"The Faulty Mechanism of Evolution"

This post is part of a series of posts that deal with some common Young Earth Creationist (YEC) objections to theistic evolution.  The impetus for these posts came via a comment from a reader on a previous post.  An index of all these posts can be found here.

Here I would like to address this part of Steve’s original comment:

[Y]ou must trust in literally million of totally random occurrences happening over and over and over again through out billions of years. Not to mention that all these random occurrences must take place in such close proximity to each other, and in such a small window of time on order for the two "new" male and female species to find each other and mate before they die. The odds of that are mind boggling. And to believe that this conveniently happened millions of times over? 

Evolutionists do not believe what Steve suggests above.  If what he suggests above were to happen, it would truly be mind boggling.  But this is simply not what evolutionists believe.  This argument shows a complete lack of understanding of the mechanisms behind evolution. 

This type of argument is very common among Young Earth Creationists, and betrays a complete lack of understanding of the belief they claim to dismiss.  How can someone dismiss evolution on the grounds of lack of evidence if they simply do not understand it?

Let me try to clear up three very common errors made by Steve and many other YECs.  The following three points are fundamental to evolutionary theory, and if one doesn’t grasp these points, they simply do not understand the theory.

1) Natural selection is a non-random mechanism

2) Evolution occurs primarily in groups

3) Evolution is a cumulative process

Natural selection is a non-random mechanism

Above, Steve is claiming that evolution isn’t plausible because “millions of totally random occurrences happening over and over and over again throughout billions of years” couldn’t create a new species.  He is totally correct.  Steve (and many other YECs) miss a key aspect to evolutionary theory: natural selection.  Natural selection is non-random because organisms that are able to reproduces more will pass their traits on to their offspring.   Organisms that cannot reproduce will die without passing on the traits that do not let them reproduce.   Evolution occurs when many random mutations are passed through the non-random filter of natural selection, producing a process that is not random.

Evolution is a cumulative process

It is very common for YECs to claim that evolution isn’t plausible because random mutations must occur over and over again, and the probability of this happening is just too small.  This claim falsely assumes that there is no mechanism for maintaining one mutation before the next can occur.  In fact, natural selection is just that mechanism.  Natural selection turns what would be a random process into a cumulative process.  Each mutation that is selected by the environment (because it provides a reproductive advantage) is a stable organism, which reproduces and introduces the mutation into the collective gene pool.

Evolution occurs primarily in groups

The claim made by Steve above falsely assumes that speciation must happen suddenly, where one individual produces another individual of a different species.  In fact, populations of animals gradually evolve, not individuals.   The most easily understood type of this kind of speciation is called allopatric speciation, where one group is separated from the main group.  Due to different environmental pressures, this separated group undergoes cumulative changes that are different from the main group. 

Putting it all together

So evolution occurs when the non-random mechanism of natural selection acts on random genetic variation, over long periods of time, and primarily in groups, not individuals.  If you miss any one of those elements, you simply do not understand evolution, and you are in danger of making ignorant accusations that simply don’t hold water

"The Religion of Evolution"

This post is part of a series of posts that deal with some common Young Earth Creationist (YEC) objections to theistic evolution.  The impetus for these posts came via a comment from a reader on a previous post.  An index of all these posts can be found here.

Here I would like to address this part of Steve’s original comment:

Evolution is the most dogmatic religion there is. In order to believe it you must trust in literally million of totally random occurrences happening over and over and over again through out billions of years.


[And then later]


Would you agree that it takes much less faith to believe a wonderful,loving, all knowing, always present, and all powerful GOD simply created everything perfectly just for us just because he loves us. Why must there be a greater reason or explanation beyond that. Why can't we take his word at face value?

Evolution is not a “greater reason” for God’s creation; it isn’t a reason at all, it is HOW God created, not WHY.  Steve is confusing purpose and mechanism; they are not the same thing.

Furthermore, evolution does not require “faith” and is not “dogmatic” because it is based on evidence.  As I describe in my previous post, there is a vast amount of evidence.  As new observations are made, theories are changed or abandoned to conform to the evidence.  This is exactly the opposite of dogma or the sort of faith implied above.

In fact, young Earth Creationism is actually more dogmatic, because it takes a particular belief, and (flying in the face of the evidence) claims that this is the way it should be, and any claims to the contrary are wrong.  It cannot accept that whatever God has done (As determined by biblical and scientific evidence) is okay.  This is idolatry, and this is wrong.

"The Unproven Theory of Evolution"

This post is part of a series of posts that deal with some common Young Earth Creationist (YEC) objections to theistic evolution.  The impetus for these posts came via a comment from a reader on a previous post.  An index of all these posts can be found here.

