The Problem With YEC
I try to stay away from debates about the age of the earth or the methods by which God created life. For one thing I haven't done nearly enough research to have an educated opinion on the matter (although that doesn't stop a lot of people). For another, I don't particularly care.
I do recognize that for many people this is a serious issue. If the first two chapters of Genesis are not literal, historical truth, doubt is cast on the literal, historical truth of all other Bible stories. This is a valid concern, and I do care about how people interpret scripture, but I'd rather talk about that directly than get bogged down in some endless and tangential discussion of flood geology.
I'm not sure if anything could persuade me to take a real interest in Young Earth Creationism (YEC), but I would like to know whether I should regard it as anything more than fundamentalist dogma. I'm quite willing to give the theory any respect it may be due.
There are a couple of concerns that prevent me from taking YEC seriously. One is that I've observed what seems to be a widespread misunderstanding among it's proponents of words like "bias" and "presupposition", about which I have some knowledge, if not expertise. Having encountered what I believe to be incompetence among leading YECists in an area I know, I have difficulty giving them the benefit of the doubt in areas I do not. (I could say more about this, if you wish, but I won't go into it here and now.)
The second thing that prevents me from taking YEC seriously is that, as far as I know, conservative Christians are the only ones who believe any of it.
I stress the "as far as I know". I haven't actually searched for expert, non-Christian evolution or old earth skeptics. I sort of assume that if there were such people they would have been brought to my attention, but it's quite possible (what with me not really caring) that I may have missed them.
So how about it, YECs? Can anyone find a single person who fits the following description?
1. Is a recognized expert in a relevant field (eg. geology). Meaning he or she has a PhD in that field from a respected secular university, and is or was, if not at the top of his/her field, at least well respected by his/her peers.
2. Was not a YEC from the start. Meaning s/he was not raised as a conservative Christian and, without having examined it in detail, had always considered YEC to be mere religious dogma masquerading as science.
3. Now agrees with YEC about what the physical evidence indicates. Meaning that in the course of his/her research, this expert became convinced that the weight of evidence is against some well accepted cornerstone of atheistic evolution and now holds a position very like that of YECs. (Such as that there is strong evidence in the fossil record of a recent, global flood.)
4. Came to this belief on the basis of the physical evidence alone. Meaning that s/he did not convert to conservative Christianity and then change his/her mind about the evidence, but changed his/her mind before and independent of any religious conversion. It would be best if the expert was not a Christian at all.
If the YECists cannot produce such a person (and I don't know if they can or not, which is why I ask) I see no reason to take their position seriously.
Post a Comment
25 comments:
I'm not as "caught up" on YEC as I used to be, because I got sick of it... regardless of the truth or falsehood of Young Earth, it's proponents annoy me because of the arrogance and holier-than-though crap I read in much of their writing. If 99% of experts, including many who are themselves Christians, diasgree with you perhaps it's time for a little humility.
That said, something that often pops up in Young Earth geology is the phrase "appearance of age"... basically it means that radiodating, or rock appearance, or light incoming to earth, or what have you looks "old" but, since we "know" from Genesis that the earth is young, we conclude that God has made the phenomenon "look old". (Like creating a full grown human being from nothing, but on a geological scale.)
This is one of those things that are hard to disprove, because God is perfectly capable of creating an Earth that looks however He wants, but you'd probably be hard pressed to find someone who believes it- unless they also believe in the literal truth of the Genesis creation story.
Ya, creation with age is a good one. If something doesn't look young even to Young Earthers, it's probably because God made it look old, just to mess with us. And maybe He did. He's done stranger things.
Still, there's lots of evidence they believe is in favor of a young earth, or a global flood, or whatever. I'd like to hear a non-YEC say something like "the fossil record contains strong evidence of a recent, global flood". (I think that's what I meant to say in the parenthesis of point 3. I'll change that.)
I believe the term to use here is "empirical evidence."
Creationism, God, these ideas, they lack this. Circumstantial evidence exists to a degree perhaps, but nothing truly concrete ... nothing that causes the logical me to say "Yes." Ergo, faith.
YECists tend to use emotion-bound arguements and catchphrases. One of their favorites is "But evolution is just a theory!"
So is gravity. And as many of use know Newtonian physics is indeed crumbling. (Newton spent his entire life trying to disprove his own arguments when for generations his Theory was near-gospel)
"Theory" is a scientific classification. So is "hypothesis. These may be rhetorical words used in arguments at times but in many scientific exercises and discources these are very technical terms. Theories are not considered "fact" but are backed up with enough evidence to support many a claim.
