The young earth vs old earth discussion is an important debate and worth taking part in. But as the comments are beginning to stray a bit from the original post, we may wind this particular debate down here. It will more than likely appear elsewhere in the future on this site. Thanks for your helpful contributions.

Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

No, “established scientific theories” say nothing of the sought. It is philosophical naturalism, the philosophy that sees the universe as a closed system of cause and effect. Where the space/time receptacle of the universe is all that exists. No scientific theory can establish a philosophical position, whether it is evolution, big bang cosmology or uniformitarian geology. It is a non-sequitur to extrapolate from any of these scientific theories to a philosophical position.

Surely you would not object to the fact that heliocentricism was an aid to the development of the phenomenological interpretation of certain passages. Like the ones that depict the sun rotating around the Earth. This is just common sense. Which proves that science can help you interpret scripture. Just as a new appreciation of the culture that Jesus lived in can help you understand some of his sayings. You are not elevating historical/cultural studies above scripture, it is just challenging your interpretation. I don’t think God intended scripture to be interpreted in a vacuum, isolated from the real world.

‘Anyway, no YEC ever rejected one scientific fact – just the naturalistic assumptions behind certain theories. What Ross and his supporters fail to realise is that the same faulty assumptions that underpin biological evolution, also underpin the “scientific consensus” in both geology and astronomy.’

The assumptions that underpinned biological evolution was a faith in a reductionistic materialism that extended from Newton’s mechanical universe. Philosophical naturalism, at least for the scientist, was already an established position before the 20th century. BB cosmology cut against the naturalists presuppositions in a serious way. There had been tremendous faith in an eternal universe and the omnipotence of Newtonian mechanics.

Now BB cosmology pointed to the opposite of this. It posited a finite universe and the beginning of space and time. So BB equates to the opposite of everything naturalism stands for. Funny that naturalism would give rise to exactly the kind of science that would refute it!

You only need to see the atheists scramble to oppose the hot BB to see how it defied their worldview. British astronomer (and atheist) Authur Eddington called the BB “repugnant”, Robert Jastrow (agnositic) said it was “distasteful to the scientific mind” – he acknowledged its theological implications. Even Einstein gave grudging acceptance to “the necessity of a beginning”. Eternal universe alternatives have been proposed for the hot BB but they have fallen out of favour because they contradict the evidence. I don’t think you will find any reluctance like this amongst those (non-theistic) scientists that accept neo-Darwinian evolution because its implications support naturalism unlike the BB.

I have also pointed out that the expansion of the universe from the very beginning has been broadly recognised as being highly fine-tuned by BB proponents (like Hawking). It doesn’t make sense that naturalists would invent a theory that is supposed to suppord their philosophy and then throw in some incredible fine-tuning for good measure! Fine-tuning = design, something antithetical to naturalism.

‘It is indeed inconsistent for Ross to say that the philosophical naturalists got it wrong in biology but got it right in geology and astronomy. Hey, they used the same assumptions for all three – biological evolution, geological evolution, and cosmological evolution – how is it that they only got 2 out of 3?’

Well it is when the evidence for an old earth and BB is compelling but not for biology. And it is not the same assumptions because as I have established, BB rudely defied their assumptions.

It is possible to get 2 out of 3 because they are different theories with different implications.

Damien Spillane

Of course, wooden literalism is a straw man knocked down by those who deny the primacy of Scripture. Real creationists (who have the same allegedly wooden interpretation as most Church Fathers and Reformers) are originalists who recognise figurative language in the Bible (including anthropopathism that DS makes so much of), but without rejecting the historical parts as historical. Quite simply, Genesis 1-11 is in the same genre as Gen. 12-50 that no one denies is history, and more specifically, Gen. 1 is most similar to the undoubtedly historical sequence of numbered days in Numbers 7.

DS: “At least no more consistent than when YEC cite church fathers to marshal their case for their interpretation of scripture, but when OEC point out that most Christian intellectuals today do not accept YEC, they shout ‘compromise’ with uniformitarian ’science’.”

Of course, the point here is that the Church Fathers based their views on the text, while modern Christian intellectuals place fallible science above the God’s infallible word. Note also, Ross for many years claimed that the Church Fathers supported long creation days, which is utterly false.

