10 thoughts on “Episode 77: The World is Young”

1. Hey Chris,

   First I want to commend you on a good podcast and blog. I have enjoyed finding you and have begun to listen to your archived podcasts. I apologize ahead of time for making my first contact with you a contrary contact.

   Second, I am glad I listened to other podcasts before I stumbled upon these three (Young earth series, Episodes 75-77). I felt these three podcasts were not good examples of cogent argumentation and the presentation was disappointing and at times downright painful. I have not spent much time on the blog or view other comments, but in light of the episodes I have listened to I am somewhat surprised that I am the first to comment on these episodes.

   Bob Sorenson gave a list of logical fallacies and talked about how opponents to young earth were guilty of using them by citing examples of people who wrote on his blog or that he encountered in his personal conversations/debates/presentations. Tthe authorities/representatives he cites are not experts in the field, yet he characterized the movement by addressing them as “Evolutionists” (a form of the fallacy of appeal to authority), The examples he gave were not representative of the best arguments out there, just the easiest to mock and ridicule ( the straw man fallacy). My feeling was that every time he brought up a fallacy, his explanation of that fallacy (although definitionally correct) was used in a manner that was guilty of another fallacy.

   There a was a lot of begging the question. I found it fascinating that the tone was set early by dismissing any other option as to how to view the text of Genesis 1-3. I don’t have the quote, but the conclusion drawn was that it was obvious that Genesis 1-3 was “historical”, and that other views missed that obvious conclusion. Then having drawn the appropriate Biblical/revelatory starting point we move on to demonstrate that the chosen evidence fits the revelatory and incontrovertible starting point, ie, young earth creationism. Then we appeal to force/use prejudicial language by drawing the sermonic conclusion via slippery slope: our culture is the way it is because we have ignored the Scriptures (young creation conclusions) and we find ourselves now accepting practicing homosexuals as ministers (eg PCUSA). The implication being that if we give in and adopt an old earth conclusion we will become like “those” Christians.

   “The World is Young” is the premise of your podcast/argument. I was having a hard time figuring out who the argument was against. When it suited the discussion you addressed evolutionists, but then we talked about IE guys, we never really addressed the Bio-logos crowd, and then we conclude the discussion by addressing the authority of the Scripture. So it seemed that what was being said was: If you believe in the authority of the Scripture you must conclude the earth is young, and if you don’t you must be a Darwinist who doesn’t believe in the Scripture. I am oversimplifying I know, but, what I am trying to say is that my curiosities and concerns were not addressed because the sides in this discussion were never clarified, and then I felt defensive because I might be a heretic.

   There were times when science was seen as a bad thing, then we used science to back up our assumption. We appealed to science when it made our case, but then (Nathan) equivocated by saying this is what science says…but I am not a scientist. Again, the implication there is that since I am not formally trained in science take what I say with a grain of salt, check with the real scientists to verify my claim, and check my conclusion, unless of course they use the information to draw a different conclusion than my own, then don’t trust them.

   Genesis 1-3 can be viewed correctly as literary in form, not historical.
   As such, it still teaches truth relevant to the matter (God as creator, etc.) without claiming to be a scientific commentary. More importantly though, if I mistakenly identify the genre of Genesis 1-3, I may misinterpret and misunderstand the passage in my attempt to shove it into an argument against evolution.
   The church has been guilty of this “mistake” before (that is the mistake that equates descriptive language, ancient language and world view as having a bearing on science) and should be careful not to make it again.

2. Hi Steve,

   You’re not the first person to comment, it’s just that previous comments are at the old podcast site (Podbean) and are on the first of this three-parter.

   Thank you so much for listening, and for your kind words about other episodes. And no need to apologize, I can take friendly criticism. Unfortunately, I don’t have the time right now to engage this discussion, as I have an upcoming debate for which I’m preparing.

   I will, however, let Nathan and Bob know you commented here, and will invite them to respond.

   Thanks!

