the serpent and the apple.

Notice that in this second story, there is very little emphasis on the order of creation. It would seem that Adam is created before plants and before animals. To illustrate this, compare Genesis 2 in several different translations: The word “had” is inserted in Genesis 2:8 and 2:19 in several translations, making the order of events ambiguous. In any case, it seems that the author was not interested in giving a blow-by-blow account of how things came into being, but was instead addressing more important questions, like the origin of sin and death.

Different Authors, Different Purposes

These two creation stories clearly were written to communicate different ideas. This is supported by the mountain of evidence that suggests four different sources for the book of Genesis. (See the resources section at the end of this post for more information) The easiest and most compelling example of this is the names used for God: In the first story, God is exclusively called “Elohim” (translated “God” in the NIV). In the second story, God is exclusively called “Jahweh” (translated “LORD God” in the NIV). If you have never noticed this, I highly recommend re-reading Genesis, paying attention to the names of God. Identifying the switch between the various sources (indicated by a change in the name of God) can help in explaining some of the more awkward transitions.

Context of the Biblical Creation Accounts

The context of the creation accounts is that of the ancient near east (ANE). The religions of the surrounding cultures were predominantly polytheistic, with gods in charge of almost every aspect of nature and daily life.

Other creation/flood myths were already in circulation and were familiar to the original audience of the Genesis creation accounts. These myths include many elements common the the biblical creation accounts; two of these myths contain the most stark similarities: the Epic of Gilgamesh and the Enuma Elish.

The cosmology of the ANE was primitive; the earth was seen as a flat disk surrounded by an infinite sea. The sky was believed to be a metal dome, separating infinite water above from the disk of the earth. The stars were thought to be embedded in the dome, and the sun and moon traveled across the dome. It was thought that under the earth stood an infinite freshwater sea, which supplied the rivers and lakes.

These contexts become important when considering the purpose of the creation accounts; even without additional knowledge, it is easy to see the influence of these cultural elements. The cosmology of the ANE is clearly seen in the first creation account, and the religious contexts and creation myths provide a compelling backdrop which helps to understand the motivation of the original authors.

So What's It About?

If the first chapters of Genesis are not chronological descriptions of God's creative acts, then what are they?

Here we see two stories written at different times by different people for different reasons. The authors were concerned with explaining the universe and the state of humanity, and they used common imagery that was familiar to their readers at the time. Their stories use elements from Babylonian and Sumerian creation myths to communicate theological truths, not historical or scientific information. These stories were direct rebuttals to the opposing myths and religions of the time.

Here are a few theological messages that can be seen at a first glance:

There is a God.
There is a single, all powerful God. (Not many gods with various powers, like the surrounding Babylonian culture insists)
Man is created in the image of God
God takes an interest in mankind's well-being
Creation was originally goodWe are destined to fail to live up to our divinely appointed roles
We are fundamentally alienated from our creator

There are surely many more. I don't intend to suggest that the message of Genesis 1-2 can be summed up in a few bullet-points. My point is simply that there is a message, and this message is not scientific.

To me it seems like many Christians who place an incredible emphasis on the historicity of Genesis 1-2 are ignoring the real meanings of this text. They have substituted a counterfeit message, obtained through a short-sighted method of interpretation, in response to a perceived threat from science. As I continued to learn about the contexts of the creation stories, I saw that science posed no threat to my faith. The physical world is just another source of revelation from God, and along with the Bible, we can come to an agreement on the big questions in life. It is important however, to address these questions to the sources that are appropriate for answering each question; Genesis can answer the question “What is wrong with the world?” but was not intended to answer the question “How did the world come about?”

In my next post, I'll continue to describe my experiences in adjusting to a new world that includes evolution, an ancient earth, and an even older universe. I'll describe what happened when I “came out of the closet” and revealed these struggles and beliefs to some of my friends and family.

Let us never throw ourselves head over heels into the headstrong assertion of any one [opinion]. Perhaps the truth, emerging from a more thorough discussion of the point, may definitively overturn that opinion, and then we will find ourselves overthrown, championing what is not the cause of the divine scriptures but our own, in such a way that we want it to be that of the scriptures, when we should rather be wanting the cause of the scriptures to be our own.

-Augustine writing in The Literal Meaning of Genesis [400AD].

10. Dealing with Young Earth Creationism, Part 2 – The YEC Hermeneutic

Dealing with Young Earth Creationism, Part 2 – The YEC Hermeneutic

This is the tenth in a series of posts describing my transition from young earth creationist to theistic evolutionist. In the first post, I described how Alan Roxburgh's 5-phase description of paradigm change describes this transition well, and I have been using his framework to shape this discussion. See the introduction for a list of all the posts in this series.