The problem you identify with YECists is that many (all?) are neo-conservative Christians who become scientists with a presupposition. This runs counter to science and is why statistics is often considered "damn lies" and not science, because all too often those finding statistics might be using some sort of bastardized version of the scientific method but in reality or "molding" their own views or the views of their sponsor into the final product.
Science is observation. It changes. The entire premise is it's intrinsic ability to change with understanding. It's not stuck on stupid when stupid clearly doesn't work.
YECists already have their answer, they just need to manipulate the question to fit the answer.
What I don't understand about the debate is: why do people get stuck on the creation story? The New Testament was written centuries ago and the Old Testament even longer. If we look at the Old Testament as an anthropologists would at an artifact of culture, we would see it as a collection of stories repeated throughout the ages by a group of people who believed they were the chosen people of God. I am not saying that these stories are not true or, better yet, not God inspired. Perhaps they are. Perhaps God inspired the stories to people who couldn't understand that the earth was billions of years old and that they had come along through a chain reaction of mutations. To me, saying that Adam came from the ground sounds exactly like what you would tell a child if you were explaining creation.
Maybe what I am saying is heresy- and I am saying this as someone who was raised in the God-fearing Bible Belt of the Good Ol' Southern US of A. - but the Bible is still a book that has been transcribed, translated, and copied multiple times. It was compiled by men hundreds of years after it was written (council of Nicea 325 AD).
Jacob, in the comments you made on an earlier post you called into question the importance of issues in reference to salvation. I, personally, see no importance to this argument in reference to my salvation. I think the Bible is flawed because I believe humanity is flawed and...for lack of a better term...shit happens.
Oh yeah and I agree with filth-man that fundamentalists are annoying =)
--Clare
"but the Bible is still a book that has been transcribed, translated, and copied multiple times."
So maybe YEC in a transciprition error! Someone got sick of tacking all those 0's on (on the first 1,000,000,000 years God created...) Problem solved!
Seriously, though Je Dois is right.. the Genesis story DOES sound like one would explain creation to an uneducated, non-scientific populace. "The the beginning God created the Big Bang, after which time He caused to universe to expland at a rate of X m/s for a period of..." doesn't have the same literary value, does it?
Jacob, if you're interested in the "scientific" arguments YEC have for a young earth, I can point you to some literature. However, if (as I suspect) you are more interested in finding a non-Christian who finds the evidence for Young Earth overwhelming, I can't help you. Suspect you will be looking for a while.
Clare: People make a lot of assumptions about what a "God-breathed" book would look like. God-breathed is understood to mean true, true is understood to mean inerrant, inerrant is understood to mean that all recorded events are completely historically accurate... unless they clearly aren't. (So it's still a little fuzzy.)
As far as I can tell, this method of interpretation is adopted primarily for convenience. If we entertained the possibility that some very absurd-sounding Bible stories weren't historically true, where do we draw the line? If the creation accounts aren't true (in every sense of the word, as it is understood by our culture) then what about Noah's ark? What about the Dead Sea? What about Jericho? The exploits of David? Mt Carmel? What about Jesus' resurrection? At what point do we say "this part is definitely beyond all doubt and in every sense of the word true"? It's safest just to believe it all.
People don't believe the Bible is flawed because they don't want it to be flawed. They don't want a collection of books written by Moses and Samuel and Paul. They want God's book. They want an infallible encyclopedia of correct beliefs. And because they want this so much, they can't imagine God not giving it to them.
Interesting, the type of questions we should be asking ourselves if we accept Thesitic Evolution as a viable belief that does not discredit scripture. Questions like "if a seemingly simple story in Genenisis is a metaphor for a billion year process, what do other- seemingly simple- stories about the second coming, judgement, the afterlife ,the nature of God etc REALLY mean?"
Jacob, I understand the implications of a fallible Bible. The Christian religion is based off of this book and if it isn't true? well, that's 2000 years down the drain. I understand it but I don't see it that way. First of all, to me there is a difference between the Old Testament and the New Testament. By the time Jesus died there was written history. The apostles were able to write down what it was that they saw- even though they did so decades after it happened. The Old Testament, however, is a collection of stories that were most likely orally transmitted for centures.