3. “Bob Sorens[E]n gave a list of logical fallacies and talked about how opponents to young earth were guilty of using them by citing examples of people who wrote on his blog or that he encountered in his personal conversations/debates/presentations. The authorities/representatives he cites are not experts in the field, yet he characterized the movement by addressing them as “Evolutionists” (a form of the fallacy of appeal to authority), The examples he gave were not representative of the best arguments out there, just the easiest to mock and ridicule ( the straw man fallacy). My feeling was that every time he brought up a fallacy, his explanation of that fallacy (although definitionally correct) was used in a manner that was guilty of another fallacy.”

   I think you missed the point of what we are trying to do. We are laymen, showing that people can obtain information, learn, draw conclusions.

   Frankly, I am not interested in having you use your “feeling” to override my examples of the logical fallacies that I have encountered. THAT is not logical, and saying, “just the easiest to mock and ridicule” is an appeal to motive fallacy. You accused me of using a straw man, but that is not correct, because I used examples from my own experiences. I have NO IDEA what you mean when you talk about “authorities in the field”. Were you talking about authorities of logic that I could have cited? That would have pushed this session into a fourth hour. Do not want. If you were complaining that I am not citing “authorities” of evolutionary science, my purpose was to illustrate fallacies, not to play “gotcha”. And it seems that you are doing a “gotcha” thing of your own.

   “There a was a lot of begging the question. I found it fascinating that the tone was set early by dismissing any other option as to how to view the text of Genesis 1-3. I don’t have the quote, but the conclusion drawn was that it was obvious that Genesis 1-3 was “historical”, and that other views missed that obvious conclusion. Then having drawn the appropriate Biblical/revelatory starting point we move on to demonstrate that the chosen evidence fits the revelatory and incontrovertible starting point, ie, young earth creationism.”

   You definitely have an accusatory tone, and I am certain that you missed the point of what we were doing, whether by your own presuppositions (and possible anger) or by ignorance. We took a position, showed its strengths, showed the weaknesses of other views — all unapologetically Bible-based.

   “Then we appeal to force/use prejudicial language by drawing the sermonic conclusion via slippery slope: our culture is the way it is because we have ignored the Scriptures (young creation conclusions) and we find ourselves now accepting practicing homosexuals as ministers (eg PCUSA). The implication being that if we give in and adopt an old earth conclusion we will become like ‘those Christians.'”

   Now you’re way out of line! You are putting words in our mouths and using logic very, very badly. “Sermonic conclusion via slippery slope”, yet you did not demonstrate where we did such a thing. Perhaps you forgot that we are Bible-believing Christians who do not wish to force-fit “science” (that is, historical science philosophies about the age of the Earth and of evolution) into the Bible.

   I believe that we spelled out what we believe and how we got there. While we are willing to clarify some points or deal with some dissension, but I did not expect the Spanish Inquisition. I will not deal with the rest of your diatribe because it has more of the same accusatory nature, straw man arguments and, I feel, an un-Christian attitude. I had to cut out some of the things I wanted to say lest I become guilty of the same things I am objecting to.

   You can believe what you want, that’s between you and God.

4. Here are some thoughts on the domino effect of compromise with Genesis:
   http://asoldierforjesus.blogspot.com/2012/02/creation-sunday.html

5. Hi Steve,

   I appreciate your comments, even though I disagree with many of them. I think you’ve misunderstood my position, particularly with regard to what I had to say about the PCUSA stance on homosexual ministers. I’m currently very busy, but I will plan to respond to your comments as soon as I am able.

   Nathan

6. What about Hebrews and Genesis?
   http://asoldierforjesus.blogspot.com/2012/04/day-at-time.html

7. Hi Steve. This is in response to your comments of April 11:

   “Then we appeal to force/use prejudicial language by drawing the sermonic conclusion via slippery slope: our culture is the way it is because we have ignored the Scriptures (young creation conclusions) and we find ourselves now accepting practicing homosexuals as ministers (eg PCUSA). The implication being that if we give in and adopt an old earth conclusion we will become like “those” Christians.”