Jonathan Sarfati, Brisbane

Anyway, no YEC ever rejected one scientific fact – just the naturalistic assumptions behind certain theories. What Ross and his supporters fail to realise is that the same faulty assumptions that underpin biological evolution, also underpin the “scientific consensus” in both geology and astronomy. It is indeed inconsistent for Ross to say that the philosophical naturalists got it wrong in biology but got it right in geology and astronomy. Hey, they used the same assumptions for all three – biological evolution, geological evolution, and cosmological evolution – how is it that they only got 2 out of 3?

Ewan McDonald, Victoria

Remember, he is not advocating the analogical day view, I am. My comments do not represent those of RTB in any official capacity. Even if Hugh was to change his views, that is not disingenuous at all. As long as you are straight forward about it. Your argument here makes no sense. There is nothing disingenous about changing doctrinal position. This argument just reeks of a desperate attempt to smear Hugh Ross’ reputation in any way possible.

‘Once more, if the analogical day one is right, how come no Hebrew scholar thought of it till trying to compromise with long age uniformitarian “science”’

There is nothing wrong with using the overwhelming evidence from science that the earth is old in order to help you interpret the Bible. When it became obvious that the heliocentric view of the solar system was panning out during the 16th and 17th century, Christians like Galileo changed their interpretation of texts that seemed to advocate geocentricism. From what I am aware, this was the birth of the ‘phenomenological’ interpretation of scripture. Where now we could view certain statements as not intended to teach a literal scientific position on, say, geocentricism, but instead had the main purpose of conveying a message to the people at the time. For scripture to say that the Earth revolved around the sun would have made no sense to ancient people and been of less pedagogical value.

Of course geocentricists could have labelled these people ‘compromisers’, but this would be ridiculous and now everyone recognises that we need to give up our interpretation of scripture and not the science. An overly literalistic interpretation of scripture can land you in difficulty from very well established scientific theories.

Besides this, Christian thinkers down through the ages have not taken such a dogmatic interpretation of scripture as current Young Earth Creationists. They opened their interpretation to agree with the revealed facts from science at the time. Augustine was certain of this, I believe Calvin also stood in this line. They wouldn’t have isolated their interpretation of the Bible from the real world to the degree that YEC have today. It is also obvious that the likes of Augustine held a very different view of Gen 1 to the modern YEC.

‘It is not enough to point out that Scripture has analogies and figurative languages in other places (as if this were news to biblical creationists), because it doesn’t prove a thing about the specific case of Genesis 1.’

The Gen 1 text features God performing a human work week, God attends work according to the time periods that man does. The text implies that God stops work and rests between days. Moses in Ex 31:17 says that God was ‘refreshed’ on the seventh day. Is this behaviour that God would be exhibiting? It couldn’t possibly be. God is not subject to these limitations. This is language that casts God in human terms that the Hebrews would be familiar with. It shouldn’t be literally applied to God with too much strictness. Otherwise you end up with a God that needs rest! Thus the overly literal and wooden interpretation of Gen 1 that YEC engage in ends up compromising God’s nature. This is a far more important compromise than the age of the earth.

Moses himself establishes in Ps 90 that God’s time frame is not the same as man’s. Hence Gen 1 ought to be seen as an analogous case (anthropomorphic). In addition I mentioned the powerful scriptural arguments that establish that the 6th and 7th days could not have possibly been 24 hr periods www.billmuehlenberg.com/2006/12/03/atheist-rage-and-venom/.

I repeat what I have said before. YEC can only be maintained if you isolate Gen 1 from the other passages of scripture.

‘My book Refuting Compromise has a detailed section on the ministerial v magisterial uses of science:

The ministerial use elaborates on the clear teachings of the Bible, and may help us decide on equally plausible alternatives consistent with the language. Note that this approach to Scripture does not deny the authority of Scripture, but recognizes that while Scripture is ‘true truth’ it is not exhaustive truth. In contrast, the magisterial use overrules the clear teaching of the Bible to come up with a meaning inconsistent with sound hermeneutics. Instead of the Reformation principle of Sola Scriptura (Scripture alone), this is Scriptura sub scientia (Scripture below science).’