Here I would like to address this part of Steve’s original comment:

You might argue the the Bible was written and translated by man, and could have errors (I personalty don't believe this to be the case). But I feel compelled to point out to you that evolution itself is only an idea of man and also may have many errors in it. It's all based on observation with the assumption that certain events occurred. Regardless of what information you've received in your studies of evolution, I assure you, to this day, it has not been proven, and I'm totally confidant that it never will be. No one was there to witness it. There is no documented record of it taking place. No one can, or ever will know for sure.

First of all, we would never expect to observe large changes in organisms directly.  In fact, if scientists observed something like a fish turning into a frog, then we would have some good evidence against evolution.  Evolution occurs mainly by the accumulation of small changes over large periods of time.  Of course it hasn’t been directly observed.

Secondly, there is a documented record of evolution taking place.  In fact, there are several documented records.  The fossil record, biological record, and genetic record are our record of it taking place.  Now, I’m sure the question referred to a written record.  Even though this kind of record should not be expected to exist at all, (and of course does not) this does not mean that we cannot be sure that evolution did not occur.

Nothing in the natural world can be proven with total certainty.  In the claim above, the kind of certainty that is being required is only possible through omniscience, which only God possesses.  However, we can achieve a high degree of certainty by examining the evidence.  In the case of evolution, we have vast amounts of evidence from a wide variety of fields.  In each case, the conclusions from each field test the conclusions from each other field. 

The following is just a selection from the three types of “records” above that show that one must be completely ignorant of the data to claim that there is no evidence for evolution taking place. 

Keep in mind that each piece of evidence checks and supports each other piece – this is important – no single piece proves evolution, but as each piece is added, predictions can be made about what further evidence should show… This is how a phenomenon that is directly unobservable is studied.

• Common ancestry predicts a nested hierarchy (groups within groups).   We in fact see an organized, well-defined, consistent hierarchy ("tree of life").
• Different bodies of evidence give the same arrangement of the tree of life.   Morphological/physical, genetic, and biochemical evidence all produce the same phylogenies. 
• Animals from the fossil record fit into the same tree of life.   Despite the claims of evolution deniers, transitional forms have been found.
• The animals found in the fossil record are arranged chronologically in order of increasing complexity and as predicted by the tree of life. (Try doing that with a flood.)
• The geographical distributions of species and groups are consistent with their evolutionary history, e.g. marsupials are found only in Australia.  This piece of evidence is still true when fossil evidence is considered.
• Gradual change predicts a similarity in structure despite a difference in function.   As species change and acquire new functions (swimming, flying), old structures must be adapted to the new function.  This is exactly what is observed; the same bones in the same relative positions are used in human hands, bird wings, whale flippers and horse legs.   Additionally, you never see birds with wings and arms, because wings and arms are adaptations of the same structures. 
• Organisms that evolve the same functions independently should show differing structures to accomplish the function.   Octopus eyes and mammal eyes have opposite ordering of layers, because vision was evolved independently, as confirmed by their place in the tree of life.
•  Since new functions are acquired by adapting old structures, often the resulting structure/system is not optimal.  Examples:  We can choke because our digestive system and respiratory system share parts.   We have a blind spot in our vision because of the suboptimal ordering of the layers.  Octopi do not have the blind spot.
•  Speciation does occur and has been observed, despite claims that it has not.  To me, the most compelling examples of speciation in action are "ring species”.  Also, I have cichlid fish in my aquarium that only come from lakes in Africa that have habitats less than 200 years old.   Most YEC accept this because they have to invoke post-flood speciation to explain the possibility of Noah's Ark.
•  Non-functional (junk) DNA shows a remarkable pattern of inheritance.  For me, this is the most convincing and irrefutable evidence of macroevolution.

Now, although this cannot “prove” with 100% certainty that evolution occurred, it is enough to be very certain that one of two scenarios exists:

Either   1) Evolution occurred.

Or        2) God has gone to extreme lengths to make it look like evolution occurred.

Option 2) is neither the God of the Bible, nor a God I want to worship.  Hence, I am convinced that evolution occurred.

"The Slippery Slope of Evolution"

This post is part of a series of posts that deal with some common Young Earth Creationist (YEC) objections to theistic evolution.  The impetus for these posts came via a comment from a reader on a previous post.  An index of all these posts can be found here.

Here I would like to address this part of Steve’s original comment:

Joe, you claim you are a Christian yet you don't believe what the Bible has to say about how existence came into being. If you doubt that part of the Bible, how can you be sure the parts with Jesus in it are true? Or what he said and did are true. If you pick and choose what you will and won't believe, aren't you in fact picking apart the foundations of your faith? If that's the case, what reassurance do you have of you salvation or even of your existence?

First, it is simply untrue to claim that theistic evolutionists “don’t believe what the Bible has to say about how existence came into being.”  What I reject is not what the Bible has to say about origins, but what biblical literalists think the Bible has to say about origins.  I do not “doubt that part of the Bible”; I doubt the biblical literalist interpretation of that part of the Bible.

I believe the Bible (including Genesis) is inspired by God and is trustworthy.  But we need to be very careful about what we say a biblical text is trying to communicate.  More on that later.