   Actually, that is not my point in using the term “slippery slope”, as I tried very hard to clarify on the podcast. I don’t believe OEC is a slippery slope in the sense that it leads to more compromising positions. Rather, I believe that OEC, in many cases, is one area in which a compromising attitude toward biblical authority is evident. I am not primarily concerned with the potential effects of OEC. I am primarily concerned with the attitude that produces a position of OEC in many cases. That is, the desire to conform the Bible to the modern scientific theories of the day, which amounts to applying extra-biblical authorities to the interpretation of God’s word. Here is the diagnostic question in my mind: If modern science didn’t tell us that the earth was 4.6 billion years old, would Christians still believe that the Bible taught an old earth?

   “There were times when science was seen as a bad thing, then we used science to back up our assumption.”

   My objective was not to paint science as either “good” or “bad”, but to show how the data does not speak for itself. We all have the same facts, but we interpret the facts differently, depending on which assumptions we hold. It is wrong to subject the interpretation of the Bible to extra-biblical authorities, and I provided examples of those on the podcast.

   “We appealed to science when it made our case,…”

   Correction: I provided interpretations of the geologic data that were not based on biblical assumptions – not uniformitarian and naturalistic assumptions…

   “…but then (Nathan) equivocated by saying this is what science says but I am not a scientist. Again, the implication there is that since I am not formally trained in science take what I say with a grain of salt,”

   No, in the interest of full disclosure I want everyone to know that I am not a scientist and I am relying on the work of other scientists. Neither am I a biblical scholar, and I rely on their work as well.

   “…check with the real scientists to verify my claim, and check my conclusion, unless of course they use the information to draw a different conclusion than my own, then don’t trust them.”

   I don’t believe I said this.

   “Genesis 1-3 can be viewed correctly as literary in form, not historical.”

   I doubt that on a fundamental level you want to scrap the historicity of Genesis 1-3. You believe God really created the heavens and earth, don’t you? You believe in a literal Adam, and that the fall into sin really occurred, right? And you believe death is a result of sin, I imagine. These are a few of many elements which I believe you would hold to as historical. Imagine the theological problems we run into if Adam wasn’t a real historical figure. If no literal Adam, how are we sinners? Why the need for a second Adam? etc.

   “As such, it still teaches truth relevant to the matter (God as creator, etc.) without claiming to be a scientific commentary.”

   Genesis doesn’t claim to be a scientific commentary, but rather historical narrative, and we believe it to be an inerrant one. Therefore, the facts it contains that pertain to science must be accurate.

   “More importantly though, if I mistakenly identify the genre of Genesis 1-3, I may misinterpret and misunderstand the passage in my attempt to shove it into an argument against evolution.”

   What genre would you put Gen 1-3 into other than historical narrative? Prophecy? Poetry? Apocalypse?

   “The church has been guilty of this “mistake” before (that is the mistake that equates descriptive language, ancient language and world view as having a bearing on science) and should be careful not to make it again.”

   I assume you’re speaking of the controversy regarding the church and Galileo. However, in that case the church had adopted geocentrism from science and was improperly using it to interpret the Bible. That is exactly my concern in this debate. Christians are adopting the extra-biblical assumptions of the scientific enterprise and using them to reinterpret the Bible. That is indeed a mistake that we should be careful not to make.

8. Hey Chris, as you know I love your podcast… but I have to agree with Steve that I was disappointed with this series. While I would also disagree with Steve (I’m assuming he is T.E.), he is correct that you (the discussion group) didn’t nuance the discussion very well in considering the other positions on the topic. When it suited the purpose, everyone but YEC got pushed into the camp of ‘evolutionist.’ Yet, I didn’t find the OEC position (progressive creation, etc) well represented (or better, interacted with in a substantive way), nor the T.E. position. In fact, you (Chris) seemed to be far more familiar with the position of Hugh Ross than your guest who supposedly followed their ministry for a time.

