Thank you Christy…I know I am guilty of lacking social skills and not exercising restraint and grace all to often…appreciate yours and others understanding here, Tom
1 Like
Thank you Randy for your welcome and encouraging words…God bless! Tom
1 Like
I could not agree more with that statement, but there is so much more to ponder. This topic is interesting to me. I admit to having been dismissive towards YEC, never giving much thought to any credibility of their viewpoint. At the risk of offending many serious students of our Scripture, the YEC view has been to me a form of “science-denial” bordering on “flat-earthers” type of thinking. So let me first offer an apology for my very closed and biased former dismissal (especially to @kocheesh). So as I now try to truly think through the issues that result in this barrier, I cannot resist the notion to boil it to 2 options. Either the YEC’er: a) refuses to accept science and/or b) he/she is reluctant to admit to, and embrace figurative language. These take the form of metaphor, euphemism, hyperbole, allegory, parable and simile as we see so often in the Bible.
Figurative narrative, not intended to be literally interpreted, comes in two contexts of extreme: The YEC takes (it seems) Genesis literally except where doing so appears to be impossible, while conversely an EC person (perhaps a BioLogos interpreter) assumes that Genesis should not be taken literally except where not doing so appears to be impossible. Both of these extremes may lead to error, of course.
Examples of most obvious (possible) errors:
-
The YEC error in the extreme is to refuse to acknowledge the fact that the universe is 14.8 Byo, earth around 4.5 Byo, human-ape common ancestor at ~6 Mya, and H.sapien around 300,000 years ago.
-
The scientific Christian person (not intended to represent the BioLogos position) in the extreme may refuse to accept anything that does not fit into the current laws of physical possibilities, such as the resurrection of Christ not to mention a virgin birth or turning bread into wine and other miracles we (mostly) accept.
For any of us to raise these questions may mean that the YEC’er questions our theological purity (a quote from the Morton piece). Morton took a long time, nearly 10 years, so I can now see that even the most accomplished scientist may struggle with what now, to me, seems so obvious. As Morton says…“nothing that young-earth creationists had taught me about geology turned out to be true”. I would have thought he would come to that conclusion in about 5 minutes, not 10 years.
The story written here (Confessions of a Failed Young-Earth Creationist) by Daniel Stork Banks in 2014 was a good read, but once again it is hard for me to relate to the conflict between science and theology as “being a struggle”. To me, they fit perfectly together. As he says…“Young-earth creationism simply fails every empirical test that mainstream science demands”.
So now my personal ‘evolution’ pushes me toward a much more understanding and accepting nature of the paths taken by YEC, even while I remain steadfast in my conviction that they are wrong. I see better now where they are coming from, the reasons for their notions and their strong commitment to our faith. And to Tom’s statement quoted above, the compatibility of the two beliefs is complete with only two assumptions: God started it all, natural laws of physics took over, evolution thus was God’s creation and the Bible so often uses figurative language. It’s that simple.
3 Likes
When did God start it? And what is ‘it’?
The sun is on the right, “on a stick”; the moon is on the left, opposite from the sun. But what I’m not clear on is that third object which appears to be “straight up”: The North Star?
1 Like
Hi Tom,
Thanks for the gracious response. I mainly want to respond to your comments on Paul, but I’ll save that for later and focus here on Genesis and genealogies:
When the Bible portrays a people group as a person, the narrative typically uses language that fits individuals. In Ezekiel 16, the woman Jerusalem has parents, sexual relations and named sisters (Sodom and Samaria). In Hosea 11, God calls Israel “my son” and goes on to mention Judah/Israel’s literal (grand)son Ephraim, who also refers to a whole group of people.
The strongest indication of a representative figure is often their name: a woman named Jerusalem or a man named Israel should ring the representative bell as much as a first human named Humanity (which is what the Hebrew word adam means). But the Eden narrative has many other clues as well. Practically nothing in the story is just what it’s called. The serpent isn’t just a serpent or clever beast and the trees of life and knowledge aren’t just fruit trees. If the people are also more than individuals, it fits the style of the whole story.
When Adam is split into two sides, Adam and Eve, they both continue to portray humanity. The enmity between Eve and the serpent isn’t just about Eve (or women) being afraid of snakes, and the promise of death to Adam doesn’t mean Eve (or women) lives forever. Eve and Adam both show the human condition in different ways (I got more into this here).
Genesis 5 begins with a section title saying it’s about the generations of Adam. The next sentence describes how God created Adam, the next how God named Adam. Then, the fourth sentence describes Adam becoming the father of Seth at 130.
The problem (for modern scientific readers) is that the Adam God creates and names is a group of people (male and female) while the Adam who fathers Seth is one man. Many English translations solve this “problem” by erasing Adam from the middle sentences, leaving Adam as just a man. But the inspired author of Genesis records that Adam is God’s name for humanity, male and female. This notice is given right at the head of Adam’s genealogy. Genesis doesn’t want us to view Adam as only a man, even if we view him as also a man.
As for Luke 3, I expect we both see a difference in the chain when it comes to Adam’s link. Adam is not the son of God the way Jesus is! I read the end as meaning something like “son of Seth, son of Humanity, creation of God.” This distinction isn’t in the text, but to me it’s inescapable that the last link or two should be understood differently.
