Have you seen the many reviews and articles at Living Tradition which critique the historical theories of evolution — www.rtforum.org/lt/index.html ?

Peter D Howard

Tristan, just because there are many people here who don’t agree with you does not mean that they are attacking you personally. Your take on the genesis account of creation may differ for many reasons to those who don’t agree with you, but as we have seen, this issue is by no means resolved, and quite possibly may remain that way for a good while yet.

Don’t get upset when people don’t agree. I commend you all as we seek to work out our faith together. Lets all just remember that we are all part of the same family, and that whatever views we hold, we are to work for His kingdom and to bring glory to His name.

May the Lord bless each and every one of you.

Anatolyi Psarev

You claim there was “Not a single offer to answer questions”, but I thought I was directly answering your original question.

Ewan McDonald.

Let me seek to be brief (in order that I can keep my own rules!).

-This particular post was on social Darwinism, so it is always preferable to stay on topic where possible.

-The age of the earth debate is important, and of course it has been debated ad infinitum, ad nauseam in all sorts of places, including countless books, magazines, websites, etc.

-It is my preference to see these important debates battled out in those other places, and not have it become the main topic of interest on this site. Sure, I am happy to give it a bit of a run on my site – which I have done numerous times – but it is not the number one purpose of, or reason for, this site.

-Given that this is my website, I hope you can respect where I wish to go with it.

-As to the issue at hand, it should be clear by now that I have attempted to stay out of it somewhat. This is not because I consider it to be unimportant, but because I am still wrestling with it myself.

-The truth is, on and off for over thirty years now I have read, studied, thought and prayed about this issue, and I have not fully come to a firm conclusion on the age of the earth debate.

-It is hopefully clear from this site that I have huge problems with macroevolution, and also have a high view of Scripture, and have some understanding of historical and biblical theology. So hopefully I am not operating out of ignorance here.

-And please, no need to send me more literature promoting your particular view on the matter. For what it is worth, I have at least 200 books just on this one issue alone. I think I am as well read on this topic as many of you. So I am quite aware of the arguments, counter-arguments, counter-counter-arguments, counter-counter-counter-arguments, and so on.

-So instead of either side (and there are in fact a number of sides here, not just two) seeking to convert me, perhaps just be patient with me and continue to pray for me. We all need more truth, more humility, more grace and more discernment here. Certainly I do.

-The bottom line for me here is can we agree to disagree on some quite important issues, and continue to show Christian grace and charity, as we seek to grow together in knowledge and understanding? It is my prayer that we can.

Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

Contrary to what has been said on this blog the take on an old earth in the evangelical community is NOT settled. There is no unanimous position by stalwart defenders of evangelicalism and biblical inerrancy on how old the earth is according to Biblical scholarship.

The young earth 24 hour day literalistic view (‘wooden’ as I would see it) is just one interpretation and defying such an interpretation is NOT to defy biblical inerrancy at all.

Examples of evangelical leaders open to an old earth;

John Collins Professor at Covenant Theological Seminary

Walter Kaiser professor and notable author at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary

J. P. Moreland prominent philosopher and apologist.

Others include Nancey Pearcey, Charles Colson, Norman Geisler, C. S. Lewis and William Lane Craig. And going back in history a bit futher Charles Hodge and B. B. Warfield.

These are all prominent defenders of the Biblical worldview and so to say that this requires a belief in a young earth is complete nonsense.

I don’t mean to speak for Bill here but he seems to be sitting on the fence on this issue which indicates to me that he views it as a non-essential for belief in a Biblical worldview, contrary to the pontificatings of the young earthers here and their conflating of a young earth with revealed biblical truth.

Damien Spillane

You were the one who wrote, “I do not understand how ‘old-age earth’ itself destroys the history of the Bible” as well as “it only calls into question how much of Genesis is read literally”. I have heard many say they believe in the truth of the Bible, but when asked certain questions they often appear to offer lame answers that don’t take Scripture as seriously as they say. So, prove the opposite.

I pretty much thought I laid out my case carefully (which is why my post was some length, not just “you are wrong”). Bottom line, you need to start laying out a biblical case for what you believe. (eg. Jesus, in explaining about the Sabbath, most definitely was reinforcing the passage in Exodus, which in turn relies on Genesis – which is definitely not a place where Scripture is written “metaphorically”.) You have not really answered the issue that introducing a long age creation does great harm to the Bible. It’s all very cleverly woven together, and you need to be careful about picking and choosing, that’s all I’m saying, especially when the basis for that appears to be influenced by naturalistic assumptions. Hope that helps.

Sorry if you feel ‘jumped on’.

Mark Rabich

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

2 Now the earth was [a] formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

Let us first take note that the Creation account is a summary of what actually happened, and was delivered to Moses thousands of years after the fact. Because it is Gods transmission through a human agent, it would be foolish to take the account at face value or assume that it is indeed a thorough exposition of the event.

It is not.

It is merely a testament as to what happened, not so much that we should understand the Creation (e.g. the precise mechanisms), but to acknowledge that it happened. To figure out the whys and the wherefores is the duty of scientists, who might never even arrive at this knowledge. For us Christians, we acknowledge this event and go on to more important things; things to do with brotherly love, the Commandments, and how we can approach the perfect example Christ set for us.

I say this to remind us that St. Paul warned us against getting into “oppositions of science, falsely so called” We should never argue about things of which we have no understanding with atheists and the like, least of all among ourselves. Let us discuss these issues, but never use them as opportunities to berate one another, as some have attempted to do to Tristan.

As for the Genesis passage, I have read in a good number of places that there could be a time gap between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2.

I stress, “could”.

What this implies is that the universe is indeed billions of years old. The rationale for this is that the Universe as created was a beautiful and wonderful place of order and peace. However, as verse 2 says, the Earth was formless and void, that would be inconsistent with Gods perfect imagination and handiwork, implying a destruction of the Earth of sorts, rendering it formless and chaotic.

According to this argument, then the 6 day account is indeed a Creation week, but not an initial creation, but rather a renewal, a refurbishment of the chaotic, nearly-destroyed earth AND the population of the refurbished earth with wildlife, flora and human beings. This could be valid in that, since humanity appeared at around the same time, anything that happened before this time would be irrelevant to us and unnecessary to expound on.

Psalm 104:30 Thou sendest forth thy spirit, they are created: and thou renewest the face of the earth.

This would support the physical claims that the vast expanse of the universe is as a result of billions of years of age and that the human species is indeed only 6000 or so years old, alongside all other life-forms on earth.

As for my take, like Tristan, I prefer to keep an open mind. This is because unlike many on this astute website, we must remember, the Holy Bible is a coded book, open to some, completely shut to others. Some understand it, others never will. It would be arrogant and furthermore silly for any one of us to claim a supreme revelation of all the truths found within it.

Let us please remember that this is a the most complex book on the planet, written in meandering cycles of literal descriptions, anecdotes, metaphors, legends, histories, poetry and prophecy. It is a book that has mystified even the prophets who were tasked with writing some of its pages; how are we to claim we understand it with absolute certainty?

One thing remains true for myself and perhaps for Tristan and many of you as well. We accept the Holy Bible as the highest truth and the most magnificent revelation of our origin, purpose and destiny upon this earth. What me must not claim, even accepting the supremacy of the Holy Bible, is that we understand precisely what the truth is.

That is for God alone, and His saints when He reveals such to them in the New Kingdom.

I remain your committed brother in the faith.

John Cerere, Washington, D.C., US

I have no idea why you are mentioning Sabbath, Adam and Eve, etc. Did I not say I take it as true? That the Bible is my ultimate truth? Where have I discarded the Bible for ‘science’? Where have I elevated it beyond?

I have said twice that “I wonder” about the literal six-day creation, and people respond by inferring a bunch of stuff I have not said nor alluded to.

I know that mainstream science reckons the earth is ~5billion years old. I also know that dating with radio-isotopes might be hugely flawed (the Voyager satellite’s recent journey illustrates this).

You quote me Christ’s authority for the literal six-day creation – but He said nothing about it. Yes He mentions man being one with women – where have I denied that? I am talking about the timespan of creation – nothing else.

You think that I believe in materialistic evolution – don’t be ridiculous, I study Veterinary Science and can think for myself. You think I have dysteleologic leanings – where have I disputed what Genesis says about the Fall?

You have said I question the validity of Scripture, when I have wondered if it is literal or metaphorical, not whether it is untrue. Or do metaphorical descriptions not occur in our Bible?

Rather than jump at me for not being steadfast on young-age Earth, and in turn lumping in a bunch of assumptions about me that belong to your stereotypical picture of a person that thinks ‘science is god’, actually read what I’ve written.

Thankyou for all writing your responses in exactly the same format:
i) you are wrong.
ii) here’s a bunch of other stuff we’re going to link you to, despite you not actually saying you believe it (e.g. Darwinistic Macro-evolution)
iii) self-righteous/smug comment about me ‘struggling to get it right’ or ‘trying to be popular’.

Not a single link to a website to help me learn more? Not a single offer to answer questions? I don’t know what to say. Apparently I’m not allowed to admit that I’m unsure about things.

Tristan Ingle, Sydney.