   The other issue I nearly always have with most YEC folks is that they confuse the age of the earth with the rest of the debate. Old earth doesn’t mean ‘evolutionist.’ And, IMO, the Bible never addresses the age of the earth. That seems to be a YEC imposition on the text. Even if we grant a creation in 7, 24-hour solar days, this has zero bearing on the age of the earth. The age of the earth (being young) as far as I can see, comes from an estimation of the genealogies, and then, being young, all the other texts (flood, etc.) are interpreted through that lens. It also simply isn’t true that old earth folks believe it to be the case in reaction to Darwin or the enlightenment. That’s sort of the ‘Ken Ham’ fallacy. The old earth view was around WAY before Darwin (it appears, for example, in ancient rabbinic discussion), it just wasn’t a hot topic until after Darwin.

9. Hey Bob & Nathan,

   Thanks for your responses. So much to reply to, but I will start by saying this. The implication is that if I have a different view than yours about the nature of Genesis 1-3 it must be driven by a desire to bow my knees to modern, secular, naturalistic science.

   My view is that Genesis 1-3 is not history or science. That doesn’t mean that it is devoid of historical references/individuals, nor does it mean that it isn’t “true”, but the inclusion of the story in the Bible is not to provide historical or scientific information, rather it is included to to give the foundation for the whole Biblical revelatory message. God is sole creator and sovereign, Man is God’s good creation yet fallen/sinful. All that follows Genesis 1-11 (the beginnings of sin) is the story of redemption.

   My view has NOTHING to do with a presumption of young earth or old earth, evolutionary theory, ID, or TE – all of those theories have never really played a part in my approach to Genesis. My approach does have to do with what I believe is careful exegesis and study, and I don’t think I am on shaky ground theologically or textually. It is anachronistic thinking that reads modern controversies into the text and intention of ancient texts.

   It is no mistake that the beginning and ending of the Bible end with the “garden” theme. The emphasis on the garden is the presence/primacy of God centrally among His creation – God’s creative purpose in the garden besmirched by sin. Ultimately the Bible message and the mission of Christ is to restore us to that sort of relationship.That central purpose of creation was marred by sin. So it would be corollary at best and a mistake at worst to emphasize locating Eden. On the other hand it would be right to pick up on this theme especially in the “vineyard” stories of Isaiah 5 and the parables of Jesus.

   The days of creation can be split up into two categories: Forms and that which “fills” the forms. So on days 1, 3, 5 you have the basic containers if you will, and on days 2, 4, 6 the creation of those things that “fill” the containers. The focal point of Genesis 1 is not the nature of the days, rather it is the mandate given to Adam: Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. The story builds to this apex. This becomes the theme of the Bible: God’s good creation multiplies to fill the creation with His image/glory. It is picked up by Isaiah as he has a vision of God’s glory filling the temple (the footstool, ie ultimately the whole earth, Isaiah 6, 66:1). It is emphasized by the Gospel writers as they mimic the Genesis story format (Matthew 1 and John 1) and then Christ gives his new creation version of the original mandate in the great commission. This emphasis is diminished by making the discussion about the modern science of origins and demands for the rightness of those views rather than on the gospel mandate. That I think is a serious rabbit trail for the church and what I was speaking about with regard to mistakes made by the church.

   My exegetical approach has nothing to do with “science” and even if I don’t categorize it as “history” as such it retains the revelatory value that I believe God intended in telling us the story the way he does. My categorizing it as not “history” does not mean that there is not historical referents in the narrative.

   There are also markers in the text that give us clues that we are not being given a purely historical narrative. Adam and Eve are not “names” rather they are generic words for “man” and “life” respectively. Our modern translations do us no favors in transliterating these words rather than translating them for us. There is a serpent that talks. The Garden seemingly has only one entrance that is guarded by angelic beings with swords. Of course, these things could be “historical”, but that is not the issue. The issue is whether we are supposed to read it that way, or another. These features imply that the genre may not be “history” (I feel I need to repeat that this doesn’t make the text untrue, less than, or devoid of historical references). I would say that it is as egregious to read a literary piece as history as it would to read history as simply a literary piece. The Genesis creation story also fits a common genre in use in the day, the creation myth. God communicates to people in their context in ways that they understand. To ignore this is simply to ignore the necessary context needed to understand the text appropriately. To force Genesis into a modern historical or scientific paradigm is bad exegesis.