Now on to the main point:

The general question can be stated this way:  If the creation account is not taken literally, then why should we take anything else literally, including the stories of Jesus’ death and resurrection?

There is a fundamental difference between the texts containing the creation accounts and the texts containing the narratives of Jesus’ life.   The difference is in the purpose of the original writers, and the literary genre of the texts in question.  If the genre is historical narrative, then there is no reason to interpret it literally, and it would be a mistake to do so.   But if the genre is poetic, prophetic, wisdom, etc., then we must be more careful.

Purpose & Genre of the Gospels

Looking first at the gospels, it is abundantly clear that the purpose of the gospel writers is to provide a historical narrative of the events surrounding Jesus’ birth, life, death and resurrection.  Look at the opening verses of Luke:

Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.  Luke 1:1-4

Here it is clear that Luke’s intention is to write actual historical facts, as they have been handed down to him, so that his audience (Theophilus) can “know the certainty of the things [he has] been taught”.  There is no reason to view the gospels as anything except historical narrative because it is explicitly stated that the purpose of the text is to communicate actual events as experienced by eyewitnesses.

Purpose & Genre of the Creation Accounts

Now turning to the creation accounts:  It is not so straightforward to determine the authors’ purpose or the literary genre(s) of the texts.  However, when we begin to understand the world in which the creation stories were written, it becomes clear that there are a whole host of reasons why they may have been written other than for scientific/historical reasons. 

The ancient near east (the historical context of the creation accounts) was polytheistic, and the gods themselves were part of creation: The sun and moon were gods, not things created by a single, transcendent God.  The creation stories served the purpose (among many others) of reminding God’s people that their God was different; their God actually created the universe, and wasn’t a part of it.  These stories used already existing myths and re-wrote them to show that Yahweh is not like the gods in which their neighbors believe; Yahweh is creator, and as a result we are accountable to Him.

I’ve discussed this further in a previous post, so please go there for more explanation.  Also, a great book on the subject is The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate by John H. Walton.

Determining Context & Purpose Builds Confidence

I think it is pretty clear that the rejection of the creation stories as literal historical truth does not then lead to a rejection of the historicity of other parts of the Bible, including the life and significance of Jesus Christ.  On the contrary, examining the purpose and context of texts like those describing the life and words of Jesus gives us confidence that the authors were setting out to increase our certainty about Jesus, and give us assurance of the salvation that comes by making Him our Lord and Savior.

More YEC Objections

I recently received a comment on a previous post where (in the post) I discuss the events surrounding my eventual rejection of Young Earth Creationism (YEC).  The comment, (made by someone named Steve) addresses a few of the big issues YECs have with theistic evolution.  These objections are also pretty common, so I thought I’d devote a few posts to answering Steve’s questions.

Steve’s entire comment is below, followed by an index to the posts addressing his objections.

Joe, you claim you are a Christian yet you don't believe what the Bible has to say about how existence came into being. If you doubt that part of the Bible, how can you be sure the parts with Jesus in it are true? Or what he said and did are true. If you pick and choose what you will and won't believe, aren't you in fact picking apart the foundations of your faith? If that's the case, what reassurance do you have of you salvation or even of your existence?

You might argue the the Bible was written and translated by man, and could have errors (I personalty don't believe this to be the case). But I feel compelled to point out to you that evolution itself is only an idea of man and also may have many errors in it. It's all based on observation with the assumption that certain events occurred. Regardless of what information you've received in your studies of evolution, I assure you, to this day, it has not been proven, and I'm totally confidant that it never will be. No one was there to witness it. There is no documented record of it taking place. No one can, or ever will know for sure.

Evolution is the most dogmatic religion there is. In order to believe it you must trust in literally million of totally random occurrences happening over and over and over again through out billions of years. Not to mention that all these random occurrences must take place in such close proximity to each other, and in such a small window of time on order for the two "new" male and female species to find each other and mate before they die. The odds of that are mind boggling. And to believe that this conveniently happened millions of times over? 

Would you agree that it takes much less faith to believe a wonderful,loving, all knowing, always present, and all powerful GOD simply created everything perfectly just for us just because he loves us. Why must there be a greater reason or explanation beyond that. Why can't we take his word at face value? 

Index to posts:

Part 1: The Slippery Slope of Evolution 
(If Genesis isn't true, what about Jesus?)

Part 2: The Unproven Theory of Evolution 
(Nobody saw evolution happen!)

Part 3: The Religion of Evolution 
(Evolution takes too much faith!)

Part 4: The Faulty Mechanism of Evolution
(Evolution just doesn't work!)

Quote of the Day - 9/23/2009

Quote of the day for September 23, 2009:

"I disagree with these experts.  Someone has got to stand up to experts."
-Don McLeroy, Texas State Board of Education chairman, during their debate over Texas state science education standards.  (You can see it here at 0:55)

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]