I kinda agree. But as I have already mentioned, there are powerful Biblical arguments to establish that Gen 1 ought to be taken as an analogy with human activity and not strictly literal.

‘People like Ross are inconsistent: they tell Christians to accept the “scientific consensus” in geology and astronomy, but reject the scientific consensus in biology (evolutionary uniformitarianism in both).’

Of course this is another attempt to smear Ross through faulty arguments. Ross tells people to accept the ‘scientific consensus’ in geology and astronomy because the consensus is correct, he tells people not to accept the consensus in biology because evolution doesn’t stand up to the evidence. There is a difference. He never cites consensus as the only reason to accept a scientific theory. He may use it as one piece of evidence (one link in the chain) among many, but not the only evidence.

So there is nothing inconsistent about Ross or his followers. At least no more consistent than when YEC cite church fathers to marshal their case for their interpretation of scripture, but when OEC point out that most Christian intellectuals today do not accept YEC, they shout ‘compromise’ with uniformitarian ‘science’.

Damien Spillane

Hugh Ross has killed many trees defending the day-age view as THE correct view. So it is disingenous to now claim that other views are acceptable — except the straightforward one! Once more, if the analogical day one is right, how come no Hebrew scholar thought of it till trying to compromise with long age uniformitarian “science”.

It is not enough to point out that Scripture has analogies and figurative languages in other places (as if this were news to biblical creationists), because it doesn’t prove a thing about the specific case of Genesis 1.

My book Refuting Compromise has a detailed section on the ministerial v magisterial uses of science:

The ministerial use elaborates on the clear teachings of the Bible, and may help us decide on equally plausible alternatives consistent with the language. Note that this approach to Scripture does not deny the authority of Scripture, but recognizes that while Scripture is ‘true truth’ it is not exhaustive truth. In contrast, the magisterial use overrules the clear teaching of the Bible to come up with a meaning inconsistent with sound hermeneutics. Instead of the Reformation principle of Sola Scriptura (Scripture alone), this is Scriptura sub scientia (Scripture below science).

People like Ross are inconsistent: they tell Christians to accept the “scientific consensus” in geology and astronomy, but reject the scientific consensus in biology (evolutionary uniformitarianism in both).
Jonathan Sarfati, Brisbane

I don’t think it is quite as strange as you say. There is a degree of differences in Biblical interpretation amongst those at RTB. It is tolerated on matters that do not effect core doctrinal issues. It is very healthy that RTB tolerates divergent perspectives on Gen 1 such as Day-age, Analogical-Day, Framework etc since you have excellent theologians, Bible scholars and champion defenders of the faith that all fall on different sides of the debate. You can’t just simplistically lable these people “compromisers” since they are the top expounders and defenders of the faith today.

‘The Hebrew of Genesis 1 teaches 6 ordinary length days — Ex. 20:11 shows that by a direct comparison of Scripture with Scripture; and Numbers 7, which no one doubts refers to 12 consecutive normal-length days, is a structural parallel of Genesis 1.’

Jonathon this may well be true but it doesn’t effect the analogical day view since the wording may indicate ordinary days that are to be seen as analogical. Just as other language in scripture refers to God through the ordinary usage of human terms, we recognise the analogy being painted and the pedagogical goals of the author (the need to bring God down to human level so we can understand Him).

The problem is that AIG/CMI and other young earth creation ministries do not want to see their perspective on Gen 1 as an interpretation, but it is just as much “man’s” interpretation as any other, in the same way that science is “man’s” interpretation. They are both fallible.

YEC also err in presuming that the most literal approach to Gen 1 is the more Biblically sound. This error can be exposed through an illustration: A Mormon, lets call him Richard, thinks that God has a body like everyone else, he is quite fond of quoting Biblical texts to support his case. Ps 34:15 is one of his favourites. It says “The eyes of the Lord are on the righteous, and His ears are open to their cry.” To prove his point Richard points to the Hebrew words and notes that they are the same words for “eyes” and “ears” as are used of the human equivalent in other texts. Richard is adamant that scripture should be interpreted literally and in the plane sense. The only way to do this is to conclude that God really does have “eyes” and “ears”. If you deny the plain sense of scripture then you have compomised the Bible.