This is a continuation of the previous post. In it, I described how the motivation for young earth creationism (YEC) does not come from an rigorous and thorough examination of the scientific evidence, but instead arises from a belief that the Bible plainly teaches that creation is young.

From as early as I can remember, I was taught the “fact” that the Bible, when read correctly, plainly shows how (and when) God created the universe. I was taught that Satan invented the idea that the universe is millions of years old, and anyone that accepts the idea of evolution rejects the God of the Bible.

As I said in my last post: In all my years as a YEC, I had assumed that scientists that call themselves young earth creationists were YECs because they had examined the evidence and determined that it agreed with what the Bible says. I was shocked to learn that in reality, the opposite was actually true; YEC scientists believe the evidence points to a young universe because that is what they believe the Bible teaches.

In retrospect, this seem extremely naive. I'm a little embarrassed. It seems pretty simple and obvious to me now. I guess this kind of naiveté comes from being raised in a particular way, and rarely being exposed to ideas that disagree with what one is being taught. This kind of childhood indoctrination is a significant barrier to overcome.

So, at this point I had quite a few questions to answer: Would I reject all of modern science because of what the Bible teaches? Was the evidence for an old earth more important than what the Bible teaches? How do YECs read the Bible? Is that the right way to read the Bible? Does the Bible really teach that the universe is young?

So how do young earth creationists read the Bible? It was obvious to me that a literal interpretation is important, but there is more to it than that. Answers in Genesis president & CEO Ken Ham gives us a clue:

“Let’s be honest – if one just reads God’s Word, without any outside influences whatsoever, one would never get the idea anywhere of millions of years. This idea, which contradicts Scripture, comes from outside of it.” [source]

Ham is suggesting that we read the Bible without considering anything outside the Bible. He and other YECs state that we should read the clear meaning of the Bible, taking it word-for-word, and interpret it without outside influences. They are fond of labeling their reading as the “literal, straight-forward interpretation” or as “Biblical fact” calling all others “anti-Biblical”. They openly equate a literal interpretation with the true interpretation.

This interpretation starts with the principle that the Bible is the inspired Word of God, and as such, is completely free from error in every detail. The words of the Bible are treated as if they have been dictated word-for-word directly from the Holy Spirit, and as a result should be interpreted literally without any consideration for the historical context, genre, or human authors and audience.

The intent is to arrive at an interpretation that is free from outside influences and arrives at a single meaning for the text. This is a noble motive; it provides a seemingly self consistent framework for coming up with only one meaning, supposedly the meaning that the Holy Spirit intended.

Unfortunately, this fundamentalist approach makes the typical modernist assumption that one can read the Bible without subjectivity. This, of course, is completely false; Although one may attempt to rid oneself of all possible biases, we each approach the Bible from within our own cultural contexts.

To me, it seems the ultimate in foolishness to ignore the fact that these words came to us through thousands of years of history, from a people with a different language, culture, history, values, and scientific world view. It seems that the first step in understanding these ancient texts is to determine (as best as one can) the meaning intended by the original author.
Howard VanTill, in a great book called The Fourth Day, quotes this passage from Berkhof's Principles of Biblical Interpretation:

[In interpreting the Bible, one] "must place himself on the standpoint of the author, and seek to enter into his very soul, until he, as it were, lives in his life and thinks his thoughts. This means that he will have to guard carefully against the rather common mistake of transferring the author to the present day and making him speak the language of the twentieth century.”
-Berkhof, Principles of Biblical Interpretation, p.115 (originally seen in VanTill, The Fourth Day, p.18)

Young earth creationists, in applying their fundamentalist interpretation, make this very mistake. This failure to place the text in its original context results in several difficulties which arise when trying to understand the Bible as a whole.

One serious difficulty which arises from a literal interpretation is that it leaves the reader impotent to deal with the contradictions and discrepancies that exist throughout the Bible. Literalists must resort to explanations that push the limits of our credulity, and in many cases they must break their own rules, dismissing the straightforward meaning of the text in favor of a flimsy cop-out.

The greatest of these difficulties, however, is that a literal interpretation completely ignores the historical and human character of biblical revelation. As I discussed in a previous post, I was quickly beginning to see the nature of God's interaction with His creation as primarily that of delegation. God seems to act primarily in the world through his creation. This is especially true for the Bible, which was produced by over 40 different human authors in a huge range of cultures, languages and geographical locations, and with an equally wide range of genres and purposes.

To ignore the historical context of the Bible is to ignore the method through which God communicated these words, and any interpretation which does not take the original author's intended meaning into account cannot be a correct interpretation. Let me try to make this clear: My ascent out of atheism relied heavily on reshaping my view of God's action in creation and in my own life. Any interpretation which refuses to incorporate this view of God's involvement in history (and in the Bible) is completely invalid and utterly useless in helping me understand the God in which I have placed my faith.