4 Likes
Hi Bucky, Thanks for your response and apology…none needed but your mention is appreciated 
I did read all you wrote and will read thru the Morton and Daniel Stork Banks content in the coming days. I do see your thoughtfulness in contrasting the views of creation, specifically origins of man, and they are thought provoking and important for us as believers to think through and be convinced of. I would respectfully have to disagree with the assumptions you listed in the last paragraph as I am held to the Word of God while also absolutely acknowledging the ever growing findings of science but not finding the two contradictory. Again, thanks for your response and will read thru the links your sent. Blessings, Tom
Hi Marshall, Thank you and appreciate your detailed response and I believe I can see your logic and reasoning in the interpretation you present. You’ve definitely given great points to consider and study further, especially looking into the original language and meanings of the words and phrases. I’m certainly not a Bible scholar by occupation and rely on others who have those gifts and expertise. I do look forward to what you have to say on Romans as I believe the passage in chapter 5 is core to our understanding of how sin & death entered the world & mankind and how it was the incarnate Savior who came to accomplish redemption from that sin & death. Thanks again…God bless, Tom
1 Like
It seems to me that many sincere Christians who accept YEC are not refusing to accept science, they are just oblivious to the mountains of evidence that contradict what they are claiming the Bible teaches as reality. They assume that the people who have told him that “good science” supports these interpretations (a young earth, global flood, single pair of biological parents for the whole human race or whatever) are trustworthy and have done the work so they don’t have to. It comes down to whom you trust to give you reliable information. There is no need to consider figurative interpretations if your literalist ones are working just fine for you and you aren’t experiencing any cognitive dissonance because you have made some very wrong but understandable assumptions about what the science can or can’t rule out. There are some influential Christian leaders who have been lying about science, but it’s not the average person in the pew’s fault for trusting them. I think it is coming to terms with this betrayal that is what makes people take so long sometimes to “accept the science.”
8 Likes
Yes, though I’m not even sure how much they understand. I agree that it’s really hard to make a good assessment. Thanks
And having YEC parents who don’t understand the science can add to that sense of betrayal, even if they are not lying but just seriously mistaken.
3 Likes
The struggle is in leaving false religion. Which looks like redundant phraseology. YEC is required by PSA for many. That’s the problem. An understandable one. I don’t understand how any can require PSA without it. But many do.
1 Like
I see the emphasis placed on the created nature of the world, and it shall not be moved as an allusion to how the earth rests in the hand of God. His providential care. The earth will eventually pass away, and it will be replaced by a new earth and a new heavens. This is an immovable expectation.
2 Likes
When?: 13.8 BYa
What?: Not sure how much and for how long it took, but particle physics required the basis for electromagnetic fields (the photon). So that meant the need for quarks (making up protons and neutrons) and the 12 gauge bosons to mediate forces. Other “massless” gluons also necessary, including the Higgs to confer mass. Then the Hydrogen at the beginning, then the Li, Be and B from fusion, then all other elements allowing transformation to the entire periodic table. That then was the template for the molecular structures necessary for energy to be created to support life.
You are well aware, Klax, of the intricate and amazing series of spinning molecules we now know are required for the Kreb’s cycle with ion channels allowing for electric potentials across all cellular membranes, since Nick Lane has so eloquently described them. BTW, I hope you have his recent release of “Transformer: The Deep Chemistry of Life and Death”…a really good followup read to his “The Vital Question: Energy, Evolution and the Origins of Complex Life”. I am certain you read the later, and strongly recommend the most recent one. It would be preposterous to actually believe that all of this merely happened without some form of divine guidance, don’t you think?
So nature, arguably existence, being, started once 13.8 gya? That doesn’t make any sense whatsoever. God or no. It’s infinitely absurd.
That’s not what it says. In the ANE worldview, the earth is fixed and resting on pillars. The universe has three tiers, with the heavens (where God lives) ABOVE the earth, and an underworld BELOW the earth.
1 Like
I’m kind of late to this thread, just sharing a little of my experience coming from YEC to EC and now teaching many students who are YEC at a Christian University.
Part of me wishes that I didn’t have to go through the relearning phase. Many times, various YEC catch phrases pop into my head, especially when I read some science article that talks about what we don’t know. Baked into my brain is this idea that if we don’t understand some aspect of evolution or cosmology, then we can dismiss the whole field. That of course, is ridiculous but just one example of what pops into my head. However, I feel that knowing the YEC approach through and through helps me both:
A) phrase things more carefully to YEC raised students and be sensitive to the typical objections
B) understand evolution and other topics better than I did before because I really had to understand things before accepting them. Like I really had to understand how Big Bang nucleosynthesis actually describes the distribution of hydrogen and helium in the universe instead of just accepting it as fact.
Still annoying that YEC junk pops up in my head when learning about God’s creation though as if it is actually a viable explanation for anything.
I have a special talent of quickly losing potential friends when I talk about my work, so I generally just don’t talk about it. I try to meet people where they’re at though, and have many amazing conversations - I think the most effective thing I’ve found is talking about real science in a positive way while still affirming God as the creator. A lot of people have never heard evolution talked about in a positive way and it’s weird for them to hear. Especially when it comes from a Christian who loves God. @DOL is a great example of this.
Maybe I can take a sabbatical and get back to you 
Joking aside, I actually do have a book outline written towards someone like my former self. There are a lot of great resources out there at the moment of people who made peace between their faith and real science, but I think I get what you mean.
10 Likes
The incredible combinations now described in particle physics are far too mind-boggling to even ponder. I remain in awe. God’s work was necessary. We firmly agree that the science and faith should not, and do not conflict. But that then illuminates the elephant in the room…the many details of science in the realm of geology, archeology and evolutionary biology.
But we agreed that the science should not be viewed as incompatible with the above. In fact, God’s actions enabled the marvelous processes we now call evolution which we know now to have begun 13.8 Bya for our universe, and ~4.5 Bya for our little planet. This science is fundamental and not in any way a deterrent to our faith. I better understand how men of faith can initially reject that, but “at the end of the day”, I think you and I will agree totally!
This is so true. Because yes they don’t know the science. But it’s also willful ignorance. There’s a lot of fear.