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

What does facebook have to do with measurements of the age of the moon, or the earth, or the distance to the Milky Way galaxy, or the age of the universe? Surely you aren’t so critical that the admittedly human scientific endeavor is as banal as facebook entries?

So let me see where we are at. With the exception of Bob (and myself though I am only including myself for sake of argument), the rest of you posters are 100% YEC reading of Genesis. The basic reasons given for that are :

1- The Bible is the word of God and superior to any form of human knowledge, and that definitely includes science.

2- The proper way to read Genesis is with the hermeneutic that leads to YEC.

3- Creation was a miracle and thus science doesn’t work on it.

I am not here to argue 1 or 2 since most of you can do that on your own. Let’s flesh out 3, shall we? (For the sake of time I’ll keep the arguments short.)

What this leads to, if you take it seriously, is the inability to know much of anything about the physical universe. Humans are the result of a miracle, as are all animals/creatures. The earth is a miracle, the moon, the Sun, on and on. Miracles by definition cannot be studied as a natural process. Since uniformitarianism is rejected (the idea that the laws of nature that we observe today are the same laws in effect since universe was created and everywhere in natural creation), there is no way to really know what is happening that requires any extension from “now and here” to “then or there”. This reduces science to engineering, chemistry and medicine. Astronomy is simply descriptive (ie there are stars, they make patterns we call constellations, if we take pictures they are pretty). There is no way to measure distances since we have no idea what processes caused the light to travel. We can’t trust nuclear and astrophysics because they, rooted in uniformitarianism, say it takes light 170,000 years on average just to propagate from the core of the Sun to its surface. It is unreliable.

I could keep going on and on, but I will spare you. I just wish YEC believers would be honest and fess up to the consequences of their beliefs. Rejecting uniformitarianism necessarily leads to most of the universe being unknowable.

Are you ok with that?

[Mark_Smith] I could keep going on and on, but I will spare you. I just wish YEC believers would be honest and fess up to the consequences of their beliefs. Rejecting uniformitarianism necessarily leads to most of the universe being unknowable.

Are you ok with that?

[Mark_Smith]

What this leads to, if you take it seriously, is the inability to know much of anything about the physical universe. Humans are the result of a miracle, as are all animals/creatures. The earth is a miracle, the moon, the Sun, on and on. Miracles by definition cannot be studied as a natural process. Since uniformitarianism is rejected (the idea that the laws of nature that we observe today are the same laws in effect since universe was created and everywhere in natural creation), there is no way to really know what is happening that requires any extension from “now and here” to “then or there”. This reduces science to engineering, chemistry and medicine. Astronomy is simply descriptive (ie there are stars, they make patterns we call constellations, if we take pictures they are pretty). There is no way to measure distances since we have no idea what processes caused the light to travel. We can’t trust nuclear and astrophysics because they, rooted in uniformitarianism, say it takes light 170,000 years on average just to propagate from the core of the Sun to its surface. It is unreliable.

I could keep going on and on, but I will spare you. I just wish YEC believers would be honest and fess up to the consequences of their beliefs. Rejecting uniformitarianism necessarily leads to most of the universe being unknowable.

Are you ok with that?

I am okay with elements of this. I would say that uniformitarianism is put into place to provide a model for science’s ability to explain things. We have no true idea on whether uniformitarianism is actually true or not. I would say that we clearly see in Scripture that the laws of science have been suspended (calming of the sea, humans being raised from the death, virgin birth, sun standing still, axe-head floating, plagues of Egypt, and whether you believe YEC or not, creation through ex nihilo).

I would also agree that the universe is probably unknowable. If you really are a physicist, can you actually sit here and say that we truly 100% know the universe, or that it is even capable of 100% truly knowing the universe. We can’t explain dark matter, and in reality depending on the models that we develop and what we know about dark matter, it could in theory change our entire cosmology models. All of science is always in a state of flux. The very fact that we have constants in our calculations should point to elements of this. I studied and practiced Nuclear Chemistry as a Christian. Loved it, felt it was valuable and even felt it contributed to our understanding of the world around us. But I wasn’t for one minute going to say that man’s knowledge of this field subverts God’s knowledge of the field, especially when it comes to the very core of creation. We know that God confounds the wise. Some day in eternity, if God so reveals it, I have always felt that we will be in utter shock as too how far off science was in really understanding the created world.

