Hi, Neil â
Iâm usually just a semi-occasional lurker on this forum who rarely posts anything, but I thought Iâd join in on the lively discussion going on here.
My own approach to discussing these sorts of issues w/ YEC advocates is to insist up front on an intellectually honest framework, because unfortunately my experience is that the standard-issue YEC arguments (some of which youâve articulated here) usually fail that test. I can illustrate this by posing a very straightforward question.
First, letâs agree upon a number above which the age of the earth/universe is untenable from the YEC perspective. Youâve mentioned 6,000 years several times now, which is of course largely derived from Ussherâs work in the 17th century. Heâs the guy who most famously did the tedious counting backwards to arrive at a 4,004 BC date for the creation of the world, and many contemporary YEC advocates such as AiG still assert that heâs in the ballpark of correct. A 7,000 year-old earth/universe implies a 16% aggregate math error in Ussherâs dating, so I doubt that many YECâs would be willing to go much north of that. But you can choose the exact numberâŚwhatever you want. Weâll call this number âX.â
So this provides us with the basis for what Iâll call our Principal Question, and that is: would you, Neil, agree that it is possible that someone could present to you scientific evidence so overwhelmingly convincing that the earth and/or universe is older than X, such that you would recognize no choice but to concede that this is the only possible scientific conclusion, and that the YEC 6,000 year-old earth is thereby impossible? Do you, Neil â not Ken Ham, not Henry Morrisâ grandchildren, not anyone else, just you â allow for such a possibility in your own thinking?
Your answer to this Principal Question sets the framework for the discussion. If your answer is âNo,â the likely reason is that your position is that any non-YEC scientific claim violates the infallible truth of the word of God. You donât know where or how the scientists got their conclusions wrong, nor do you feel that you have any obligation to figure that out. You just know that theyâre wrong because they are approaching the issue from a worldview that has abandoned biblical authority, and therefore their conclusions are not to be trusted. PeriodâŚend of story. And youâre not budging because youâre committed to what you understand to be biblical truth on such matters.
Thatâs fine, and thatâs certainly your right to hold to such a position. But recognize that it now takes the science aspect of the matter off the table. If scientific information must first pass through your theological filter before it can be accepted (or not), then the issue really isnât about the scientific information. Itâs about the makeup of that theological filter, and thus the whole question is now a theological one. And thatâs fine, as well, because thereâs certainly a rich discussion to be had from that approach. We can talk about such things as:
- What we (âweâ being trustworthy Hebrew scholars) know about the original Hebrew texts, and the cultural context of the time and place in which they were written,
- The literary, chronological and thematic differences between the Genesis chapter 1 narrative and that of chapter 2; and we can throw in here the evidence that Chapter 1 may have been written centuries later and then added onto Genesis as a prologue of sorts, and what may have been behind all that.
- Why Jesus never bothered to set His disciples straight on any of these scientific truths â e.g., the actual relationship between the earth and sun, that leprosy is caused by a contagious microorganism that nobody can see, etc.
We can also have the philosophical discussion of why you and I both allow that when multiple Old Testament authors plainly describe the motion of the sun around the earth (also known as, the Bible verses that got Galileo in such hot water), that itâs okay to assume that theyâre writing figuratively. And we know this, how exactly? And why it is then okay to apply one standard of hermeneutics to Genesis 1 but another to (for example) Ecclesiastes 1 (which states that the sun âhastens backâ to the place from which it arose)? It ultimately becomes something of a discussion about what, precisely, scripture really isâŚi.e., God effectively dictating to an ancient author (though we do see that in places), or perhaps something a bit different, where such a dictation is not so obvious.
So again, thereâs lots to talk about here, but none of it has anything to do with science, because youâve admitted that youâre really not interested in that. So donât bring up an article from AiGâs website discussing the fallacies of carbon-14 dating. Donât demand that paleontologists find more transitional forms in the fossil record, because youâve admitted that if they dug up a million of them next week, it wouldnât matter. And donât build/promote a museum in Kentucky that offers not one shred of verifiable scientific proof in support of the YEC position, but demands more proof from everyone else. The âscienceâ of YEC is really all just window dressing, and youâve admitted that you will dismiss any conflicting scientific evidence out of hand. Ultimately your position is a theological one.
However, if your answer to our Principal Question is âyesâ â that is, given sufficient undeniable evidence, you, Neil would have to concede that the earth/universe is much older than X years â then the discussion is a scientific one. Now itâs about the burden of proof for an older earth, and whether that burden of proof has been met. And, like it or not, the heavier burden of proof falls to YEC advocates, because theyâre the ones who have to demonstrate that everyone else is wrong:
- If the geology of the earth was radically re-shaped by a catastrophic worldwide flood that covered its entire surface with tens of thousands of feet of water for the better part of a year, and this happened within the past 4,500 yearsâŚsubmit the evidence.
- If the laws of physics governing radio-isotope decay were different a few thousand years ago than they are todayâŚsubmit the evidence.
- If the âkindsâ of animals saved on the ark then rapidly differentiated into multiple descendant species within a few generationsâŚsubmit the evidence for how this may have happened, including, yes, the transitional form fossils thus mandated by such a model.
- Produce a falsifiable model for the physics of how we are able to see stars more than X light-years away.
And submit all of this to peer-reviewed scientific journals. If a paper submitted by ICR to a peer-reviewed journal is rejected by the editors, then have ICR publish the rejection letter on its own website. Let the rest of us decide for ourselves if thereâs a godless multinational conspiracy suppressing biblical truth, or if ICRâs research methodology or statistical methods are just lacking.
Not to mention, if youâre going to challenge the principle of uniformitarianism as it applies to no less than the constant for the speed of light, across both time (which you did) and space (which you also did), then recognize that â in addition to questions of visible distant starlight and the age of the universe â youâre also putting the validity of Einsteinâs theories of both general and special relativity on the table. Better really have your footlocker packed if youâre going there.
But what the question is not â if your answer is âyesâ â is one of worldview. So stop with all the telling non-YEC Christians that their adherence to the authority of scripture is degenerate or otherwise lacking. Stop claiming that they donât love God and revere the scriptures as much as you do. This is at best, unhelpful, and at worst, wellâŚI wonât go there right now. Because youâve admitted that if the scientific burden of proof were met to your own satisfaction, you would abandon the YEC position yourself. And if by abandoning the YEC position, you feel that your own faith in the risen Christ would thus crash down like a house of cards, thatâs on you. Donât assume the same is true for me or anyone else.
What I see from so many YEC advocates â and youâve gone down this path yourself on this thread â is that they want it both ways; that is, the âscienceâ of YEC is plain as day, if one only has the proper worldview. If one canât accept YEC âscientificâ claims, itâs because his or her worldview has abandoned biblical authority. So please know that I have no wish of being nasty here, but most of the folks on this forum arenât going to let you off so easy with that impenetrable circular argument. Itâs intellectually dishonest. And itâs ironic that often the only such challenges to scientific validity concern YEC-based arguments. Anytime you agree to a medical therapy, or bring a plant indoors because the weatherman on TV says itâs going to drop below freezing tonight, or drive your car across a bridgeâŚyou likely have no problem with the âassumptionsâ of the individuals involved. Itâs only the non-YEC scientists who are ânot even wrongâ (in the words of Wolfgang Pauli).
SoâŚâyesâ or âno?â And, before you ask, my answer to the converse question is âyes.â Iâll let you or anyone else try to prove to me scientifically that the universe is 6,000 years old. Have at it.
Blessings, and Merry Christmas,
Scott