Let us note the parenthetical qualifying statement…There is always an extent…;). I have never regretted including qualifying words, and our friend @Jay313 may soon regret their omission .
As I have (at least I think so…) noted before, I take a very dim view of drastic Biblical interpretation…Especially when applied to the historical books of the Bible (i.e: Genesis). That seems to send the “anything goes” message…
The Bible directly states that God created the earth in 6 days in more than one place. If God actually created the earth in billions of years, these statements are false. Anyone with a logical mind can see, in light of this, that Ken Ham’s statement is not (as @Jay313 asserts) “entirely false.”
Really? Please provide evidence when you make such claims. Even if thousands of young people are leaving the church, can you really prove that YEC is the reason for this?
It is important for BioLogos to take these verses seriously. Encouraging children and young people to believe anti-biblical things is, in the end, a great danger (to both the teacher and the student). The Bible has nothing good to say about false teachers.
Although this (a certain degree of scientific insecurity) may be occasionally found among creationists, I have noticed that theistic evolutionists often possess similar sentiments when it comes to theological insecurity. Some theistic evolutionists appear to seek theological affirmation in the same way that YEC’s often seek scientific affirmation.
Thank you all for obliging me with this discussion!
Thank you for your reply. I don’t imagine we are going to reach agreement, but the maybe can better define our areas of disagreement. From the top of your last post:
Genesis as a historical book. You say it is, I would qualify and say historical does not equal history as we think of it today, and the first 11 chapters are even further removed from what we know as history. That does not make it false, only different in meaning. This point has been discussed elsewhere in detail. In fact the most recent blog on this site is relevant discussing functional vs. scientific interpretation.
2.regarding false teachers, tough to resolve that, but we all should approach it with humility.
Regarding seeking theological affirmation, I would agree with you, and it is entirely apprpriate for TCs to seek that sort of understanding on theological matters. On the other hand, I would argue that seeking scientific affirmation on theological matters is less appropriate, though our understanding of material existence is a necessary part of life. When I look at theology, my brain is wired to make it part of a coherent whole, and have consistency. That is, it should be free of internal conflicts as much as possible, and when those conflicts arise, it alerts us to the fact that our theology may not be quite right in that area. To me, the literal/scientific interpretation is replete with conflict and inconsistency, which leads me away from that view.
I think the desire to seek scientific affirmation is something we all do (and label apologetics), so am not really critical of that, though when it distorts things and bends them to fit a preconceived notion, it is not good no matter which direction it is done.
I don’t want to overdo this too much, but I have always found the Christian Clergy Letter Project to be a welcomed voice in the discussion of religion and science. The following statement is signed by over 14,000 Christian clergy:
Within the community of Christian believers there are areas of dispute and disagreement, including the proper way to interpret Holy Scripture. While virtually all Christians take the Bible seriously and hold it to be authoritative in matters of faith and practice, the overwhelming majority do not read the Bible literally, as they would a science textbook. Many of the beloved stories found in the Bible – the Creation, Adam and Eve, Noah and the ark – convey timeless truths about God, human beings, and the proper relationship between Creator and creation expressed in the only form capable of transmitting these truths from generation to generation. Religious truth is of a different order from scientific truth. Its purpose is not to convey scientific information but to transform hearts.
We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as “one theory among others” is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children. We believe that among God’s good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator. To argue that God’s loving plan of salvation for humanity precludes the full employment of the God-given faculty of reason is to attempt to limit God, an act of hubris. We urge school board members to preserve the integrity of the science curriculum by affirming the teaching of the theory of evolution as a core component of human knowledge. We ask that science remain science and that religion remain religion, two very different, but complementary, forms of truth. An Open Letter Concerning Religion and Science
The Bible also says that a day with the Lord is like a thousand years and a thousand years are like a day. (2 Peter 3:8 and Psalm 90:4). I know that it doesn’t say “billions,” but the whole point is that there isn’t a 1:1 correspondence between God’s time and our time.
So no, it’s perfectly possible for God to have created the earth in billions of years and for the statements about 6 days to be true as well.
We shouldn’t so much as bat an eyelid at whatever science has to say about the age of the earth.
It’s only one of the reasons. The Southern Baptist Convention – the largest evangelical denomination – has lost more than a million members in the last 10 years. Do you have any idea why? There is actual research out there, and one of the most common reasons is the YEC teaching that rejects science and evolution. You can refuse to see the truth if you wish, but to continue teaching falsehood that turns people away from the truth is culpable behavior, in my opinion.
A logical mind?!? Are you actually claiming that the young earth is a logical conclusion?
Your syllogism is flawed. You are putting forward only two choices when there are more than two choices. It is not your way or the highway. Ken Ham’s statement is entirely false.
Again, you are offering young people two choices: Either evolution is true, or the Bible is true. Faced with that choice, many young people have not been able to do what you have done, which is pretend that the scientific evidence does not exist, or is the product of a vast atheist conspiracy. So, they walk away from the faith because they were told that they had no other choice. Therefore, I lay the blame for their departure squarely at the feet of the people who taught them this lie.