But we really need to appreciate the fact that scripture uses analogies and metaphors to teach people about God. If you do not then (in Gen 1) you are stuck with a God that goes out and works during the night and needs to sleep to recouperate at night! Thus would be absurd for God. Thus you end up compromising God’s essential nature which is far worse. Such are the dangers of an overly literalistic (not to mention wooden) interpretation of Gen 1.

The Reformers and church fathers also reworked their interpretations of scripture when they contradicted established theories of science. They actually allowed science to help them interpret the Bible instead using an overly literalistic interpretation of the Bible dictate science. The thing to remember is that “man’s fallible theories” as I hear AIG and CMI preach again and again are fallible for both scripture interpretation and scientific interpretation.

John Collins makes a lot of excellent scriptural points establishing the analogical day view and you would do well to respect them and respond to them rather than taking the easy way out and stamping “compromise” on it.

I realise that this thread could get off the topic so when Bill says I would be happy to save the debate for when the topic is relevant.

Damien Spillane

Dawkins has written his book, he says, partly to encourage timorous atheists to come out of the closet. He and Dennett both appear to think it requires considerable courage to attack religion these days; says Dennett, “I risk a fist to the face or worse. Yet I persist.” Apparently atheism has its own heroes of the faith—at any rate its own self-styled heroes. Here it’s not easy to take them seriously; the fact is religion bashing in the current Western academy is about as dangerous as endorsing the party’s candidate at a Republican rally. …

The God Delusion, however, contains little science; it is mainly philosophy and theology (perhaps ‘atheology’ would be a better term), and evolutionary psychology, along with a substantial dash of social commentary decrying religion and its allegedly baneful effects. As the above quotation suggests, one needn’t look to this book for evenhanded and thoughtful commentary. In fact the proportion of insult, ridicule, mockery, spleen and vitriol is astounding (could it be that his mother, while carrying him, was frightened by an Anglican clergyman on the rampage?) If Dawkins ever gets tired of his day job, a promising future awaits him as a writer of political attack ads.

Now despite the fact that this book is mainly philosophy, Dawkins is not a philosopher (he’s a biologist). Even taking this into account, however, much of the philosophy he purveys is at best jejune. You might say that some of his forays into philosophy are at best sophomoric, but that would be unfair to sophomores; the fact is (grade inflation aside) many of his arguments would receive a failing grade in a sophomore philosophy class. This, combined with the arrogant, smarter-than-thou (‘thou’ being believers in God) tone of the book can be annoying. I shall put irritation aside, however and do my best to take Dawkins’ main argument seriously.

Plantinga is a bit soft on evolution, but he shows up the elementary logical fallacies of Dawkins’ atheistic arguments in this area is well.

Jonathan Sarfati, Brisbane

I work for CMI not AiG so I can’t answer about their response to analogical days. It does seem strange that you are the leader of the Sydney RTB chapter yet disagree with one of Ross’s most prominent positions, the day-age theory.

But my book Refuting Compromise covers all compromises, and the analogical day is just more of the same. The main problems, as always:

The Hebrew of Genesis 1 teaches 6 ordinary length days — Ex. 20:11 shows that by a direct comparison of Scripture with Scripture; and Numbers 7, which no one doubts refers to 12 consecutive normal-length days, is a structural parallel of Genesis 1.

The standard Köhler–Baumgartner lexicon explicitly states that yôm in Gen. 1:5 means an ordinary-length day.

If analogical days was really what the Hebrew says, how come none of the Church Fathers and Reformers taught it?

How come is that they were not subjecting Scripture to uniformitarian “science” proposed by the deists Hutton and Lyell. All the novel schemes, such as gap theory, day-age, analogical day, framework hypothesis, come from trying to fit the bible into long ages, not from the text itself.

This is shown by Hugh Ross’s constant revision up of the date of Adam, to fit in with the increasing ages for the Aborigines proposed by secular dating methods.

Jonathan Sarfati, Brisbane