Christianity and Science, Creationism, Old Earth Creationism, Young Earth Creationism

Answering “More Questions for Old Earth Creationists”


One of my primary areas of interest revolves around the debate over origins, specifically within Christianity. Is the universe “young” (~6-10k years) or “old” (about 13.79 billion years)? How do we look at creation texts in the Bible? What do they teach us?

Last week, I wrote on an article in which a young earth creationist on a radio show I enjoy asked a number of questions of old earth creationists. I noted that many of these questions were off-base because they don’t actually address something that is an issue for old earth creationists. For those who follow this debate within Christianity, I want to make it clear that it is extremely important to accurately represent your opponents’ views. It is all well and good to engage in dialogue with and critical examination of other views, but in doing so you should represent those other views accurately.

Pastor Todd Wilken recently wrote a follow up to the article I responded to last week. The first thing of note is that Wilken does nothing to expound on his previous questions. The assumption seems to be that they are left unanswered. But, as I demonstrated before, Wilken’s questions for “old earth creationists” were wildly off-base in a number of ways. The question is, has Wilken now (as he notes, more than a decade later) come to an understanding of the distinctions between views on origins? Do his questions reflect this?

Old Earth Creationism?

One immediate hint at an answer to my questions here is found in the introduction to his paper. He writes:

The Old-Earth Creationist wants to keep the idea of a Creator. But, he also wants to accommodate the latest theory of the age of the Universe, about 15 billion years. The Old-Earth Creationist wants to keep the Genesis Creation account. But, rather than read that account as a record of seven consecutive days of God’s miraculous creation, the Old-Earth Creationist wants to read it as a record of those 15 billion years. Thus the name “Old Earth Creationist.”

There are a number of distortions which already hint that Wilken has not attempted to understand the view he opposes. First, the number of “15 billion years.” Certainly, that date was accurate… many years ago. As the old earth creationist think-tank Reasons to Believe notes (the link will immediately begin playing audio), however, direct measurements place the age at around 13.79 billion years of age. To be fair, Wilken may just be rounding up. However, he says it is the “latest theory.” His number does not reflect that.

More importantly, Wilken misrepresents what old earth creationists think of the text. This is very serious problem. He writes, “…rather than read that account as a record of seven consecutive days of God’s miraculous creation, the Old-Earth Creationist wants to read it as a record of those 15 billion years.” In the broadest sense this may be correct (other than the number), but old earth creationists (hereafter OECs/OEC) such as Hugh Ross specifically read the account as seven daysThe question, of course, is what the days are. But Wilken begins his definition of OEC with this question-begging statement. Before even attempting to interact with the view he criticizes, he misrepresents their position.

After this introduction, though, Wilken confidently states that his previous article–which, as I argued, totally misrepresents old earth creationists–was so powerful that it demonstrated that “[The OEC] is reading into that text considerations outside the text. He must go outside the text of Genesis, and of Scripture as a whole to support his 15 billion year reading of the Genesis account.” demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that at least some of Wilken’s questions don’t actually address OEC at all. He quite seriously had no idea what the positions were for OECs related to human origins, the actual dating of processes, and the like. Yet he continues to allege that he has somehow single-handedly demonstrated the project of OEC (which he doesn’t seem to understand) is unbiblical.

162283main_image_feature_693_ys_4The Questions

I skipped through the next section of Wilken’s paper, in which he basically just argues that OECs cannot be exegetically consistent. What I want to jump to is Wilken’s questions once more. They reflect what he must think OECs actually believe, so if his questions once more show that he is mistaken, I think it is fair to say that Wilken cannot fairly think that he has done anything to refute OEC. Unfortunately for him, his questions do portray exactly that: he again demonstrates that he has little understanding of what OECs actually believe. I will write his questions here in bold/italics. The wording is exactly the same as in the paper. I do not take credit for anything he wrote. My responses will be immediately after each question.

1. How do you reconcile the sequence of events recorded in the Genesis account with the prevailing theories of the formation of the Universe –In particular, the formation of the Earth first before the rest of the Universe, including the Sun, Moon and stars; and the assertion that the early Earth had both liquid water and plant life before the formation of the Sun?

My mouth literally dropped open as I read this question. Why? Well, the fact is that this question is the one that OECs have directly addressed time and again. There is no attempt by Wilken whatsoever to acknowledge that many OECs have written, nor does he attempt to engage with or refute these interpretations.

That said, Wilken’s question here shows that he is spot-on in understanding that this is a project for OEC. But the fact that he asks the question makes me wonder whether he has ever even interacted with any of those works which answer the question. Representative is Hugh Ross’ work, A Matter of Days in which he directly addresses these questions.

