Blog

by Steve Risner

A few weeks ago, I answered the 10th in a series of 10 questions a British old earth creationist (or theistic evolutionist, I'm not sure which) had for his “young earth” creationist brothers. I was happy to find this list of questions as it provides a little something to work with in terms of the discussion between Bible-believing Christians and those who either don't believe it at all or, in this case, say they believe it but that it means something entirely different from what it says. I did a very detailed series concerning “10 Theological Questions No Young Earth Creationist Can Answer” a couple of years ago. This series exposed the lack of knowledge this particular theistic evolutionist had about the Bible and solid, longstanding theology, as well as how confused he was about what theology actually is. Many of his questions were science related or, at the very least, not related to theology at all.

In the case of this current series of questions, they were rather easy to answer, and I was happy to be of service for the man who posed them. I hope he's found some insight into how the Bible reads and why people, such as myself, have a firm faith in the Word of God that isn't a blind faith (like that of the atheist or other non-biblical worldview holder) but a faith that is confirmed repeatedly by observation.

I suppose the point of Mr. Roberts' set of questions was to show people how wrong we Biblical creationists are, but his questions demonstrated quite clearly that the old earth creationist and theistic evolutionist alike have no internal consistency—they get the Bible wrong and the history wrong. (I say history because we all should be able to see why origins “science” isn't science but a discussion of our ideas about historical events.)

He actually supported the Biblical creationists' position frequently while thinking he was solidly defeating it. In his opening statements, he made the claim that “at first glance” the Bible quite obviously teaches a “young earth.” This, of course, depends. I'm not sure what a “young earth” is since I think over 6000 years is a long time, but it's all about perspective. But he's right. The Bible unambiguously teaches that God created everything that exists in this universe in 6 consecutive regular earth days and rested on the 7th day. This isn't just from Genesis but other portions of Scripture as well. This has been the overwhelmingly held position on the interpretation of Scripture for thousands of years. There have been those over the centuries who've entertained other interpretations or even demanded such alternative interpretations were correct, but the vast majority of Church fathers and rabbis for a very, very long time have held quite solidly that the text actually means exactly what it says. There is literally no reason from the text to doubt this is true. So, he sort of shoots himself in the foot before he even gets into his questions.

He correctly states that the Gospel is about Jesus Christ and not the age of the earth. That's why I don't accept the name “young earth” creationist or YEC for the Biblical position. It puts too much emphasis on the age of the earth when, in reality, I don't care at all how old the earth is. However, I do care what the Bible tells us. I believe it's accurate and I refuse to wipe it away simply because the humanist origins myth demands I do so. Oddly, since the age of the earth is apparently unimportant to Mr. Roberts, he puts a lot of time into defending the humanist origins myth and its claims of deep time. If it's so unimportant, why put so much into it? I defend the Word of God and its inerrant nature when I speak of the age of the earth. Old earthers and theistic evolutionists defend the humanist origins myth.

He then asks about the age of the earth and the shape of the globe, seemingly either trying to announce his belief in a flat earth or he's trying to connect something that is a solid Biblical teaching to something that is not so as to make the one appear as absurd as the other. This is unfortunate and makes it difficult to take such people seriously.

He also makes it difficult to take him seriously when he proclaims that there is “no evidence” for a global Flood in all of geology. This, of course, is laughable and it's hard not to poke fun, but I'll resist a little longer. But if there was a global Flood, would there be large sediment layers around the world? Would there be large fossil grave yards around the world? Would we be able to track ecological zones as they're decimated in the fossil record? Would there be Flood legends in something like 200 different people groups around the world if there was a global Flood that left only 8 survivors? Sure, that last one isn't geology, but it's still solid evidence for the event's authenticity. “No evidence?” Please.

He moved on from here to a strange question—possibly his strangest. He muses about how ancient Hebrews could understand geologic time. What a strange thought. Were they too stupid to understand? This question has nothing to do with the subject. It's just an odd idea that doesn't make sense to me at all. But neither does twisting Scripture to mean something it clearly doesn't intend to mean, so there's that.

A very common claim from skeptics who are Christians is that “young earthism” is a new thing. This is obviously a dishonest attempt to discredit the position and it fails miserably. “Young earthism,” which is rightly called Biblical creationism, is what was believed for thousands of years prior to and after Christ's time by the vast majority of believers—Jew and Christian alike. This is evident in Church writings and, frankly, common sense as well as from reading what Old and New Testament writers had to say about it. We must include the global nature of the Flood as well since that is commonly attacked by Christians who don't accept the Genesis narrative as it's written as well. So, Michael Roberts tries to argue that this is the case—that “young earthism” is a new idea. It's true that the apologetic based on the accurate history recorded in Genesis is a newer development, but this actually is strong evidence that very few ever really questioned the plain reading of the text in the past. A few came and went who suggested we look at it differently, but their ideas were not accepted much at all until the humanist origins myth gained traction in the Church. Some have suggested Augustine was not among those who believed in a “recent” creation because he wondered why God wouldn't have created everything instantaneously since He was able to. I guess that's a thought, but it certainly doesn't mean he ascribed to deep time or evolution. It's actually the opposite.

To me, it seems that God created in a particular order because He was making a point and teaching us who He is. The first 3 days of creation are related consecutively to the last 3—meaning what happened on day 1 corresponded to something on day 4, while what was created on day 2 corresponded to something created on day 5, etc. Is this coincidence or design? Of course, I believe it's by design and a brilliant one at that. And this doesn't in any way take away from the historical nature of the narrative at all. Biblical creation has been the norm for centuries—as far back as Genesis was written, I believe. The Hebrews understood it as such and so did the early Church fathers including the Apostles and even Jesus, if we are to accept His teachings as He stated them.

We'll stop here for this week with the wrap-up of Mr. Roberts' 10 questions for his “young earth” creationist brothers and sisters. Next week, we'll finish up with the last few questions he posed. Thanks for reading.

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.