I would rather deal with the argument that the world is unknowable than to do disservice to what is clearly laid out in Scripture. Again, as I have quoted above, there isn’t a single reputable Hebrew scholar who would disagree with the fact that the authors clearly and plainly wrote that the creation account was 6 literal days. And we know that the authors were moved by the Holy Spirit. I am significantly less concerned about how my belief impacts cosmology (a field that is in constant states of flux), than the impact that my science has on theology (a field that has been revealed and settled by an all knowing God). I know that it frustrates you Mark, because you clearly see that science without a doubt states certain things and our belief in a literal 6 day creation throws those things out the window and YEC looks silly. I am fully and 100% aware that what I believe doesn’t mesh with science. And I am fine with that. I am confident enough in my faith that I would rather believe the Bible over science. I don’t feel the need to resolve the two. I don’t believe in the approach where YEC has to create scientific answers to combat mainstream science to try and prove my point, while all the while showing poor and sloppy science. Someday the apparent contradiction will be solved, but it will not be by man. That is why the Bible clearly states that this exact point, Creation, is not known by fact but by faith. I have faith that what is so clearly and plainly written about in Scripture is true, and that I will need to let the contradictions exist, just like they do for so many other Biblical truths.

I hold to those things that are clear and give room to those that are not. I believe there is no wiggle room in Scripture for anything but a 6 day literal creation. I believe the universe is relatively young, but I will not guess to the exact age, because the Bible provides no clarity in that area. I feel that a changing of the 6 literal day creation account, is not just a clarity of a simple story in Genesis, but that it has huge ramifications for our theology, and much of what is taught by Jesus and the Apostles in the NT. This is the concern I have and why many YEC’s feel that this is an important topic. And not just us, but MacArthur, Piper, Dever and others have expressed serious concern on the attacks of a literal creation account.

Wow - there is honesty for you.

On one hand, I respect your stance for Scripture. But on the other hand, I wince at these statements.

You are not going to be able to honestly use history or science to ever help “prove” the Bible, since you are unwilling to in theory allow history or science to “disprove” the Bible or your Biblical interpretation.

Certainly let God be true and every man a liar. And certainly the Bible is true. But just as we can learn from history and archeology and so better understand what the Bible must be meaning in certain passages, we can also learn the same from science and natural observations.

The conversation is devolving here and I will probably not be interacting again. We are obviously speaking form two radically different perspectives here. Once again I will say that the accepting an old age of the earth is not a new development in Christian theology - the 1800s saw Princeton scholars and even the likes of CI Scofield finding ways to understand Scripture that did not require a young earth (day age, gap theory, etc.). And I will also state clearly and for the record that adopting an old earth does not require adopting a godless evolutionary model. Or even necessarily, evolution at all. There are many Christians adopting an old earth that explicitly repudiate evolution. Even Justin Taylor very recently posted on 5 big problems for natural evolutionary theory. (He posted it just days before his controversial post that started this last round of internet dialogue.)

[Mark_Smith]

What this leads to, if you take it seriously, is the inability to know much of anything about the physical universe. Humans are the result of a miracle, as are all animals/creatures. The earth is a miracle, the moon, the Sun, on and on. Miracles by definition cannot be studied as a natural process. Since uniformitarianism is rejected (the idea that the laws of nature that we observe today are the same laws in effect since universe was created and everywhere in natural creation), there is no way to really know what is happening that requires any extension from “now and here” to “then or there”….

…I could keep going on and on, but I will spare you. I just wish YEC believers would be honest and fess up to the consequences of their beliefs. Rejecting uniformitarianism necessarily leads to most of the universe being unknowable.

Are you ok with that?

Mark,

I am not aware of anyone who rejects the natural laws, or the assumption that they generally operate the same everywhere and at all times, with the caveat that God has, can, and will supersede the laws which he established to govern nature. As a result of God’s miraculous intervention, say, at creation, any philosophy of science that is predicated on strict uniformitarianism cannot stand. That doesn’t mean that we can’t discern the laws which God set over the creation and apply them in all sorts of scientific disciplines, but it does mean that we must hold our conclusions fairly loosely, since we know that uniformitarian assumptions are simply not true.

Paul

[Mark_Smith]

What this leads to, if you take it seriously, is the inability to know much of anything about the physical universe. Humans are the result of a miracle, as are all animals/creatures. The earth is a miracle, the moon, the Sun, on and on. Miracles by definition cannot be studied as a natural process. Since uniformitarianism is rejected (the idea that the laws of nature that we observe today are the same laws in effect since universe was created and everywhere in natural creation), there is no way to really know what is happening that requires any extension from “now and here” to “then or there”. This reduces science to engineering, chemistry and medicine. Astronomy is simply descriptive (ie there are stars, they make patterns we call constellations, if we take pictures they are pretty). There is no way to measure distances since we have no idea what processes caused the light to travel. We can’t trust nuclear and astrophysics because they, rooted in uniformitarianism, say it takes light 170,000 years on average just to propagate from the core of the Sun to its surface. It is unreliable.