2. What does the numbering of the days in the Genesis account signify, if not six, discrete, sequential days or time periods?

As I continued to read the article, my impression that Wilken is unaware of even the most basic tenets of OEC increased. Here is another major blunder. Nearly every major OEC of whom I am aware holds that the days of creation are six discrete time periods. So why even bother to ask this question? The answer for most OECs would be “I don’t know, because they are six discrete time periods.” Once more, Wilken betrays a lack of study in this area.

3. How should the six days of Creation in the Genesis account be rearranged to better reflect the actual events of the Universe’s 15 billion year history?

Again, OECs don’t rearrange the days. Framework theorists do–depending on what is meant by “rearrange”–but the vast majority of OECs today do not hold to the framework view. They hold to the “day-age” view. So again, Wilken shows he is not interacting with OEC.

4. How should the sequence of events within those individual days be rearranged to better reflect the actual events of the Universe’s 15 billion year history?

See above. OECs would answer almost unanimously: “They shouldn’t.”

Dark_matter_halo25. If the six days of the Genesis account are really six parts of the Universe’s 15 billion year history, how long was the seventh day described in Genesis 2:1-4? 

OECs tend to note that the 7th day seems to be continuing. Creation is done, and God is no longer creating. Therefore, the 7th  day has continued into the present. I am willing to see someone show any OECs who hold different views on this. I suspect there are at least some who may hold the 7th day is 24 hours or has ended at some point in the past, but those OECs of whom I am aware would say the 7th day continues.

6. To what specifically does the seventh day of Genesis 2:1-4 correspond in the Universe’s 15 billion year history?

The end of God’s creative activity. God is no longer creating distinct species ex nihilo.

7. What is the real chronological relationship between the events describing [sic] in Genesis, chapter one (the six days of Creation), and Genesis chapter two (the specific creation of man)? Is the second chapter a reiteration of the sixth day, focusing on man, or it is a event separate from and subsequent to the six days described in the first chapter?

Great care must be exercised in answering this question. I am trying to answer broadly from the consensus of OECs I have read. I realize there are a number of views OECs hold on these specific questions. I will answer what I think is the majority opinion, but feel free to comment and share other opinions. Genesis chapter two is a reiteration of the sixth day, zooming in on the creation of humankind. It is not a separate event.

8. What is the real chronological relationship between the events describing [sic] in Genesis, chapter one, and Genesis chapter three? Does the Fall described in the third chapter involve the same particular individuals created in chapter two? Are they the same particular individuals created in chapter one?

I admit that the first sentence of this question confuses me. I’m not entirely sure what Wilken is asking, so I will not try to answer it. The second question can easily be answered: “Yes.” OECs, again, hold to the special creation of Adam and Eve. They do not deny this. The insinuations of these questions that OECs hold some other view of human origins is startling, because it is so off-base. Regarding the third question, again the answer is “Yes.” As I noted in my previous response to Wilken’s other article, one of the distinguishing features of OEC is precisely that OECs hold to the special creation of Adam and Eve. It is telling that Wilken seems to be ignorant to this point. Gerald Rau in his work Mapping the Origins Debate explicitly cites this as an area in which young earth creationists and old earth creationists agree (as I noted in my previous response). Wilken seems to be unaware of his agreement with the side he so adamantly opposes (and misrepresents) on this issue.

9.Where in the entire book of Genesis is the transition to “real time”? What in the text itself specifically marks this transition?

I would note the subtle stacking the deck in this question. What is meant by “real time”? After all, we don’t have, in the rest of the Bible, a counting of days. It’s not as though, on the young earth view, one can reference the first week and then simply start adding individual days. The Bible has no running clock in it counting off days and weeks. So Wilken’s term of “real time” seems disingenuous or confused. I am not sure what is meant by the term. Presumably, Wilken means for it to connect to the young earth view of seven 24 hour days as “real time” and the rest of the Bible also using days to mean 24 hours. But again, this is mistaken, because the Bible doesn’t continue to count off days.

As for the transition, it is hard to answer because I’m not sure what the transition is supposed to be between. From “real time” to what? What is meant by “real time”? Would not several billion years be “time” and if it is time, is it not “real”?

10. When the word “day” means something other than 24 hours in Scripture, it most often means a period of less than 24 hours. Why ignore this possibility regarding the Genesis account?

OECs do not ignore this possibility. In fact, they frequently cite Augustine, who held (at one point) that God created the universe in an instant. Why do OECs cite this ultra-young earth interpretation? Because YECs tend to present church history as though everyone throughout history agrees with their interpretation of 7 24-hour days. They don’t. So the possibility is not ignored.