Also, what books should we consider for our theology and insight? If Christians consider the Old Testament as important because it explains Jewish society, a society that Jesus was a member of then that is important for a historical base but isn't most of our knowledge gleamed from the words of Christ? If you follow the slippery slope argument then these precious red letters are doomed to the same fate as the stories that are illustrated in most children's bibles. I think, however, that there is a reason that the slippery slope is a logical fallacy. It doesn't have to be one way or another.
This hit home for me personally when I lived abroad. I came to realize that religion is a culturally adapted product. I, as a resident of Texas, was raised to believe that alcohol is sinful in all amounts. When I studied in England, we were encouraged to take our bible study materials into the pubs. Do we believe in the same Jesus Christ? Yes. Do we all believe that God is alpha and omega? Yes. We just get caught up in the details.
I understand that it is very hard to tell someone who considers themself a seeker of truth that there are some truths that cannot be known. And I don't mean to gloss over religion. I think we should be diligent in the study of our faith. I think we should understand the words that we believe in so greatly. At the same time there has to be a point where logic and reasoning come into our faith. I don't find the Genesis account of creation logical or reasonable so I choose not to believe it. I think filth-man has an excellent point with Theistic Evolution. Why is the Church scared of Science? We have two ways to study God- his word and his creation. Science and Theology do not agree because they are man's interpretations of these two avenues of knowledge. We shouldn't discount completely one or the other but be aware that knowledge is meant to change and that includes our knowledge of our faith.
Sorry for the sermon =)
Good point, FM. Of course, not everything has a hidden meaning, but we should always ask ourselves what the author's point might be when we read a story. Sometimes the point is fairly obvious, but we let our selves get caught up in the details.
Clare: I agree.
try this guy http://creationwiki.org/Clifford_Wilson
or even these people http://www.icr.org/
Dr Wilson makes succinct and well formed arguments, I'd have to advance him as a good, credentialed representative of creationist thought (relevant for the very reasons you describe).
after all, if the foundation isn't strong, or isn't (at all) what then?
Dr. Wilson does make good arguments, though the ones i glanced at were more about Bible stories in human history than about the age and creation of the earth.
Not sure I understand the "foundation" comment. If you are talking about the Christian faith, I don't think an Old Earth belief damages that. If you are talking about Biblical inerrancy you may have a point.
Joel, I hear where you're coming from, and I am no young earth supporter myself, but I wonder if its fair to ask for a non religious person who has been converted to YEC by the overwhelming evidence. I mean, if they were in fact overwhelmed by the strength of evidence which seemed to agree with a more biblical account of the origin of the world, wouldn't they also be likely to start asking questions about other things in their life. Just as a conversion to or indoctrination in Christianity might lead one to support YEC, a conversion to YEC might lead to a belief in Christianity.
That being said, I also have a lot of trouble giving any credibility to the YEC proponents I have heard.
Thanks Ann. I haven't checked the links yet, but I'll let you know what I think.
Matt: you're right that becoming convinced of the YEC's scientific beliefs would probably cause one to take a good look at their religious beliefs. If a credible expert did exactly that, it would certainly lend credibility to the YEC. However, it is imperative, as I said, that the scientific conversion happens "before and independent of" the religious one. A non-Christian who believed in some significant aspect of YEC would be more impressive only because it would be clear that her scientific opinion was not the result of her religious beliefs.
Physical evidence -- based on what? Scientific theories created by man? If so, you'll get a plehora of "evidence" depending on who you talk to. I wouldn't rely on such when it comes to analysing the creation account. I would sooner suggest that God could create the earth to look however "old" he wanted it to -- regardless of whether the "days" of creation were linear 24 hour periods or not. Ultimately what matters is bowing to his revealed will.
Well sure, I think we'd all agree that God is more knowledgeable and trustworthy than any human experts. But before we can "bow to his revealed will" we have to interpret it. If I was told that God said I'm a chicken (which doesn't square with the best empirical evidence available to me) I'd be willing to accept that literally, but I'd also consider the possibility that the message didn't really come from God, or that God was speaking figuratively. Maybe he just meant that I'm a coward.
Jacob speaks wisely. As a philosophy student he can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think we ALWAYS make assumptions when dealing with knowledge. Our # 1 assumption, on which almost everything rests, is "what we observe corresponds with reality". Without this basic assumption we can not function.
So we might be justified is asking "is there anything we observe that leads us to believe that Genesis is the revealed word (will) of God, and if so, must it be interpreted literally?
If what we observe about the Earth shows us that it is billions, not thousands of years old, we need to choose between our beliefs... (Faith might lead us to believe in the Bible over Geology regardless of evidence).
