“And now for something completely different!” This post and my
last few posts have this in common: They are both written by me. And that’s
about it!
It seems the question of creation and the age of the earth
pops up with great regularity. Friends have posted blogs about it (I guess I’m
adding to that list); books (new and old) address it; pastors speak about it;
schools teach it (well, most teach evolution, which still addresses origins). Some
Christians talk about it, some with great fervor.
Let’s back up from the age issue, though, and look at what I
think is the core issue. Philosophically, the battle boils down to this: Is the
earth and its creatures created or did they come about purely by natural forces
and processes? Am I , as
a human, created in the image of God or am I a glorified primate? The question here
of where man came from outweighs the
question of when he came. I think we
must think about creation and the “age” issue on two levels. One is
apologetics; the other is the text.
Before I continue, I must give three disclaimers:
(1)
I am not saying the “young earth” view is
necessarily wrong. You’ll see why I say this in the next section.
(2)
I do not believe theistic evolution provides a
valid explanation of origins (theistic evolution typically says God set the
initial conditions (pre big-bang) and then allowed evolution to proceed,
knowing it would eventually produce humanity).
(3)
I am not advocating we ignore the biblical text.
Apologetics
When talking with an unbeliever or someone who hasn’t looked
carefully at the issue of origins, we will almost always lose our audience if
we introduce “young earth” too early in the discussion. Why? They are
indoctrinated with the idea that the earth is old. Most science classes teach
an ancient universe. And if young earth is even addressed in educational
settings, it is usually ridiculed. So, our audience holds as true that the
universe is old. Frequently, they turn us off as soon as we mention “young
earth.”
In addition, if we hold a young earth view, we face a
credibility issue. Most of us are no more than amateur scientists, if that.
But, if we hold a young earth view, we must argue that every field of science
is wrong where it touches on any aspect of origins. This includes astronomy,
physics, geology, radiometric dating, biology, paleontology, and others. Might
they be wrong? Yes (I won’t argue one way or the other here), but most of us do
not have the background to evaluate the “party line” of the sciences, the critique
of “the party line” or the critique of the critiques! Most of us have some
knowledge of the basics, but we must rely on third parties to form our
opinions. So, when we say “science is wrong,” the logical response (often
unspoken) is, “you’re not a scientist – how do you know”? This issue is particularly relevant when we talk with
someone who does have a background in
science!
So, where can we start?
“Given that”
I heard this at a conference a few years back, and it makes
so much sense. “Given that the
universe is old, do we have evidence of design?” By saying this, I am not
saying that the universe is old; I’m simply sidestepping for now the issue to
get to more central issues: creation and the existence of the creator. Using
the “given that” approach simply says, “I’ll grant you your point for the sake
of argument. Even if your point is true, we still have evidence that supports
creation. Let’s look at it.”
And the evidence does exist. Specified complexity (such as
the “programming” of DNA). The fine-tuning of the universe. Irreducible
complexity (such as cellular “motors”). The rapid expansion of the so-called
Cambrian explosion (significant increase in genetic information in a short
period of geological time). The limits of the change mutations can actually
cause within an organism. These are not simply “God of the gaps” explanations
(i.e., “we can’t explain it, therefore God did it”). Rather, they are
“arguments to the best explanation” (i.e., parallel phenomena such as computer
programming are the result of intelligent, creative action).
I fear too many people (aka, high school and college age
kids) lose confidence in the Bible because we don’t arm them well enough with
the “apologetic” answers. I want them – and us – to have confidence that
science and faith are not mutually exclusive. And I want them to have
confidence in the Bible.
The Text
If you know me, you also know I hold a high view of the
Bible. I firmly believe it is our ultimate authority. So, in a discussion of
origins, I cannot ignore the text! In the few words I have left, let me give four
thoughts about the Genesis account:
(1)
The facts
of science and the Bible must agree. However, the interpretation of one, the other, or both might be wrong.
(2)
The argument that says disagreement with an
interpretation means you deny the inerrancy of Scripture is a false dichotomy.
I found eight different approaches to Genesis One from writers who affirm the
inerrancy of Scripture but interpret the passages differently (this group does
not include theistic evolutionary approaches, although some theistic
evolutionists such as Bruce Waltke hold to inerrancy). Not all such
interpretations are equally strong, but the issue is interpretation, not
inerrancy.
(3)
The writer of Genesis (whom I believe to be
Moses) wrote to an agrarian, non-scientific culture roughly 1500 years before
Christ. What did he intend to communicate to the original audience? “Given
that” we might disagree on the details of the Creation, we can agree that the
text tells of the existence and nature
of God, that He is the creator, that objects and creatures worshipped by both
Egyptian and Canaanite cultures are created, that man is uniquely created in
God’s image, that through the sin of the first created man, Adam, sin entered
the world, and so on. These principles do not rise or fall based on the age of
the creation.
(4)
By all means, come to a conclusion about the
interpretation of the text. Discuss it with others, but be gracious with those
who interpret it differently – especially in public settings.
How old is this old (or not-so-old) earth? If you noticed, I
didn’t answer the question. I have my convictions, but I’m not going to give
them here. If you take a guess, some of you will be right and some of you will
be wrong. Wrestle with the answer to the age of the earth; come to a conclusion
about the age; but keep the main thing the main thing: that God created, not when
He created.