So we return, finally, to the question: Does Wilken’s paper reflect actual knowledge of the distinctions between views on origins? Frankly, the answer is no. It honestly seems to me that Wilken is either blissfully unaware of the actual positions of old earth creationists or he is intentionally misrepresenting them. This seems to be reinforced by the fact that he never once cites any major old earth creationist when representing the position. Instead, he simply reports what he thinks OEC is. But then he goes on to misrepresent OEC and confuse categories. I find this deeply troubling.

The surprising thing is that Wilken has actually demonstrated how much his own view agrees with OEC. In asking questions to try to distinguish himself from OEC, he shows that he and OECs agree on the sequence of days, the days representing distinct time periods, human origins, and a few other minor areas. Unfortunately, Wilken has continued–apparently for over a decade–to misrepresent old earth creationists. I call on him to stop doing so. Read some items from Reasons to Believe. Read Gerald Rau’s book, Mapping the Origins Debate so that one can make the distinctions between differing groups. But stop misrepresenting the views one may oppose. That is disingenuous, and it doesn’t help readers or listeners.


Todd Wilken, “More Questions for Old Earth Creationists” Issues, Etc. Journal (Fall 2013). Accessible here:



The preceding post is the property of J.W. Wartick (apart from quotations, which are the property of their respective owners, and works of art as credited; images are often freely available to the public and J.W. Wartick makes no claims of owning rights to the images unless he makes that explicit) and should not be reproduced in part or in whole without the expressed consent of the author. All content on this site is the property of J.W. Wartick and is made available for individual and personal usage. If you cite from these documents, whether for personal or professional purposes, please give appropriate citation with both the name of the author (J.W. Wartick) and a link to the original URL. If you’d like to repost a post, you may do so, provided you show less than half of the original post on your own site and link to the original post for the rest. You must also appropriately cite the post as noted above. This blog is protected by Creative Commons licensing. By viewing any part of this site, you are agreeing to this usage policy.

About J.W. Wartick

J.W. Wartick is a Lutheran, feminist, Christ-follower. A Science Fiction snob, Bonhoeffer fan, Paleontology fanboy and RPG nerd.


7 thoughts on “Answering “More Questions for Old Earth Creationists”

  1. JW,

    I am surprised to disagree with your take on this a little! I actually think that Wilken’s concerns actually get right to the core of some of the very criticisms I have of other Old Earth Creation theories, and why I set out to resolve those issues for myself…

    Question 1
    I read his question completely different than you did.

    “In particular, the formation of the Earth first before the rest of the Universe, including the Sun, Moon and stars; and the assertion that the early Earth had both liquid water and plant life before the formation of the Sun?”

    I view the part before the semi-colon as an accurate description of what an OEC believes, and the part after semi-colon as a description of what Genesis 1:14-19 appears to assert. It’s a good question I think, and I agree that most OECs tend to dismiss the wording as symbolic. My answer is that Genesis is summarizing how things “appeared” from a vantage point of hovering over the deep, but couched in Egyptian mythological imagery. So it looked like the sun was literally embedded into the sky, but takes a modern scientific understanding of things to explain why things would appear that way.

    Question 2
    The key here is the word “discrete.” For example, most OEC theories are hard-pressed to explain the appearance of whales after land mammals. Scripture says whales appeared on Day 5, and implies that land mammals appeared after that… but we know that land mammals appeared before whales. OECs often resolve this by allowing Days 5 and 6 to overlap, though the scripture is clear that the days are discrete. I resolved this for myself by noticing that Day 6 does not cover all mammals, but beasts of the field. Now to be fair, a careful reading of Ross’ book “Creation and Time” also supports the view that Day 6 refers only to certain land mammals, but not until after giving the impression Days 3 and 4 overlap! So even with Ross’ position on whales, he still needs to answer Wilken’s challenge.

    The key for Day 3 is that it only records the creation of seeded plants, but seeded plants did not appear until after the sun was visible in the sky. This is where Ross mistakenly allows for a subtle overlap of days. This is the challenge that most OECs cannot answer. For me, the key is that Day 3 kicks off the evolution of seeded plants… which started with algae and moved up from there. What I realized is that it is okay that seeded plants appeared on Day 4, because God’s action to “let” was completed on Day 3. It is also my evidence that Evolution had periods of self-sustainment, but that God “let” it be that way. This supports the discrete nature of Days 3 and 4 in a way that I have not read anywhere. In my opinion, Wilken is right to call us on it.