So, it had become obvious to me that young earth creationism was wrong for three main reasons: First, its evidence for a young age of the earth had proven completely inadequate. Second, because of the independent evidence from widely disparate scientific disciplines, it required a sweeping rejection of the entirety of modern science. Finally, (and most importantly) the refusal to consider the contexts of the author when interpreting the Bible made it impotent to deal with issues arising from God's pervasive use of humanity in producing scripture.

At this point, the idea that Genesis might not necessarily be a historical narrative (while still containing divinely inspired truth) had been introduced to me several times.  Now that I understood how and why YECs interpret the Bible and how this interpretation fails, I was ready to take a closer look at the cultural and literary aspects of the creation story.

I'll close this post with the words of three Christians (all from vastly different time periods) whose comments are applicable to this post:

“In matters that are so obscure and far beyond our vision, we find in Holy Scripture passages which can be interpreted in very different ways without prejudice to the faith we have received. In such cases, we should not rush in headlong and so firmly take our stand on one side that, if further progress in the search for truth justly undermines this position, we too fall with it.”
-Augustine, in De Genesi ad litteram, 415AD. [source]

“Men today do not, perhaps, burn the Bible, nor does the Roman Catholic Church any longer put it on the Index, as it once did. But men destroy it in the form of exegesis: they destroy it in the way they deal with it. They destroy it by not reading it as written in normal, literary form, by ignoring its historical-grammatical exegesis, by changing the Bible's own perspective of itself as propositional revelation in space and time, in history.”
-Francis Schaeffer, in Death in the City pp. 77 1969. [source]

"The tragedy of young-earth creationism is that it takes a relatively recent and extreme view of Genesis, applies to it an unjustified scientific gloss, and then asks sincere and well-meaning seekers to swallow this whole, despite the massive discordance with decades of scientific evidence from multiple disciplines. Is it any wonder that many sadly turn away from faith concluding that they cannot believe in a God who asks for an abandonment of logic and reason?”
-Francis S. Collins, in Faith and the Human Genome, 2002. [source]

9. Dealing with Young Earth Creationism – Is science really the issue?

Dealing with Young Earth Creationism – Is science really the issue?

This is the ninth in a series of posts describing my transition from young earth creationist to theistic evolutionist. In the first post, I described how Alan Roxburgh's 5-phase description of paradigm change describes this transition well, and I have been using his framework to shape this discussion. See the introduction for a list of all the posts in this series.

The fourth phase in Roxburgh's description of paradigm change is that of transition. In the first part of this transition phase I dealt with the arguments for atheism that had drastically diminished my faith. The second part of this transition phase involved dealing with Young Earth Creationism. This is the subject of this post.

Having grown up being taught (and believing) that the earth, moon, and stars are all 6000 – 10,000 years old, it was quite a painful and confusing process learning about how each scientific discipline paints the same story of the history of the universe. This is a story of immense antiquity: a 13.6 billion year old universe, 4.5 billion year old earth, and a convincing record of the history of life on this planet, showing that all life on earth has come from from a single ancestor.

Although believers in Young Earth Creationism invest incredible amounts of effort to provide “evidence” for their views, I had investigated these claims and found them extremely lacking. Not only were they totally wrong scientifically, but they bordered on deceptive. (I discuss this in a previous post) The final nail in the coffin came via a radio debate featuring YEC evangelist Kent Hovind. His incompetence made me embarrassed to call myself a believer. (I discuss this here)

In a future post, I'll discuss my interactions with the friends, family, and pastors who affected me significantly during this time. During this time, I had a lengthy interaction with one of my pastors (I am a member of a Baptist church). During our discussions he (and others) asked me to take another look at the evidence for young earth. One of the books he handed me was In Six Days – Why 50 Scientists Believe in Creation. As the title suggests, this book contains essays from 50 different scientists describing why they believe the universe and earth are young. (The full text is available here)

As I turned the pages of this book, I realized that this was a great resource: Here I had concise statements from 50 intelligent people who had rejected the scientific consensus on the the age of the earth. I could quickly determine how they had come to this conclusion, and by reading multiple essays, perhaps a common thread would emerge.

I decided to make a list of the reasons these scientists give for their personal belief in a young earth. But as I continued to read, I found this to be grueling; many authors gave similar reasons or evidence, and I was finding it difficult to tabulate everything. Soon I found two incredible resources, the first is an attempt to index every Creationist claim and give a rebuttal. The second is a Creationist's response to each item. Although I didn't consult it at the time, a third resource addresses each of the claims from an old-earth viewpoint:

Index to Creationist Claims
Creationist's Response
Old-Earth Response

Using these resources, it becomes easier to identify a claim, look it up in each index, and make a judgment as to its veracity. In this way, I was able to read each essay, tabulate the reasons given by each scientist, and evaluate the strength of the evidence.