I take these things much more seriously than you would believe. Ask yourself: How many young people have lost faith because of the things you have said on the Internet?
As others have stated, it is difficult to determine what impact YEC has had on church membership. I also think that a person’s beliefs and how they arrive at those beliefs is very complex, so I don’t think it would be fair to pin everything on just YEC.
However, I did find it fascinating when a woman named Libby Anne posted a blog post on why she is an atheist. She describes how she was raised in a household where creationism was heavily taught, and by the time she was going to college she was perhaps the most well studied YEC out there. That’s when things started falling apart for Libby Anne. She was soon faced with the facts, and after about a year she felt compelled to throw away YEC and accept evolution and an old Earth. This also led Libby Anne down other paths that eventually led to her giving up her faith, but I think that in reading her story there isn’t an obvious cause and effect. Obviously, there are many Christians who do hold on to their faith when they transition from YEC to evolutionary creationism, but that really isn’t the focus I have for this post.
What is really interesting is that Georgia Purdom and then Ken Ham at Answers in Genesis weighed in on Libby’s story. Of course, Libby felt it necessary to respond to AiG. I find those exchanges to be the most illuminating. We actually get to see the mind sets of actual people as they deal with the issues we have been discussing in this thread.
AiG’s position is that Libby just didn’t believe YEC hard enough. AiG is completely tone deaf on this issue. AiG has painted themselves into a corner where their only defense is to plug their ears and keep trumpeting the same wrong information.
“In the end, I didn’t “give up.” Rather, I realized I had been wrong. There’s a big difference there. And once I saw that creationism didn’t actually hold water, and that evolution was supported by the evidence, I had the intellectual honesty to change my mind. Why? Because that’s what you do when you realize you were wrong.”–Libby Anne
I can’t disagree with you, as I’m sure the temptation to depend too much on science (or anything other than God!) is there for all of us. But I do notice the tone of AIG leadership vs. BioLogos leadership is starkly different in that area.
No kidding! Here’s a quote from Georgia’s piece:
Again “the truth of the Bible” does not “[rest] on young earth creationism.” But if Genesis is not true, as she decided, then how could she trust any of it?
Say what? She’s saying Libby Anne is wrong and then basically just rewording what Libby Anne said. Also the falsely equating of accepting deep time with “Genesis is not true.”
Even though I’m not an atheist, I read Libby Anne regularly because I think she has some very good insights into certain contradictions in Christian culture, such as YEC and also politics.
Up to this point, though, it seems like Ms. Anne only has blinkered (or selective) criticism of Ken Ham & co. He was wrong about evolution or a young earth; but apparently her critique fails to go quite far enough to admit that he was wrong about other things too: like his “my way or the highway” approach to how Scriptures are understood.
Ditto. (Or at least I used too.) She’s a really insightful writer, her posts are meticulously researched, and she is very fair. You can have pretty intelligent conversation on her comment boards too, and she is very cordial to Christians who want to thoughtfully engage. Evangelical (post-Evangelical?) bloggers like Rachel Held Evans and Elizabeth Esther fairly regularly interact with her.
Just to add to the chorus: This exchange is well worth reading. And I think AIG’s response is telling: As discussed on a different post, they don’t link anyone to the original post, lest anyone should read it and follow the same path, and their response consists of doubling down and of denying Libby’s groundedness in the YEC literature.
I enjoyed reading Libby’s comments about her relationship with her dad:
I’ve written before that my dad and I were close. One of our favorite topics was creationism. We read creationist books together, we took them with us on family vacations so that we could “refute” what the park rangers and signs said. I found creationism fascinating, and so did my father, and we spent more hours discussing it than I can count.
How is this simply “exposure”? I wasn’t simply “exposed” to creationism!
I see in this a sort of mirror image of my relationship with my daughter, except that I spend all that same time debunking young-earth creationism and telling her about the glory of God’s creation through evolutionary processes.
Of course, the reality, as I came to terms with through discussing the matter with Ann Gauger some months back here, is that there are no guarantees with our youth, and my approach to transmitting my faith to the next generation may fail just as thoroughly as Libby’s parents’ did.
But I do think my chances are so much the better for the posture I’m taking, and at least I don’t need to rely on, as Libby says, “indoctrination and isolation.” I trust that will put my kids’ faith in a better position to weather life’s storms. I pray so, anyway.
You are exactly right. The “symmetry” between your situation and hers breaks down on the rocks of reality. YECs don’t just have hostile information sources to worry about, they have reality and even non-cooperative Scriptures themselves to fret over. Whereas most other sources seems to invite (and link to) a wider reality of information (even including YEC sources that are hostile in return). The fear of any information or learning is much more pronounced on the YEC side. Not to say it isn’t also present elsewhere, but much less so. One of the primary markers of many cults is the isolation demands being made. A sure sign of trouble.
