My recent post in response to Justin Taylor’s article explaining Biblical reasons for viewing the six days of creation as not 24-hour periods has received a lot of attention. My Facebook profile doesn’t normally light up so much! And I engaged in some endless blog debates at Sharper Iron, and another site.
I’ve read a lot more on old earth creationism lately, and see the need to continue my studies in this area personally. Justin Taylor recommended a few sources for additional reading, and I wanted to share those here with a couple additions of my own, for the benefit of my readers.
For a simple explanation from a Christian geologist of the evidence for an old earth, this post (and his series, linked at the bottom) are helpful.
My primary reason for holding to an old-earth position is detailed in this article – God speaks through creation and He doesn’t deceive. For additional explanation of how the Bible allows for an old earth, see this post.
For two free e-books from a Reformed persuasion, which model a helpful and careful consideration of this debate, see:
Redeeming Science: A God-Centered Approach by Vern Poythres – ebook (free – PDF) / paperback (Westminster Bookstore)
A Reformed Approach to Science and Scripture by Keith Mathison – ebook (free) / not available in paperback
Justin Taylor also recommends the Presbyterian Church in America’s “Report of the Creation Study Committee”.
A brief booklet by Vern Poythress is also available free in pdf: Christian Interpretations of Genesis 1.
I wanted to comment briefly as your primary reason has kind of bugged me for last couple of days because it dismisses the power of God.
When Aaron’s rod budded (Num 17) It had not only sprouted and produced buds, but also blossoms and ripe almonds. Moses reaction? Did he question God about them at all? (And how long does it take a fruit bearing almond tree to go from sprouting to bearing ripe almonds?)
Did God deceive by going to that extent in giving the sign? And why to that extent? After all, He’d only mentioned making the rod of His chosen to blossom.
Greg,
Sorry for the late reply. I think there is a difference between an express miracle and creation. Creation is a miracle, for sure. And God certainly could create a mature earth. But why the detail and the history?
An analogy: Adam was created with a navel and as a man not a baby. I get that. But was he created with seven scars in his foot, and a broken leg that had healed over funny and so he had a limp? Or was he created with a lifetime worth of memories of past events (that actually never happened)? What I’m getting at, is was Adam created as a mature man. But the earth is not only mature but has numerous scars and signs of age and past history. We can read the history of the planet in the rocks and in numerous other geological formations. We can see memories of past species of animals that are no longer extant – and no historical records of their existance exist beside the testimony we find in the fossil record. In fact over 75% or more of all species we know about are only found in the fossil record – no existance in historical record or as living animals. Is all this just the maturity of earth? Why the history of a long past which didn’t actually happen? That is my problem with the idea that earth is just made with an appearance of great age. I believe God could have done this, but I don’t believe that He did – or that Scripture forces us to conclude that he did.
Bob,
No worries! Really appreciate the reply and analogy. Realized I confused the perspectives when comparing the two… so, to answer, we’re not looking at the earth from that side of the fall (as illustrated with Adam).
You take Adam at any point a few years after, you’d find callouses and various other forms of wear and tear associated with toil of working the land under the curse.
Two key points are often neglected in such debates: 1) Whatever the view of ‘yom,’ the plain sense of the first two verses precludes giving any Scriptural authority to the view of a young earth.
YECs complain about coming to the text with a priori assumptions. They do the same with Genesis 1:1,2. https://textsincontext.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/creation-young-earth-ham-nye-genesis-one/
2) Augustine gives us an exhortation about the damage done by those who make unwarranted claims under the guise that “the Bible says so.” Read his words following the above link in “1.”
After the Ham on Nye ‘debate’ I read several sad, disillusioned comments by young Christians who had been raised with the YEC view.
Thanks Michael. I think the same thing. At the very least, allow room for humility. We set up our kids to abandon the faith, if we only teach an AIG approach to science, in my view. When exposed to Nye or even better teachers in an environment that is not a Christian bubble, and we have left them unprepared and vulnerable. Teach the big philosophical problems with naturalism, teach that good Christians have different views on how Gen. 1 fits in with science. Explain that there are some non-negotiables, but there is also freedom to grow and learn and explore. The Christian faith is big enough for that, and doesn’t have to stand or fall with the performance of one of our “heros” in a debate against a science apologist….
Once you decide certain passages are poetic or metaphorical (Tim Keller / old earth / Genesis 1 & 2) aren’t you hopelessly unable to determine what is and isn’t? Unless the passage itself establishes its metaphorical method (e.g., “His feet were LIKE brass), shouldn’t we take God’s word as literally pronounced? I see the debate as an attack on the very authority of scripture. To say otherwise is just disingenuous in my opinion. If God created Adam with what you and I now assume as “age,” what’s the difficulty in believing the earth was created in such a fashion as to appear to have an age greater than it actually is? I have great respect for you Bob, but your position (and Keller’s) is deeply troubling. It’s just so unnecessary.
Rick,
I appreciate your comment and understand where you’re coming from. I think that demanding a “like” or “as” for all figures of speech is forcing our poetry-diminished, scientific-driven age onto the text. Metaphors don’t require an explicit “like” or “as.”
Literal means more than just our scientific thoughts about words – it means how the text would be received/understood in that era. Granted this is a big topic and it affects more than one’s view on old or young earth. Debates relating to dispensationalism and end-times theology center on just such a literalistic approach to Scripture.
It is more than just deciding passages are metaphorical too. There are Scriptural reasons in other passages that we have to account for in whatever view we take. Hugh Ross is helpful in showing how all of Scripture has something to say about creation and not just Gen. 1-2. This article by Matt Perman illustrates some Scriptural reasons for seeing an old earth.
Thanks again,
Bob