I don’t think it is nearly as grim as you make it out to be. I think God made the universe so that we can understand and harness it in remarkable ways. In general, uniformitarianism is a sound approach because the character of God. However, there are well-defined limits to uniformitarianism that make some (Not all) of its conclusions unreliable. Therefore the approach I would take is to follow the data as far as you can — but when it starts to contradict clear Biblical teaching, then we have to give priority to the more clear, more sure Word of God. So, I don’t really have a problem with the way you measure distances in astronomy — I suspect God set things up so that you could do that. How God made it possible to do that within a YEC model is an open question to me. I think there are some workable solutions. There may be solutions we haven’t even thought of, yet. The way you have framed this seems to me to be a false choice.

Has anyone mentioned the possibility that God created everything with the appearance of age? After all the wine at Cana was created with the appearance and qualities of age.

A couple responses:

dgszweda said:

there isn’t a single reputable Hebrew scholar who would disagree with the fact that the authors clearly and plainly wrote that the creation account was 6 literal days

I disagree. There are a variety of Hebrew scholars who argue for the use of poetry or another genre in Gen. 1. Yes they say day = day, but the account is not a strictly narrative historical account. The framework approach was formulated by Hebrew scholars.

AndyE said:

Therefore the approach I would take is to follow the data as far as you can — but when it starts to contradict clear Biblical teaching, then we have to give priority to the more clear, more sure Word of God. So, I don’t really have a problem with the way you measure distances in astronomy — I suspect God set things up so that you could do that. How God made it possible to do that within a YEC model is an open question to me. I think there are some workable solutions. There may be solutions we haven’t even thought of, yet. The way you have framed this seems to me to be a false choice.

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?

I would argue that old earth creationists do not side with science when it disagrees with “clear Biblical teaching” either. Again, Justin Taylor shared five significant problems with naturalistic evolutionary theory, but those are scientific problems - his biggest problem is the theological teaching of Scripture that contradicts naturalistic evolution.

[Ron Bean]

Has anyone mentioned the possibility that God created everything with the appearance of age? After all the wine at Cana was created with the appearance and qualities of age.

This argument doesn’t work for the immense ages in question. Even Ken Ham doesn’t use this or prefers not to.

I have offered many choices over the many threads on this. It comes back to people constantly rejecting anything that is based on observation. So I think, by and large, the YEC crowd doesn’t really care much for explanations based off of observations EXCEPT that they back up their view of creation. If it backs up a young universe, great. If not, throw it out. Yet that isn’t even true. I painstakingly described a relativistic answer on a previous thread and it was thrown under the bus!

The preference in YEC is as Ron Bean mentioned, appearance of age. That settles it. Done. Nothing else needed.

BUT IF YOU TAKE APPEARANCE OF AGE as your answer it comes at a cost, and that cost is knowledge. Measuring distances in astronomy depends upon uniformitarianism. It ASSUMES we can discern the natural processes going on in stars, project them to other stars, predict behavior, and then run them through the distance = speed * time equation (with speed being the speed of light, c= 300,000 km/s) to get distances. APPEARANCE OF AGE destroys that premise. If you accept APPEARANCE OF AGE you give up your ability to measure distance.

This isn’t just me saying this. Go to aig’s website and search for “appearance of age” and you will see the same argument. They want to still be able to do physics on the universe over there, so they reject appearance of age.

I have provided the link that shows AiG rejects appearance of age several times, all to no avail. the YEC crowd doesn’t even agree as to what they believe!

He stands on what he believes and knows it.

Bob/Mark,

What I struggle with on the other approaches, is 1) where is the ambiguity in the Hebrew, as well as the clarity of Genesis 1 that provides us with the need to re-examine in light of science, and 2) if we decide to recast the story in the light of science, how do we deal with a historic Adam and the theology laid out clearly in the NT? I have no problem looking at the world to help with our interpretation of Scriptures, I just have a hard time find out where the wiggle room exists in Scripture for this specific element around Creation.

I say this as a theologically YEC person. OK.

If the age of the universe is something like 10,000 years maximum, then that by its very nature destroys the basis of most astronomical assumptions. The only out in that is something like relativity (but as already discussed on other threads the people here at SI dislike relativity and what that means about the universe).

That then means that astronomy is pointless as a physical science to YEC believers. If the equation distance = speed * time doesn’t work, THERE IS NO ASTRONOMY!