   To answer your question directly Nathan, I would say that Genesis is an extremely complex book that has a variety of genres within it: Geneology, poetry, reports of battles – but if I had to categorize the book as a whole I might settle for theological history. As to Genesis 1-3 a form of literary prose may be the best way to describe it.

   Everything that I have written is not “liberal” or Bible hating or demeaning or anti-Bible authority. These are positions that can be found in mainstream conservative commentaries on Genesis.

   Finally, Nathan you wrote: “Here is the diagnostic question in my mind: If modern science didn’t tell us that the earth was 4.6 billion years old, would Christians still believe that the Bible taught an old earth?”

   Here is my response: If the Bible doesn’t teach that the earth is 6,000 years old, would Christians still believe that the Bible taught a young earth? Isn’t it possible that what is being challenged is not the Bible itself but what is believed to be a faulty approach to exegeting Genesis 1-3?

10. Steve,

    First, I agree with you that people in this debate need to be VERY CAREFUL about throwing around the accusation that people who hold to some of the other positions on the topic are ‘bowing to the world, rather than Scripture’ and other such accusations. Sadly, too many in the YEC camp do this WAY too often. I haven’t read Bob and Nathan’s comments carefully, but I sure hope they aren’t doing that unless they have some real clear reason for doing so. (Yes, I do think that one can make that accusation fairly. For example, I once questioned a famous T.E. proponent on how The Fall works if, on his view, hominids evolved into humans and at some point, gained the recognition of morality. He couldn’t give a meaningful answer, and actually admitted he hadn’t thought about those aspects much. OK, in that case, he clearly wasn’t taking Scripture seriously.)

    Regarding the historicity of Genesis 1-3, I also agree that the PRIMARY PURPOSE isn’t to provide a historical account in the way that we think of how one should do history today, nor was it to be a science text. However, if I simply tell you a true story of some event in my life with detail, it is going to contain quite a bit of history and maybe even some science. This argument about whether Genesis 1-3 is a history of science text is irrelevant. The question is whether the account matches real history and good science, or is it in conflict with them. If it is in conflict with them, then it had better be just a legend with the ONLY purpose being to make some point… sort of an advanced Aesop’s fable.

    The thing is though, I’m not sure you’ve presented any good reasons not to take it as either matching real history or science. Nor, would it doing so detract from it also communicating any of the main points you put forward. Garden theme at beginning and end; so? Days of creation are poetic and that one can see this ‘forms’ and ‘fills’ pattern; so? The names of Adam and Eve; so? A talking serpent; so? (How about the book of Numbers?) I’m not seeing how these things imply it isn’t history.

    re: parallels with other creation myths – Be careful with the conclusions you draw from parallels. First, you have to establish whether the parallels are actual, genealogical, and in which direction the influence traveled. Second, what does seem to be there is often polemical in nature. It would make sense that Scripture is actually dealing with the misperceptions of the day. That doesn’t make it any less historical or scientific. Please see my recent article for more on parallels:
    http://www.tilledsoil.org/2012/04/15/the-titanic-reality-legend-and-the-use-of-parallels/

    re: ” but if I had to categorize the book as a whole I might settle for theological history.” – Why try to do that? It is an interesting exercise, but clearly, there is a mixture of genre. Also, a genre that isn’t clear historical can certainly contain history. For example, consider the Psalm that recounts the Exodus.

    re: “mainstream conservative commentaries on Genesis” – It is questionable how many ‘conservative’ commentaries are mainstream. Most of the mainstream commentaries are fairly liberal. Yes, the non-historical Genesis 1-3 is certainly the popular view in academia today. But, so was the idea that Pontius Pilate was an invented figure or any number of other such ‘liberal’ theories until they were proven false by the evidence. There is a reason most of these commentaries take these views, and it is often an underlying liberal bias, or to put it charitably, maybe just a ‘safe’ skepticism (ie: we won’t believe it or put it forward until we have the evidence).