    Question 3, 4
    Given his point in Question 2, Questions 3 and 4 follow logically, and I gave my own answer above… days 3 and 4 do not have to be rearraged. Neither do Days 5 and 6. Most OECs allow an overlap.

    Question 5
    I agree with your response

    Question 6
    I agree with your response

    Question 7
    I agree with your representation of the majority OEC position, and I think it is a problematic position. So I think Wilken’s question raises a valid point. For example, the sequence of events in Genesis 1 and 2 are different. I resolved this by asserting they are sequential, and that the creation of Adam from dust in Genesis 2:4-7 is a summary of Evolution (i.e., Genesis 1). When Day 6 was over, mankind had subdued the earth. Adam was born later, and Genesis 2 records only the events relating to Adam, Eve, and the Garden of Eden.

    Question 8
    My answer to Question 7 sets me up to Answer Question 8… death existed before Adam sinned. Adam’s sin added a sting to death. Where originally death was just the end of life, now sin would lead to death. Christ’s sacrifice removes the sting of death that Adam added. Therefore, I can believe that sin is after death. Many OECs are dismissive of the importance of this question, and do not make a very good case for it in my opinion.

    Question 9
    Another good question! My answer: a “yom” was always referring to the period from sun-down to sun-down. The only question is whose! Genesis 1’s yom’s are from the perspective of the Holy Spirit hovering, because mankind had not been created yet! After that, the perspective changes from that of the Holy Spirit to people on earth. As for the clearest delineation of the transition, I would say it’s Genesis 5:1-2.

    Question 10
    The answer here is that scripture itself defines a yom as the period from sun-down to sun-down. You just have to be clear who is observing it.

    So for these reasons, I actually think these questions are much better than Wilken’s first set. Most of them successfully reveal weaknesses of mainstream OEC views. That said, there are answers to these questions, but few OECs attempt to present them… in my humble opinion. It’s why I created my own website for the subject!

    Keep up the great work bringing these things up!

    Posted by Mike | October 8, 2013, 9:51 AM
    • Mike,

      Thanks for your thoughtful response. My apologies for the lengthy delay in getting back to you.

      I may not have made it as clear as I thought, but regarding the question of the ordering of events, I tried to actively point out that I thought Wilken’s question was spot on in the sense that it could present a problem for OECs. My difficulty was that essentially every OEC I know of offers a response to this argument, so why not try to critique the response as opposed to demanding an answer? That is, it has been answered, so the critique needs to move to the next level.

      Your own response is interesting and offers a possibly different alternative for OECs. However, I would note that speaking strictly, OECs would not generally hold to species evolving in the sense of “speciation.” Once one holds to that, one moves along the scale towards something like directed evolution or the like (again, Rau’s “Mapping the Origins Debate” is helpful for classifying different families of Christian belief about the origins of life and its diversity). So for me, I think your answer for Day 3/4 moves away from how an OEC would answer in the sense of remaining OEC. I’m not saying that makes it invalid; I’m saying that I was trying to answer these questions from an OEC perspective.

      I would also agree that Wilken’s questions here were slightly better than the first set. However, I am disturbed that he persisted in misrepresenting OECs as being a kind of hybrid theistic evolutionist / creationist theory when it is not.

      Posted by J.W. Wartick | October 14, 2013, 5:09 PM
      • JW, thank you for clarifying. I agree that it would more useful if people would respond to the actual arguments they are against. I am going through that right now over… if you’ve been following.

        I also agree that my explanation for Days 3 and 4 are not mainstream OEC.

        Posted by Mike | October 14, 2013, 11:19 PM
  2. I must hold to a different version of OEC, and consider the initial account to be figurative. To me, wondering about things like order of the days, is like wondering whether we really are supposed to eat Jesus flesh first, and then drink His blood, or can the order be swapped (John 6:54)? Rather misses the point. Jesus meant “flesh” when He said “flesh”, but wasn’t talking about cannibalism. Similarly, Genesis 1 means 24 hours when it says “day” (yom), but isn’t necessarily talking about a specific period of creation.

    Posted by jim0211 | October 8, 2013, 11:56 PM


  1. Pingback: What options are there in the origins debate? – A Taxonomy of Christian Origins Positions | J.W. Wartick -"Always Have a Reason" - February 10, 2014

  2. Pingback: What options are there in the origins debate? – A Taxonomy of Christian Origins Positions | THINKAPOLOGETICS.COM - February 10, 2014

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 2,859 other subscribers


Like me on Facebook: Always Have a Reason
%d bloggers like this: