Rejecting Six Literal Days - What's the Real Motivation?

I am not a Hebrew scholar so I can’t tell you. That is my honest answer.

Now let me ask you this. Where is the wiggle room in observation (forget calling it science. This is observation that I am mentioning) for a young universe?

My point is this. To accept a young universe means you have to reject uniformitarian based science. That means historical/planetary geology, astronomy, astrophysics, cosmology, biology (the part that deals with evolution and extinct animals) are all out the window.

Nuclear chemistry would be ok because you have the atoms in your beaker in the lab. You can manipulate them directly. But how can you say similar atoms are on a planet around a star 20,000 light years away? You can’t unless you accept uniformitarianism.

[Bob Hayton] You assume “clear Biblical teaching” is the “YEC model.” Obviously you are willing to rethink the science rather than the YEC model. You do at least allow that: “uniformitarianism is a sound approach because the character of God.” So given that, could it be that where this approach to science pushes against your YEC model that it could be the model that is the problem?

Since creation was a supernatural event, I don’t expect science to get the age of the earth correct. Science can only deal with natural processes and creation falls outside of that realm. Uniformitarianism cannot adequately account for the supernatural, nor can it know the physical “vitals” of the resulting state of creation (or the flood for that matter). So, no, I would not use science to inform my understanding of the age of the universe at all. I don’t see how it could possibly get it right.

[AndyE]

Bob Hayton wrote:

You assume “clear Biblical teaching” is the “YEC model.” Obviously you are willing to rethink the science rather than the YEC model. You do at least allow that: “uniformitarianism is a sound approach because the character of God.” So given that, could it be that where this approach to science pushes against your YEC model that it could be the model that is the problem?

Since creation was a supernatural event, I don’t expect science to get the age of the earth correct. Science can only deal with natural processes and creation falls outside of that realm. Uniformitarianism cannot adequately account for the supernatural, nor can it know the physical “vitals” of the resulting state of creation (or the flood for that matter). So, no, I would not use science to inform my understanding of the age of the universe at all. I don’t see how it could possibly get it right.

And to further highlight a point here, there is no place for God in today’s modern science. If you went to any modern scientific institution and asked the group of scientists there to consider a God, they would laugh. We know for certainty that uniformitarianism has been violated. Just the resurrection of Christ proves that.

[Mark_Smith]

I am not a Hebrew scholar so I can’t tell you. That is my honest answer.

Now let me ask you this. Where is the wiggle room in observation (forget calling it science. This is observation that I am mentioning) for a young universe?

My point is this. To accept a young universe means you have to reject uniformitarian based science. That means historical/planetary geology, astronomy, astrophysics, cosmology, biology (the part that deals with evolution and extinct animals) are all out the window.

Nuclear chemistry would be ok because you have the atoms in your beaker in the lab. You can manipulate them directly. But how can you say similar atoms are on a planet around a star 20,000 light years away? You can’t unless you accept uniformitarianism.

Mark,

You may not be a Hebrew Scholar, but whether we agree or disagree, I think it is important for you to understand the theological ramifications that your beliefs may have. So I encourage you to study this further, because it is important in all aspects of how we deal with this fallen world.

I don’t reject science. And I don’t even reject uniformitarianism. I just reject certain conclusions that it leads to. Science only deals with the naturalistic world, and when we begin to talk about things outside of the naturalistic world, I tend to cede authority to the Bible. Creation was a miracle, ex nihilo, by a God. All three of those cannot be explained by science, nor are they within the realms of science, nor are they in agreement with uniformitarianism. I believe that miracles, by their very definition, suspend natural laws and have an effect on the natural world around them.

Even if you did accept uniformitarianism, how do you get it to agree with this simple statement, “In the beginning God created”. Within the first 5 words of our Scripture we are already in violation of the laws of the natural world.

Two questions I have for the YEC defenders here and please understand I am not trying to be unkind, just trying to understand.

1) Is there ANY point at which there would be such irrefutable proof from science and/or observation that you might rethink your position? Or is this the kind of thing where you would deny a statement like 2+2=4 if it contradicted a literal 6-day creation?

2) The idea of a literal day without a sun still perplexes me. Andy says that because you have light and a rotating earth, you can have literal days. I disagree. You have to have a fixed light body projecting light onto just part of that rotating earth to make days and nights. In other words, you have to have a sun. Did God make a temporary sun? Did he act as the sun himself?

I am not arguing from my theological beliefs. I have stated I am YEC by theology. I am arguing that most YEC are completely ignorant of the result of their beliefs on epistemology in nature.

And as a result of believing in YEC it results in having to reject a HOST of observations about nature:

Example- The Sun is extremely dense material. So dense that light must take 170,000+ years to move from the core to the surface. Yet, if the universe is young, that is not enough time. So, even our daily sunlight is an OVERT miracle. We should not be able to see anything from the Sun. Also, the energy the Sun produces today in its core will NEVER be observed assuming you believe the universe will end sometime before 170,000 years. YEC is ASTOUNDING in its conclusions. Thus, I say it makes science like astronomy pointless.

[dgszweda] And to further highlight a point here, there is no place for God in today’s modern science. If you went to any modern scientific institution and asked the group of scientists there to consider a God, they would laugh. We know for certainty that uniformitarianism has been violated. Just the resurrection of Christ proves that.

This is not true. Many scientists believe in God. And many who hold to an old earth believe in God as well. Some scientists conclude like Richard Dawkins, but he is a zealot for his cause and many scientists don’t make the metaphysical leaps he does.

Granting the existence of miracles does not negate uniformitarianism. God can intervene in nature. But the fact that a miracle is a miracle means he usually doesn’t - and hence reinforces uniformitarianism, if you think about it.

Miracles in and of themselves do not negate uniformitarianism. BUT, if you say the universe is only 6000 years old, or even 10-30 thousand years old, there simply is not enough time for light from out there to get here. Thus, everything about the universe outside of Earth is a continuous miracle just to be able to see it. In fact, it means you aren’t really seeing objects, just light that was made to look like it came from objects. ASTOUNDING.

We see MANY dead stars. They all lived and died in an instant, not real elapsed time, if we accept YEC. Maybe they were made already dead? ASTOUNDING.

[Mark_Smith]

I am not arguing from my theological beliefs. I have stated I am YEC by theology. I am arguing that most YEC are completely ignorant of the result of their beliefs on epistemology in nature.

Mark, are you saying you believe YEC is taught by Scripture?

[Bob Hayton]

This is not true. Many scientists believe in God. And many who hold to an old earth believe in God as well. Some scientists conclude like Richard Dawkins, but he is a zealot for his cause and many scientists don’t make the metaphysical leaps he does.

A recent Gallup poll found that only 33% of scientists believe in God, and that number is falling. The more educated you are in a scientific field the less you believe in a God. Even less believe in Creation. Newseek back in the 1990’s I believe did a very comprehensive study and found that out of the 480,000 credential scientists at the time, only 700 believed in creation. I know they are out there, but the entire time that I worked in science, I found one person who I would classify as an evangelical Christian. That was just my experience.

[GregH]

1) Is there ANY point at which there would be such irrefutable proof from science and/or observation that you might rethink your position? Or is this the kind of thing where you would deny a statement like 2+2=4 if it contradicted a literal 6-day creation?

2) The idea of a literal day without a sun still perplexes me. Andy says that because you have light and a rotating earth, you can have literal days. I disagree. You have to have a fixed light body projecting light onto just part of that rotating earth to make days and nights. In other words, you have to have a sun. Did God make a temporary sun? Did he act as the sun himself?

1. I don’t think it is possible for such proof or observation to be presented. How is anyone going to present *irrefutable* facts about the state of the universe right after creation, the fall, and the flood, so that we can take all that into account properly and then apply uniformitarian principles so that we would get anywhere close to denying something like 2+2=4?

2. The first day of creation is fascinating and somewhat mysterious. I can’t tell you everything involved in what the light was that God created. I have some ideas but for your question the key thing to note is that the Bible indicates that whatever was done was sufficient to distinguish Day from Night and to thus have an evening and morning.

[GregH]

Two questions I have for the YEC defenders here and please understand I am not trying to be unkind, just trying to understand.

1) Is there ANY point at which there would be such irrefutable proof from science and/or observation that you might rethink your position? Or is this the kind of thing where you would deny a statement like 2+2=4 if it contradicted a literal 6-day creation?

2) The idea of a literal day without a sun still perplexes me. Andy says that because you have light and a rotating earth, you can have literal days. I disagree. You have to have a fixed light body projecting light onto just part of that rotating earth to make days and nights. In other words, you have to have a sun. Did God make a temporary sun? Did he act as the sun himself?

Greg,

I still look at this as a point of first examining Scripture. I still view that the Genesis Account (and others may disagree) 1) is clearly not written in a poetic style, 2) yom means actual physical days, 3) the author could not have written it any clearer, 4) that God meant for Scripture to be understood by all generations, 5) General Revelation is not science - it reveals God and it is in place to hold all people accountable for all generations, not just those in a certain time period, and 6) that altering the Genesis account by changing when death occurs, elongating days… has a profound impact on my theological belief in other areas of Scripture. Therefore, because the centrality of my beliefs in this area are Scripture focused, I doubt science will change my position. If this was such a large issue, I would have believed that Christ would have addressed it, since the clear thinking of the day was that the earth was around 5,000 years old and that the creation was literal days. The fact that previous theologians thought different doesn’t dissuade me as many theologians thought all kinds of things, some right and some wrong. I can only stand on what I see clearly described and constructed in Scripture. It may make me look silly, but I won’t put myself into the camp of those trying to explain all the scientific inconsistencies with this model. I don’t feel compelled to resolve the inconsistencies. I will let God reveal those when I pass away. I must still hold to Hebrews 11:3 in my defense for my position. Creation is an acceptance of faith and not proof.

I am in a position to be able to ask questions of a YEC model. I have a PhD in physics and cosmology. I know the physical evidence. I know the Scriptures as well.

And here is the truth. I really don’t try to operate as an apologist for YEC.

You know why? Anything I say about it I get twice as much fire against me from YEC Christians as anyone else. The vast majority of YEC Christians (if not all) are of the variety of “God said it, that settles it”. They don’t want to know any physical evidence. They don’t want to ask any questions. They are happy, cheerful, and proud to be ignorant of science, especially cosmology and astronomy.

It is sad.

thinks a good model for creation is physical laws that pin heads like me come up with, tempered by miracles to make it all look old and only be 6000 years old. Unfortunately, that is not a reasonable answer, but they don’t see that.

[dgszweda]

A recent Gallup poll found that only 33% of scientists believe in God, and that number is falling. The more educated you are in a scientific field the less you believe in a God. Even less believe in Creation.

I’m not arguing anything here; I’m wondering: Would this be because, say, earning a Ph.D in a scientific field leads or corresponds to a loss of faith; or is it because Christians, for whatever reason(s), are less inclined or likely to earn advanced scientific degrees?