Those that think BOTH physical evidence and Genesis (literally interpreted) point to the same thing; well, there's not too many of them, and they are the Young Earth Creationists.
IF THE FOUNDATIONS BE DESTROYED, WHAT CAN THE RIGHTEOUS DO? (Psalms
11:3)
I wasn't able to find a lot of information on Clifford Wilson. From what I gather he was a non-YEC Christian who became a YEC. Not quite what I'm looking for, but still interesting, provided that his research, not his reading of the Bible, was the catalyst for his change of perspective. Do you know where I could find more biographical information on him?
Still not sure what the foundation comment is about. Unless you mean that a literal reading of the Genesis creation accounts is the foundation of our faith. But I don't know how the verse you quoted relates to this.
he ain't dead, you could always seek him out. (e mail, phone, what-have-you)
True enough. Maybe I'll do that.
It turns out Dr Wilson is a hard man to track down. He doesn't seem to be currently affiliated with any academic institution, creation science group, or anything else (but he's in his eighties, so he's probably retired). Unfortunately, it turns out that he served as President of the dubious and apparently defunct Pacific International University, which is a bit of a red flag (particularly because he was succeeded by Carl Baugh, whom even the AIG crew doesn't like). Aside from a few articles at AIG there isn't much out there on the Dr Wilson. I couldn't find any current contact information, so there's not much more I can do.
About foundations... on the back of John MacArthur's "The Battle for the Beginning":
"Everything Scripture teaches about sin and redemption assumes the literal truth of the first three chapters of Genesis. If we wobble to any degree on the thruth of this passage we undermine the vcery foundations of our faith."
I don't agree with MacArthur so much (being a Christian but not much of a YEC) but I can see how an old-earth theology gets messy with verses like "as in Adam all die, in Christ all will be made alive". I suppose one can deny young-earth but believe in a literal Adam or somehting, but it gets tricky.
It's a good point. Personally, I don't think Paul makes much sense whether or not there was a literal Adam. And my biggest problems with the Genesis origins accounts aren't scientific, but theological. So my natural response to those who consider the literal truth of Gen 1-3 essential is that all that science stuff aside, their position just doesn't make a lick of sense to me.
But that Paul stuff is rough for those who believe in the infallibility of scripture. It sure sounds to me like he's saying there was a literal Adam. (Of course it also sounds like he's saying that everyone is saved.)
Remember, though, that Paul is a Jew. (Moreover, a first century Jew.) Jews have a different way of thinking about stuff like this, and their own special rules for how to construct valid arguments. I don't know if this there's anything to this, but the Adam/Christ comparison sounds a lot like Matthew's OT "prophecies" to me. So maybe the point isn't that Jesus fixed what Adam broke, but just that there are parallels between Jesus and the OT.
Personally I suspect Paul did believe in the existence of a literal Adam (or at least, didn't disbelieve in it, if you buy the argument that people of his day didn't care about historicity in the same way we do). What reason would he have to doubt it? But for those who believe God wouldn't let a biblical author make that mistake, it's not outrageous to think that Paul simply wanted to draw a comparison between a Jesus and a well known story (which turned out not to be historically true). You'll recall that Jude does something similar.
I am now reading William Barclay's commentary on the book of Romans, and I thought of this post. About "in Adam we all die" Barclay says:
"There are two basic Jewish ideas in light of which this passage must be read. There is the idea of solidarity. Jews never really thought of themselves as individuals but as part of a clan, a family or a nation, apart from wich the individual has no real existence... This is how Paul sees Adam. Adam was not an individual; he was one of all humanity, and because of this, the sin of one was the sin of all...
This idea was not strange to a Jew; it was the actual belief of the Jewish thinkers... Because of the idea of complete solidarity of humanity, all men and women literally sinned in Adam; and because it is the consequence of sin, death reigned over them all."
According the Barclay, what seems a strange argument today was a very good argument for Paul's listeners.
Barclay's commentary is excellent, and also deals with difficult passages about God's wrath and predestination. Barclay clearly adores Paul's writing; yet, he is willing to accuse Paul of making poor arguments (the potter and the clay bit, for example). You should borrow the book from me, I think you'd like it.
PS Barclay was a universalist; he really did believe that in the end All would be "made alive" in Christ.
Interesting. I may take a look at that commentary.
One thing my study of the Bible at University has made clear to me is that the ancient Jewish worldview and logic was very different from ours.
Post a Comment