That’s actually how I found my way to BioLogos in the first place. I realized that when my son was interested in trains, or construction vehicles, or animals, we could get a book from the library and learn about it, or find other ways of learning about the world around us. When he became interested in dinosaurs, I had this sudden urge to “redirect” his interests elsewhere (I know, terrible), because I knew I would have to create an “alternate reality” around him if he was going to pursue that (verbally censoring things, buying specialty books, always “correcting” “lies,” etc.). Then I wondered why I should have to do that…
I have taken the exact route as you: taught my son all along that there is nothing anti-Christian about evolution. I point to CS Lewis (his favourite author) as a role model.
So if the young people put “(evolutionary) science” above the word of God with regards to the truth about our origins then it follows that they will eventually think that the bible is a bunch of hogwash and leave.
This is exactly what organizations like Creation Ministry International and Answers in Genesis are valiantly fighting against. One can clearly see that in the research done by Answers in genesis namely that a belief that the evolutionary tale is true directly leads young people rejecting the bible and following the world.
One should take note of the way you’ve used the word “science”. It has the the underlying meaning that people who believe in the bible as the sole authority on our origins reject science in its totality. That means that all observable,testable and verifiable scientific endeavors get thrown out with the bathwater. This in direct contrast to that un-observable, once-off, unrepeatable creation event that took place in the past and that no one can go back to to verify as to whose viewpoint is right.
This is precisely how atheists want Christians to be seen - as ignoramus idiots, when in reality it is simply a matter of Christians objecting to the atheistic religious dogma of big bang, abiogenesis and Darwinian evolution - all of which is sheer speculation with no real scientifically backed up support. It comes down to the fact of disagreeing with their religion and them not being able to tolerate that.
Unfortunately biologians seem to have accepted this way of thinking and are following suit.
Well this is truly the crux of the matter: There has already been formed an alternate reality by the atheistic naturalism which has now become established as the the truth. And because of that alternate reality, people find themselves bound to reject the bible as the arbiter of what transpired at our creation.
Perhaps looking at the viewpoint espoused by answers in genesis and creation dot com would be in order.
They start off from using the bible as the only option of truth and work things out from there, rather than accept the atheistic viewpoint as truth and following suit, which is what biologos is doing and thereby leading people down a wrong path in my opinion. The truth is found int he word of God since He Created all things and knows how he did it and what happened subsequently to change it to look as it does now. This in sharp contrast to people who reject the idea of a creator that has ownership rights over them.
It’s a clash of worldviews. Like Joshua (and Moses) said: Choose you this day whom you will serve.
Prode, you are asking us to take the Bible as the starting point in our discussions about origins. I don’t know if you realise it but I have an analysis of Answers in Genesis’s claims that does precisely that.
As I’ve repeatedly pointed out to you (a point that you have completely and repeatedly ignored) the age of the earth is determined by measuring things. It is nothing whatsoever to do with “atheistic materialism.” And on the matter of measurement, the Bible has far more to say than about either the age of the earth or evolution. For starters, Deuteronomy 25:13-16 says this:
Do not have two differing weights in your bag — one heavy, one light. Do not have two differing measures in your house — one large, one small. You must have accurate and honest weights and measures, so that you may live long in the land the Lord your God is giving you. For the Lord your God detests anyone who does these things, anyone who deals dishonestly.
Answers in Genesis claim that they uphold Scripture. Yet time and time again I see them flagrantly disobeying Scripture – specifically, these verses – by playing fast and loose with the basic rules and principles of how measurement works to try and twist the evidence into supporting their tradition when it is abundantly clear that it does not. In so doing, they do not uphold the Word of God, but nullify it with their tradition.
This has been pointed out to you repeatedly, Prode, but you have not even attempted to respond to it, instead just repeating the same shenanigans about “atheistic naturalism” and the like. Are you or are you not going to give a constructive response to the points we have raised?
This strikes me as ironic, as that is exactly what is happening when youth are taught that the YEC synthesis of pseudoscience is placed above Christ as the foundation of faith, and if it is false, the Bible must be false, to paraphrase AIG. They say, “You must be right, adios.” That is what the research says is a big reason millinials are checking out, among others. It amazes me when I read these things written, and wonder how the YEC folks cannot see that they are talking about themselves. Something about the log in the eye, I guess.
By the way, great article @jammycakes.
From this statement I guess it’s so ironic that YEC now gets blamed for people leaving the church/faith. God’s word clearly warns us against the sins that beset Israel in their rebellion against Him - beware of calling evil good and good evil. Is it YEC that’s the problem or believing the lie of the atheistic religion?
It really is hard to resist the beguiling words of the enemy. Evolution is impossible and there’s not a shred of evidence that exists to support the vast claims it makes. Has anyone ever witnessed a population of one kind of organism morph into another kind of organism over a long period of time? Note I deliberately use the word kind, not species. Is there any scientifically supported evidence that a single cellular creature can morph into a multi-cellular one? Or that said multi-cellular thing can somehow miraculously over eons of time develop a spine, a brain, wings, legs etc all supported by complex circulatory systems, immune systems, nerve systems etc???
.
