Blog

by Steve Risner

The question Michael Roberts, an old earth creationist, asks for this week's post is a strange one—one I'm not sure why he's asking. But that's sort of been the case for most of his questions for “young earth” or Biblical creationists. If you've been following along, you'll know we've been answering a list of 10 questions that Mr. Roberts has for Biblical creationists. We've covered whether or not the age and shape of the earth are important, if ancient people could understand geologic time, the literal reading of the Bible, animal death, and geologists in general. You can check out the full series here. Today's question is this:

Did Christians oppose old earth geology in the past?

This question is a very important one because of how he's asked it and because of his commentary just below it.

The fact that Mr. Roberts refers to his “slam dunk” evidence as “old earth geology” is impressive. He's at least admitting that there is a difference between the starting assumptions of “old earthers” and “young earthers” who are more accurately called Biblical creationists. That's the whole thing in a nutshell. A “Scriptural geologist” is one who will use the Bible as a starting point and interpret the evidence they uncover through that lens, while an “old earth geologist” will start with deep time as required by the humanist origins myth and interpret the evidence through that lens. This effectively answers the bulk of his questions concerning geology. It very clearly answers his next question, which we'll get into at a later date. But he's likely unwittingly let the proverbial cat out of the bag here by calling it “old earth geology.” I'm grateful he's acknowledged the difference, even if he didn't intend to do so.

I feel like we're answering this question for at least the second time. Last week, we looked at whether or not geologists were adversarial toward Christianity in the past. The obvious answer was “no” since most geologists who are credited with founding the discipline were Biblical creationists and interpreted the evidence in light of that and the global Flood. It wasn't until the late 1700s or 1800s that the thought of abandoning the Bible as a historical source began to get traction. We outlined a bit of that process last time.

This week's answer, however, is quite obviously “yes.” Many throughout the ages have vehemently criticized those who have wandered from the Biblical truth found in the creation and global Flood accounts. It wasn't very common in times long past, but some did come and go. However, many in the 1700s, 1800s, 1900s, and today oppose those narratives that do not begin with or support the Biblical narrative and time lines. I listed several who did this last week, during the time which we can truly say humanism began to infiltrate the Church in many forms, especially in the way nature was interpreted. So, quite clearly, Christians have opposed the incorrect and corrupted interpretation of geology.

However, Christians haven't opposed geology—just the humanistic interpretations of the facts. Geology was developed by Godly men who looked at earth history (geology) through the Biblical lens. Secular humanists hijacked the study and claimed it as their own about 200 years ago or so. There are still those that oppose these anti-Biblical interpretations, but their numbers are obviously quite small compared to the majority of old earth geologists. As we've stated before: popularity has no bearing on the truth.

So, Michael states that he thought “Christians opposed geology.” This is just a strange statement. It's like saying “People who eat healthy oppose cooking.” No. They may oppose bad meal prep, but they don't oppose making food. Christians don't oppose geology. It's a study. I think geology is fascinating, and I love it. If you're doing it wrong, I may not like your conclusions, but that has no relation to the study as a whole. I love astronomy and cosmology. I think the Big Bang and the explanations its advocates give for what we see in the universe are hysterical, but I don't dislike astronomy and cosmology for what in my opinion are erroneous beliefs of unbelievers. These disciplines and many others were largely developed by Biblical creationists.

This is akin to the bogus argument that pits Christianity against science. That is ridiculous and usually means the person saying such things is either totally ignorant on the debate or is trying to be misleading. Either way, that sort of thing is something I just don't have time for. Let's get into what Mr. Roberts says about this question a little more.

He claims that, after reading hundreds of books, he concluded that most if not all Christians did, in fact, adhere to a “youngish” earth. This sounds like he's answered his own question—question number 7. This question we answered a few weeks ago, but we'll mention it here because of the glaring contradiction in his own statements. “Is young earth creationism the traditional Christian view?” The answer was “Uh, yeah! Big time.” He seemed to believe it was not, but now he's saying that it was until the humanist origins myth dictated a new interpretation of the data (a new way to view geology) and the Bible (reinterpreting Genesis and other key passages). The evidence we find in nature can EASILY be interpreted to be 100% in line with Scripture as it reads. (By Roberts' own admission, it demands a “young earth” interpretation.) It's not that Christians didn't have “geology to guide them.” Geology was around for a while before humanists hijacked it. What he is saying is that Christians didn't have humanism to make them doubt the Scriptures and its obvious teachings until the 1800s.

He ends by saying, “Very few Christians opposed geology for the last few centuries.” What does that even mean? No one “opposes geology.” That's absurd. We oppose the humanist origins myth which Mr. Roberts has used to interpret the geologic data. That's all.

There are many Bible-believing Christians who love science and glorify God with their work. We can find long lists of scientists who reject the humanist origins myth and its infiltration of modern science and the Church. Many creationist organizations are staffed with such people. I'm talking here about professional scientists, but the same is true for laypersons as well. Many reject the humanist origins myth because they've accepted the Word of God as their first and primary authority. Rejecting humanism is easy if you've done this. However, many have determined to use man's currently popular interpretation of the data, which is shaped by humanism, to rewrite the Bible and tear down centuries of understanding of the Holy Scriptures. The narratives we're discussing here are very straightforward. They make it easy to get the general idea of creation and the global extent of the Flood, but some will reject these very clear teachings based on the currently popular humanist origins myth that's been disguised as science for a very long time.

Don't be sucked in, folks. Christians don't oppose science in any form. We oppose the humanist origins myth and its infiltration, or even hijacking, of science. We're still waiting for “scientists” to catch up with what the Bible has stated for a very long time.

This forum is meant to foster discussion and allow for differing viewpoints to be explored with equal and respectful consideration.  All comments are moderated and any foul language or threatening/abusive comments will not be approved.  Users who engage in threatening or abusive comments which are physically harmful in nature will be reported to the authorities.