A bit about motive: One might suggest that since I had already come to the conclusion that the arguments for a young earth were extremely weak and misleading, I would simply find what I hoped I would find. Would I simply see that there was a reason to believe in an old earth and stop there? Well, I agree that our preconceptions drastically affect how we perceive any argument, whether for or against our own views. I don't intend to try to convince you that I approached this exercise with an unbiased, neutral mind. That is simply not possible. I will simply describe my experience in investigating these claims. I invite you to do the same. If you come to a different conclusion, I'd love to discuss that with you.

As I read these essays, I noticed over and over again that the arguments these creationists gave were simply “reasons” that didn't stand up to any amount of serious thought. Claims like “The second law of thermodynamics proves that evolution can not occur” or “interpreting evidence is not the same as observation” are so easily dismissed, yet are so common in these essays.
It quickly became obvious to me that in order to be a consistent Young Earth Creationist, one must deny the basic principles of cosmology, physics, geology, biology and paleontology. These disciplines, using completely independent methodologies, have come to an undeniable conclusion regarding the age of the earth, and to claim otherwise requires a sweeping dismissal of all of modern science.

The real issue, however, is not science. The “scientists” of In Six Days don't dismiss the process of science because they have evaluated the evidence and have determined that it shows the earth is 6000 years old. No one would come to that conclusion without an external motive. That motive is the Bible.

In his essay, geologist Kurt Wise describes in an extremely instructive way what is really going on here:

Although there are scientific reasons for accepting a young earth, I am a young-age creationist because that is my understanding of the Scripture. As I shared with my professors years ago when I was in college, if all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate. Here I must stand. [source]

Here Kurt says most plainly what all the others were saying: That it doesn't matter what science says, it matters what the Bible says. No matter how much evidence exists against a young earth, creationists will deny that it represents truth, and instead find ways to make science say what they think the Bible says.

In all my years as a YEC, I had assumed that scientists that call themselves young earth creationists were YECs because they had examined the evidence and determined that it agreed with what the Bible says. I was shocked to learn that in reality, the opposite was actually true; YEC scientists believe the evidence points to a young universe because that is what they believe the Bible teaches.

This realization convinced me that it was utterly pointless to continue examining evidence for Young Earth Creationism. The evidence would never convince me, because it is not the reason one becomes a YEC.

So, the next step in understanding Young Earth Creationism was to attempt to understand how YECs read the Bible, and to ask the strange question: Should I abandon science because of what the Bible teaches? This is the subject of the next post.

God told me to do it

This morning I read Genesis 22. This is one of those parts of the Bible (especially the Old Testament) that terrify me; make me scared of the God I worship.

Here, God commands Abraham to kill his son:

Then God said, "Take your son, your only son, Isaac, whom you love, and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains I will tell you about." Genesis 22:2

Abraham, full of faith in his God, obeys:

When they reached the place God had told him about, Abraham built an altar there and arranged the wood on it. He bound his son Isaac and laid him on the altar, on top of the wood. Then he reached out his hand and took the knife to slay his son. Genesis 22:9-10

Luckily, God stops Abraham at the last moment, as if to say "Just kidding! Good, job, you were actually going to do that, weren't you!"

But the angel of the LORD called out to him from heaven, "Abraham! Abraham!""Here I am," he replied."Do not lay a hand on the boy," he said. "Do not do anything to him. Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son." Genesis 22:11-12

What are we supposed to think of this? Would I be able to obey God in this way? I think Abraham is lucky that God was speaking to him in actual audible words. How can you say no when God's voice is booming through the air, commanding you do do something, even if that thing is absolutely horrible?

Today, we are not so lucky. Today we have the Holy Spirit, (which of course wasn't available to Abraham) who is a little more subtle in His communication. The Holy Spirit seems to speak to us mainly though our circumstances, the Bible, and of course through voices in our heads. But this raises lots of questions:

How would I know if God was telling me to kill my son? What if a little voice in my head started telling me to kill my son? Should I obey? If someone I know told me they were going to kill their child because God told them to do it, should I consider them a "pillar of faith" or a psycho?

Is God going to ask me to do something or believe something that is completely insane? What if he asks me to believe the universe is younger than some trees that are still alive today?

Might Satan communicate with us in much the same ways? It seems likely that killing a child might be something he might really enjoy watching me carry out. He might also enjoy the confusion and doubt that comes from holding to a "scientific" belief that is not supported by any evidence.

Isn't it against the nature of God to command us to sin? I know the sixth commandment wasn't given to Moses until a few hundred years later, but does that make murder okay in Abraham's day? I doubt it. Of course, God surely knew Abraham would not have to go through with His command, but this does not change Abraham's perception of the event.

Is God this cruel? Was this just a really extreme test for Abraham, because he was really important? A kind of "stress test" to put Abraham through before he built a nation on him?

I could write questions all day.